now browsing by author
Reproduced from original article:
- Statins do not protect against cardiovascular disease and more than double the risk of dementia in some cases
- People with early mild cognitive impairment and low to moderate cholesterol levels who used lipophilic statins had more than double the risk of dementia compared to those who did not use statins
- Statin users also had significant decline in metabolism of the brain’s posterior cingulate cortex, which is the brain region that declines most significantly in early Alzheimer’s disease
- Among patients with Type 2 diabetes admitted to a hospital for COVID-19, those taking statins had significantly higher mortality rates from COVID-19 compared to those not taking the drugs
- People who take statins are more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with diabetes and those who take the drugs for longer than two years have more than triple the risk
The use of statin cholesterol-lowering medications has been on the rise for decades1 and they are among the most widely used drugs in the world. In the U.S., close to 50% of U.S. adults over 75 years old take a statin2 to lower their cholesterol in the misguided hope of preventing heart disease, heart attacks and stroke.
Not only is there strong evidence suggesting that statins are a colossal waste of money, but their use may also harm your brain health — more than doubling your risk of dementia in some cases.3
The benefit must clearly outweigh the risk when it comes to any drug treatment, but this is rarely the case with statins, which do not protect against cardiovascular disease and are linked to a number of health conditions4,5 including dementia, diabetes6 and even increased risk of death from COVID-19.7
Statins Doubled Risk of Developing Dementia
Statins’ effects on cognitive performance have previously been called into question, since lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol are linked to a higher risk of dementia.8 The featured study, published in The Journal of Nuclear Medicine,9 involved people with mild cognitive impairment and looked into the effects of two types of statins: hydrophilic and lipophilic.
Hydrophilic statins, which include pravastatin (Pravachol) and rosuvastatin (Crestor), dissolve more readily in water, while lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin (Lipitor), simvastatin (Zocor), Fluvastatin (Lescol), and lovastatin (Altoprev), dissolve more readily in fats.10 Lipophilic statins can easily enter cells11 and be distributed throughout your body, whereas hydrophilic statins focus on the liver.12
According to study author Prasanna Padmanabham of the University of California, Los Angeles, “There have been many conflicting studies on the effects of statin drugs on cognition. While some claim that statins protect users against dementia, others assert that they accelerate the development of dementia. Our study aimed to clarify the relationship between statin use and subject’s long-term cognitive trajectory.”13
Subjects were divided into groups based on cognitive status, cholesterol levels and type of statin used, and followed for eight years. Those with early mild cognitive impairment and low to moderate cholesterol levels at the start of the study who used lipophilic statins had more than double the risk of dementia compared to those who did not use statins.14
Further, this group also had significant decline in metabolism of the brain’s posterior cingulate cortex, which is the brain region that declines most significantly in early Alzheimer’s disease.15
Your Brain Needs Cholesterol
About 25% to 30% of your body’s total cholesterol is found in your brain, where it is an essential part of neurons. In your brain, cholesterol helps develop and maintain the plasticity and function of your neurons,16 and data from the Shanghai Aging Study revealed that high levels of LDL cholesterol are inversely associated with dementia in those aged 50 years and over.
“High level of LDL-C may be considered as a potential protective factor against cognition decline,” the researchers noted.17 They compiled a number of mechanisms on why lower cholesterol may be damaging for brain health, including the fact that lower cholesterol is linked with higher mortality in the elderly and may occur alongside malnutrition and chronic diseases, including cancer. As it specifically relates to brain health, however, they suggested:18
- Decreasing cholesterol levels in the elderly may be associated with cerebral atrophy, which occurs with dementia
- High LDL cholesterol may be beneficial by reducing neurons’ impairments or helping repair injured neurons
- Acceleration of neurodegeneration has occurred when neurons were short on cellular cholesterol or cholesterol supply
- Cholesterol plays an important role in the synthesis, transportation and metabolism of steroid hormones and lipid-soluble vitamins, and both of these are important to synaptic integrity and neurotransmission
Lower cholesterol levels were also associated with worse cognitive function among South Korean study participants aged 65 and over, and were considered to be a “state marker for AD [Alzheimer’s disease].”19
A U.S. study of more than 4,300 Medicare recipients aged 65 and over also revealed that higher levels of total cholesterol were associated with a decreased risk of Alzheimer’s disease, even after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and other related variables.20
Statins Increase Death Risk From COVID-19
The risks to brain health are only one red flag tied to statins. A concerning link was also uncovered among statins, diabetes and an increased risk of severe disease from COVID-19.21 Among patients with Type 2 diabetes admitted to a hospital for COVID-19, those taking statins had significantly higher mortality rates from COVID-19 within seven days and 28 days compared to those not taking the drugs.
The researchers acknowledged those taking statins were older, more frequently male and often had more comorbidities, including high blood pressure, heart failure and complications of diabetes. However, despite the limitations, the researchers found enough evidence in the over 2,400 participants to conclude:22
“… our present results do not support the hypothesis of a protective role of routine statin use against COVID-19, at least not in hospitalized patients with T2DM (Type 2 diabetes mellitus).
Indeed, the potentially deleterious effects of routine statin treatment on COVID-19-related mortality demands further investigation and, as recently highlighted, only appropriately designed and powered randomized controlled trials will be able to properly address this important issue.”
Statins Double — or Triple — Diabetes Risk
A connection already exists between statins and diabetes, to the extent that people who take statins are more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with diabetes than those who do not, and those who take the drugs for longer than two years have more than triple the risk.23,24
“The fact that increased duration of statin use was associated with an increased risk of diabetes — something we call a dose-dependent relationship — makes us think that this is likely a causal relationship,” study author Victoria Zigmont, a graduate researcher in public health at The Ohio State University in Columbus, said in a news release.25
The data also indicated that individuals taking statin medications had a 6.5% increased risk of high blood sugar as measured by hemoglobin A1c value,26 which is an average level of blood sugar measuring the past 60 to 90 days.
Researchers with the Erasmus Medical Center in The Netherlands also analyzed data from more than 9,500 patients, finding those who had ever used statins had a 38% higher risk of Type 2 diabetes, with the risk being higher in those with impaired glucose homeostasis and those who were overweight or obese.27
The researchers concluded, “Individuals using statins may be at higher risk for hyperglycemia, insulin resistance and eventually Type 2 diabetes. Rigorous preventive strategies such as glucose control and weight reduction in patients when initiating statin therapy might help minimize the risk of diabetes.”
But a far better strategy may be preventing insulin resistance in the first place, by avoiding statin drugs and eating a healthy diet. According to Dr. Aseem Malhotra, an interventional cardiologist consultant in London, U.K. — who has been attacked for being a “statin denier” after calling out the drugs’ side effects28 — and a colleague:29
“In young adults, preventing insulin resistance could prevent 42% of myocardial infarctions, a larger reduction than correcting hypertension (36 %), low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (31 %), body mass index (BMI) (21 %) or LDL-C (16 %).30
It is plausible that the small benefits of statins in the prevention of CVD come from pleiotropic effects which are independent of LDL-lowering. The focus in primary prevention should therefore be on foods and food groups that have a proven benefit in reducing hard endpoints and mortality.”
The Statin Scam
Even as saturated fats and cholesterol have been vilified, and statin drugs have become among the most widely prescribed medications worldwide, heart disease remains a top killer.31 Today, statin drugs to reduce cholesterol levels are recommended for four broad patient populations:32
- Those who have already had a cardiovascular event
- Adults with diabetes
- Individuals with LDL cholesterol levels ≥190 mg/dL
- Individuals with an estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk ≥7.5% (based on an algorithm that uses your age, gender, blood pressure, total cholesterol, high density lipoproteins (HDL), race and history of diabetes to predict the likelihood you’ll experience a heart attack in the coming 10 years)
Despite statins being prescribed for these sizable groups, and “target” cholesterol levels being achieved, a systematic review of 35 randomized, controlled trials found that no additional benefits were gained. According to an analysis in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine:33
“Recommending cholesterol lowering treatment based on estimated cardiovascular risk fails to identify many high-risk patients and may lead to unnecessary treatment of low-risk individuals. The negative results of numerous cholesterol lowering randomized controlled trials call into question the validity of using low density lipoprotein cholesterol as a surrogate target for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.”
Even in the case of recurrent cardiovascular events, despite the increase in statin use from 1999 to 2013, researchers writing in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders noted, “there was only a small decrease in the incidence of recurrent CVD, and this occurred mainly in older patients without statins prescribed.”34
Statins Won’t Protect Your Heart Health
Statins are effective at lowering cholesterol, but whether this is the panacea for helping you avoid heart disease and extend your lifespan is a topic of heated debate. Again in 2018, a scientific review presented substantial evidence that high LDL and total cholesterol are not an indication of heart disease risk, and that statin treatment is of doubtful benefit as a form of primary prevention for this reason.35
In short, these drugs have done nothing to derail the rising trend of heart disease, while putting users at increased risk of health conditions like diabetes, dementia and others, such as:
- Triple risk of coronary artery and aortic artery calcification38
- Musculoskeletal disorders, including myalgia, muscle weakness, muscle cramps, rhabdomyolysis and autoimmune muscle disease39
In the event you’re taking statins, be aware that they deplete your body of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) and inhibit the synthesis of vitamin K2. The risks of CoQ10 depletion can be somewhat offset by taking a Coenzyme Q10 supplement or, if you’re over 40, its reduced form ubiquinol. But ultimately, if you’re looking to protect both your brain and heart health, avoiding statin drugs and instead optimizing your diet may be the answer.
