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.
“The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica…
[….]
“What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice.”
virus, infectious agent of small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria. The name is from a Latin word meaning “slimy liquid” or “poison.”
I have purposefully stayed away from the whole “SARS-COV-2” as a gain of function/bioweapon disinformation campaign as it is obvious to anyone who has ever read any “virus” paper, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” or any of these other invisible entities. At no point has any virologist ever properly purified and isolated the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from a sick patient and then proven them pathogenic in a natural way. As this is a fact that is even admitted by virologists themselves, it should also be obvious that if they can not find the particles assumed to be “viruses” in nature, they can not tinker around and modify these fictional entities in a lab in order to create some sort of contagious bioweapon.
Somehow, this logic escapes many. Even though some have woken to the truth and accepted that “SARS-COV-2” does not exist in nature, they still believe that it must have been developed in a lab and unleashed upon the world in order to create a new contagious disease which is wrecking havoc on the elderly and immunocompromised. What they fail to realize is that there simply is no new disease and that none of the symptoms associated with “SARS-COV-2” are new, unique, or specific. There is zero proof of transmission and/or contagion beyond highly flawed epidemiological studies. There is no new “virus,” no new disease, and no contagious bioweapon. It is pure fiction based upon faulty cell culture and genomic experiments.
Before diving into the experimental evidence presented for gain of function studies, I figured it would be a good idea to get some background information on what exactly these kinds of studies entail first. From the October 2021 Nature article highlighted below, we learn that the gain of function concept earned widespread recognition in 2012 due to a pair of studies which both looked to tweak an avian influenza “virus” in order to make it transmissable by air between ferrets. Disregarding the contradictory fact that aerosol transmission is supposedly the way an upper respiratory “virus” is supposed to spread, many became concerned that this kind of work may eventually lead to the release of a super “virus” which could result in the next pandemic. These ferret studies were apparently pivotal with bringing virology into the gain of function field, even though it could be easily argued that virology has been performing these kinds of experiments throughout its existence.
The gain of function term refers to any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host. This is done by fiddling with cell culture material in a lab combined with genomic sequencing. They do this either by inserting genetic material into the cell culture or by way of animal models where the animal is said to be genetically altered in some way to be more susceptible to the “viral” material.
The article provides an example where mice were genetically modified to become susceptible to MERS. However, the mice did not become ill upon being challenged with the “virus.” Thus, the researchers resorted to passaging the “virus” between mice, which involved infecting a couple of mice, giving the “virus” two days to take hold, and then killing the mice and grinding up the lung tissue to inject into other mice. They repeated these steps at least 30 times which eventually made some mice sick. This process of culturing toxic material, injecting animals with the concoction, killing them and grinding up their remains, and then injecting this emulsified goop into other animals in an attenpt to make them sick is what GOF is all about. While this horrific process is getting recognized today, these kinds of experiments have been a staple of virology since the very beginning:
The shifting sands of ‘gain-of-function’ research
“The term first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza virus, using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets2,3. Many people were concerned that publishing the work would be tantamount to providing a recipe for a devastating pandemic, and in the years that followed, research funders, politicians and scientists debated whether such work required stricter oversight, lest someone accidentally or intentionally release a lab-created plague. Researchers around the world voluntarily paused some work, but the issue became particularly politicized in the United States.
US funding agencies, which also support research abroad, later imposed a moratorium on gain-of-function research with pathogens while they worked out new protocols to assess the risks and benefits. But many of the regulatory discussions have taken place out of the public eye.
Now, gain-of-function research is once again centre stage, thanks to SARS-CoV-2 and a divisive debate about where it came from. Most virologists say that the coronavirus probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the virus was first reported. But a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out. They are demanding investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where related bat coronaviruses have been extensively studied, to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 could have accidentally leaked from the lab or crossed into humans during collection or storage of samples.”
“The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term — and it stuck, says Gigi Gronvall,a biosecurity specialist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host.
Virologists do regularly fiddle with viral genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models. “People do all of these experiments all the time,” says Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. For example, her lab has made mouse viruses that are more harmful to mice than the originals. If only mice are at risk, should it be deemed GOF? And would it be worrying?
The answer is generally no. Morrison’s experiments, and many others like them, pose little threat to humans. GOF research starts to ring alarm bells when it involves dangerous human pathogens, such as those on the US government’s ‘select agents’ list, which includes Ebola virus and the bacteria responsible for anthrax and botulism. Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza viruses and coronaviruses. “For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory viruses because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School. GOF studies with those viruses are “a really tiny part” of virology, he adds.”
“Animal research — although fraught with its own set of ethical quandaries — allows scientists to study how pathogens work and to test potential treatments, a necessary precursor to trials in people. That’s what Perlman and his collaborators had in mind when they set out to study the coronavirus responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012. They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS.
The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells. So, the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4. The virus could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill. “Having a model of mild disease isn’t particularly helpful to understand why people get so sick,” says collaborator Paul McCray, a paediatric pulmonologist also at the University of Iowa.
So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance virulence. The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the virus two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice. They did this repeatedly — 30 times9. By the end of two months, the virus had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells. In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly, says McCray. That’s GOF of a sort because the virus became better at causing disease. But adapting a pathogen to one animal in this way often limits its ability to infect others, says Andrew Pekosz, a virologist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.”
“With all the challenges inherent in GOF studies, why do them? Because, some virologists say, the viruses are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match. “We can either wait for something to arise, and then fight it, or we can anticipate that certain things will arise, and instead we can preemptively build our arsenals,” says Morrison. “That’s where gain-of-function research can come in handy.”
This next source is from 2015. The authors admit that virology is heavily reliant on gain or loss of function studies. They offer an alternative definition for GOF research which is any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes. Obviously, this definition leans far more into the genomics side of the equation. This is due to the claim that these kinds of studies are used by virologists in order to understand a “viruses” genetic make-up. It is stated that researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA. In other words, they mix genetic material from different sources, poison and/or kill lab animals by injecting them with this toxic soup, and then analyze the resulting mixture using computers so that they can claim that the generated model is a new creation. However, it is admitted that these kinds of mutations happen “naturally” with “viruses” every time a person is infected, thus confirming what we already know: virologists can not sequence the same exact “virus” every time:
Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives
“The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function. In order to understand the role of such studies in virology, Dr. Kanta Subbarao from the Laboratory of Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave an overview of the current scientific and technical approaches to the research on pandemic strains of influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses (CoV). As discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, many participants argued that the word choice of “gain-of-function” to describe the limited type of experiments covered by the U.S. deliberative process, particularly when coupled with a pause on even a smaller number of research projects, had generated concern that the policy would affect much broader areas of virology research.
TYPES OF GAIN-OF-FUNCTION (GOF) RESEARCH
Subbarao explained that routine virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.
Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of viruses and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Subbarao introduced the key questions that virologists ask at all stages of research on the emergence or re-emergence of a virus and specifically adapted these general questions to the three viruses of interest in the symposium (see Box 3-1). To answer these questions, virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of viruses and the specifics of virus-host interaction. For instance, researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant viruses from cloned cDNA, and deep sequencing that are critical for studying how viruses escape the host immune system and antiviral controls. Researchers also use targeted host or viral genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool.
During Session 3 of the symposium, Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments. The first category, which he called “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature. The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A viruses that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type. The second category deals with the generation of viruses that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type viruses but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature. Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates will improve their replication in mammalian cells. Finally, the third category, which is somewhere in between the two first categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible viruses in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern. An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans. During the discussion, Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature.”
“Imperiale explained that, with respect to the GoF terminology, whenever researchers are working with RNA viruses, GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.” He also commented that the term GoF was understood a certain way by attendees of this symposium, but when the public hears this term “they can’t make that sort of nuanced distinction that we can make here” so the terminology should be revisited.”
Hopefully the above two sources have shown that GOF studies are nothing more than the exact same cell culture experiments utilizing the exact same genomic sequencing technologies and tricks that virologists have always used. The only difference is that they are combining different culture supernatant and genetic materials together into one in order to create a brand new synthetic computer-generated sequence. At no point in time are any purified/isolated particles ever used in these studies. In fact, there are no EM images of the new “virus” of any kind. It should therefore not be surprising that we can see the exact same pattern of unscientific methods and illogical reasoning in GOF studies as found in any of the original “virus” papers.
Seeing as to how the 2012 avian flu studies brought GOF research to the forefront, it seemed ideal to step into this area a bit more to see what actually transpired. The main study presented as evidence of GOF research was led by a man named Ron Fouchier. If that name sounds familiar, that’s because it should. Fouchier was involved in the 2003 “SARS-COV-1” study which proclaimed the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates for proving a microorganism causes disease yet it failed miserably by not only not being able to satisfy Koch’s four original Postulates, but also Thomas River’s six revised Postulates made strictly for virology. In other words, it was an epic fail.
In Fouchier’s 2012 avian flu GOF study, he attempted to make the H5N1 “virus” infectious through the air. This was done through a process involving cell culturing combined with genetic engineering as well as passaging the material through numerous ferrets. Sounds familiar to the mice example from before, correct? You also see this same process with the early polio and influenza studies as well as in many other virology papers. The main difference is the genomic narrative and the use of modern technology such as reverse genetics to claim the insertion of specific genes.
Highlights from the below paper provide an overview of what was done during this study. It details how the material was collected from a flu strain in Indonesia, genetically altered in a Petri dish, and then transferred to ferrets in a series of experiments using the “wildtype” strain along with different modified strains. Fouchier and Co. were repeatedly unsuccessful in their endeavors of infecting ferrets until they started passaging the “virus” in the animals by injecting them with the cultured soup, grinding up their lung tissues, and injecting other ferrets in the same manner. They repeated this process 6 times and then changed up the experiment by switching to nasal turbinates for the last 4 passage attempts. The only illness said to be achieved via airborne exposure was a loss of appetite, lethargy, and ruffled fur. Upon sequencing the “viruses,” there were only two amino acid switches shared by all six “viruses.” There were several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses.” In other words, they could not sequence the same “virus” at any point:
Fouchier study reveals changes enabling airborne spread of H5N1
“A study showing that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza virus into an airborne spreader in mammals—and that launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency—was released today in Science, spilling the full experimental details that many experts had sought to suppress out of concern that publishing them could lead to the unleashing of a dangerous virus.
In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 virus that can spread among ferrets without direct contact.
They say their findings show that H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve in mammals to gain airborne transmissibility, without having to mix with other flu viruses in intermediate hosts such as pigs, and thus pose a risk of launching a pandemic.”
Indonesian H5N1 strain used
Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 virus collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 viruses more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways. Avian flu viruses prefer to bind to alpha2,3-linked sialic acid receptors on cells, whereas human flu viruses prefer alpha2,6-linked receptors. In both humans and ferrets, alpha2,6 receptors are predominant in the upper respiratory tract, while alpha 2,6 receptors are found mainly in the lower respiratory tract.
The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the virus’s HA protein, the viral surface molecule that attaches to host cells. Q222L and G224S together change the binding preference of H2 and H3 subtype flu viruses, changes that contributed to the 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics, according to the report. And N182K was found in a human H5N1 case.
The scientists created three mutant H5N1 virus strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes, the report explains. They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 virus. Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type virus shed far more virus than those infected with the mutants.
In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different viral gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein. The mutation E627K in PB2 is linked to the acquisition by avian flu viruses of the ability to grow in the human respiratory tract, which is cooler than the intestinal tract of birds, where the viruses usually reside, according to the report.
The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a virus that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the virus did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones.
The passaging step
Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract—the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid,” according to a report of his initial description of the research at a European meeting last September.
They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type virus and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs). Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times. For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest viruses that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract.
The amount of mutant virus found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages, signaling that the virus was increasing its capacity to grow in the ferret upper airway. In contrast, viral titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type virus stayed the same.
The next step was to test whether the viruses produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission. Four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant virus, and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain. Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact.
The ferrets exposed to those with the wild virus remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant virus did get infected, the researchers found. Further, they took a sample from one of the “recipient” ferrets and used it to inoculate another ferret, which then transmitted the virus to two more ferrets that were placed near it.
Thus, a total of six ferrets became infected with the mutant virus via airborne transmission. However, the level of viral shedding indicated the airborne virus didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 virus does.
In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur. One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne viruses survived.
When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the viruses that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six viruses: H103Y and T156A. They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne viruses.
“Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of [highly pathogenic avian flu] H5N1 virus,” the researchers wrote.
In further steps, the researchers inoculated six ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible virus; after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund.” “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia,” the report notes.”
While the proceeding article did an excellent job of providing the main points from Fouchier’s 2012 GOF study, I wanted to showcase relevant highlights directly from the paper to flesh out the methods used even further. Here you will see that Fouchier’s team claimed that they genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. They used Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) which they said was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection. This was passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs which was followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000. They then used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce the desired amino acid substitutions. Site-directed mutagenesis is a synthetic process utilizing PCR to make artificial changes in a DNA sequence. They then took their synthetically-created cultured soup and experimented on ferrets while manipulating the methods until they achieved the results that they desired.
At no point in the paper was a “virus” of any kind ever purified and isolated. At no point were any electron microscope images of the newly mutated “viruses” ever shown. The only “evidence” of an airborne strain is genomic sequencing data from consensus genomes which did not match up. Fouchier and Co. even admitted that airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but even this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. They also stated that the mutations they had identified needed further testing to determine their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and that further experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals. In other words, their study only told them that they could create mutated genomes and not that they created more “virulent viruses” that are transmissable by air:
Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets
“Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus farhas not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”)between humans. To address the concern that the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions,we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage inferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimatelybecoming airborne transmissible in ferrets. None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection withthe mutant A/H5N1 viruses. Four amino acid substitutions in the host receptor-binding protein hemagglutinin, and one in the polymerase complex protein basic polymerase 2, were consistently present in airborne-transmitted viruses. The transmissible viruses were sensitive to the antiviral drug oseltamivir and reacted well with antisera raised against H5 influenza vaccine strains. Thus, avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses can acquire the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate host and therefore constitute a risk for human pandemic influenza.
Influenza A viruses have been isolated from many host species, including humans, pigs, horses, dogs, marine mammals, and a wide range of domestic birds, yet wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the virus reservoir in nature (1). Influenza A viruses belong to the family Orthomyxoviridae; these viruses have an RNA genome consisting of eight gene segments (2, 3). Segments 1 to 3 encode the polymerase proteins: basic polymerase 2 (PB2), basic polymerase 1 (PB1), and acidic polymerase (PA), respectively. These proteins form the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase complex responsible for transcription and replication of the viral genome.”