- 1, 34 BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2018; 18: 209
- 2, 3, 12, 13 SciTechDaily June 28, 2021
- 4 Journal of Clinical Lipidology February 2017
- 5 The Lancet November 24, 2007
- 6 Current Diabetes Reports February 2, 2017
- 7, 21, 22 Diabetes and Metabolism, 2020; doi.org/10.1016/j.diabet.2020.10.001
- 8 Frontiers in Neurology November 12, 2018
- 9, 14, 15 Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2021, 62 (supplement 1) 102
- 10 Harvard Health Publishing January 27, 2020
- 11 Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021; 8: 687585
- 16, 17, 18 Front Neurol. 2018; 9: 952
- 19 J Nutr Health Aging. 2002;6(5):320-3
- 20 Arch Neurol. 2004 May;61(5):705-14
- 23, 25, 26 Medical News Today June 26, 2019
- 24 Diabetes Metabolism Research and Reviews May 24, 2019
- 27 British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology March 5, 2019
- 28 Daily Mail March 2, 2019
- 29 BMC Med. 2016; 14: 4
- 30 Diabetes Care. 2009 Feb;32(2):361-6
- 31 JAMA. 2019;322(8):780-782. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.9161
- 32, 33 BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine August 4, 2020 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111413
- 35 Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, September 10, 2018
- 36 Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Sep;22(9):1529-37
- 37, 38 Open Journal of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases 2013, Vol. 3, No. 3
- 39 JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(14):1318-1326
- 40 Annals of General Psychiatry, 2017;16:20
Reproduced from original article:
- In the U.K., symptomatic COVID-19 cases among “vaccinated” individuals have risen 40% in one week, reaching an average rate of 15,537 new infections a day being detected. Meanwhile, symptomatic COVID-19 cases among the unvaccinated has declined by 22% and is now at a current daily average of 17,588
- This suggests the wave among unvaccinated has peaked and that natural herd immunity has set in, while “vaccinated” individuals are actually becoming more prone to infection
- Data show countries with the highest COVID injection rates are also experiencing the greatest upsurges in cases, while countries with the lowest injection rates have the lowest caseloads
- 100 fully injected crew members had tested positive onboard the British Defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. The Navy ship has a case rate of 1 in 16 — the highest case rate recorded. This suggests vaccine-induced herd immunity is impossible, as these injections apparently cannot prevent COVID-19 even if 100% of a given population gets them
- It is mathematically impossible for COVID shots to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 infection. The four available COVID shots in the U.S. provide an absolute risk reduction between just 0.7% and 1.3%. Meanwhile, the noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio across age groups is a mere 0.26%. Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact
In recent weeks, a number of signs have emerged indicating the COVID-19 injections cannot put an end to COVID-19 outbreaks. In the July 15, 2021, video report above, Dr. John Campbell reviews data coming out of the U.K. On a side note, I do not agree with everything Campbell says in this video, such as promoting mask wearing, for example. It’s his data review that is of interest here.
As noted in the video, as of July 15, 87.5% of the adult population in the U.K. had received one dose of COVID-19 “vaccine” and 67.1% had received two. Yet symptomatic cases among partially and fully “vaccinated” are now suddenly on the rise, with an average of 15,537 new infections a day being detected, a 40% increase from the week before.
Meanwhile, the daily average of new symptomatic cases among unvaccinated is 17,588, down 22% from the week before. This suggests the wave among unvaccinated has peaked and that natural herd immunity has set in, while “vaccinated” individuals are becoming more prone to infection.
U.K. hospitals are confirming double-injected patients are part of the patient population being treated for active COVID infection, and two cities have issued public warnings to their residents, letting them know they may end up in the hospital even if they’ve been double-injected against COVID-19.
“There are currently 15 patients in hospital with COVID across the Trust; last month there were none,” The Yorkshire Post reported1 July 9, 2021. An undisclosed number of them had received two doses of COVID “vaccine.”
“The message I would like to share with you all is that some of their patients are double vaccinated,” Heather McNair, chief nurse at York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals, told the Post.2
“This is a disease that can still affect you and still make you poorly when you are double vaccinated. We have got a ward at the moment full of COVID patients in our hospital and that is not going away anytime soon.”
While the number of hospitalized COVID patients doubled in a single week, the total number was still well below the number reported in January 2021 — a statistic Amanda Bloor, accountable officer for the NHS North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group, takes as proof that the injection program is “having the anticipated impact around reducing the risk of death and reducing serious illness.”
COVID Surges in Countries with Highest Injection Rates
I wouldn’t be so quick to assume lower hospitalization rates in the middle of summer are a sign that the injections are having a positive impact. We also have data3 showing that countries with the highest COVID injection rates are also experiencing the greatest upsurges in cases, while countries with the lowest injection rates have the lowest caseloads. This trend “is worrying me quite a bit,” Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, said in a July 16, 2021, Tweet.4
You can view more data in this thread, posted by Corona Realism.5 Cyprus, where more than 51% of residents have received the jab, now has the highest case count in the world. Interestingly, the outbreak on the British Navy ships — which I’ll cover further below — occurred shortly after a stopover in Cyprus.6
Bhutan offers an interesting glimpse into the effects of mass COVID “vaccination”. They managed to get 64% of residents injected in just one week, starting March 27, 2021, and almost immediately, there was a rapid uptick in cases.
In the first graph below, you see the extraordinarily rapid injection rate in Bhutan, going from zero to 64% in a matter of days. In the second graph, you can see the effect on cases in the weeks that followed. They went from near-zero cases at the outset of the injection campaign, to a high of more than 400 cases per million in the weeks following.
Case Counts Lowest in Low-‘Vaxxed’ Nations
On the flipside, we see the lowest number of positive COVID tests congregated in nations that also have the lowest rates of COVID “vaccine” uptake. While it’s not a 100% clear-cut correlation, it is a trend, and we also have to remember that the PCR tests have issues that complicate any attempt at data analysis.
The main problem is that if you run the PCR test at too-high a cycle threshold (CT), you end up with an inordinate number of false positives.7,8,9 The CT refers to the point in the test where a positive result is obtained. A CT of 35 or higher will give you a 97% false positive rate.10
For maximum accuracy, you’d have to use a CT of 17.11 It’s unclear what all these countries are using, but it’s unlikely they’re using a CT below 20 as a matter of routine. This means most case counts around the world will be falsely elevated.
This is particularly true for unvaccinated individuals in the U.S., as their tests are recommended to be run at a CT of 40, whereas patients that have received a COVID injection will have their COVID tests run at a CT below 28. This makes it appear as though the case rate is higher among the unvaccinated, when in reality it’s just an artifact from highly biased testing and few of these falsely positive “cases” are actually sick.
Looking at the hospitalization rate for confirmed COVID-19 in the U.S.,12 we see that the number of people sick enough to require medical attention is nowhere near what it was during the winter months of 2021, and since only 5.9% of American adults had been injected with two doses as of February 21, 2021,13 we can conclude that the injections did not cause this rapid decline in hospitalizations.
The best explanation for the decline in both cases and hospitalizations after the rollout of COVID shots is the emergence of natural herd immunity from previous infections.
In a July 12, 2021, STAT News article,14 Robert M. Kaplan, Professor Emeritus at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, calculated that by April 2021, the natural immunity rate was above 55% in 10 U.S. states, and in most of those same states, new infections were in rapid decline as early as the end of 2020, at a time when only a tiny fraction of the population had received their shots.
CDC Doesn’t Track All Breakthrough Cases
We must also remember that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are artificially driving down case rates, hospitalization rates and death rates for “vaccinated” Americans by selectively tracking breakthrough cases. They only track and report breakthrough cases where the patient is hospitalized or dies.15 They do not count mild cases, even if they have a positive test result.
A number of media outlets have expressed concerns about this biased tracking and reporting. As noted in Harvard Health,16 the CDC’s strategy prevents us from ascertaining whether one injection is more or less effective than another. It can also hide manufacturing problems and prevent us from determining whether timing of the second dose might have a bearing on effectiveness, as well as a number of other things.
Business Insider17 pointed out that not tracking all breakthrough cases makes it more difficult to determine how dangerous the Delta variant really is. NPR expresses a similar view, stating that “Critics argue the strategy could miss important information that could leave the U.S. vulnerable, including early signs of new variants that are better at outsmarting the vaccines.”18
Even Complete ‘Vaccine’ Coverage Won’t Stop Infections
July 14, 2021, BBC News reported19 100 fully injected crewmembers had tested positive onboard the British Defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. It’s unclear whether any of them actually have symptoms. According to British defense secretary Ben Wallace, mitigation efforts include mask wearing, social distancing and a track and trace system. He made no mention of actual treatment for acute infection.
Other warships are also reporting onboard outbreaks, although Wallace did not offer any details about them. The fleet is currently in the Indian Ocean and plans to continue the 28-week deployment, with Japan as their destination. BBC News said the queen and prime minister had been onboard the flagship shortly before it sailed.
This case offers a sobering view into the effectiveness of these gene modifying shots, as the HMS Queen Elizabeth now has a case rate of 1 in 1620 — the highest case rate recorded so far, that I know of. Yet 100% of the crew has been double-injected. This tells you that the vaccine-induced herd immunity narrative is a fairytale. These injections apparently cannot prevent COVID-19 even if 100% of a given population gets them!
Israeli Data Indicate Pfizer ‘Vaccine’ Failure
Data from Israel also offer a dismal view of COVID-19 injections. Israel used Pfizer’s mRNA injection exclusively, so this gives us a good idea of its effectiveness. Overall, it looks like an abysmal failure, as a majority of serious cases and deaths are now occurring among those injected with two doses. The following is a screenshot of graphs posted on Twitter.21
The red is unvaccinated, yellow refers to partially “vaccinated” and green fully “vaccinated” with two doses. The charts speak for themselves.
Overall, it doesn’t appear as though COVID-19 gene modification injections have the ability to effectively eliminate COVID-19 outbreaks, and this makes sense, seeing how it’s mathematically impossible for them to do so.
The four available COVID shots in the U.S. provide an absolute risk reduction between just 0.7% and 1.3%.22,23 (Efficacy rates of 67% to 95% all refer to the relative risk reduction.) Meanwhile, the noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio across age groups is a mere 0.26%.24 Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact.
CDC Tries to Hide COVID Jab Death Toll
They can, however, cause unnecessary deaths among otherwise healthy individuals. Tragically, the CDC is doing everything it can to hide just how great that death toll is. In what appears to be a deliberate attempt at deception, the CDC “rolled back” its July 19, 2021, adverse events report to statistics from the previous week. I’ll explain. Take note of the specific dates and death totals in each of the following excerpts. The July 13 report reads as follows:25
“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 12, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”
The original July 19 report (saved on Wayback) initially read as follows:26
“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 12,313 reports of death (0.0036%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”
Please note, the death toll more than doubled in a single week. That original July 19 report was then changed to this. The date on the report is still July 19:27
“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 13, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”
At a time when accuracy and transparency is of such critical importance for informed consent, it’s beyond shocking to see the CDC engage in this kind of deception. Yet here we are. We’re now living in a world where crucial public health data is being manipulated at every turn. For this reason, looking at larger trends such as those reviewed above may offer a more dependable picture of what the real-world consequences of these shots are.
- 1, 2 The Yorkshire Post July 9, 2021
- 3 PBS Our World in Data, Daily confirmed cases
- 4 Twitter Robert Malone July 16, 2021
- 5, 20 Twitter Thread Reader July 16, 2021
- 6 MSN July 14, 2021
- 7 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020
- 8 Jon Rappoport’s Blog November 6, 2020
- 9 YouTube TWiV 641 July 16, 2020
- 10 Clinical Infectious Diseases September 28, 2020; ciaa1491
- 11 European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases April 27, 2020; 39: 1059-1061
- 12 CDC.gov, Interpretive Summary for July 16, 2021, Hospitalizations
- 13, 14 STAT News July 12, 2021
- 15 CDC COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigations and Reporting
- 16 Harvard Health June 3, 2021
- 17 Business Insider July 3, 2021
- 18 NPR June 2, 2021
- 19 BBC News July 14, 2021
- 21 Twitter Alex Berenson July 18, 2021
- 22 Medicina 2021; 57: 199
- 23 The Lancet Microbe July 1, 2021; 2(7): E279-E280
- 24 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
- 25 Wayback CDC Reported Adverse Events July 13, 2021
- 26 Wayback CDC Reported Adverse Events July 19, 2021
- 27 CDC Reported Adverse Events July 19, 2021, Now altered
Reproduced from original article:
- Data presented to the Israeli Health Ministry July 17, 2021, revealed that, of the more than 7,700 COVID-19 cases reported since May 2021, only 72 occurred in people who had previously had COVID-19 — a rate of less than 1%
- In contrast, more than 3,000 cases — or approximately 40% — occurred in people who had received a COVID-19 vaccine
- In other words, those who were vaccinated were nearly 700% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those who had natural immunity from a prior infection — and this is largely in response to the Delta variant, which has led to increasing infections in Israel
- It’s extremely rare to get reinfected by COVID-19 after you’ve already had the disease and recovered; one study found the median reinfection rate was just 0.27%
- With effective treatments available, the documented high survival rate of COVID-19 and knowledge that if you’ve had COVID-19, you’re already likely immune to further infection, the rationale for getting vaccinated is faltering
A recurring theme being broadcast by public health officials and the media is that vaccine-induced immunity is superior to that of natural immunity, but preliminary data from Israel — a country with more than 60% of its population vaccinated against COVID-191 — is showing otherwise.
Data presented to the Israeli Health Ministry July 13, 2021,2 revealed that, of the more than 7,700 COVID-19 cases reported since May 2021, only 72 occurred in people who had previously had COVID-19 — a rate of less than 1%. In contrast, more than 3,000 cases — or approximately 40% — occurred in people who had received a COVID-19 vaccine. As reported by Israeli National News:
“With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.
By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.”
In other words, those who were vaccinated were nearly 700% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those who had natural immunity from a prior infection — and this is largely in response to the Delta variant, which has led to increasing infections in Israel.3
Rate of COVID Reinfection: 0.27%
It’s extremely rare to get reinfected by COVID-19 after you’ve already had the disease and recovered. How rare? Researchers from Ireland conducted a systematic review including 615,777 people who had recovered from COVID-19, with a maximum duration of follow-up of more than 10 months.4
“Reinfection was an uncommon event,” they noted, “… with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time.” The absolute reinfection rate ranged from 0% to 1.1%, while the median reinfection rate was just 0.27%.5,6,7
Another study revealed similarly reassuring results. It followed 43,044 SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive people for up to 35 weeks, and only 0.7% were reinfected. When genome sequencing was applied to estimate population-level risk of reinfection, the risk was estimated at 0.1%.8
Again, there was no indication of waning immunity over seven months of follow-up, with the researchers concluding, “Reinfection is rare. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy >90% for at least seven months.”9
Another study from Israel also had researchers questioning “the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals,” after their analysis showed similar risks of reinfection among those with vaccine-induced or natural immunity. Specifically, vaccination had an overall estimated efficacy of preventing reinfection of 92.8%, compared to 94.8% for natural immunity acquired via prior infection.10
Why Natural Immunity Is Superior
Speaking with journalist Daniel Horowitz, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explained that natural immunity produces broad immunity that can’t be matched by vaccination:11
“A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike. Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again.
Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the ‘marines’ of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still.”
In 2020 it was reported that people who had recovered from SARS-CoV — a virus that is genetically closely related to SARS-CoV-2 and belongs to the same viral species — maintained significant levels of neutralizing antibodies at least 17 years after initial infection.12 This also suggests that long-term natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 should be expected.13
With vaccination, however, Israeli14 data suggest that those who were vaccinated early on, in January 2021, are becoming susceptible to the virus, suggesting its efficacy may wane after about six months.
This sentiment was echoed by Pfizer’s head of medical research and development, Mikael Dolsten, who said “after six months, there may be risk of infection with the expected decline of antibodies.” Pfizer is seeking emergency use authorization for a third booster dose of its COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S.15
According to Cole, part of the reason for waning vaccine-induced immunity is because “we mount an antibody response to only the spike and its constituent proteins” and “as the virus preferentially mutates at the spike, these proteins are shaped differently and antibodies can no longer ‘lock and key’ bind to these new shapes.”16
Natural COVID Immunity May Last a Lifetime
It was initially suggested that natural COVID-19 immunity may be short-lived. This was based on early data on SARS-CoV-2, which found that antibody titers declined rapidly in the first months after recovery from COVID-19. According to a team of researchers from the Washington University School of Medicine, however, if you’ve had COVID-19 — even a mild case — you’re likely to be immune for life, as is the case with recovery from many infectious agents.17
According to senior author of the study Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology and immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, “It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.”18
The researchers found a biphasic pattern of antibody concentrations against SARS-CoV-2, in which high antibody concentrations were found in the acute immune response that occurred at the time of initial infection. The antibodies declined in the first months after infection, as should be expected, then leveled off to about 10% to 20% of the maximum concentration detected.
When a new infection occurs, cells called plasmablasts provide antibodies, but when the virus is cleared, longer lasting memory B cells move in to monitor blood for signs of reinfection.19 Bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) also exist in bones, acting as “persistent and essential sources of protective antibodies.”20 Ellebedy even said the protection provided by naturally acquired immunity is likely to continue “indefinitely”:21
“These [BMPC] cells are not dividing. They are quiescent, just sitting in the bone marrow and secreting antibodies. They have been doing that ever since the infection resolved, and they will continue doing that indefinitely.”
In another explanation of why antibody levels drop after initial infection — but it’s not an indication of waning immunity — Cole told Horowitz:22
“Yes, our antibody levels drop over time, however, scientifically, the memory B cells that make antibodies have been proven to be present in our lymph nodes and bone marrow. They are primed and ready to produce a broad array of antibodies upon viral pre-exposure.
It would be physiologically, energetically impossible to maintain high antibody levels to all the pathogens we are constantly exposed to, and we would look like the ‘swollen Stay-Puft marshmallow man’ of lymph nodes, constantly, if the immune system were required to do that.”
Why Are Natural Immunity, Early Treatment Protocols Censored?
Dr. Peter McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist and full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. He also has a master’s degree in public health and is known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the U.S. and is the editor of two medical journals.
In our recent interview, he discussed the importance of early treatment for COVID-19, and the potential motivations behind the suppression of safe and effective treatments. He also told Horowitz, “[T]here has never been a confirmed second [COVID-19] infection beyond 90 days with similar or worse cardinal symptoms and confirmed PCR/Antigen/Sequencing test.”23
In August 2020, McCullough’s landmark paper “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection” was published online in the American Journal of Medicine.24 The follow-up paper, titled “Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19),” was published in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in December 2020.25
While early treatment options were available when the pandemic began, patients were simply told to stay home and do nothing, until the infection had progressed to the point where they were having trouble breathing. Once at the hospital, COVID patients were routinely placed on mechanical ventilation — a practice that was quickly discovered to be lethal.
But McCullough has been an outspoken advocate for early treatment for COVID, as have other pioneering doctors like those behind the MATH+ protocol. He believes the end goal in suppressing early treatment was to secure the rollout of a mass vaccination campaign.
Indeed, effective treatments like ivermectin — a broad-spectrum antiparasitic that also has anti-inflammatory activity — have shown remarkable success in preventing and treating COVID-19,26 but they continue to be ignored in favor of more expensive, and less effective, treatments and mass experimental vaccination.27
At this point, however, with effective treatments available, the documented high survival rate of COVID-1928 and knowledge that if you’ve had COVID-19, you’re already likely immune to further infection, the rationale for getting vaccinated is faltering. Even the Delta variant has a very low 0.2% case fatality rate in the U.K., which drops to 0.03% in those under 50.29
Natural Infection Will ‘Burn Out All Variants’
If you choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine, you’re participating in an unprecedented experiment with an unapproved gene therapy, of which the benefits may not outweigh the risks, especially if you’ve already had COVID-19 and are already likely immune.