Since the late 1990s, HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have devastated the poultry industry of numerous countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. To date, A/H5N1 has spread from Asia to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, resulting in the death of hundreds of millions of domestic birds. In Hong Kong in 1997, the first human deaths directly attributable to avian A/H5N1 virus were recorded (11). Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 virus infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries (12). Although limited A/H5N1 virus transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus has not been detected (13–15). Whether this virus may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness. Although our knowledge of viral traits necessary for host switching and virulence has increased substantially in recent years (16, 17), the factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza viruses among mammals, a trait necessary for a virus to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown (18–21). Therefore, investigations of routes of influenza virus transmission between animals and on the determinants of airborne transmission are high on the influenza research agenda.
The viruses that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza viruses (22). However, given that viruses from only four pandemics are available for analyses, we cannot exclude the possibility that a futurepandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian virus without the requirement of reassortment. Several studies have shown that reassortment events between A/H5N1 and seasonal human influenza viruses do not yield viruses that are readily transmitted between ferrets (18–20, 23). In our work, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus could change its transmissibility characteristics without any requirement for reassortment.
We chose influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 for our study because the incidence of human A/H5N1 virus infections and fatalities in Indonesia remains fairly high (12), and there are concerns that this virus could acquire molecular characteristics that would allow it to become more readily transmissible between humans and initiate a pandemic. Because no reassortants between A/H5N1 viruses and seasonal or pandemic human influenza viruses have been detected in nature and because our goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza virus to become airborne transmissible in mammals, we decided to use the complete A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus that was isolated from a human case of HPAI A/H5N1 infection.
We chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for our studies. Ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza viruses (24). After infection with human influenza A virus, ferrets develop respiratory disease and lung pathology similar to that observed in humans. Ferrets can also transmit human influenza viruses to other ferrets that serve as sentinels with or without direct contact (fig. S1) (25–27).”
Human-to-human transmission of influenza viruses can occur through direct contact, indirect contact via fomites (contaminated environmental surfaces), and/or airborne transmission via small aerosols or large respiratory droplets. The pandemic and epidemic influenza viruses that have circulated in humans throughout the past century were all transmitted via the airborne route, in contrast to many other respiratory viruses that are exclusively transmitted via contact. There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols. However, it is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols. Because we did not measure particle size during our experiments, we will use the term “airborne transmission” throughout this Report.”
“Using a combination of targeted mutagenesis followed by serial virus passage in ferrets, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus can acquiremutations that would increase the risk of mammalian transmission (34). We have previously shown that several amino acid substitutions in the RBS of the HA surface glycoprotein of A/Indonesia/5/2005 change the binding preference from the avian a-2,3–linked SA receptors to the human a-2,6–linked SA receptors (35). A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus with amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S (numbers refer to amino acid positions in the mature H5 HA protein; N, Asn; Q, Gln; L, Leu; G, Gly; S, Ser) in HA display attachment patterns similar to those of human viruses to cells of the respiratory tract of ferrets and humans (35). Of these changes, we know that together, Q222L and G224S switch the receptor binding specificity of H2 and H3 subtype influenza viruses, as this switch contributed to the emergence of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics (36). N182K has been found in a human case of A/H5N1 virus infection (37).
Our experimental rationale to obtain transmissible A/H5N1 viruses was to select a mutant A/H5N1 virus with receptor specificity for a-2,6–linked SA shed at high titers from the URT of ferrets. Therefore, we used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit (Agilent Technologies, Amstelveen, the Netherlands) to introduce amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S in the HA of wild-type (WT) A/Indonesia/5/2005, resulting in A/H5N1HA N182K, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, and A/H5N1HA N182K,Q222L,G224S. Experimental details for experiments 1 to 9 are provided in the supplementary materials (25). For experiment 1, we inoculated these mutant viruses andthe A/H5N1wildtype virus intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each virus (fig. S3). Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and virus titerswere determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify virus shedding from the ferret URT. Three animals were euthanized after day 3 to enable tissue sample collection. All remaining animals were euthanized by day 7 when the same tissue samples were taken. Virus titers were determined in the nasal turbinates, trachea, and lungs collected post-mortem from the euthanized ferrets. Throughout the duration of experiment 1, ferrets inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype virus produced high titers in nose and throat swabs—up to 10 times more than A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, which yielded the highest virus titers of all three mutants during the 7-day period (Fig. 1). However, no significant difference was observed between the virus shedding of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L, G224S or A/H5N1HA N182K during the first 3 days when six animals per group were present. Thus, of the viruses with specificity for a-2,6–linked SA, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S yielded the highest virus titers in the ferret URT (Fig. 1).
As described above, amino acid substitution E627K in PB2 is one of the most consistent host-range determinants of influenza viruses (29–31). For experiment 2 (fig. S4), we introduced E627K into the PB2 gene of A/Indonesia/5/2005 by site-directed mutagenesis and produced the recombinant virus A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. The introduction of E627K in PB2 did not significantly affect virus shedding in ferrets, because virus titers in the URT were similar to those seen in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S-inoculated animals [up to 1 × 104 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50)] (Mann-Whitney U rank-sum test, P = 0.476) (Fig. 1 and fig. S5). When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously (27), A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted (fig. S5).
Because the mutant virus harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, we designed an experiment to force the virus to adaptto replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select virus variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructedA/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus and A/H5N1wildtype virus in the ferret URT (Fig. 2 and fig. S6). In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs. The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of virus-transport medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate thenext ferret intranasally (passage 2). This procedure was repeated until passage 6.
From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi. To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise tothe nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing. Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml. The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10. We changed the source of inoculum during the course of theexperiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of viruses that were secreted from the URT. Because influenza viruses mutate rapidly, we anticipated that 10 passages would be sufficient for the virus to adapt to efficient replication in mammals.
Virus titers in the nasal turbinates of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1wildtype ranged from ~1 × 105 to 1 × 107 TCID50/gram tissue throughout 10 serial passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). In ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus, a moderate increase in virus titers in the nasal turbinates was observed as the passage number increased. These titers ranged from 1 × 104 TCID50/gram tissue at the start of the experiment to 3.2 × 105 to 1 × 106 TCID50/gram tissue in the final passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). Notably, virus titers in the nose swabs of animals inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K also increased during the successive passages, with peak virus shedding of 1 × 105 TCID50 at 2 dpi after 10 passages (Fig. 3B).These data indicate that A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was developing greater capacity to replicate in the ferret URT after repeated passage, with evidence for such adaptation becoming apparent by passage number 4. In contrast, virus titers in the nose swabs of the ferrets collected at 1 to 4 dpi throughout 10 serial passages with A/H5N1wildtype revealed no changes in patterns of virus shedding.
Passaging of influenza viruses in ferrets should result in the natural selection of heterogeneous mixtures of viruses in each animal with a variety of mutations: so-called viral quasi-species (38). The genetic composition of the viral quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform (Roche, Woerden, the Netherlands) (tables S1 and S2). The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the virus population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5% (Fig. 4 and table S1). Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all viral gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kafter passaging, except in segment 7 (tables S1 and S2). Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions.The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kwas T156A (T, Thr; A, Ala) in HA. This substitution removes a potential N-linked glycosylation site (Asn-X-Thr/Ser; X, any amino acid) in HA and was detected in 99.6% of the A/H5N1wildtype sequences after 10 passages. T156A was detected in 89% of the A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K sequences after 10 passages, and the other 11% of sequences possessed the substitution N154K, which removes the same potential N-linked glycosylation site in HA.
In experiment 4 (see supplementary materials), we investigated whether airborne-transmissible viruses were present in the heterogeneous virus population generated during virus passaging in ferrets (fig. S4). Nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were usedin transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible virus was present in the virus quasi-species. For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally: two for passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype and four for passage 10 A/H5N1HA-Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus.
The following day, a naïve recipient ferret was placed in a cage adjacent to each inoculated donor ferret. These cages are designed to prevent direct contact between animals but allow airflow from a donor ferret to a neighboring recipient ferret (fig. S1) (27). Although mutations had accumulated in the viral genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, we did not detect replicating virus upon inoculation of MDCKcells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype virus(Fig. 5, A and B). In contrast, we did detect virus in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kvirus.Three (F1 to F3) out of four (F1 to F4) naïve recipient ferrets became infected as confirmed by the presence of replicating virus in the collected nasal and throat swabs (Fig. 5, C and D). A throat-swab sample obtained from recipient ferret F2, which contained the highest virus titer among the ferrets in the first transmission experiment, was subsequently used for intranasal inoculation of two additional donor ferrets. Both of these animals, when placed in the transmission cage setup (fig. S1), again transmitted the virus to the recipient ferrets (F5 and F6) (Fig. 6, A and B). Avirus isolate was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi. The virus from F5 was inoculated intranasally into two more donor ferrets. One day later, these animals were paired with two recipient ferrets (F7 and F8) in transmission cages, one of which (F7) subsequently became infected (Fig. 6, C and D).
We used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences ofviruses recovered from the six ferrets (F1 to F3 and F5 to F7) that acquired virus via airborne transmission (Fig. 4 and table S3). All six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S,and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics. Surprisingly, only two additional amino acid substitutions, both in HA, were consistently detected in all six airborne-transmissible viruses: (i) H103Y (H, His; Y, Tyr), which forms part of the HA trimer interface, and (ii) T156A, which is proximal but not immediately adjacent to the RBS (fig. S8). Although we observed severalother mutations, their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne viruses, indicating that of the heterogeneous virus populations generated by passaging in ferrets, viruses with different genotypes were transmissible. In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible viruses because, for example, the consensus sequence of virus isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental virus isolated from F2.
Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus between mammals. The airborne-transmissible virus isolate with the least number of amino acid substitutions, compared with the A/H5N1wildtype, was recovered from ferret F5. This virus isolate had a total of nine amino acid substitutions; in addition to the three mutations that we introduced (Q222L and G224S in HA and E627K in PB2), this virus harbored H103Y and T156A in HA, H99Y and I368V (I, Ile; V, Val) in PB1, and R99K (R, Arg) and S345N in NP (table S3). Reverse genetics will be needed to identify which of the five to nine amino acid substitutions in this virus are essential to confer airborne transmission.
During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible viruses, ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation. One of eight inoculated animals died upon intranasal inoculation (Table 1). In previously published experiments, ferrets inoculated intranasally with WTA/ Indonesia/5/2005 virus at a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 showed neurological disease and/or death (39, 40). It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 virus and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans.Importantly, although the six ferrets that became infected via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment. Moreover, previous infections of humans with seasonal influenza viruses are likely to induce heterosubtypic immunity that would offer some protection against the development of severe disease (41, 42). It has been shown that mice and ferrets previously infected with an A/H3N2 virus are clinically protected against intranasal challenge infection with an A/H5N1 virus (43, 44).
After intratracheal inoculation (experiment 5; fig. S9), six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible virus F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBS died or were moribund at day 3. Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia (45), as is done for vaccination-challenge studies. At necropsy, the six ferrets revealed macroscopic lesions affecting 80 to 100% of the lung parenchyma with average virus titers of 7.9 × 106 TCID50/gram lung (fig. S10). These data are similar to those described previously for A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets (Table 1). Thus, although the airborne-transmissible virus is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the virus was not lethal after airborne transmission.”
“Although our experiments showed that A/H5N1 virus can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear. Previous data have indicated that the 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 virus transmits efficiently among ferrets and that naïve animals shed high amounts of virus as early as 1 or 2 days after exposure (27). When we compare the A/H5N1 transmission data with that of reference (27), keeping in mind that our experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative, the data shown in Figs. 5 and 6 suggest that A/H5N1 airborne transmission was less robust, with less and delayed virus shedding compared with pandemic A/H1N1 virus.
Airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs (59), but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. The mutations we identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 virus lineages (60), and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect viral fitness and virulence in birds and mammals. For pandemic preparedness, antiviral drugs and vaccine candidates against airborne-transmissible virus should be evaluated in depth. Mechanistic studies on the phenotypic traits associated with each of the identified amino acid substitutions should provide insights into the key determinants of airborne virus transmission. Our findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in humans. Identification of the minimal requirements for virus transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness (34).”
“Influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI virus infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a singlepassage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000 (63-64). Mutations of interest (N182K, Q222L, G224S in HA and E627K in PB2) were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit (Aligent, Amstelveen, The Netherlands) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Recombinant viruses were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and virus stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells as described (63).
Cells
MDCK cells were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium (EMEM, Lonza Benelux BV, Breda, the Netherlands) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS), 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2 mM glutamine, 1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate (Lonza), 10 mM Hepes (Lonza), and non-essential amino acids (MP Biomedicals Europe, Illkirch, France). 293T cells were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM, Lonza) supplemented with 10% FCS, 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 mg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1mM sodium pyruvate, and non-essential amino acids.
Virus titration in MDCK cells
Virus titrations were performed as described previously (27). Briefly, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of virus preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs.Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with 100 U/mlpenicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate, 10mM Hepes, non-essential amino acids, and 20 μg/ml trypsin (Lonza). Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of virus replication in the cells. Infectious virus titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the virus preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber (65).”
The term “Gain of Function” first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza “virus,” using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets
Most virologists say that the “coronavirus” probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the “virus” was first reported
However, a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out
The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade when the ferret influenza studies came along
From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host
Virologists regularly fiddle with “viral” genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models
Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza “viruses” and “coronaviruses”
“For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory “viruses” because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School
He added that GOF studies with those “viruses” are “a really tiny part” of virology
Perlman and his collaborators set out to study the “coronavirus” responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012
They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS
The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells and so the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4
The “virus” could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill
So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance “virulence”
The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the “virus” two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice
They did this repeatedly — 30 times and by the end of two months, the “virus” had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells
In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly
Some virologists say “viruses” are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match
The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function
Any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research
Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of “viruses” and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for “SARS-CoV” and “MERS-CoV”
Virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of “viruses” and the specifics of “virus-host” interaction
Researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA (i.e. they are synthetic lab creations)
Researchers also use targeted host or “viral” genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool
Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments:
The fisrt category is “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of “viruses” with properties that do not exist in nature
The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A “viruses” that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type
The second category deals with the generation of “viruses” that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type “viruses” but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature (which is odd considering no “viruses” have been found in nature…)
Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates (there are no natural isolates) will improve their replication in mammalian cells
The third category, which is somewhere in between the first two categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible “viruses” in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern
An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans
Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature
GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.”
In other words, they can never sequence the same “virus” every time so what they do in the lab in GoF studies is no different than how they culture and “isolate viruses” in order to sequence the genomes in the first place
A 2012 study supposedly showed that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza “virus” into an airborne spreader in mammals—and this launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency
In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 “virus” that can spread among ferrets without direct contact
Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 “virus” collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 “viruses” more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways
The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the “virus’s” HA protein, the “viral” surface molecule that attaches to host cells
The scientists created three mutant H5N1 “virus” strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes
They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 “virus”
Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” shed far more “virus” than those infected with the mutants
In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different “viral” gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein
The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a “virus” that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the “virus” did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones
Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract
This was the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid” (are we sure he wasn’t referring to the whole study?)
They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type “virus” and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs)
Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times
For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest “viruses” that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract
In other words, they completely changed the source material from tissue to nasal secretions more than halfway through the experiment
It was said that the amount of mutant “virus” found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages while “viral” titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” stayed the same
Quick Sidenote From the Supplemtary Materials:
“After inoculation with A/H5N1wildtype, virus titers in the nasal turbinates were variable but high, ranging from 1.6 x 105 to 7.9 x 106 TCID50/gram tissue (panel A), with no further increase observed with repeated passage. After inoculation with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K, virus titers in nasal turbinates averaged 1.6 x 104 in the first three passages, 2.5 x 105 in passage four to seven and 6.3 x 105 TCID50/gram tissue in the last three passages, suggestive of improved replication and virus adaptation. In the lungs, no apparent adaptation was observed for animals inoculated with either virus. Virus titers in lungs were highly variable; presumably it was a matter of chance whether the virus reached the lower airways.”
In other words, the “wildtype virus” titers remained and stayed high while the “mutant virus” started low and elevated throughout passaging yet was still underneath the amount seen in the “wildtype” strain. They also note that finding “virus” in the lungs was a “matter of chance” with either “virus.”
End Quick Sidenote.
The next step was to test whether the “viruses” produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission so four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant “virus,” and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain
Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact
The ferrets exposed to those with the wild “virus” remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant “virus” did get infected (“infected” meaning they found “viral” RNA)
Thus, a total of six ferrets became “infected” with the mutant “virus” via airborne transmission
However, the level of “viral” shedding indicated the airborne “virus” didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 “virus”
In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur (no consideration is given to the fact that the animals were caged, tortured, and experimented on)
One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne “viruses” survived
When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the “viruses” that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six “viruses:” H103Y and T156A
They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses”
In other words, once again they were unable to sequence the exact same genome in the samples from each ferret
In further steps, the researchers inoculated intratracheallysix ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible “virus;” after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund”
They stated: “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia”
Highly “pathogenic” avian influenza A/H5N1 “virus” can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”) between humans
To address the concern that the “virus” could acquire this ability under natural conditions, the researchers genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets
In other words, in order to test whether the “virus” could mutate naturally, they mutated it synthetically…
The genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets (all “viruses” aquire mutations every time they are sequenced as no “viral” genome is ever the same as the original)
None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection with the mutant A/H5N1 “viruses”
Wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the “virus” reservoir in nature
Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries
Although limited A/H5N1 “virus” transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” has not been detected
Whether this “virus” may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness
The factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza “viruses” among mammals, a trait necessary for a “virus” to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown
The “viruses” that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza “viruses”
However, given that “viruses” from only four pandemics are available for analyses, they cannot exclude the possibility that a future pandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian “virus” without the requirement of reassortment
No reassortants between A/H5N1 “viruses” and seasonal or pandemic human influenza “viruses” have been detected in nature and their goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza “virus” to become airborne transmissible in mammals
They chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for the studies as ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza “viruses”
There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols
It is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols
The researchers used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce amino acid substitutions in the HA of wild-type “virus”
For experiment 1, they inoculated these mutant “viruses” and the A/H5N1wildtype “virus” intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each “virus”
Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and “virus” titers were determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify “virus” shedding from the ferret URT
When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted
Because the mutant “virus” harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, they designed an experiment to force the “virus” to adapt to replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select “virus” variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructed A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus” and A/H5N1wildtype “virus” in the ferret URT
In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K
Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs
The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of “virus-transport” medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate the next ferret intranasally (passage 2)
This procedure was repeated until passage 6
From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi
To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise to the nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing
Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml
The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10
They changed the source of inoculum during the course of the experiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of “viruses” that were secreted from the URT
Because influenza “viruses” mutate rapidly, they anticipated (i.e.guessed arbitrarily) that 10 passages would be sufficient for the “virus” to adapt to efficient replication in mammals
The genetic composition of the “viral” quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform
The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the “virus” population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5%
Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all “viral” gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K after passaging, except in segment 7
Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions
The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was T156A
In experiment 4, nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were used in transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible “virus” was present in the “virus” quasi-species
For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally
Although mutations had accumulated in the “viral” genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, they did not detect replicating “virus” upon inoculation of MDCK cells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype “virus”
In contrast, they did detect “virus” in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus”
Three out of four naïve recipient ferrets became “infected” as confirmed by the presence of replicating “virus” in the collected nasal and throat swabs (in other words, they saw CPE in a cell culture and claimed “virus” was present)
A “virus isolate” was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi
They used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences of viruses recovered from the six ferrets that acquired “virus” via airborne transmission and all six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S, and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics
In other words, they created consensus sequencing through alignment to reference genomes using computer software and algorithms from unpurified material
They observed several other mutations for which their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne “viruses,” indicating that of the heterogeneous “virus” populations generated by passaging in ferrets, “viruses” with different genotypes were transmissible
In other words, they were unable to sequence the exact same “virus” genome every time…and if that wasn’t clear
In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible “viruses” because, for example, the consensus sequence of “virus” isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental “virus” isolated from F2
Together, they claim that these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” between mammals
During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible “viruses,” ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation
It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 “virus” and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans
Importantly, although the six ferrets that became “infected” via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment
After intratracheal (in the throat) inoculation, six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible “virus” F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBSdied or were moribund at day 3
Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of “viruses” to cause pneumonia, as is done for vaccination-challenge studies
Although the airborne-transmissible “virus” is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the “virus” was not lethal after airborne transmission
They openly admit that the route of injection and the amount of toxic culture goo injected causes the severity of disease, which does not require the “virus” as an explanation
They state that although experiments showed that A/H5N1 “virus” can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear
They pointed out that their experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative (i.e. they do not know how much “virus” is required for airborne transmission and assume it occurs via PCR results)
They airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur
The mutations they identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals
Their findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 “viruses” have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in human
Of course, the only place reassortment occurs is in a lab so they never need a host…
Identification of the minimal requirements for “virus” transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness
Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells
All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000
Mutations of interest were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit
Recombinant “viruses” were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and “virus” stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells
MDCK cells (canine) were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium supplemented with:
10% fetal calf serum (FCS)
100 IU/ml penicillin
100 μg/ml streptomycin
2 mM glutamine
1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
10 mM Hepes
Non-essential amino acids
293T cells (human embryonic kidney) were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium supplemented with:
10% FCS
100 IU/ml penicillin
100 mg/ml streptomycin
2mM glutamine
1mM sodium pyruvate
Non-essential amino acids
For “virus” titrations, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of “virus” preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs
Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with:
100 U/ml penicillin
100 μg/ml streptomycin
2mM glutamine
1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
10mM Hepes
Non-essential amino acids
20 μg/ml trypsin
Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of “virus” replication in the cells
Infectious “virus” titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the “virus” preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber
The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica. The only way the liquid poison can potentially harm one is through injection. Cell cultured soup is not transmitted through the air nor is it infectious and/or contagious. In other words, GOF studies are not creating “viruses” in the modern sense of the word and can only be considered as such if viewed through the original Latin lens.
What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice. There will be figureheads who appear to be on the side of truth, questioning the natural existence of “SARS-COV-2,” challenging the safety of the vaccines, promoting alternative therapies, etc. who will also continue to push the idea that “viruses” exist and can be manipulated in a lab. These people are the Pied Pipers leading those who are going astray back into the fold. There is no need to create a “virus” bioweapon when all that was needed to control the masses is a PCR test and some well-designed propaganda.
To anyone who may have been taken in by this GOF/Bioweapon narrative, remember that there is no evidence of any purified and isolated “viral” particles ever coming directly from human samples that are then proven pathogenic in a natural way. Virology does not dispute this. If they can not find a “virus” in nature, they can not create one in a lab. That is truly all you need to know.
cover image based on creative commons work of 13452116/pixaby
‘Defeat the Mandates Coast to Coast’, Next Stop: Los Angeles, CA, April 10, 2022
‘Defeat the Mandates Coast to Coast’, Next Stop: Los Angeles, CA, April 10, 2022
Thankfully some mandates are dropping across the country, but there are still vaccine mandates that persist in schools, colleges, businesses, hospitals, and corporations. Restrictions on doctors who treat COVID, censorship by Big Tech, the unnecessary COVID-19 vaccination of children, silencing of scientific debate, and the extension of the Emergency Powers Act beyond March 1st for the coronavirus pandemic are a few of the main concerns.
In California, an aggressive slate of COVID-19-related bills—mandating vaccines for children and all employees, and allowing 12 to 17-year-olds to get the vaccine without parental consent—remain under consideration by the California state assembly.
Starting at 12:00 noon we will hold a day-long rally in the heart of Los Angeles at Grand Park where a wide range of featured guests including prominent doctors, recording artists, actors, journalists and premier thought leaders will give a series of inspiring talks and musical performances.
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.
Ever since the beginning of the Covid saga, people have speculated about a possible link between increased illness and the rollout of 5G networks around the world.
And while “Covid-19” has hardly been the apocalyptic death storm that the media made it out to be, there have been excess deaths recorded in certain areas. The question is: are the excess deaths solely attributable to “pandemic” measures (i.e. lockdowns, masks, toxic medications, etc) or did electromagnetic radiation have a more significant role to play?
And if so, was it due to 5G or the use of some other covert, as yet unknown, technology? That is what this investigation aims to uncover.
This article will also focus mostly on excess mortality. For, if there were no excess deaths, it would be difficult to argue that there was some kind of EMF (electromagnetic fields) weapon being deployed as that would surely increase deaths above the regular threshold. In certain areas, in certain countries, there undoubtedly were excess deaths, and, as this article will demonstrate, these can be explained without the need for a new, infectious pathogen (as I have argued elsewhere).
In fact, there are several independent lines of evidence to suggest that it was not “Sars-Cov-2”, or any alleged virus for that matter, that caused these excess deaths. While the reasons advanced by other researchers as to the real cause are all valid – and probably, to some extent, all true – in this article, I argue for the EMF cause.
I am simply making the case for EMFs, in one capacity or another, having contributed to excess mortality throughout the Covid period. I will also argue that EMFs were responsible for some of the more peculiar symptoms expressed by so-called “Covid” patients.
Also, when I refer to “EMFs” (electromagnetic fields/electromagnetic radiation), I am not referring solely to 5G (although that is important), I am also willing to consider other, covert EMF influences, possibly in the form of weaponry of some kind. And as we shall see, there is evidence to suggest that this type of weaponry exists and has been used.
Make no mistake, much of what I propose here is speculation. However, it is argued speculation, with evidence to back it up.
Evidence for “Other Factors” Contributing to Excess Mortality During the Covid Saga
Here we will examine four lines of evidence that clearly suggest there were other, possibly unknown, factors causing increased ill health during the Covid period. There is more that could be discussed here but for the sake of keeping this article to a readable length, I have chosen just four.
1. The Testimony of Dr Cameron Kyle-Sidell
Early on during the Covid pandemic, a New York doctor named Cameron Kyle-Sidell posted a video on YouTube where he revealed some shocking information about the nature of “Covid-19” and the standard of care that all hospitals in the US were working under.
The video was removed from YouTube (who would have guessed?) but you can still view it here on Bitchute.
Dr Kyle-Sidell is an E.R and critical care doctor working in New York City (Brooklyn to be exact). His testimony was posted online in early April 2020. As the original video was taken down by YouTube, I couldn’t pinpoint the exact date of publishing, but it was likely posted around the 6th.
Dr Kyle-Sidell begins his statement rather harrowingly:
“Nine days ago I opened an intensive care unit to care for the sickest COVID positive patients in the city, and in these nine days I’ve seen things I’ve never seen before.”
This should already give us cause for concern. An experienced critical care doctor seeing things “he’s never seen before”? If Covid-19 were a typical viral pneumonia (AKA a cold), then he surely would have seen it before, countless times in fact. So we can already be certain that there is something different going on here.
And that, in fact, is exactly what Dr. Sidell himself asserts:
“COVID-19 lung disease, as far as I can see, is not a pneumonia and should not be treated as one.”
He then goes on to comment on what he thinks may be the real cause of the condition (emphasis added):
“Rather, it appears as some kind of viral induced disease, most resembling high altitude sickness. It is as if tens of thousands of my fellow New Yorkers are on a plane at 30,000 feet in the cabin pressure is slowly being let out. These patients are slowly being starved of oxygen.”
So Dr Sidell still claims the bizarre condition to be “viral induced”, but let’s face it, his medical training combined with the Wuhan virus propaganda would compel him to do so. What he says next is more interesting for he compares his patients’ condition to high altitude sickness and claims they are being starved of oxygen. Keep this in mind as we move forward.
Dr Sidell goes on to stress the fact that the use of ventilators is the incorrect way to treat such a condition.
“I fear that we are using a false paradigm to treat a new disease…”
He then makes the bold suggestion that ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome), reported as being caused by “Covid-19”, is actually being caused by the use of ventilators.
“…the ARDS that we are seeing, that the whole world is seeing, may be nothing more than lung injury caused by the ventilator.”
Dr Sidell says a lot more in his testimony, I have just pulled out some key extracts so as to keep this section concise. However, feel free to watch the full video yourself.
Here are the key takeaways from Dr Sidell’s testimony:
Patients were being admitted to Dr Sidell’s Covid ward with symptoms that he had never seen before.
The symptoms these patients were experiencing (alleged to be “Covid-19”) were not characteristic of a typical viral pneumonia, but rather something more akin to high altitude sickness, causing oxygen deprivation.
Ventilators were the incorrect treatment for such a condition and were likely doing more harm than good. This last point is highly significant, for it means that hospitals may have intentionally been directed to use ventilators precisely to increase “Covid-19” death rates. In fact, later on, evidence did come out suggesting that ventilators were ineffective and harmful. In fact, according to the above-cited study, “88% of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation died, including 97% of those aged >65”.