As noted by Horowitz, “Natural infection is the only phenomena that will ultimately burn out all variants, and the entire focus should be on getting seniors and other vulnerable people early treatment the minute they feel symptoms and even a prophylactic regimen of ivermectin … when appropriate.”30
Meanwhile, McCullough pointed out that by getting vaccinated, you’re setting yourself up for a very narrow immunity — much unlike the broad naturally acquired immunity — that could be easily overwhelmed by a more virulent virus. As he said in our interview that I previously mentioned:
“What I know based on the literature right now is there could be a risk given the narrow spectrum of immunologic coverage … There could be such a narrow immunity that more virulent strain could overwhelm it …
The most recent variant is the Delta variant. That’s the weakest of all the variants and the most easily treatable. But if someone, let’s say a nefarious entity created a more virulent virus, it could easily be designed to scoot past a very narrow immunity that hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, will be keyed to with narrow immunity.”
- 1 Reuters, COVID-19 Tracker, Israel, Vaccination
- 2 Israel National News July 13, 2021
- 3 Reuters July 13, 2021
- 4, 5 Rev Med Virol. 2021;e2260
- 6, 11, 16, 22, 23, 29, 30 The Blaze July 14, 2021
- 7 News Rescue July 15, 2021
- 8, 9 medRxiv January 15, 2021
- 10 medRxiv April 24, 2021
- 12 Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020; 9(1): 900–902
- 13 Nature June 14, 2021
- 14 The Times of Israel July 11, 2021
- 15 Pfizer July 8, 2021
- 17, 20 Nature May 24, 2021
- 18, 21 NewsWise May 24, 2021
- 19 Nature May 26, 2021
- 24 American Journal of Medicine January 2021; 134(1): 16-22
- 25 Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020; 21(4): 517-530
- 26 Collective Evolution April 13, 2021
- 27 Mountain Home May 1, 2021
- 28 NBC 26 October 20, 2020
Reproduced from original article:
by: Edit Lang, staff writer | July 24, 2021
(NaturalHealth365) Ohio-based attorney Thomas Renz made a bombshell announcement at the Re-awaken Tour event held July 17-18 in Anaheim, California. Mr. Renz publicly declared his intention to file a lawsuit against the federal government for covering up the actual number of deaths caused by COVID-19 jabs. On July 19, Mr. Renz filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in Alabama Federal District Court to halt Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) granted to all three – Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson – COVID injections for three groups of Americans.
The lawsuit seeks to stop the emergency use of the jabs for people under 18, anyone with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (people with natural immunity), or anyone who has not received informed consent.
At least 45,000 Americans have died from the COVID jabs, government insider alleges – and that’s only deaths occurring within three days post-jab
Based on a whistleblower’s sworn declaration made under the threat of purgery, the lawsuit alleges that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been grossly under-counting injection-related deaths. The whistleblower, who has access to government computers, can prove that “at least 45,000” Americans have died within three days of receiving one of the three jabs. The whistleblower also stated that around 11 VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) systems report adverse reactions and deaths across the US, and the 45,000 reports of death are coming from only one of them.
Interestingly, a search on the CDC website for COVID injection-related deaths yields vastly different figures. According to the most recent VAERS data, the total number of deaths among people who received the jab is 6,207 – from December 14, 2020, to July 19, 2021.
So which is it, 45,000 or 6,207? How many people died following their COVID shot? Is the government hiding the truth?
Government agency changed the “rules of the game” to inflate case numbers, helped push unlawful EUAs, lawsuit claims
The lawsuit filed on behalf of America’s Frontline Doctors makes multiple serious allegations about the government’s handling of the so-called pandemic. It turns out, the inaccurate reporting of jab-related deaths is only one tragic piece of the puzzle.
The suit points out that since SARS-CoV-2 has an overall global survivability rate of 99.8 percent, which increases to 99.97 percent for people under 70, it is essentially on a par with the seasonal flu. Therefore, with such a low risk of harm, declaring COVID-19 a public health emergency back on December 18, 2020, was illegal because there is no underlying emergency.
So why was the Health and Human Services (DHHS) Secretary’s declaration so critical? Because it served as the necessary legal predicate for the issuance of the EUAs, allowing pharmaceutical companies to skip essential clinical trials and inoculate millions of Americans.
Let’s also recall that the DHHS changed the rules applicable to coroners and other healthcare professionals responsible for producing death certificates by creating a cause of determinations exclusively for COVID-19. The rule change stated: “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”
Inappropriately used PCR tests used to diagnose COVID-19 yield 97 percent false positives, study shows
The infamous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are also highlighted in the lawsuit as a point of controversy. Despite PCR test manufacturers’ disclaimers stating that “[t]he FDA has not determined that the test is safe or effective for the detection of SARS-Co-V-2,” the DHHS authorized its emergency use as a diagnostic tool.
So not only are the tests inappropriate for diagnostic purposes, but the way they have been used guarantees an unacceptably high number of false positives. Most scientists agree that PCR tests run at a CT (Cycle Threshold) value of 35-cycles or greater are useless. In fact, findings of a study funded by the French government showed that even at 35-cycles, the false positivity rate is as high as 97%.
Yet, despite such a well-known fact, most PCR tests for COVID-19 used in the United States are run at 35-45 cycles.
Despite reports of record number of post-jab adverse events, CDC maintains COVID-19 injections are “safe and effective”
One must wonder if the above-stated facts are correct; what else are government health agencies hiding from the public? Can we trust the narrative?
On the CDC’s official page titled Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 vaccination, the agency does a thorough job reassuring the masses that the jab is indeed safe and effective. They claim that reports of jab-related deaths are rare and urge everyone 12 years and older to get jabbed as soon as possible.
But here are some of the severe adverse effects reported following the jab:
- thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome
- Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
All of the above, of course, are deemed rare by the CDC.
So the questions we should all ask are: Is the jab really “safe and effective”? If so, by whose definition? And how did we become so sensitized to accepting such massive numbers of “side effects,” including deaths, as a necessary part of taking an injection to protect against a condition with a 99.9X percent survivability rate?
With so much controversy surrounding the COVID-injections, it’s certainly wise to do your research and make an informed decision about whether taking the jab is worth the risk. In the meantime, we will continue to monitor the lawsuit brought by America’s Frontline Doctors.
Sources for this article include:
Reproduced from original article:
- The scientific discoveries made by Judy Mikovits and Frank Ruscetti showed the blood supply and vaccines have been tainted with disease-causing retroviruses for more than three decades, and the U.S. government has been hiding it the entire time
- The leading cause of death among child-bearing women in the world is HIV/AIDS. Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), which primarily affects women, is basically AIDS without the HIV but with XMRVs and other co-infections like borrelia, babesia, mycoplasma and mold. It’s an acquired endocannabinoid immune dysfunction, and can be traced back to contaminated vaccines, biologicals and blood products that have been used for decades
- According to Mikovits, SARS-CoV-2 is a cloned virus manufactured in a monkey cell line and it is therefore a monkey virus. It’s the result of a bat coronavirus being grown in a Vero monkey kidney cell line known to be contaminated with retroviruses including XMRVs
- Mikovits believes “long-haul COVID” is the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activating endogenous HERVW and recombining with XMRVs, — introduced via vaccinations. Similar recombination occurs with monkey SIVS in HIV-infected individuals
- Those most susceptible to dying from the COVID shots are those who are already coinfected with XMRV, HIV, Borrelia, Babesia and other pathogens commonly acquired from contaminated viral vaccines
In this interview, Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., Frank Ruscetti, Ph.D., and Kent Heckenlively, a lawyer and science teacher, discuss “Ending Plague: A Scholar’s Obligation in an Age of Corruption,” which they co-wrote.
This is the third book in a trilogy that began with “Plague: One Scientist’s Intrepid Search for the Truth About Human Retroviruses and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Autism, and Other Diseases” and “Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science.”
The first two were co-written by Mikovits and Heckenlively. The inspiration for the third book came from Ruscetti, who has been Mikovits’ mentor and professional collaborator for 38 years. As indicated in the subtitle, we won’t be able to end these plagues of scientific and academic corruption unless or until scholars and scientists honor their professional obligations and responsibilities.
“That’s the point of the book, and we wouldn’t have this mess if people like Tony [Anthony] Fauci and Bob [Robert] Gallo didn’t get away with this thin playbook for things like Ebola, Zika and the autism epidemic, all the way back to HIV/AIDS,” Mikovits says.
Selling Out Public Health for Profit
“Plague” and “Plague of Corruption” detail the scientific discoveries made by Mikovits and Ruscetti, which include the scandalous findings that the blood supply and vaccines are tainted with disease-causing retroviruses, and the U.S. government has been hiding it for decades. The books read like fast-paced thrillers and offer a view into the halls of scientific inquiry, to which few people ever are privy.
Book No. 3, “Ending Plague,” is primarily Ruscetti’s story. By 1983, when Ruscetti hired Mikovits as a lab tech at Fort Detrick, he’d recently discovered T cell growth factor, later renamed interleukin 2. He’d also discovered the first disease-causing human retrovirus, called human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV-11) or human T cell leukemia virus, back in 1980. The book starts with Ruscetti’s story and perspective.
“The motivation for writing the book is not something new,” Ruscetti says, “and unless we change the fortunes of every man, it’s just going to get worse. [During] the AIDS epidemic, we were at an impasse. What most people don’t realize is that it shouldn’t have been at an impasse then, because if you look at the rest of the world, the No. 1 cause of death among women of child bearing age is HIV.2”
That’s a rather extraordinary statement. The leading cause of death among child-bearing women in the world is HIV/AIDS, but do you ever hear anything about that?3 If not, why do you think that is? In short, health agencies have done a terrible job over the last several decades, selling out public health for profit. As noted by Heckenlively:
“Public health has not been serving us well for the past 40 or 50 years. What I think is really extraordinary about Frank’s story is he really details how science has gone wrong. We like to think of science as this democracy of experts: top people in their field discussing how the science should move forward. But public health is not like that.
Starting in the 1970s with Nixon’s war on cancer, which accelerated under Reagan, these ‘czars’ of science were created. Tony Fauci is one of them. And then they demoted the other scientists to be like serfs. We don’t really have that many ‘government scientists.’ We have a lot of scientists under contract with the federal government, and this has really set up a system where people like Tony Fauci essentially control public health.
I think if people understood that the system itself is set up so that relatively few people are in charge, then all of this makes more sense. So, when they talk about in the media ‘science is deciding this,’ ‘science is deciding that,’ it’s really not.
It’s just a relatively small handful of people, almost like a holy bureau of science, and that’s what we’re attacking. What we’re trying to do is, we’re trying to move science back to its original roots in which everybody who is qualified has a voice and can contribute to the discussion.”
Too Much Power in Too Few Hands
Fauci has been the head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984. In the 37 years since, he’s been responsible for doling out research funding that amounts to nearly $1 trillion. Who has received those taxpayer dollars? Primarily those who are aligned with the drug industry. It’s become an incestuous relationship that revolves around the creation of profit, while the public receives virtually no benefit.
In fact, in many cases, public health has suffered tremendously, and people have no concept of what has happened, or how their ill health is the outgrowth of corrupted policies and conflicts of interest. Heckenlively says:
“The comparison I make is that Fauci has been head of National Institute for Allergy and infectious Diseases longer than J. Edgar Hoover was head of the FBI. [Editor’s note: Actually, Hoover was head of the FBI for 48 years, from 1924 to 19724] Whether you’re right, left or middle, nobody believes that anybody should hold that kind of power for that long.
In fact, having that kind of power in and of itself is a really bad idea. I think [Fauci] really is a terrible person because not only has he been in charge of this system, he helped design this system. We need to get rid of Fauci and keep the next Fauci from taking power.”
Importantly, Fauci and Big Pharma not only control the funding of research, they also control what gets published and what’s buried. Fauci is the reason you’ve not heard about HIV/AIDS being a leading cause of death among women of childbearing age, worldwide. This statistic is censored, just like facts about COVID-19 treatment and COVID shots are censored.
As explained by Mikovits, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), which primarily affects women, is basically AIDS without the HIV. It’s an immune dysfunction, and it can be traced back to contaminated vaccines, biologics and blood supply that have been used for decades.
As detailed in “Plague,” Fauci was a key figure in covering up the true cause of AIDS, which was incorrectly blamed on homosexuals and drug addicts. By fraudulently changing the definition of the disease and denying the presence of exogenous viruses, so-called xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related viruses or XMRVs, they prevented women from getting correct care. Mikovits explains:
“The definition was ‘Only HIV can cause AIDS,’ and we’re looking at the same thing right now. There never was a SARS-CoV-2 monkey virus in hundreds of millions of people. They’re being transmitted through the [COVID] vaccine, and through recombinants it can happen in only two weeks.”
SARS-CoV-2 Is a Cloned Monkey Virus
New York-based physician Dr. Andy Kaufman claims the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been identified. According to Mikovits, he is dead-wrong. SARS-CoV-2 is a cloned monkey virus, manufactured in the Vero monkey kidney cell line and isolated only from that cell line, not from humans with COVID, she says.
The original bat coronavirus was grown in a Vero monkey kidney cell line known to be contaminated with retroviruses and coronaviruses that easily recombine every time the vaccines are manufactured in 100-liter productions.
Mikovits conducted experiments on bat tissue Ebola cultures in the same line of cells in the mid ‘90s, trying to understand how these viruses cause disease. What she discovered was that it’s not the infection that kills. It’s the inflammatory side effects and the dysregulation of the innate immune response that end up being lethal, and the virus causes this in part by shutting down the interferon pathways. Heckenlively explains:
“What Judy is saying is that when you mix these viruses in different cultures, you will get genetic sequences from the culture cells. The thing that our books really talk about is how dangerous this common practice is — taking, for example, a human virus that you isolate, and then grow it in animal cultures.
What a lot of people don’t realize is that viruses are not like other living organisms. They’re very promiscuous in their swapping of genetic codes. In April or May of 2020, [people said] ‘This bat virus seems to have some HIV spike proteins and sequence.’ How is it that you got monkey sequences in a bat virus?
Our contention is that this common practice of growing viruses in different animal cultures, including human cultures, is creating these Frankenstein viruses which will have genetic sequences from the mediums in which they’re grown …
The belief in the ‘80s was that the HIV virus is hiding out in the T cells, which made absolutely no sense. It is true that as the disease progresses, the T cells would absolutely be taken out. That was an indicator of the infection, but what Judy and Frank were saying is that the HIV virus can’t be hiding out in the T cells, especially because you got the development of AIDS dementia, and the T cells, are not [found] in the brain.
Judy’s seminal work with Frank was finding the actual reservoir in which the HIV virus lived, which was the mono site macrophages. If I understand Andy Kaufman’s claims, I think he’s throwing out the baby with the bath water. Judy is showing how the virus cause damage and how the establishment is wrong, and how some of these alternative people are missing part of the argument as well.”
SARS-CoV-2 Was Spread by Injection
Mikovits makes a number of shocking assertions in this interview. Among them, that SARS-CoV-2 was spread through the regular use of vaccines that had been contaminated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus because of manufacturing practices.
The monkey kidney cell lines that were used to manufacture many vaccines were contaminated with bat coronavirus and shipped around the world. Those vaccines were then injected into humans, called transfection. Their cells then began replicating what we now understand as the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
“They absolutely isolated a SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Mikovits says. “But there is not definitive-anything showing [that it] satisfies either Koch’s postulates or Hill criteria, which we did with the XMRVs, meaning the virus, in my opinion, is still a monkey virus that was spread via injection.”
In other words, while there is a virus named SARS-CoV-2, no one has proven that this viral isolate actually ever transmitted between humans or causes COVID-19. Her assertion is that SARS-CoV-2 is a monkey virus that is an artifact of culturing a bat coronavirus in Vero monkey kidney cell cultures that, for years, have been contaminated with XMRVs.
To prove SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19, you have to extract the virus from a person who has COVID-19, and infect another person with that virus. If the exposed individual gets COVID-19, then the virus would be the causative factor.
We know most individuals have been exposed to people with COVID-19, yet they do not develop COVID-19. This suggests that SARS-Co-V-2 is not the sole causative factor.
How the COVID Shots Produce Variants
Mikovits also believes the COVID jabs add to the pandemic by producing variants through a process called transfection. When a clone of an infectious viral sequence is injected in a synthetic viral particle called a lipid nanoparticle, it is not an infectious transmissible virus particle. Instead, the host cells’ machinery starts replicating the inoculated sequences or expressing the spike proteins.
In the case of the COVID jabs, your cells are producing the spike protein of the virus only, which is actually the pathogenic part of the virus. The spike protein is what’s causing the disease. Put another way, COVID-19 is not a viral infection. It’s caused by a metabolic toxin, namely the spike protein. This viral particle, in and of itself, functions like a synthetic virus.
The spike protein is synthetic because the mRNA injected has been genetically modified. The mRNA is not infectious or transmissible, but when injected, your body starts to make this synthetic spike protein that operates like a virus, and can be transmitted to other people. Heckenlively explains:
“Virologists say you need a complete virus to do harm. What Judy has [found] is that defective viruses can cause harm as well. If you think of a virus as a code, like a computer program, if you have a couple bad lines of code, that can still cause problems in your computer as well.
What Judy is saying is that viruses are dangerous in ways that are not fully appreciated by science. You don’t have to have a complete virus in order to do harm. You can do sequences of the virus that they would call defective or garbage pieces, and it can still cause enormous harm, because those parts of the virus, such as the envelope, are affecting the function of your immune system.”
According to Mikovits, 8% of the human genome consists of endogenous viruses that include retroviral envelopes that are critical to the regulation of our innate immune responses, our critical type 1 interferon. Some perform very important functions, including regulatory roles.
However, you cannot express animal or other human endogenous viruses without risking recombinants and new viruses. Hence, when vaccines are contaminated with animal retroviruses, you risk creating brand new viruses that can cause all sorts of harm.
What Is the Hidden Agenda?
In summary, Mikovits and Ruscetti’s work demonstrates an important principle, which is that viruses do not travel alone. They travel in groups, and while one may affect one part of the immune system, another type will produce other immune responses. The end result is what we diagnose as the acquired immune dysfunction or deficiency.
For example, HIV alone does not cause AIDS. To develop AIDS, you need multiple environmental toxins like glyphosate, aluminum or a coinfection of HIV and XMRVs. Again, XMRVs are found in vaccines that have been grown in animal tissue.
The XMRVs cripple your innate immune system, including your natural killer (NK) cells. This then allows the HIV to take out your adaptive immune system, the T and B cells, resulting in disease progression and if left untreated, death. In CFS, the primary coinfection is that of XMRVs and herpes viruses.
Mikovits is convinced that what is now being called “long-haul COVID” is the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activating and recombining with XMRVs — introduced via vaccinations — and the HIV virus. She also believes those who are most susceptible to dying from the COVID shots are those who are already coinfected with XMRV, HIV, Borrelia, Babesia and other pathogens commonly acquired from contaminated vaccines.