It is the first and second point that interests us most here. In other words, some patients in the New York City area (and possibly elsewhere) were exhibiting symptoms foreign to anything regularly observed by experienced doctors and this condition resembled high altitude sickness.
As it turns out, this strange condition can be rationalized by examining the effects of certain electromagnetic frequencies. We will explore this later in the article.
And there is something else to note. It is highly relevant that Dr Sidell observed this strange high altitude sickness-like condition in New York City, for, as we shall see, at one point during the pandemic, NYC had by far the highest Covid-19 death rate, indicating that something strange was happening there that may not have been happening elsewhere.
This anomaly in NYC was also reported by Dr Denis Rancourt, whose research we will now examine.
2. The Research of Dr Denis Rancourt
Dr Denis Rancourt is a Canadian physicist, with highly impressive academic credentials. He has written a number of papers concerning Covid-19 excess mortality in various countries around the world and his findings are rather illuminating.
His first paper concerning this phenomenon was published on June 2nd 2020 titled “All-cause mortality during COVID-19 – No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response”.
In the abstract of the paper, he states that
“The latest data of all-cause mortality by week does not show a winter-burden mortality that is statistically larger than for past winters. There was no plague. However, a sharp “COVID peak” is present in the data, for several jurisdictions in Europe and the USA.”
It’s this sharp peak that is most interesting, for, as Rancourt notes, this is an anomaly, never having occurred before in the majority of jurisdictions; the data is simply not consistent with a viral cause (the same conclusion was reached by another team of researchers whose research we will analyse later).
Rancourt hypothesizes the anomalous “COVID peak” to be a signature of mass homicide by government response. In other words, according to Rancourt, the original sharp increase in deaths in various areas in the US and EU was a direct result of pandemic measures, including the use of ventilators.
However, important to note here is that the “COVID peak” in the USA arises from certain hot spots, and New York City is the main one. In fact, New York City’s “COVID Peak” is virtually off the charts (see the below graph taken from Rancourt’s paper).
“Figure 8: All-cause mortality by week for NYC, starting in 2013, in black. The red vertical line indicates the date at which the WHO declared the COVID-19 pandemic. The grey line is simply the same data on a vertically expanded and shifted scale, for visualization.”
So here we can clearly see an anomalous increase in all-cause mortality in NYC beginning just before Dr Sidell posts his video testifying to the fact that his patients are experiencing symptoms he’s never seen that are entirely uncharacteristic of any viral pneumonia. Coincidence? I think not.Rancourt’s next paper, co-written with Marine Baudin and Jérémie Mercier, titled “Evaluation of the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 in France, from all-cause mortality 1946-2020” was published on the 20th October 2020. In the paper, the researchers analyse all-cause mortality in France, with a focus once again on the strange “COVID Peak”.In the abstract the researcher state that
“We prove that the “COVID-peak” feature that is present in the all-cause mortality data of certain mid-latitude Northern hemisphere jurisdictions, including France, cannot be a natural epidemiological event occurring in the absence of a large non-pathogenic perturbation.”
The conclusion they reach is that the “COVID peak” was artificial, i.e., caused by deliberate intervention rather than the result of some naturally occurring, novel respiratory virus. The researchers note several reasons for this conclusion, one of which is that the COVID peak
“is absent in many jurisdictions (34 of the USA States have no “COVID-peak”).”
This is highly anomalous, for if there were a novel virus going around, we’d expect to see some level of consistency with regards to the rise in all-cause mortality in different states (and indeed, different countries). Instead what we see is huge increases in all-cause mortality in certain jurisdictions (e.g. NYC) and nothing in others.
Although arrived at differently, Rancourt’s conclusion and Dr Sidell’s are the same – if something new is killing people, it’s not a novel viral pneumonia.
Rancourt & Co’s latest paper dealing with excess mortality is titled “Nature of the COVID-era public health disaster in the USA, from all-cause mortality and socio-geo-economic and climatic data.”
In this paper, the researchers seek to investigate why the USA suffered a sustained, exceedingly large mortality during the Covid period, while Canada and Western European countries did not. Once again, their research indicates that a viral pandemic did not occur (emphasis added):
“The behaviour of the USA all-cause mortality by time (week, year), by age group, by sex, and by state is contrary to pandemic behaviour caused by a new respiratory disease virus for which there is no prior natural immunity in the population. Its seasonal structure (summer maxima), age-group distribution (young residents), and large state-wise heterogeneity are unprecedented and are opposite to viral respiratory disease behaviour, pandemic or not.”
Rancourt & Co conclude that government-imposed measures combined with societal risk factors (obesity, poverty, etc) were responsible for the excess mortality. While I absolutely agree with their findings, I think they may have missed another, important contributing factor: EMFs.
But that’s not all. Rancourt & Co found something else which is highly relevant to Dr. Sidell’s statement:
“We also find a large COVID-era USA pneumonia epidemic that is not mentioned in the media or significantly in the scientific literature, which was not adequately addressed. Many COVID-19-assigned deaths may be misdiagnosed bacterial pneumonia deaths.”
In other words, cases of “pneumonia” increased, but it wasn’t treated properly and it wasn’t being caused by a novel virus. This finding is similar to what Dr Sidell observed, only he referred to cases of “high altitude sickness” (rather than pneumonia). In each case, it is the lungs being affected and it is not hard to see how some kind of novel EMF-induced lung disorder could have been mislabelled as merely “pneumonia”.
3. The Research of Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Kohnlein
The next line of evidence we will examine is that of the research of journalist Torsten Engelbrecht and physician, Claus Kohnlein.
On the 1st of October, the two researchers co-authored an article titled “COVID-19 (excess) mortalities: viral cause impossible—drugs with key role in about 200,000 extra deaths in Europe and the US alone”, in which they reach a similar conclusion to Dr Rancourt – excess mortality was not caused by a novel virus.
Engelbrecht and Kohnlein focused their analysis mostly on EU countries, noting that most of the countries reporting excess mortality instituted stringent lockdowns (a total contradiction of the virus hypothesis). In their analysis, they highlight the same, anomalous “COVID peak” uncovered by Rancourt & Co.
“Z-score for various European countries, Dec. 2019 – Sept. 2020”
But it’s not only this anomalous “COVID peak” (which occurred outside the regular flu season), they also note the fact that neighbouring countries often exhibited a completely different pattern of excess mortality. For example, Belgium had a rather noticeably peak while Germany (its neighbour), did not.
With regards to the viral theory, this kind of wildly inconsistent pattern of excess mortality simply does not make sense.
The conclusion reached by Engelbrecht and Kohnlein is that the “COVID peaks” were caused by the increased use of highly toxic medications.
“Highly toxic and also potentially lethal drugs were used excessively, especially in all of the above-mentioned countries with excess mortality, both experimentally and off-label, meaning that the drugs were used outside of their regulatory approval—and this in people, most of whom were old and had serious illnesses, before being tested “positive” for COVID-19.”
Their article is persuasive and I agree with their conclusions. However, once again, their conclusions do not rule out a contributing EMF-related cause.
4. Wildly Inconsistent Covid-19 Death Rates
Finally, the official COVID death data, as recorded by the WHO, provides yet another line of evidence to suggest that any recorded excess mortality was not due to a novel virus.
For example, take a look at the graph below created by Andrew Mather, a British mathematician in September 2020.
Covid-19 deaths by country per 100m population (Sept. 2020).
The graph shows the number of recorded COVID deaths in different countries, normalised to account for the difference in population sizes. Once again, the data is highly anomalous. New York City has by far the highest COVID death rate, higher than any other country in the world at that time! Belgium, Peru, the UK and Spain are also high on the list, while African countries, South East Asia and Japan barely feature.
So either, we’re dealing with a far deadlier virus in New York City, Western Europe and parts of South America, or there’s another factor at play.
Let’s summarise our findings thus far:
Shortly after the WHO declared a pandemic, an experienced New York City doctor came forward explaining that his so-called “COVID” patients were not suffering from a typical viral pneumonia, but were instead showing signs of something akin to high altitude sickness.
Dr Denis Rancourt and his co-researchers analysed all-cause mortality in various countries and jurisdictions, reaching the conclusion that a pandemic did not occur. They noted an anomalous “COVID peak” which was especially prominent in New York City.
Journalist Torsten Engelbrecht and physician, Dr Claus Kohnlein analyzed European mortality data and came to the exact same conclusion – the data simply did not support the virus theory.
Six months into the Covid “pandemic”, Covid death rates were differing wildly across different countries and jurisdictions. New York City had by far the highest death rate, more than any other country in the world. The data, once again, did not fit a viral cause and instead pointed to an alternate factor at play, localised to NYC and possibly some other countries.
In the next part of this investigation, we’ll build a case for that “other factor” having been EMF-related and likely linked to the 5G rollout.
Symptoms of “Covid-19” Related to EMF Exposure
In this section, we will examine a groundbreaking study published in September of 2021. The study, published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, is titled “Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G”.
The title says it all, for the paper presents a wide range of evidence pointing to a connection between what has been called “Covid-19” and EMF exposure, including 5G.
For anyone unaware of the harms caused by EMF exposure, I suggest reading my two previous articles dealing with this topic, as they provide an overview of the evidence linking EMF exposure to various chronic illnesses as well as environmental devastation.
In order to keep this section short, we’ll dive straight into the aforementioned paper. Here it is worth quoting the study at length. The researchers begin by noting that
“There is a large body of peer reviewed literature, since before World War II, on the biological effects of WCR [wireless communications radiation] that impact many aspects of our health. In examining this literature, we found intersections between the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 and detrimental bioeffects of WCR exposure. Here, we present the evidence suggesting that WCR has been a possible contributing factor exacerbating COVID-19.”
In other words, these researchers found that reported symptoms of Covid-19 were also symptoms of WCR exposure. The researchers go on to summarise some of the epidemiological evidence linking the 5G rollout to the Covid-19 “outbreak”.
“COVID-19 began in Wuhan, China in December 2019, shortly after city-wide 5G had “gone live,” that is, become an operational system, on October 31, 2019. COVID-19 outbreaks soon followed in other areas where 5G had also been at least partially implemented, including South Korea, Northern Italy, New York City, Seattle, and Southern California. In May 2020, Mordachev [4] reported a statistically significant correlation between the intensity of radiofrequency radiation and the mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in 31 countries throughout the world. During the first pandemic wave in the United States, COVID-19 attributed cases and deaths were statistically higher in states and major cities with 5G infrastructure as compared with states and cities that did not yet have this technology [5].”
Here are some maps that I compiled (not from the paper quoted above) showing, visually, the Covid-5G association.
Note that New York City features on the list of areas where, according to the researchers, “5G had been at least partially implemented”. We can now note the following about NYC:
The “COVID peak” was “off the charts” compared to other areas in the US and the COVID death rate was abnormally high.
So-called “COVID-19” patients there suffered from some unknown condition akin to high altitude sickness.
A 5G network had been at least partially implemented shortly before the COVID “outbreak” occurred.
The researchers go on to present the following table, showing a clear relationship between the effects of WCR (Wireless Communications Radiation) exposure and various symptoms associated with “COVID-19”.
Table reproduced from Rubik & Brown, 2021.
They then conclude by summing up the known effects of WCR exposure and how they relate to COVID-19 (emphasis added):
“Specifically, evidence presented here supports a premise that WCR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence by (1) causing morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that may be contributing to hypercoagulation; (2) impairing microcirculation and reducing erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplifying immune dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increasing cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals exacerbating vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increasing intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsening heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.”
What interests us most here is point number 2 (italicised/bolded). The researchers claim that WCR can impair microcirculation and reduce erythrocyte and haemoglobin levels, exacerbating hypoxia. Another name for “hypoxia” is “altitude sickness” (i.e. a severe lack of oxygen). In other words, here we have a potential explanation for the “high altitude sickness” like condition described by Dr Sidell in NYC.
Note also that some of the COVID-19 related manifestations listed in the table such as organ failure, myocarditis, cardiac failure, arrhythmia, etc (effects not generally associated with the flu or any viral pneumonia), may be explainable when one considers the effects of EMF exposure.
In his book “The Contagion Myth”, Dr Thomas Cowan provides more evidence for the deleterious effects of radiofrequency radiation, especially 5G. After noting that “hypoxia” is reported as a frequent symptom of COVID-19 and that this is caused by the release of iron from the haemoglobin molecule, he goes to comment as follows (emphasis added):
“The conventional explanation for the release of iron from hemoglobin is the action of glycoproteins in the coronavirus—but the action of 5G’s millimeter waves is an equally good explanation, especially those at 60GHz, which disrupt oxygen molecules. An interesting observation about lung malfunction in Covid-19 patients is that it is bilateral (both lungs at the same time), whereas ordinary pneumonia typically affects only one lung. What kind of virus knows to attack both lungs?”
Dr Cowan then goes on to comment on the nature of “COVID-19” as experienced by patients in Wuhan (a city that also rolled out its 5G network mere days before the “outbreak”):
“A study from Wuhan showed that more than one-third of coronavirus patients had neurologic symptoms including dizziness, headaches, impaired consciousness, skeletal-muscle injury, and loss of smell and taste—and more rarely seizures and stroke. This is not your normal flu, this is a serious disease.”
When Cowan says, “This is not your normal flu, this is a serious disease.” He is right in one sense and wrong in another. You see, as has been my thesis throughout, “COVID-19” is not and never has been, a single disease, rather, it has been used as an “umbrella term” to include everything from mild flu symptoms to life-threatening, EMF-induced hypoxia.
In light of this evidence, we must ask ourselves – What role did EMFs/5G play in the COVID charade? Was it 5G alone that caused the anomalous “COVID peak” we see in certain areas? If so, why was the death rate in NYC so much higher than anywhere else? Was “Sars-Cov-2″ used as a cover for the rollout of dangerous radiofrequencies?
Or… Was there some sort of covert, EMF-related weaponry being used in select areas?
Speculating on the Existence and Possible Use of Advanced Electromagnetic Weapons
The reader should be advised that this section of the article is mostly speculation. However, the case for the intentional deployment of some kind of EMF-related weaponry, is, I believe, a solid one. After all, if you were part of a group looking to feign the signs of a viral respiratory pandemic, blasting people with hypoxia-inducing radiofrequencies is one way you could do it. And as we discovered, that appears to be what happened in NYC (and possibly other areas).
However, the only evidence for this theory is the rollout of a 5G network in key pandemic “hotspots” around the world (including NYC). The problem, of course, is that there were plenty of countries that had 5G networks and yet did not showcase the same dramatic “COVID peak” as NYC did.