What this all means, then, is that in order to protect yourself against the disease, you cannot focus on protecting yourself against a single virus. The answer is to make sure your immune system is strong enough to take on whatever it encounters. Absolutely never get another inoculation of any vaccines until all of the appropriate testing is done and the contaminants removed, as they should have been decades ago.
That’s why the pandemic measures have been so detrimental. Mask wearing, sheltering indoors and staying in a state of perpetual fear all dampen your immune function. The question is, why did those in charge make sure they did everything to lower our immune defenses?
“For me personally, it is the best evidence that this was not simply a series of mistakes by those in charge,” Heckenlively says. “There had to be some other agenda. I’m trained as an attorney. I have people lie to me all the time. I’m always questioning people and I look at what’s done. Can I prove it? No, but it seems like an amazing pattern of mistakes to just be the result of stupidity or politics.”
What do we know about the people who have died from COVID-19? We know they’re elderly. We know that they have 2.6 comorbidities. What Mikovits, Ruscetti and Heckenlively are saying is that for the past 60 years, we’ve been injecting animal viruses into human beings, and the assertion made in “Plague of Corruption” is that this practice has caused many of these chronic diseases in people.
This reality has been covered up, however, which is why many are now hearing about this for the very first time. Along comes SARS-CoV-2, triggering terrible immune system reactions in those who are already infected with these animal viruses.
The coinfections are ultimately what’s killing them. Essentially, SARS-CoV-2 is acting like the executioner of people who are already sick with chronic diseases caused by animal retroviruses, other pathogens and toxins introduced through vaccinations.
Add to this the COVID shots. These injections make your cells produce a synthetic spike protein (a synthetic virus envelope) that has pathological effects. The reason why the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is so dangerous is because it contains the envelope proteins of three of the most harmful viruses: the HIV family, the XMRV family and the SARS family of viruses.
All of them are now rolled into one, and the instructions to produce this synthetic pathogen are now being injected into hundreds of millions of people. What can go wrong? As explained by Mikovits, the XMRVs and HIV were incorporated by growing the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the Vero E6 cell line.
Related to HIV is the simian immune deficiency virus (SIV), and it too is found in the Vero monkey cell line, part of the endogenous viral genome of monkeys. SIV and HIV have overlapping envelope proteins, so they produce the same inflammatory immune response.
“Ending Plague” goes deep into the history of all this and provides a framework for understanding how something so devastating and disruptive could happen now, in 2021. The basis of this has a lot to do with the actions of Fauci and Robert Gallo, Ph.D. Fauci, for example, was responsible for discrediting all AIDS treatments other than AZT — the drug that he sponsored.
He kept insisting that more randomized controlled trials were needed, yet he held the purse strings and refused to fund the very studies he claimed were required to prove these other treatments. AZT meanwhile, cost $5 to make and was sold for $10,000 per dose. AZT wound up killing some 330,000 people due to its toxicity.
The very same pattern is playing out today with COVID-19, and Fauci is again playing a lead role. Is that really a coincidence? He’s been warning against the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and he’s downplayed the importance of vitamin D sufficiency and any number of other things. According to Fauci, the COVID “vaccine” is the only way forward, and now we’re seeing thousands of people around the world dying within weeks of their injections.
In “Ending Plague,” the three coauthors review how we can reform public health to get us out of this mess, once and for all. “I think that the scholar’s obligation in an age of corruption is to tell the truth and make the world a better place,” Heckenlively says, adding:
“These books that I helped Judy, Frank and others put together, these are really stories of defectors from science. In them we see the destruction of the old order and the creation of something new and wonderful.
We’re not just saying things are terrible. We are talking about how to bring about change. That’s why it’s so important that people buy these books because, I hate to say it, sales are power for people like Judy, Frank and me, to continue our message.”
Reproduced from original article:
- Hundreds of patents show SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus that has been tinkered with for decades. Much of the research was funded by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci, and may have been an outgrowth of attempts to develop an HIV vaccine
- In 1999, Fauci funded research at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to create “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. This appears to be the virus that became known as SARS-CoV
- U.S. Patent 7279327 shows we knew the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, the S-1 spike protein, and other elements of SARS-CoV-2 were engineered and could be synthetically modified using gene sequencing technologies
- The CDC holds patents to a SARS coronavirus that is 89% to 99% identical to the sequence identified as SARS-CoV-2, as well as the PCR test to diagnose it
- 120 patents detail supposed “unique” features of SARS-CoV-2: the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein and the ACE2 binding, proving it’s not a novel virus at all
In a January 2021 lecture, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., introduced the term “the pandemic virus industrial complex,” to describe the academic, military and commercial complexes that are driving the pandemic agenda and obscuring facts that indicate SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus.
In the video above, David E. Martin, Ph.D., introduces shocking evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is indeed a manmade bioweapon, and has been in the works for decades. Much of this research was funded by none other than the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Pandemic virus industrial complex indeed! You do not want to miss this bombshell interview, conducted by Reiner Fuellmich,1 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee2,3 (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss or ACU4). A transcript5 is available if you prefer to read it.
SARS-CoV-2 Is Not a Novel Coronavirus at All
Martin has been in the business of tracking patent applications and approvals since 1998. His company, M-Cam International Innovation Risk Management, is the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. M-Cam has also monitored biological and chemical weapons treaty violations on behalf of the U.S. government, following the anthrax scare in September 2001.
According to Martin, there are more than 4,000 patents relating to the SARS coronavirus. His company has also done a comprehensive review of the financing of research involving the manipulation of coronaviruses that gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the beta coronavirus family.
In his testimony to ACU, he reviews some of the most pertinent patents, showing SARS-CoV-2 is not a novel coronavirus at all but, rather, a manmade virus that has been in the works for decades.
A comprehensive list of 120 patents relating to SARS-CoV-2-associated features can be found here.6 The features patented are referenced in two key scientific papers, “A Novel Bat Coronavirus Reveals Natural Insertions at the S1/S2 2 Cleavage Site of the Spike Protein and a Possible Recombinant 3 Origin of HCoV-19,” and “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.”
On that list, we see numerous patents detailing manipulation of the polybasic cleavage site for SARS-CoV, the spike protein, as well as ACE2 binding, all three of which are supposed to be unique features of SARS-CoV-2. As explained by Martin:
“We took the reported gene sequence, which was reportedly isolated as a novel virus, indicated as such by the ICTV, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses of the World Health Organization. We took the actual genetic sequences that were reportedly novel and reviewed those against the patent records that were available as of the spring of 2020.
And what we found, as you’ll see in this report, are over 120 patented pieces of evidence, to suggest that the declaration of a ‘novel coronavirus’ was actually entirely a fallacy.
There was no novel coronavirus. There are countless, very subtle modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded, but there was no single identified ‘novel coronavirus’ at all.
As a matter of fact, we found records in the patent records, of sequences attributed to novelty, going to patents that were sought as early as 1999. So not only was this not a novel anything … it’s not been novel for over two decades.”
Spike Protein Vaccine for Coronavirus Patented 22 Years Ago
Up until 1999, coronavirus patents were all in the veterinary sciences. The first coronavirus vaccine to use the S spike protein was patented by Pfizer in January 2000 (Patent No. 6372224). It was a spike protein virus vaccine for canine coronavirus. You can look up the actual patents for yourself on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s website,7 if you like.
“Ralph Baric’s work on … rabbit cardiomyopathy … and then canine coronavirus in Pfizer’s work, to identify how to develop S spike protein vaccine target candidates, [give] rise to the obvious evidence that …
… neither the coronavirus concept of a vaccine, nor the principle of the coronavirus itself, as a pathogen of interest with respect to the spike proteins behavior, is anything novel at all. As a matter of fact, it’s 22 years old based on patent filings,” Martin says.
From HIV Vaccine Development to COVID-19
According to Martin, Fauci and the NIAID “found the malleability of coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines,” and in 1999, Fauci funded research at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (where Baric has a lab) to create “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifically targeted for human lung epithelium.
The patent for that replication-defective coronavirus that attacks human lung cells was filed April 19, 2002 (Patent No. 7279327). “In other words, we made SARS,” Martin says. Or perhaps more accurately, Fauci and UNC did. Several months after that patent filing, the SARS outbreak in Asia occurred.
“That patent, issued as U.S. Patent 7279327 … clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing, the fact that we knew that the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, the S-1 spike protein, and other elements of what we have come to know as this scourge pathogen, was not only engineered, but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory using nothing more than gene sequencing technologies.
Taking computer code and turning it into a pathogen, or an intermediate of the pathogen, and that technology was funded exclusively, in the early days, as a means by which we could harness coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine.”
Coronavirus — A Biological Weapon Candidate Since 2001?
As mentioned, Martin has monitored biological and chemical treaty violations since 2001, following the anthrax attacks. Throughout the fall of 2001, an “enormous number” of bacterial and viral pathogens were patented through the National Institutes of Health, the NIAID, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and their international collaborators.
“Our concern was that coronavirus was being seen as not only a potential manipulatable agent for potential use as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate,” Martin says.
Before the SARS outbreak in China, Martin reported these concerns publicly. “So, you can imagine how disappointed I am to be sitting here … having 20 years earlier pointed that there was a problem looming on the horizon with respect to coronavirus,” he says.
CDC Holds Patents on SARS Coronavirus
In April 2003, after the SARS outbreak in China had occurred, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tried to file a patent for the entire gene sequence for the SARS coronavirus (Patent No. 7220852). This is a violation of 35 U.S. Code Section 101, which states you cannot patent a naturally-occurring substance.
That CDC patent also had several derivative patents associated with it, including U.S. patent 46592703P and U.S. patent 7776521. These two patents cover the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus and the means for detecting it using RT PCR testing.