While there are many factors that would have contributed to this COVID peak besides EMFs, including lockdown stringency, care home laws, population age and health status, etc, three other possibilities exist:
5G networks in certain areas were covertly used (or possibly hijacked) to “blast” the local population with dangerous radiofrequencies (such as 60Ghz millimetre-wave 5G which can disrupt oxygen molecules).
The increased density of radiofrequencies, brought about by the 5G rollout interacted with something that was already present within people’s bodies, “activating” a disease state.
An altogether separate EMF technology was in use.
As it turns out, there is evidence to support all three possibilities.
Evidence for the Existence of EMF-Related Weapons
The Spanish research group “La Quinta Columna” (the fifth column) have also argued that there is an EMF-related component to the Covid-19 “pandemic”.
La Quinta Columna was founded by Ricardo Delgado Martín, a biostatistician from Seville university. Quinta Columna says its main objective is to
“Show THE REALITY, no matter how uncomfortable the TRUTH may be due to the nature of the events or news in which it participates, without being subject to prejudice and conflicts of economic, moral, ethical, political, religious, ideological or otherwise.”
Most of the information regarding Quinta Columna online is in Spanish and as such, I lack the necessary information to make an informed judgement regarding their thesis. However, as they are one of the few research groups brave enough to investigate the link between Covid-19, vaccines and 5G/EMFs, it’s important to consider what they have to say.
Delgado’s thesis is that increased illness due to “COVID-19” is actually a result of the excitation, by radio-frequency signals, of graphene oxide already present within the body. Delgado briefly outlines his hypothesis in a July 2021 interview:
“…we are convinced that precisely the graphene oxide was the cause of the COVID-19 disease that was introduced, silently and stealthily in the 2019 anti-flu campaign globally. And they caused, with the subsequent electromagnetic bidding that everyone knows —with the famous 5G switch-on, the tests— the fashionable disease.”
In other words, Delgado believes that graphene oxide was introduced into people’s bodies via the 2019 flu vaccine and then excited by 5G radiofrequencies, causing hypoxia (i.e. “Covid-19”) which was then propagandized as a viral pandemic.
Noteworthy is that flu vaccine uptake was highest among the elderly population.
Delgado goes on to remind us that many surgical masks were also found to contain graphene and hypothesizes that Covid “waves” (i.e. the observed “COVID peaks”) are actually the result of 5G antenna activations:
“And by pressing a little button that activates the 5G, that is why they know when a wave is coming, the 2nd, the 3rd… The Delta variant, the Lambda… The Delta variant is the next 5G antennas activation, and that’s why we have to be careful.”
Delgado claims that NAC (n-acetylcysteine) and Glutathione were successful treatments for Covid patients suffering from hypoxia. The reason for this, he claims, is because, along with inhibiting or reducing the cytokine storm, “glutathione reduces and oxidizes, that is, eliminates the graphene oxide.”
Their research has claimed to find graphene oxide present in Covid-19 vaccines, which they say interacts with radio frequencies causing a number of severe health effects, including cardiac events.
Their research is controversial and their claims are not supported by all on the alternative side. However, in light of everything presented in this article thus far, it is worth considering.
And there is one more interesting piece of evidence that they have brought forward, possibly indicating the existence of a powerful EMF-related weapons capability. This will be more persuasive when we examine other anomalous happenings later on.
In this video, Ricardo Delgado and Jose Luis discuss a recording (seemingly captured by a CCTV camera, though it’s hard to tell) showing what appears to be the sudden death of a cyclist. The most interesting aspect of the video is the split-second glitch in the recording at the precise moment the cyclist collapses to the ground.
According to Delgado and Luis, this constitutes evidence of an electromagnetic “pulse” of some kind. I have embedded the video below.
A disclaimer is in order: I have not been able to verify the original footage. I don’t know where it comes from, I don’t know if the cyclist actually died and I don’t know whether it’s a legitimate recording. However, I include it here because, if real, this odd phenomenon seems to fall in line with another perplexing phenomenon that has increased in recent years: mass, sudden bird deaths.
Mass Sudden Die-Offs of Birds: Evidence of EMF Weaponry?
While not common knowledge, there have been a number of recorded mass sudden bird deaths in recent years. Not much digging was needed on my part to uncover these cases, for many of them have been catalogued by Dr Joseph Farrell on his blog at gizadeathstar.com.
Here is a brief overview of some of these strange cases, along with Dr Farrell’s enlightening commentary:
“On June 27, 2015, a road in Kuna, Idaho, was found covered with dead songbirds. This follows the mass deaths earlier this year of over 2,000 migrating snow geese that dropped to the ground dead or dying in eastern Idaho.”
“Now you’ll note that in this version of the story, in the comments section, there’s a brief exchange between two commenters, one of whom notes strange intereference with his bluetooth signal as he was driving through Idaho.”
(I haven’t been able to find the comment he refers to but then again, the article is almost 7 years old so it may have been removed).
Dr Farrell then speculates as follows
“Could these events be caused by some sort of secret human technology, or could they be the unintended consequence of its use or other secret activity? Maybe. Again, I don’t know.”
“About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven’t heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died – bringing the death toll to 297 – some started to take notice.”
“…And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station.”
The interesting thing about this story is that Snopes was quick to publish a “fact check” claiming that no such 5G test took place (although they did admit that one such test had taken place in that area in June of that year).
More interesting is Dr Farrell’s commentary on the incident. After outlining his thoughts regarding the use of microwave interferometry technologies, he goes on to offer his usual “high octane speculation”:
“It is a short step from that basic concept to a similar use of microwave technologies – perhaps again involving interferometry – to produce beat frequencies which could interfere with, or actually shut down, the electrical functioning of organisms’ nervous systems, including organs such as the heart. And that’s what is so alarming here: birds might be resonant to certain such frequencies, other organisms to other frequencies. All one needs to do, so to speak, is to “dial in” the right frequency, and one could eradicate a regional population of dogs, cats… or even humans.”
“Wildlife experts in New Mexico say birds in the region are dropping dead in alarming numbers, potentially in the “hundreds of thousands.””
NBC goes on to note that
“Multiple agencies are investigating the occurrences, including the Bureau of Land Management and the White Sands Missile Range, a military testing area.”
And here is Dr Farrell’s commentary (emphasis added):
“You don’t say… the military at the White Sands Missile Range is investigating? Well, it makes sense… if one suspected an unknown fast-acting pathogen, biowarfare, or some completely different cause, or maybe even some version of my bio-electromagnetically activated pathogen.”
And now for two more interesting cases that also occurred during the Covid scamdemic…
“As if we didn’t have enough weird things going on, now birds are suddenly dropping dead in large numbers all across the eastern half of the country. Before they die, a lot of these birds are exhibiting very strange symptoms… If scientists understood what was causing this to happen, that would be one thing. But at this point they have no idea why this is taking place, and that is quite alarming.”
Dr Farrell offers no speculation about what might be causing this round of mass bird deaths but finds the timing of the event, and the symptoms experienced by the birds, to be overly suspicious.
“What I do know is that birds going blind, or not being able to fly away from approaching humans, or shivering and shaking as if they’re having a seizure, is not normal… And what I strongly suspect is that someone knows why, and isn’t talking…”
“Hundreds of birds dropped dead from the sky in Wales on Thursday, after witnesses reported hearing a “’huge electrical-type bang’.”
“Ian Mccaffrey, who works in Waterston, reported hearing a large electrical-type bang as he left work on Thursday night. He says following the shocking noise, dozens of birds fell from the sky and landed on his car. Mccaffrey said the loud sound was similar to lightning.”
Here it is the reports of a “large electrical-type bang” that is most interesting as it seems to corroborate the idea of the existence of a powerful EMF weapons technology. Dr Farrell recognizes this too, offering the following commentary:
“When that flock of crows (I believe) first died in Tennessee many years ago, I’ve thought that this electro-magnetic “pressure field” was perhaps the best explanation. And now we have an odd video, and reports of “electrical bangs”, to go with it. And yes, that means in my opinion the case for that speculation just became a small bit stronger.”
It is to be noted that the cases of strange sudden bird deaths reviewed here constitute only a portion of the total reported incidents. It is also highly relevant that EMF signals can penetrate into a bird’s nervous system, disrupting its ability to navigate. I covered this in a previous article on environmental crises.
Let’s sum up:
Recent years have seen increasing reports of mass, sudden bird deaths.
In many of these cases, there is some sort of link to electromagnetic technology. In the Idaho case, one person complained of bluetooth interference around the time of the incident; in the Netherlands case, 5G tests were being carried out in the vicinity of the mass die-offs, and in the latest Wales case, a “huge electrical-type bang” was heard prior to the die-offs. In one case, even the military began investigating.
Dr Joseph Farrell, a scholar who has been tracking strange animal deaths has speculated that the cause may be due to some kind of “electromagnetic pressure field”.
And finally, a recent video posted online captured the apparent sudden death of a cyclist at the exact time there was a split-second glitch in the video recording. Some have argued that this points to an electromagnetic “pulse” of some sort, perhaps hinting at a similar technology as proposed above.
And with that, we are ready to conclude our investigation.
Conclusions
Although the Covid-19 death rate is more or less akin to seasonal flu, not warranting the need for special vaccines or preventatives, lurking beneath the fraudulent testing and dubious death reporting were the reports of strange symptoms resembling high altitude sickness.
The all-cause mortality data for certain areas, NYC in particular, also exhibited a highly anomalous “COVID peak”, certainly not explainable in terms of a novel respiratory pathogen.
A recent peer-reviewed study provided compelling evidence that many of the symptoms associated with “COVID-19” are also effects of EMF exposure. This, together with the compelling epidemiological data, suggests a link between the rollout of 5G and areas that exhibited a pronounced “COVID peak”.
Finally, in recent years there has been a flurry of mass sudden bird deaths in various places around the world. Many of these incidents exhibited some sort of connection to electromagnetic interference or radiofrequencies of some sort.
Spanish researchers from Quinta Columna have also analysed a video purported to show the sudden death of a cyclist that they believe occurred due to an EMF pulse of some kind.
They further maintain that “COVID peaks” occurred as a result of the excitation of graphene oxide by EMF bombardment which they believe can cause hypoxia (explaining the strange reports of “high altitude sickness” in NYC) and cardiac events (which have increased since the COVID vaccine roll out).
The volume of research linking EMF exposure with ill health is far too great to ignore, meaning that, regardless of the data put forth here, EMFs undoubtedly contributed to ill health during the COVID-19 “pandemic” and continue to do so. However, the evidence presented here may also point to the deliberate use of a covert, EMF-related weapons technology.
If that is the case, then, considering the massive effort to flood low earth orbit with EMF-beaming satellites and the ever-expanding 5G rollout, a lot more research is needed… and fast.
“‘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.
Yesterday I had the privilege and the honor to speak with Alec Zeck, John Blaid, Mike Donio, and Jacob Diaz about the claims made regarding the isolation and existence of “SARS-COV-2” by Dr.’s Malone, McCullough, and Cole. In this video, we address specific points they made such as whether or not:
Cultivation in cell culture is “isolation” of a “virus?”
Koch’s Postulates had been satisfied for “SARS-COV-2?”
The effect a drug has can be considered proof of the existence of a “virus?”
The electron microscopy images taken from unpurified cell cultures are proof of “virus” particles?
The particles assumed to be “viruses” are purified and isolated directly from the samples of a sick patient?
It was a pleasure to be a part of this conversation! I hope that you are able to come away with a better understanding as to why the evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2,” or any “virus” for the matter, is entirely lacking and unscientific.
Video available at The Truth Seeker (John Blaid) BitChute and Odysee channels.
Mike Donio, John Blaid, Jacob Diaz, Mike Stone, and Alec Zeck filmed a response to claims made by Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Ryan Cole regarding virus isolation and the existence of SARS-CoV-2 during an episode of The StreetMD Show hosted by Dr. Jo Yi on the Ickonic platform. The overall stance held by the speakers is simple: the claims made by these three gentlemen lack both in context and in substantial evidence to support the notion that SARS-CoV-2 exists as a pathogenic disease causing agent.
In an appearance on “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., a reporter for The Defender, explained how the two global asset giants pushing for vaccine passports also stand to profit greatly from orchestrating them.
Financial houses BlackRock and The Vanguard Group, two of the world’s “Big Three” asset managers, have profited “enormously” from the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
On the March 23 episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” Kennedy interviewed Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., a reporter for The Defender, about what Nevradakis uncovered about the far-reaching influence of these two corporations.
In an article he wrote last month for The Defender, Nevradakis exposed BlackRock and Vanguard as two of the top three shareholders in COVID vaccine makers Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson.
Kennedy pointed out that BlackRock and Vanguard are the two biggest financial houses in the world. “They control a huge part of the world economy,” Kennedy said.
In 2020, Bloomberg called BlackRock “the fourth branch of government,” said Nevradakis.
He added:
“There’s this very strange cross-ownership where Vanguard is the biggest shareholder in BlackRock and BlackRock is the biggest shareholder in Vanguard … regardless of how some people may try to spin it, it’s obvious that these two companies are closely linked and their fortunes are closely linked.”
The two firms own many major and influential U.S. companies, including American Express, T-Mobile, Twitter and Disney, as well as Big Food and Big Pharma interests.
Nevradakis and Kennedy discussed the connection between BlackRock or Vanguard ownership and vaccine passports.
“[BlackRock and Vanguard] own companies that are at the speartip of pushing for vaccine passports, and also that stand to profit greatly from making and controlling and orchestrating the vaccine passports,” said Kennedy.
In his article, Nevradakis listed major U.S. employers that, as of Feb. 16, mandated COVID vaccines for their employers, and quantified these companies’ relationships with BlackRock and/or Vanguard.
Most of these companies are owned in large part by one or both of the firms. They include pharmaceutical company Abbvie, grocery store Albertsons, health insurer Anthem, Chevron, Delta Airlines and Cigna, among many others.
The “sinister aspect” of these revelations is the idea that competitive capitalism may be an illusion in the U.S., Kennedy pointed out.
Nevradakis agreed. He said:
“The original idea in theory behind [capitalism] is that of competition. And I think that we’re not seeing that in reality. We have very, very large companies, and those large companies are owned by even larger asset management companies. And then … the two largest ones of all also happen to own each other. So I don’t think there’s any way that that could be spun as a competitive situation.”
Watch the podcast here:
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.
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!”