Together, these patents are highly problematic, because if you own both, then “you have a cunning advantage to being able to control 100% of the provenance of not only the virus itself, but also its detection, meaning you have entire scientific and message control,” Martin explains.
The CDC tried to justify the patent by saying they were being sought in order to ensure that everyone would be free to research coronaviruses. However, that is a lie, Martin says. The U.S. patent office rejected the patent on the gene sequence as unpatentable because it was 99.9% identical to a coronavirus that was already in the public domain.
The CDC paid an appeal fine in 2006 and again in 2007. They also paid an additional fee to keep the application private. In the end, the CDC overrode the patent examiner’s rejection and secured the patent in 2007.
“Last time I checked, if you’re trying to make information available for the public research, you would not pay a fee to keep the information private,” Martin says. According to Martin, the gene sequence filed by the CDC in 2003, 2005 and 2006 is 89% to 99% identical to the sequence identified as SARS-CoV-2.
April 28, 2003 — three days after the CDC filed its patent for the SARS coronavirus — Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed a patent on an antiviral agent for the treatment and control of infectious coronavirus (Patent No. 7151163). So, the CDC files a patent on SARS coronavirus, and three days later there’s a treatment?
This strongly suggests there was a working relationship behind the scenes. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, founded in 2002, develops antiviral therapeutics with a special focus on drug-resistant viruses.8 Its lead investors include the Wellcome Trust.
But there’s yet another problem with Sequoia’s 2003 filing for an antiviral agent. It was actually issued and published before the CDC patent on SARS coronavirus had been granted, which didn’t happen until 2007, and the CDC had paid to keep the application private.
“So, the degree to which the information could have been known by any means other than insider information between those parties is zero,” Martin says. “It is not physically possible for you to patent a thing that treats a thing that had not been published, because CDC had paid to keep it secret.
This, my friends, is the definition of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion. This is not a theory, this is evidence. You cannot have information in the future, and form a treatment for a thing that did not exist. It is a RICO case …
And the RICO pattern, which was established in April of 2003 for the first coronavirus, was played out to exactly the same schedule when we see SARS COV-2 show up, when we have Moderna getting the spike protein sequence by phone from the vaccine research center at NIAID, prior to the definition of the novel subclade. How do you treat a thing, before you actually have the thing?”
Sanofi Holds Patents to Novel Feature of SARS-CoV-2
The next bombshell revelation occurred on June 5, 2008, when Ablynx, now a part of Sanofi, filed a series of patents detailing what we’ve been told are novel features of SARS-CoV-2, namely the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein and the ACE2 receptor binding domain. The first of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 9193780, was issued November 24, 2015.
Between 2016 and 2019, a series of patents were issued to Ablynx and Sanofi covering the RNA strands and the subcomponents of the gene strands.
Between 2008 and 2017, a series of patents were also filed by a long list of players, including Crucell, Rubeus Therapeutics, Children’s Medical Corporation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong and the Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai.
This series of patents detail ever single attribute that is supposed to be unique to SARS-CoV-2, according to the paper, “A Novel Bat Coronavirus Reveals Natural Insertions at the S1/S2 2 Cleavage Site of the Spike Protein and a Possible Recombinant 3 Origin of HCoV-19.”
This paper has routinely been used to identify the so-called novel coronavirus that is SARS-CoV-2. Yet there are 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, that describe the very elements that are said to be unique to SARS-CoV-2. Patents have been filed for SARS-CoV-2’s polybasic cleavage site, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, and the spike protein.
“So, there was no ‘outbreak’ of SARS, because we had engineered all of the elements of that,” Martin says. And by 2016, when Baric published a paper warning that SARS coronavirus was “poised for human emergence,” the virus in question had already been patented for commercial exploitation 73 times!
The Pandemic Virus Industrial Complex Is Swimming in Profit
Baric is one of the few people who has profited significantly from this pandemic, which he appears to have been part of creating. Another is Fauci. The same drug companies that hold patents on not-so-novel SARS-CoV-2 features are also raking in profits from their COVID shots.
In 2015, Dr. Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance that funneled research dollars from the NIAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for coronavirus research, who has promoted the official narrative that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin, stated:9
“We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”
Sounds an awful lot like what we’re facing right now, doesn’t it? At the end of the day, this pandemic has primarily been about profit and the shifting of wealth, from the lower- and middle-classes to the already ultra-wealthy. This is a war on the public, waged using biological weapons and information warfare, with the ultimate goal of “resetting” life and commerce as we know it.
Intentional Weaponization of Spike Protein
“There wasn’t a lab leak. This was an intentional bio-weaponization of spike proteins to inject into people, to get them addicted to a pan-coronavirus vaccine. This has nothing to do with a pathogen that was released, and every study that’s ever been launched to try to verify a lab leak, is a red herring.
[There are] 73 patents on everything clinically novel — 73, all issued before 2019. And I’m going to give you the biggest bombshell of all to prove that this was actually not a release of anything, because Patent No. 7279327, the patent on the recombinant nature of that ‘lung-targeting’ coronavirus, was transferred mysteriously from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to the National Institutes of Health in 2018.
Now, here’s the problem with that. Under the Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. government already has what’s called a march-in right provision. That means if the U.S. government has paid for research, they are entitled to benefit from that research at their demand or at their whim.
So, explain why, in 2017 and 2018, suddenly the National Institutes of Health have to take ownership of the patent that they already had rights to, held by the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. And how did they need to file a Certificate of Correction to make sure that it was legally enforceable, because there was a typographical error in the grant reference in the first filing?
They needed to make sure that not only did they get it right, but they needed to make sure every typographical error that was contained in the patent was correct on THE SINGLE PATENT REQUIRED, to develop the Vaccine Research Institute’s mandate, which was shared between the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and Moderna in November of 2019, when UNC Chapel Hill, NIAID and Moderna began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine — a month before an outbreak ever happened.”
‘New Normal’ Coined by Merck at 2004 Bioterrorism Conference
The more we learn, the grimmer it gets. Clearly, plans for our current-day predicament were laid well over a decade ago. According to Martin, the slogan “The New Normal” was coined by Merck during a January 6, 2004, conference called “SARS and Bioterrorism, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Antimicrobial Therapeutics, and Immune Modulators.”
This term has now become a branded campaign adopted by the World Health Organization, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board and the rest of the pandemic virus industrial complex.
Incidentally, Fauci is on the board of directors of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, as is Dr. Chris Elias, president of the Global Development Program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and George Fu Gao, Ph.D., director-general of the Chinese CDC and a Chinese communist party member.10
It’s a long interview, but it does not disappoint. I urge you to take the time to listen to it, as Martin really lays out the timeline of when and how this pandemic virus came to be. He’s also published a 205-page paper11 detailing Fauci’s involvement that you can download from archive.org.
It now seems clearer than ever that everything we’re experiencing was planned and executed with a profit motive in mind. Armed with this new knowledge, I urge you once again to reclaim your life, your freedom and independence, and resist this manufactured notion of a “new normal.” A new normal will surely be established if we persist, but it will be the converse of what the pandemic virus industrial complex is hoping for.
We will resurrect medicine and science from the induced coma these fields are currently in, and usher in a new era of medical freedom, personal liberty, responsible and transparent government, fiscal stability and health care that actually promotes health rather than slow death. It may take a while, but together, we can do it. To get there, keep sharing information such as that provided by Martin in this mind-blowing interview in any way you can. In the end, truth will prevail. Believe it.
- 1 Fuellmich.com, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Bio (German)
- 2 Acu2020.org Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, English
- 3 Algora October 4, 2020
- 4 Acu2020.org Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss
- 5 Google Drive, Transcript of David Martin Interview with ACU (PDF)
- 6 M-cam.com, Patent Literature Review (PDF)
- 7 USPTO.gov
- 8 Crunchbase Sequoia Pharmaceuticals
- 9 Google Drive, Transcript of David Martin Interview with ACU (PDF), Page 7
- 10 Mamm.org September 2, 2020
- 11 Archive.org The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier
Reproduced from original article:
by: Edit Lang, staff writer | July 18, 2021
(NaturalHealth365) With COVID-19 defining so many aspects of our daily lives, it has become remarkable that a large portion of the population lives in constant fear of this “mysterious” virus. Millions feel the need to protect themselves from this invisible enemy by covering their faces, blocking their airways, and being first in line to take the jab. Western medicine has done a tremendous job instilling the current mainstream “theory” of disease and indoctrinating the masses about what’s also known as the “germ” theory.
Another segment of the population thinks very differently about the threat of infection that COVID-19 represents. These are the people who likely go about their days and do not fear exposure to the virus. They trust their immune systems to defend against invaders, and they know that disease can only form if the conditions are right within the body.
Regardless of which camp you belong to, you will not want to miss watching this video (below) – created by Jonathan Landsman – that exposes the reasons for the divide and reveals why some become paralyzed by fear of the same virus that others consider a non-issue. You will be astounded to discover the flawed methods used to show who is truly at risk and who is not.
Questioning the COVID narrative with Dr. Andrew Kaufman
In an exclusive interview, Jonathan Landsman of NaturalHealth365.com and Andrew Kaufman, MD, discuss the surprising (scientific) truth about this pandemic. They reveal the most significant problem associated with the current COVID narrative and the real reason why PCR testing is being misused.
In addition, Dr. Kaufman reveals disturbing truths about masks, but in the end, he leaves all of us with a positive message about how we can protect our health naturally.
Let’s talk about germ and terrain theory
Check out the first 15 minutes of the interview when Dr. Kaufman gives a detailed explanation about the difference between germ theory and terrain theory. In the context of COVID, supporters of the germ theory believe that pathogens, such as the virus that causes COVID-19, can lead to disease by invading us and reproducing in our bodies. Therefore, people looking at COVID this way feel that protecting against exposure to the virus is crucially important.