Some people who have received COVID-19 shots experience a range of debilitating symptoms or death
Healthy teenagers, athletes and doctors are among those who have died within hours or days of receiving COVID-19 shots
Others have experienced stroke-like symptoms, paralysis, tics, partial blindness and seizures following the shots
Increasing numbers of people are becoming compelled to speak out and share their stories of how COVID-19 shots altered their lives
Despite assurances of safety from health officials, it’s what the long-term effects of COVID-19 shots will be. Spike proteins from the shots can circulate in your body after injection, causing damage to cells, tissues and organs. “Spike protein is a deadly protein,” Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist and trained epidemiologist, said.1
Experimental and observational evidence show that the human immune response to COVID-19 shots is very different than the response induced by exposure to SARS-CoV-2, and people who’ve received COVID-19 shots may have damage to their innate immune system that’s leading to a form of vaccine acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (VAIDS), due to the impairment in interferon signaling.2
Further, likely due to monocyte activation by the spike protein from the vaccine, some people who have received COVID-19 shots experience a range of debilitating symptoms similar to those found in long haul COVID-19 syndrome, such as headaches, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, joint pain and chest pain.3
For some, however, the shot’s adverse effects occur quickly, resulting in life-changing debilitation. You can see 10 powerful examples below, ranging from deaths to lives upended due to illogical quarantine rules that illustrate the absurdity of COVID-19 tyranny.
These are real people with real stories to share, and the more people who see them, the more awareness can grow to provide those who survived with the help and medical care they deserve — while warning others of the potentially deadly consequences of COVID-19 injections.
If you find these stories helpful and motivating then I would encourage you to visit our breaking news blog on our site as this is where the stories below were initially posted. The blog posts stay up continuously and are not removed after 48 hours.
10 People Whose Lives Changed After COVID-19 Shots
1. Jim Ashby — Learning to Walk Again
Ashby was forced to get a COVID-19 shot by December 3, 2021, or his employer would consider him “voluntarily resigned.” Eight days after receiving the Pfizer jab, he had a major hemorrhagic stroke.
He’s been in rehab since October 2021, suffering from complete paralysis on the left side of his body. He still has a long way to go in recovery, and still can’t feel or use his left arm or walk without assistance. His rehab is excruciatingly painful, he says, and he spends up to six hours a day learning how to walk again.
What’s worse, his employer isn’t covering the medical bills for the costs of this stroke. “My life has been totally changed, all because of the vaccine mandate … my old life is dead,” he says, “and I have started my new life as a paraplegic.”
2. Athletes Collapsing and Dying
Healthy athletes around the world are dying of heart attacks and strokes. The numbers are exploding, with athletes suffering neurological problems, too. What’s happened in the last six months to a year that’s different? Is there anything in common that’s changed that hooks all these athletes together? They all have had COVID-19 shots. Among them:
Abou Ali, 22-year-old football (soccer) player, who suffered from cardiac arrest in Denmark on September 11, 2021
Caddy Alberto Olguin collapsed and died from a heart attack on the golf course on October 9, 2021
30-year-old Venezuelan marathon champion Alexaida Guedez, 30, died of a heart attack during a 5,000-meter race on August 22, 2021
Andrea Astolfi, 45, sports director of Calcio Orsago in Italy, died of a heart attack on September 11, 2021 after returning from training
Ava Azzopardi, 14, collapsed on a soccer field in the U.S. on October 15, 2021, suffering from cardiac arrest; she had to be put in a medically induced coma to survive
3. Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla, Died From Myocarditis
Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla fell asleep four days after he got a COVID-19 booster shot — and died from a heart attack. The autopsy stated myocarditis — inflammation of the heart muscle that’s a recognized adverse effect of mRNA COVID-19 shots.4 A CEO of a major health clinic, he was only 48 years old and had never had heart problems in his life.
4. Faith Ranson, 16-Year-Old Plagued by Convulsions and Tics
A happy, healthy 16-year-old girl in Australia who got the Pfizer COVID-19 shot is now crippled with convulsions, persistent nausea and visible tics. The problems began three days after her second shot and have been ongoing for months. Health officials actually admitted “there is no question Faith has had a delayed reaction to the second Pfizer vaccination” and is suffering adverse reactions from the shot. Her story even made it to mainstream news.
5. Nurse With COVID Told to Go Back to Work
In this video, a “triple vaxxed” nurse from New York explains how she tested positive for COVID-19, and her employer told her to come back to work even though she hadn’t been in quarantine for five days — against CDC recommendations.Since she was asymptomatic, she was cleared to go to back to work in a health care setting, but told she still had to quarantine in all other aspects of her life. In short, she can go to work to care for patients while actively positive for COVID-19, but she can’t go to a grocery store or a gas station. Not to mention, her kids were quarantined for 10 days, but she was expected to go back to work in less than five.
6. Stroke-Like Symptoms in a Healthy Woman
Complaints of neurological problems and stroke-like reactions continue to pile up. Immediately after receiving the AstraZeneca COVID-19 shot, this previously healthy woman experienced headaches and dizziness and blacked out “a few times.”
Within days, she started experiencing numbness to the point that she couldn’t stand up. Eight days later, she’s in the hospital with loss of feeling in her left arm, left leg and face. She states that 19 women were brought in to her hospital ward with the same symptoms over the span of one weekend.
7. Two Teenage Boys Die From Myocarditis in Their Sleep
Epidemiologists have confirmed that two teenage boys from different U.S. states died in their sleep of myocarditis days after getting the Pfizer shot. Both had received second doses of the shot, and McCullough said that in his view, the shots led to the deaths of the teenagers. In a study that examined the autopsy findings, it’s reported that the “myocarditis” described in the boys’ deaths is “not typical myocarditis pathology”:5
“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. Understanding that these instances are different from typical myocarditis and that cytokine storm has a known feedback loop with catecholamines may help guide screening and therapy.”
8. 59-Year-Old Woman Dies Hours After Shot
A 59-year-old front line health care worker in the U.K. took the COVID-19 shot and died a few hours later. In the video, her acquaintance states, “Now I know it’s a given the vaccine’s going to have some casualties — but people are threatened they are going to lose their jobs if they don’t take it … You have the right to take that risk, but you should have the right to refuse it as well — without jeopardizing your job or your freedom of entry or freedom from discrimination.”
9. Vaccine Advocate Nearly Goes Blind
The man in this video describes himself as a believer in “science” and a “vaccine advocate,” but this didn’t spare him from the shot’s adverse effects. Five days after his first Pfizer COVID-19 shot, he started having blurry vision in his left eye. Within three days, he had lost 60% of his vision in that eye.
After several medical examinations, doctors, optometrists and retina specialists diagnosed him with central serous retinopathy (CSR), in which a small vein ruptured, leading fluid to accumulate under the retina, causing retinal detachment and partial blindness.
Other cases of CSR have also been reported following COVID-19 shots, he says, and in a case report published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology it’s stated, “Acute CSR may be temporally associated with mRNA Covid-19 immunization.”6 The man’s doctor told him that the risk of getting additional COVID-19 shots outweighs the potential benefit for him and tried to help him get an official exemption from further shots, but it was denied. He states:
“I have been deprived of my human rights as a citizen … I try to gather all my strength so many times during the past few months to just go and receive my second dose in order to follow the laws.
But the fact that the science says there is an above-average chance that I may lose more of my sight has driven me to anxiety attacks, night terrors and disabling depression … This is a direct violation of my constitutional rights as a citizen and a human being.”
10. Young Woman Suffers From Seizures, Nearly Dies
Beginning her story by stressing she is NOT anti-vaccine or pro-conspiracy theory, this young woman describes what happened to her after she received a Moderna COVID-19 shot, which she decided to get so she and her husband could join some friends on a cruise.
The day after the shot she started feeling “weird,” delirious and “disassociated from herself,” she says. Soon after, she blacked out in the bathroom, and when her husband tried to revive her, she began seizing. She had three seizures between the time her husband called 911 and when the ambulance got her to the hospital.
She was intubated and suffered other severe effects, she says. She spent days in the hospital and is now taking anti-seizure medication, while living with ongoing anxiety about her near-death experience, which she believes was caused by the shot. “Go out there and do your research so you can make an informed decision,” she says. “Because you don’t want to put something in your body that could potentially harm you.”
Let Your Voice Be Heard
If you or a loved one has been injured by a COVID-19 shot, I will help you share your testimony. Vaccine mandates have led to injuries, devastation and deaths — while the brainwashing “get your vaccine now” campaign is being used to divide and conquer. One spark is all that is required to start a fire. There is a revolution building — a revolution for freedom to live your life without medical mandates or dictators calling the shots.
Please share your story with us, and encourage others you know who have a story to share theirs. It’s never been more important than now, for you and your family, to take control of your health.
The CEOs of the nation’s largest airlines are asking the Biden administration to drop the federal mask mandate on airplanes, along with the pre-departure testing requirement for international travelers. Although COVID-19 cases in the U.S. have fallen sharply in the last two months and restrictions are being lifted across the country, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier this month extended its mass transit mask mandate by 30 days, until mid-April, and masking guidelines for airlines remain in place.
“Now is the time for the administration to sunset federal transportation travel restrictions – including the international predeparture testing requirement and the federal mask mandate – that are no longer aligned with the realities of the current epidemiological environment,” the CEOs of 10 U.S.-based passenger and cargo airlines, including Delta, American and United, wrote in a letter to President Biden.
The letter states that while the airlines and their employees supported the federal mask mandate when it was first implemented, especially because it did away with the possibility for airline-by-airline rules in the early days of the pandemic, they now feel it is no longer necessary.
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.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on March 14 removed tens of thousands of deaths linked to COVID-19, including nearly a quarter of deaths it had attributed to children, blaming an algorithm for “accidentally counting deaths that were not COVID-19-related.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on March 15 removed from its data tracker website tens of thousands of deaths linked to COVID-19, including nearly a quarter of the deaths the agency said had occurred among children.
In a statement to Reuters, the CDC said it made adjustments to the mortality data because the website’s algorithm was “accidentally counting deaths that were not COVID-19-related.”
“Data on deaths were adjusted after resolving a coding logic error,” the CDC’s website states. “This resulted in decreased death counts across all demographic categories.”
The agency also acknowledged COVID death data is not complete.
Prior to the adjustment on March 15, the CDC attributed 851,000 deaths to COVID, including 1,755 pediatric deaths, according to Kelley Krohnert, a Georgia resident who tracks CDC updates. After the change, COVID-related deaths dropped to 780,000.
The change resulted in the removal of 72,277 deaths previously reported across 26 states, including 416 pediatric deaths — a reduction of 24% to 1,341, the agency said.
The CDC’s COVID statistics, used to justify which age groups should receive vaccines, were used by U.S. health agencies to support the authorization of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine for children 5 to 11 years old.
CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky referred to the tracker’s death total in November 2021, while pushing for an expert panel to advise her agency to recommend vaccination for all children 5 to 11 years old.
Children account for only 19% of all COVID cases, with .01% of childhood cases resulting in death, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
According to CNN, Moderna plans to report trial data in 2- to 5-year-olds in March and may seek authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “if the data is supportive and subject to regulatory consultation.”
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during a March 13 episode of CBS’ “Face the Nation” said he expects to have a vaccine ready for children aged 6 months to 4 years old “potentially in May if it works.”
Johnson & Johnson has a late-stage trial of its vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds but nothing for the younger group.
It is unknown whether the pharmaceutical giants will use the CDC’s most recent COVID numbers in their risk-benefit analysis presented to U.S. health agencies to determine whether the risks of COVID outweigh the potential risks of vaccines in children.
CDC ‘cherry-picks’ COVID data for the public
Dr. Meryl Nass, physician and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee on March 19 wrote that the CDC cherry-picks the data it presents to the public to push its “health policies.”
The agency hides most of what it has and then “blames its ‘outdated’ IT systems for the problems if it gets caught,” Nass said.
Nass explained:
“CDC is not a public health agency. It is a public propaganda agency that collects a massive amount of data. CDC marshals its huge data library to create presentations that support the current administration’s public health policies. CDC also has state-of-the-art PR staff, as well as TV studios, and produces videos, radio spots and an enormous number of press releases that are distributed to the media. CDC hosts many journalists at its Atlanta headquarters. Free junkets successfully cultivate U.S. health reporters.”
Quoting a 2007 Senate oversight report on the CDC, Nass said the agency spends “millions of tax dollars for failed prevention efforts, international junkets and lavish facilities, but cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease.”
‘Fact-checker’ claims no evidence COVID deaths have been overcounted
Health Feedback, a fact-checking initiative under the umbrella of Science Feedback, on March 1 said there “is no evidence COVID deaths have been overcounted,” and labeled posts stating otherwise as factually inaccurate, false and misleading.
Heath Feedback focuses on “correcting misinformation about vaccine safety,” and said it “reviewed multiple false claims” that COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths were inflated when “many public health experts believe that COVID-19 numbers are undercounted.”
Health Feedback also addressed death certificates listing COVID along with other health conditions, saying health conditions weaken a person’s resistance to disease and in “many such cases, a person with underlying health conditions wouldn’t have died at that time if it wasn’t for COVID-19.”
“This means that the cause of death is still COVID-19,” the website states.
Health Feedback did not acknowledge that deaths occurring when COVID and other health conditions are listed could be caused by underlying health conditions.
Health Feedback was established as part of the Vaccine Safety Net — a “global network of websites, created by the World Health Organization, that provides reliable information on vaccine safety.”
It also belongs to the International Fact-Checking Network, founded by the Poynter Institute and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, Facebook, the Omidyar Network and George Soros-owned nongovernmental organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and Open Society Foundation.
To date, Health Feedback has not issued a correction to its fact-check reflecting the CDC’s new mortality data.
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.”
After the White House and Congress dropped their mask mandates last week, Del Bigtree said, “enough is enough” and, through his attorneys, has now sued the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) challenging its mandate requiring masks on planes, trains, and buses.
It is incredible that our elected leaders have dropped mask mandates for themselves but yet everyday Americans must still mask. There is a term for when those that govern impose requirements on the governed but exclude themselves. Just compare the picture on the left with the those on the right:
While the science on masking should be enough for the mask mandate to disappear, the lawsuit challenges the mandate on the grounds that the CDC does not have the authority to implement or enforce the mandate.
You can read the complaint in its entirety here and we will keep you apprised of the lawsuit. Thank you for supporting ICAN’s ongoing efforts to ensure that our civil liberties are restored.
“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
This week has seen several timely reminders that the Covid narrative is not done. It may have lost its number 1 spot at the top of the “news” charts, but it’s not dead. It’s just resting.
While the big red numbers at the top of every front page are now casualties instead of “cases”, the pandemic is simmering on the backburner and can be brought back to boil at a moment’s notice.
In China they are reporting huge spikes in “cases”, numbers not seen since the halcyon days of March 2020. Millions of Chinese citizens are already back on lockdowns, many now need police permission to travel from one province to another.
Giant multinationals are halting production for the near future at least, with the BBC warning that:
The lockdowns have raised concerns that crucial supply chains may be disrupted.
Yes, more supply chain disruption. Just like the war.
Funny how that works out.
It’s not just China either, according to Bloomberg Europe is seeing a “Covid Resurgence” after a “rushed exit” from restrictions, with Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands all reporting spikes in cases.
Germany’s “Covid resurgence” comes just days before the government’s emergency powers are due to expire, and just as they are planning to ease all restrictions.
Funny how that works out.
The alleged “resurgence” is the work of a not one but two “new” variants.
Firstly, Deltacron is back. They’re calling it a “new variant”, but the truth is the recombinant virus was first “discovered” back in early January.
Why Everyone’s Talking About The Deltacron Variant Again
Why indeed. It’s a real puzzler.
Perhaps aware that “Deltacron” sounds like a villain from Transformers, they’re also pushing another new variant: “Omicron BA.2”.
Now, while that name definitely isn’t silly, it also isn’t very catchy – so they’ve got a cool scary sounding name for it too: “Stealth Omicron”.
It’s called “stealth omicron”, because it’s lacks markers that can be picked up on by PCR tests, meaning testing positive for this strain of the virus will look just like testing positive for the other strains.
Oh, and this variant isn’t actually new either, it was first discovered back in December, to very little fanfare.
But that was then, and this is now, and now experts are “worried”, apparently.
The press are already reporting that it might be the “most infectious disease on Earth”
All this just serves as a reminder that the Covid story is still there, and they can (and probably will) bring it back whenever they want. Maybe the very moment Ukraine and Russia agree on a peace deal.
Game of Thrones famously used to alternate their season finales, in an odd-numbered season the show would end with a shocking plot twist, and in even numbered seasons it would be an epic battle.
Maybe this will be our new reality, lurching from pandemic to war to pandemic to war, and around and around.
A perpetual cycle of different grand narratives, linked only in their shared consequences: More power for them, less freedom for us.
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.
IMAGE: The guided missile destroyer USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) steams through the Mediterranean Sea. Arleigh Burke is currently
deployed in the Mediterranean Sea conducting missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (U.S. Navy photo by Journalist
2nd Class Patrick Reilly)
More than any other recent pandemic story, this one really demonstrates the complete farce which the Biden Administration is still clinging to in order to save face after two years of completely fraudulent Covid and vaccine policies.
“After a briefing involving dozens of sailors in close quarters on the ship, the Navy commander admitted to his boss that he had a sore throat.”
And it all went down hill from there.
Well, it was only a matter of time before Covid paranoia and vaccine fanaticism would begin to cripple the US military.
An ongoing legal battle over whether the military can force troops to get vaccinated against COVID-19 has left the Navy with a warship they say they can’t deploy because it is commanded by an officer they cannot fire.
It’s a standoff the brass are calling a “manifest national security concern,” according to recent federal court filings.
The issues stem from a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida late last year alleging service members’ rights are being infringed upon by the COVID vaccine mandate because their religious beliefs prevent them from taking the vaccine.
Judge Steven D. Merryday issue an order last month banning the Navy and Marine Corps from taking any disciplinary action against the unnamed Navy warship commander and a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel for refusing the vaccine.
In the process, the case has raised questions about the lines between military good order and discipline, and the legal rights of service members as American citizens.
Merryday’s injunction is “an extraordinary intrusion upon the inner workings of the military” and has essentially left the Navy short a warship, according to a Feb. 28 filing by the government.
“With respect to Navy Commander, the Navy has lost confidence in his ability to lead and will not deploy the warship with him in command,” the filing states…
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.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the world’s largest release of genetically engineered mosquitoes, despite warnings by public health experts.
In defiance of science and public health concerns, Monday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the mass release of billions of experimental genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes into the U.S.’ most populous and agriculturally significant states.
The British biotechnology company Oxitec was granted an experimental use permit for the release of a genetically engineered version of the species Aedes aegypti across Fresno, Tulare, San Bernadino and Stanislaus Counties in California and in Monroe County in Florida.
This will be the biggest release of GE insects in the world.
EPA’s approval came despite growing concerns raised by scientists, public health experts and environmental groups about potential impacts of the experimental releases on public health, the environment and endangered species.
No publicly available data supports Oxitec’s claims that GE mosquitoes will reduce incidence of mosquito-borne diseases.
An independent peer-reviewed study from Yale University scientists revealed that over two years of continual releases of the GE mosquitoes at a test site in Brazil failed to reduce populations of Aedes aegypti.
The Yale study also found that the GE mosquitoes bred with local Aedes aegypti, resulting in hybrid mosquitoes in the wild that may be more aggressive, more difficult to eradicate and may increase the spread of mosquito-borne disease.
“Scientists have found genetic material from GE mosquitoes in wild populations at significant levels, which means GE mosquitoes are not sterile. GE mosquitoes could result in far more health and environmental problems than they would solve,” said Dana Perls, food and technology program manager at Friends of the Earth, and a California resident.
“EPA needs to do a real review of potential risks and stop ignoring widespread opposition in the communities where releases will happen.”
The experimental release will purportedly investigate whether the GE mosquito can reduce the population of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes — one species that can carry yellow fever, dengue, chikungunya and Zika.
However, California does not have any cases of these diseases, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, the Aedes aegypti mosquito is not prevalent in California.
“This experiment is unnecessary and even dangerous, as there are no locally acquired cases of dengue, yellow fever, chikungunya or Zika in California,” said Jaydee Hanson, policy director for the International Center for Technology Assessment and Center for Food Safety.
”Releasing billions of GE mosquitoes makes it likely that female GE mosquitoes will get out and create hybrid mosquitoes that are more virulent and aggressive. Other public health strategies, including the use of Wolbachia infected mosquitoes, could better control the Aedes aegypti in California and Florida.”
The EPA did not publicly release any data from Oxitec field trials in Florida or Brazil and key information about health effects, including allergenicity and toxicity, was redacted from the company’s application for a permit.
EPA did not require key scientific assessments, including an endangered species assessment, public health impact analysis or caged trials ahead of any environmental release. The EPA declined to convene a Scientific Advisory Panel as it does for other new pesticides.
“Once released into the environment, genetically engineered mosquitoes cannot be recalled,” said Dr. Robert Gould, president of San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility and California resident. “Rather than forge ahead with an unregulated open-air genetic experiment, we need precautionary action, transparent data and appropriate risk assessments.”
Despite strong public opposition, in April 2021, Oxitec and the Florida Keys Mosquito Control Board began the release of half a billion genetically engineered mosquitoes into Monroe County, Florida.
Neither the mosquito control board nor Oxitec informed community residents about the locations of release until three days beforehand, and there was no informed consent by affected community members prior to release.
Following the EPA’s approval, California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation and local mosquito abatement districts will also decide whether to approve the permit for release.
If approved, billions of GE mosquitoes will be released over a 2-year period in 4 counties in California, beginning in 2022, and the current GE mosquito release in Monroe County, Florida, will be extended for another 2 years.
Center for Food Safety‘s mission is to empower people, support farmers and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture.
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?
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.
Countries all over the world are totally scrubbing their Covid measures, mask mandates and social distancing rules.
The CDC has changed their guidance on vaccine doses, and said people don’t need to wear masks anymore. Boris has done the same, and (some) of the UK’s emergency powers are going to expire soon.
It seems like Covid is over, and the good guys won, right?
Well, not exactly.
The pandemic narrative may be fading away, but certainly not without a trace. Covid might be dying, but vaccine passports are still very much alive.
This week, while the eyes of the world are fixed on Ukraine and the next wave of propaganda, the World Health Organization is launching an initiative to create a “trust network” on vaccination and international travel.
According to a report in Politico published last week:
WHO making moves on international vaccine ‘passport’”
The article quotes Brian Anderson, co-founder of the Vaccination Credential Initiative, which describes itself as:
a voluntary coalition of public and private organizations committed to empowering individuals with access to verifiable clinical information including a trustworthy and verifiable copy of their vaccination records in digital or paper form using open, interoperable standards.
They are, to take the PR agency sheen off this phrase, a corporate/government joint project researching and promoting digital medical identification papers.
In short, vaccine passports.
The VCI has existed since January 2021, and its list of “members” is very revealing, including Google, Amazon, dozens of insurance companies, hospitals, “bio-security firms” and seemingly every major university in the US.
It’s run by a steering committee made up of representatives from Apple, Microsoft, the MAYO Clinic and the MITRE Corporation, a multi-billion-dollar government-funded research organization.
Anderson – who was an employee of MITRE before founding the VCI – tells Politico that the current system of international travel and vaccine records is:
piecemeal, not coordinated and done nation to nation…It can be a real challenge.”
Discussion of an international “Pandemic Treaty” gets underway today in Geneva, and any eventual agreement will doubtless include provisions on the matter of international vaccine certification.
If the VCI is involved – and with their backers, they doubtless will be – any international system will likely be based on their SMART Health Cards system.
Smart Cards in the US – a Covert Federal Vaccine Passport
VCI’s SMART Health Cards are the dominant tech in the emerging field of biosurveillance and “inoculation certification”. They are already implemented by 25 different US states, plus Puerto Rico and DC, and have become the US’s de-facto national passport
According to this article from Forbes (a puff piece which is little more than an advertisement):
While the United States government has not issued a federal digital vaccine pass, a national standard has nevertheless emerged.
They use the word “emerged” as if it’s a natural, organic process. But it’s not.
The US government, unlike many European countries, has not issued their own official vaccine passport, knowing such a move would rankle with the more Libertarian-leaning US public, not to mention get tangled in the question of state vs federal law.
The SMART cards allow them to sidestep this issue. They are technically only implemented by each state individually via agreements with VCI, which is technically a private entity.
However, since the SMART cards are indirectly funded by the US government, their implementation across every state makes them a national standard in all but name.
The Politico article repeats the claim the US has no national system, adding that the US doesn’t have a federal vaccine database either:
The Biden administration has said it wouldn’t issue digital credentials and hasn’t rolled out standards for vaccine credentials it said it would issue. Complicating the situation is that the U.S. doesn’t have a national inoculation database.
The propaganda message here is underlining what the government doesn’t have and doesn’t know. The suggestion being that the SMART system is totally separate from the government, that it’s a private company that would never share your medical records with the state.
But only the terminally naive would believe that.
SMART Health Cards are run by VCI, which was created by the MITRE Corporation, which is funded by the United States government.
If you give SMART access to your medical records, you’d better believe the US government and its agencies will get their hands on them. They might not have their own database, but they would have access to MITRE’s database when and if they needed or wanted it.
And so would Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft.
That’s how private-public partnerships work. Symbiosis.
Corporate giants serve as fronts for government programs and, in return, they get a big cut of the profits, bailouts if they’re needed, and regulatory “reforms” that cripple their smaller competitors.
We’ve seen this social media already.
Quasi-monopolies like Facebook and Twitter harvest data for the government and censor anyone they are told to, then they are rewarded with “regulation” that barely hurts them whilst targeting smaller companies such as Gab, Parler or Telegram.
The Smart Health Cards clearly fall into this model.
Microsoft, Google et al. take government money to help create the tech, they then run the program, harvest and store the data, and make it available to the government when they want it.
This allows the federal government “truthfully” claim to not be implementing a federal passport system, OR keeping a vaccination database, all the while they are sub-contracting tech giants to do it for them.
This system of backdoor government surveillance via corporate veneer is already spreading across the US, and it looks like it will play some part in any future “pandemic treaty” too.
They may have stopped talking about Covid for now, but they got a good chunk of what they wanted out of it.
And if they don’t get the rest of what they want out of the war in Ukraine, they’ll just bring Covid back.
Think what you will about Pastor Artur, love him or hate him, he is gong to continue feeding the homeless and preaching his convictions regardless. When Pastor Artur’s eldest son was very young, he nearly passed away, doctors had essentially given up hope. Artur in those challenging times turned to God and said if you save my son, I will commit myself wholly to you. His son, defying all odds, survived, and Artur true to his word has been feeding and caring for the homeless and living out his vocation as a Pastor without compromise ever since.
His steadfast adherence to his sworn mission has garnered the ire of politicians and authorities who have had Pastor Artur sitting behind bars for several weeks awaiting trial, with bail being denied as he is supposedly to great a liability to be let out.
In the last two years, Artur has been arrested five times and incarcerated three times. All of this as a result of feeding the poor, preaching and opening his church in contravention of mandates and restrictions that are presently being dropped? Pastor Artur’s actions would be considered laudable at any other time, but with COVID-19 restrictions in place, they suddenly merit jailing?
People seem to forget that the homeless people who rely on Pastor Artur’s help don’t stop being cold or hungry just because a COVID-19 restriction is dictates by some myopic health bureaucrat. While others are being let off with warnings and tickets, or in the case of politicians in the sky-palace no consequences at all, Pastor Artur has been made into public enemy number one.
I was fortunate to be able to arrange an exclusive interview with Pastor Artur over the phone from within the Calgary Remand Centre where he is being held. He talked about life behind bars, the challenges he is facing at the hands of jail guards, his interactions with inmates in his brief times outside of solitary confinement and about how deeply he misses his family.
Please consider making a tax receipt eligible donation to Pastor Artur’s legal defence by visiting SaveArtur.com today. Your donation will help pay for the incredible legal team at JSS Barristers, including Sarah Miller, who are working tirelessly to secure Artur’s release.
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 German health insurer BKK ProVita said an analysis of data collected from more than 10 million people suggests COVID vaccine side effects are “significantly” underreported. The company said its analysis revealed a “significant alarm signal” and said “a risk to human life cannot be ruled out.”
A German health insurance company this week said an analysis of data collected from more than 10 million people suggests COVID vaccine side effects are “significantly” underreported.
Based on the data collected, BKK said the number of vaccine side effects is many times higher than the number officially announced by the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), Germany’s federal health agency that monitors the safety of vaccines and biomedicines.
The PEI announced in a press release there were 244,576 suspected cases of vaccine side effects reported in 2021 following COVID vaccination, but BKK said its analysis revealed more than 400,000 cases.
BKK board member Andreas Schöfbeck told WELT, a German news publication, “The numbers determined are significant and urgently need to be checked for plausibility.”
In a letter, Schöfbeck said BKK analyzed doctors’ billing data from 10.9 million insured people and found 217,000 people received medical treatment due to vaccine side effects.
“In our opinion, there is a significant underreporting of the side effects of the vaccination,” said Schöfbeck. “According to our calculations, we consider 400,000 visits to the doctor by our insured persons due to vaccination complications to be realistic to date.”
Schöfbeck said if figures are extrapolated over a year for the entire German population of 83 million people, it is likely 2.5 – 3 million people in Germany received medical treatment for COVID vaccine adverse events.
“The data available to our company gives us reason to believe that there is a very considerable under-recording of suspected cases of vaccination side-effects after they received the [COVID-19] vaccine,” Schöfbeck wrote.
Schöfbeck sent the letter to PEI President Dr. Klaus Cichutek, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds, the German Medical Association, National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, the Standing Vaccination Commission and BKK’s umbrella organization.
In another letter, the company suggested vaccine side effects across Germany are at least 10 times more common than what was reported by the PEI, the German newspaper Nordkurier reported Wednesday.
The letters did not disclose symptoms, the severity of adverse events or which vaccines caused the side effects.
Federal health officials in the U.S. and Germany have emphasized the benefits of COVID vaccines outweigh the potential risks, and side effects are rare.
In the U.S. last month, an executive at an Indiana life insurance company reported a “stunning” 40% increase in the death rate among 18- to 64-year-old adults compared to pre-pandemic levels, The Defender reported.
During the same call, OneAmerica’s CEO J. Scott Davison also described a major uptick in both short- and long-term disability claims.
The insurance executive rated the extraordinarily high death rate as “the highest … we have seen in the history of this business,” adding the trend is “consistent across every player in that business.”
To further underscore the import of his statements, Davison said, “Just to give you an idea of how bad [40%] is, a … one-in-200 catastrophe would be a 10% increase over pre-pandemic. So 40% is just unheard of.”
Contrary to what the public might assume — given the media’s unremitting coverage of COVID-19 — Davison reported most of the death claims listed causes of death other than COVID.
Commenting on the news, Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, wrote, “It would take something REALLY BIG to have an effect this big.”
Moreover, Kirsch said, the culprit would have to be something first introduced in 2021 — “something new … that a huge number of people would be exposed to” — such as COVID shots.
by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
February 24, 2022
Two breaking developments—
File the first one under: WHEN YOU SPIN A CONVENTIONAL FAKE NARRATIVE, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU’RE GOING TO END UP.
Iceland cancels all COVID restrictions. Not because case numbers are dropping, but because, as I’ve written several times, once you (falsely) accept the existence of a new spreading virus, you’re committed to a narrative which can only end with EVERYONE INFECTED—and THAT’S called herd immunity.
Done. Finished. Forget vaccines, masks, distancing, lockdowns. Just live. Live out in the open.
Get a load of this:
Reuters: “Iceland will lift all remaining COVID-19 restrictions on Friday…the Ministry of Health said on Wednesday.”
“’Widespread societal [immune system] resistance to COVID-19 [meaning the development of natural immunity] is the main route out of the epidemic,’ the ministry said…”
“’To achieve this [immunity], as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus’…”
BANG. BOOM. POW.
The Ministry of Health just announced the end game, in alignment with the (false) assumptions which have been in place since January of 2020. Again, once you say a virus is on the loose all over the world, you’re committed to the only response there is:
GET INFECTED. DEVELOP NATURAL IMMUNITY. GO ABOUT YOUR LIVES.
That’s how the story wraps up. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall and no one could put him back together again. You tell the virus tale, and that’s your predestined conclusion.
Of course there is no new virus, and the whole virus story is a fraud, as I’ve proved numerous times over the past 2 years. I’ve already described, in detail, all the ins and outs of the con called COVID.
But here, with Iceland, we see the beginning of sane national responses within the context of a completely insane scenario.
THAT’S what we’re looking at. Nothing more, nothing less.
“Well, we pretended there was a new unstoppable virus…and so here we are, exactly where we knew we would be. Get infected. Develop herd immunity. That is all. Goodbye.”
And all the major medical liars slowly back away from the general population…very slowly…hoping no one notices what just happened…hoping no one realizes this wrap-up was always in the cards…hoping no one will say: YOU RUINED AND KILLED UNTOLD MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND YOU KNEW ALL ALONG THIS WAS GOING TO BE YOUR CLIMAX: “GET INFECTED.”
Shocking story number two—
The health/life insurance company tidal wave is breaking.
Well, of course it is. Who did you think was going to be left holding the bag for all the unreported injuries and deaths stemming from the COVID vaccines?
These life insurance companies employ actuaries, and these smart guys predict the number of claims they’re going to pay out…and THAT’S how they decide what the policy holders must pay…in order for the companies to maintain their profits…
Except, the actuaries had no idea what was going to happen.
They didn’t realize how many injury/death claims were going to be filed, once the COVID killshots were unleashed on the world.
But NOW THEY KNOW.
Former NY Times reporter, Alex Berenson: “Welt, a major German newspaper, just ran an interview with Andreas Schofbeck, a board member for a Bavarian insurer called BKK Provita.”
“By itself, BKK Provita has 120,000 members. But it is a much larger consortium of so-called BKK insurers that are affiliated with German companies and collectively have 10.9 million members.”
“Here’s how Schofbeck described the [injury] claims in the BKK [company] database, according to one of the reporters who interviewed him:…‘a violent warning signal’.”
Schofbeck is reacting, with great alarm, to all the vaccine injury claims that have been filed—looking at data from 10.9 MILLION policy holders.
In other words, it’s OVERWHELMING.
Another Humpty Dumpty just fell off the wall and broke into pieces.
Obviously, health/life insurance companies around the world are looking at similar horrific numbers.
What are these companies going to do? Just sit there and suck up their huge losses?
No. For starters, they’re going to blame the vaccine manufacturers. That’s already quite interesting, even if news outlets aren’t reporting it. Because, as Edward Dowd, former portfolio manager for BlackRock, has been saying, WALL STREET will take notice.
430 to 144. Can you guess what those numbers represent? The all-time high peak of the Moderna share price, and the most recent closing price, as of this writing.
BANG.
61 to 46. The first number is the high, over the past year, for the Pfizer share price, and the second number is the most recent close, as of this writing.
These insurance-vaccine company developments were also inevitable, from the beginning of the fake pandemic.
Anyone who knows the real history of vaccines would have seen it in a second.
You rapidly shoot up the whole world with a new vaccine, and the injury-death numbers are going to go through the roof.
Insurance companies don’t like to be left holding the bag and absorbing the consequences of both the jab and the lies the vaccine front men have been telling.
Insurance companies are wired up to, heavily influence, and control all sorts of politicians and bureaucrats and public health officials. You can bet your bottom dollar these companies have been reading the riot act to their government puppets.
“You [FDA] morons…you’re supposed to be protecting the public from dangerous drugs and vaccines. And now people all over the world are dropping like flies from the COVID shot, and those people are our POLICY HOLDERS.”
“What did you want us to do? For chrissakes, we work for the pharmaceutical companies.”
“We’re not interested in excuses. We want money. Lots of it, to make up for our losses.”
“Don’t look at us. We don’t do bailouts. Go to Treasury, or the President.”
“The President can’t even find his way from the shower to the bedroom in the White House residence.”
“Talk to nurse Jill or Susan Rice…”
And word of these conversations leaks out to Wall Street.
Look for new bailouts, and a plethora of cover stories to explain why insurance companies are suddenly inhaling hundreds of billions of government dollars (or more.)
Cover stories only the most naïve fools will believe.
Serial liar Tony Fauci may be able to tap dance with his media partners every Sunday morning on the news talk shows; but when giant insurance companies want him to pay for his sins, that’s a whole different story.
Tony could become yet another Humpty Dumpty…
All we need now—among all the insurance companies in the world—are five or six OUTRAGED big-time insurance execs to step out of the shadows with their hair on fire, completely fed up with the grand cover-up of vaccine injuries, and talking their heads off.
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.
“Above all we should not forget, that government is an evil, a usurpation upon the private judgment and individual conscience of mankind.”
~ William Godwin (1793) “An enquiry concerning political justice, and its influence on general virtue and happiness”, p.143
Lest we forget, it is not a fake or mysterious disease or ‘virus’ that is responsible for the unnecessary death and destruction that has befallen mankind, it is the deliberate elimination of those thought to be undesirables by the controlling class of monsters and their pawns in government. This is not ‘conspiracy theory,’ as espoused by the powerful and their media, it is an actual conspiracy.
There is method to the madness of this ruling cabal, as the older among us were heavily targeted initially, followed by the breakdown and dividing of society, the assault against young men, and now the children are being threatened and targeted with the experimental bio-weapon injection in order to solidify the control of the future. To understand this progression only requires logic, and of course an open mind.
The old and established, those who are also thought by the state to be a drain on society, are considered to be a danger to the rulers because they have lived and understand history, and history and historical accounting are meant to be destroyed by those attempting to create a new paradigm based on what might be labeled as progressive postmodernism. The division of societies is necessary in order keep the people distracted and fighting amongst themselves enough so that they are not a threat to the state. The apparent attack against young men by adverse effects due to poisonous injection, is an effort to disable current or future insurrection by men of ‘fighting age,’ as evidenced by the government’s aggression against the current trucker’s freedom rebellion in Canada and other parts of the world, most of whom are younger men. Destroying the bodies and minds of all the children, at least from the state’s perspective, is the ultimate goal sought, because to capture and control the children today, as well as the youngest generation, is to control the future.
With this background in mind, it is important to understand that no pandemic has occurred, and claimed deaths due to ‘Covid’ are historically unique in that certain areas over others had substantially higher death counts due to so-called’ Covid;’ so much so as to be very suspicious in nature, because this has never happened before this wrongly claimed ‘pandemic.’ New York and the Southern states are prime examples of these contradictory claims. It actually makes no sense, and there is no validity concerning the ‘Covid’ explanation for these unheard-of anomalies, other than fraud and deceit. One thing is for certain, the state response to this fake pandemic has been responsible for much harm, and untold numbers of deaths; these deaths having been purposely used to bolster ‘Covid’ mortality numbers in order to advance a false narrative bent on creating and generating even more public fear.
The obvious contradictions are most always explained away by conjecture, false excuses, and lies, but why should that be any surprise to any thinking individual? The pattern of deaths reported today, considering any ‘viral’ respiratory illness, has never once occurred, which should immediately trigger hard questions, and very critical analysis of all the un-substantiated hogwash that passes for ‘news’ reporting in this environment of deception.
To provide even more fuel to the fire for the indifferent and obedient fools, and those in the manipulative media, it is distinctly apparent that the depopulation agenda is alive and well. While many will scoff at this claim, why else would the ruling class and government be willing to murder so many people by nefarious means, who either stand in the way of state totalitarianism, or are a threat to the desired status quo that would consist of a population made up of ignorant and voluntarily compliant citizens?
Consider the fact that this communistic takeover coup was initially based on a fake ‘virus,’ requiring the most anti-freedom, liberty-destroying, and deadly response ever undertaken here in this country and globally. We will never know exactly how many have and will die due to this evil draconian response to a world-changing, terroristic, and false flag event meant to achieve a totalitarian outcome.
Many have said that the response was worse than the threat, but this is a smoke and mirrors and hypocritical reaction, because there was never any legitimate threat in the first place, other than the democidal tendencies of the state against the people. This is literally a war against the common man, and an eager willingness by those in power to destroy or genocide certain individuals, groups, ethnicities, select members of certain demographic makeups, the poor and disadvantaged, the entire middle class, the psychologically weak, and the most vulnerable among us; simply to gain total power and control of all monetary, financial, economic, geopolitical, and societal systems worldwide. With this end in sight, the next obvious step is to gain complete control of all children by bio-weapon injections meant to subdue the minds and bodies of future generations. This plot is already underway.
By simply looking at the treatment protocols demanded and implemented, one can only come to the certain conclusion that the death of many in this population due to the response to a fake ‘virus,’ has not only been planned and sought by the powerful and their pawns, but has been intentionally put into place over the past two years. This is a long-planned scheme meant to achieve a particular outcome of death and control. To argue this is to ignore reality, and to assume a position based on fallacy.
Consider Remdesivir, a killer drug promoted knowingly by the evil Fauci. It became basically the only hospital treatment for the fraud called ‘Covid-19’ early on in this scam. It was well known to be extremely toxic and deadly. It was approved for emergency use by the FDA on May 1, 2020, and was subsequently fully approved by the FDA to treat ‘Covid-19’ on October 22, 2020. Just recently on January 22, 2022, the FDA granted expedited approval of a new supplemental drug application for Remdesivir, based on the recommendation of Fauci and the NIH. Nine of the people at NIH who recommended this poison, had financial ties to the maker of Veklury (Remdesivir), Gilead Sciences.
Consider the mass use of ventilators, especially in New York. Most so-called ‘Covid’ patients put on these machines for ‘Covid’ treatment died. According to a study done early on by the American Medical Association Network: “Mortality rates for those who received mechanical ventilation in the 18-to-65 and older-than-65 age groups were 76.4% and 97.2%, respectively. Mortality rates for those in the 18-to-65 and older-than-65 age groups who did not receive mechanical ventilation were 19.8% and 26.6%, respectively.”
Consider that stress is a known major killer, and extreme stress brought on by the bogus response to a non-existent ‘virus,’ caused many deaths; not only in the U.S., but all around the world. This was due to lockdowns, quarantine, loss of family and friend contact, suicide, isolation, distancing, mask-wearing, job loss, bankruptcy, business closures, travel restrictions, and much more tyranny aimed at the general population.
Consider the restriction of treatments for all sickness due to the fact that most every ill and every symptom was co-opted and said to be ‘Covid.” Hospitals refused to treat patients, medical facilities closed their doors, certain drugs and natural treatments were outlawed, necessary surgeries were cancelled, and eventually, many, if not most, medical services were eliminated for those who refused to take an experimental bio-weapon injection. People died in their home prisons or nursing homes without any sympathy or loosening of restrictions by the evil state.
The government and its bosses were and are willing to commit murder, and their enforcement goons and political allies are willing to assist in this murder of innocents, all in the name of state control and tyranny, but there has been a change of heart recently by larger numbers of people, much due to those willing to fight back to regain some freedom. This is happening worldwide by not only truckers but by others as well.
The government and its bosses were and are willing to commit murder, and their enforcement goons and political allies are willing to assist in this murder of innocents, all in the name of state control and tyranny, but there has been a change of heart recently by larger numbers of people, much due to those willing to fight back to regain some freedom. This is happening worldwide by not only truckers but by others as well.
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
Screenshot / 
_J.jpg){kind=link}
_G.jpg){kind=link}