Germ theory focuses on the idea that disease from germs can strike anyone at any time and does not take our immune system into consideration. Thus, the most critical aspect of germ theory is to kill germs and protect against them.
Contrast that with the “terrain” theory, which believes that germs cannot cause infections unless the environment within the body allows it. If you are unhealthy, you may be creating a feeding ground for the growth of pathogens – including SARS-CoV-2. At the same time, if your body is healthy, germs will be less likely to take up residence and cause illness.
Dr. Kaufman points out that although the term terrain theory may sound foreign to many people, we have all heard of gut bacteria, which is essentially synonymous with the concept of “terrain.”
Watch the video here: rumble.com
“COVID case” DECEPTION: Health authorities used multiple ways to mislead the public and inflate COVID case numbers
The discussion revealed the various ways health authorities manipulated the numbers to inflate the figures of so-called COVID cases. Dr. Kaufman believes that the way health authorities created the definition of a “COVID case” had nothing to do with science; instead, they intended to create the appearance of something scary, to exaggerate and create fear.
What about the PCR test?
Have you ever been asked to take a PCR test for work or travel? It turns out; the PCR test is more controversial and less helpful than most people think – particularly when it comes to diagnosing COVID-19. Some of what you will learn from Dr. Kaufman will blow your mind.
For instance, most people are unaware that diagnostic tools are generally subject to rigorous validation and that the PCR test has NEVER been validated.
Another fact that will shock you is that SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated. If that’s the case, how could you test for it? Even the inventor of the PCR test stated that the test should not be used as a diagnostic tool.
The PCR test is essentially “a research tool to detect sequences of genetic material” present in such small amounts that you can’t do anything with it. Additionally, similar to the COVID shots, the PCR tests are not FDA-approved; they are under emergency authorization. If you think that’s not that bad, think again and listen to Dr. Kaufman’s assessment of the PCR tests.
UNMASKING the science behind mask-wearing and COVID-19
According to Dr. Kaufman, the point of promoting face masks as a way to protect against respiratory viruses has nothing to do with science. Instead, it is to limit social interaction between humans, train the younger generation to be afraid of each other, create a different norm of socialization, and even reduce fertility.
And in case you are still wondering if there is any benefit to wearing masks to defend against COVID-19, there is no credible science on masks to support their use; in fact, most studies confirm that masks are useless or downright dangerous.
Here are the show notes to give you a better idea of everything you will learn by watching this video:
- Let’s talk about germ vs. terrain theory
- Does 2020 data reveal a “Pandemic RISE” in deaths?
- What is the greatest problem w/ the COVID-19 narrative?
- Why is the PCR Test flawed for diagnosing disease?
- Can a mask really protect us from disease?
- How to explain these “similar symptoms” reports?
- Talk about ways to AVOID respiratory damage
But don’t take our word for any of this. Do your own research – just be sure to use credible sources. Use your common sense, and do not allow fear to motivate your health decisions.
Sources used for this article:
Reproduced from original article:
by: Sara Middleton, staff writer | July 22, 2021
(NaturalHealth365) Neurological conditions like Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) are not unheard of following injections, nor following natural infections with certain pathogens, for that matter. So, it’s heartbreaking, but not entirely surprising, that dozens of people have developed GBS after getting the COVID injection created by Johnson & Johnson (yes, the same pharmaceutical company that just recalled several of its sunscreens due to the presence of a cancer-causing chemical in them called benzene).
The findings are so telling that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently added GBS as a potential adverse effect of the J&J jab. What exactly is Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and what are the telltale symptoms of this devastating drug reaction? Keep reading for more.
FDA: “Serious and unexpected effects may occur” following J&J shot, including potentially fatal Guillain-Barré syndrome
Guillain-Barré syndrome is a rare and rapidly progressive disorder that causes inflammation of the nerves after the immune system mistakenly attacking nerves. GBS can lead to sudden and profound muscle weakness and loss of sensation, among other symptoms. It can even lead to complete paralysis or death in some cases. About 3,000 to 6,000 people experience GBS every year in the United States.
As of mid-July, there have been at least 100 preliminary reports of GBS among people who recently got the J&J shot, according to the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These cases had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Of these 100 people, 95 became seriously ill and required hospitalization; so far, one of these people did not survive the adverse drug effect.
In response to these reports, the FDA along with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have officially added GBS as a possible adverse effect of the J&J shot, admitting that the available data “likely indicates a small possible risk” that people who have received the single-dose drug may be more likely to develop the rare neurological condition.
The FDA states there is not yet enough data to prove whether the shot actually causes GBS, nor whether the mRNA shots from Pfizer or Moderna are associated with an elevated risk of the dangerous neurological condition.
These are the five symptoms of GBS that the FDA is warning about following the new J&J shots
According to the National Organization for Rare Disorders, GBS symptoms come on suddenly and progress quickly, typically reaching their worst within two to four weeks. According to the FDA, people who experienced GBS following the J&J shot (mostly men over 50) typically were diagnosed within 42 days after their injection.
The FDA urges people to seek medical attention right away if they notice any of the following five symptoms after getting J&J’s COVID injection:
- Weakness or tingling sensations, especially in the legs or arms, that gets worse and spreads to other parts of the body
- Difficulty walking
- Difficulty with facial movements, as well as problems speaking, chewing, or swallowing
- Double vision or inability to move eyes
- Difficulty with bladder control or bowel function
By the way:
As much as mainstream media, government officials, and health “influencers” like to try to bash VAERS, dismissing its usefulness while chanting “correlation does not equal causation,” it’s worth mentioning that the FDA itself continues to urge people experiencing any side effects to report to VAERS – and it’s so important that people do.
Otherwise, frightening health jab-related concerns like GBS might not get properly investigated. And, hopefully, the public will realize that these medical treatments are not entirely “safe and effective.”
Sources for this article include:
Reproduced from original article:
by: Sara Middleton, staff writer | July 21, 2021
(NaturalHealth365) After dozens of alarming cases of heart inflammation were reported following the COVID mRNA injection – especially after the second dose – pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Moderna were forced to list heart inflammation as a possible adverse effect of their experimental and highly profitable drugs.
Public health officials were quick to ensure people that these cases of heart inflammation are rare and generally not serious. But one Canadian doctor recently shared insights into the COVID shots that foretell serious health issues for jab recipients – such as heart failure – even if they do not experience heart inflammation in the short term.
Spike proteins produced by the body in response to mRNA jabs will damage blood vessel walls and lead to “inevitable” blood clots, warns Canadian doctor
Dr. Charles Hoffee is a practicing family physician from British Columbia. In a recently released video, he makes a dire warning about the long-term outcomes of people who have received the experimental mRNA jabs.
It may help to remember that the COVID-19 virus gets into cells via small spike-like structures on its surface named, aptly, spike proteins. As Dr. Hoffe explains in his interview, the experimental mRNA injections trigger cells in the body to produce “trillions and trillions of these spike proteins.”
The body’s immune system recognizes these proteins as foreign and creates antibodies against them. Now, the injected person is supposedly protected against COVID-19, because if they ever come across SARS-CoV-2 (the so-called virus that causes the pandemic illness), they will already have antibodies against the virus’s spike proteins and their body will therefore be able to launch a faster attack.
Of course, we’ve been told the spike proteins produced by our bodies in response to the mRNA jabs are “harmless.” But this isn’t the case, Dr. Hoffe argues.
Here’s the thing:
Spike protein production is intended to occur in muscle cells near where the injections are administered. But according to Dr. Hoffe, this isn’t what’s happening.
“Only 25 percent of the ‘[injection]’ injected into a person’s arm actually stays in your arm,” he says. “The other 75 percent is collected by your lymphatic system and literally fed into your circulation.” As a result, trillions of these “little packages” of messenger RNA get absorbed into cells inside the blood vessels, Dr. Hoffe says, including endothelial cells found in capillaries.
It is here, in endothelial cells lining the body’s tiniest blood vessels, that the mRNA molecules go to work, using genetic instructions to force cells to manufacture the infamous spike proteins.
Unfortunately, these spike proteins become embedded into the cell walls (just as they are embedded into the surface of the virus itself), turning your normally smooth endothelial cells into cells with damaged, spiky surfaces. And because of this, Dr. Hoffe says, it is “inevitable” that people who have received the mRNA jabs will eventually suffer from blood clots and even possible heart failure.
Here is why Dr. Hoffe predicts mRNA jabs will inevitably lead to blood clots – and that “the worst is yet to come”
It comes down to blood platelets.
Platelets circulate throughout your blood vessels. Their main job is to detect damaged vessels and stop bleeding – by forming clots. “So, when the platelet comes through the capillary it suddenly hits all these COVID spikes,” Dr. Hoffe says, “… it becomes absolutely inevitable that blood clots will form to block that vessel.”
These are not the large blood clots that can be seen on medical imaging, the doctor adds, but rather microscopic ones that are only detectable with certain tests, such as a D-dimer test. (D-dimer is a protein made by your body when clots are broken down. High D-dimer levels suggest the presence of abnormal clot formation.)
Overall, Dr. Hoffe predicts people who have received mRNA jabs are at risk of fatal heart failure within a matter of years because of this spike protein effect. Given that we have no data on the long-term effects of these drugs, it is a concerning prediction, indeed.
For more information, you can watch the 8-minute video here:
Sources for this article include:
Reproduced from original article:
- YouTube’s parent company, Google, is directly invested in the AstraZeneca/Oxford COVID “vaccine.” This is why YouTube censors anything that threatens the rollout and future profits of COVID-19 gene modification therapies
- Silicon Valley has been pushing to transform the health care system into a system based on telemedicine and personalized care through the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Google is heavily involved in this movement
- Google is also partnered directly with the U.S. military, which is increasingly working on a transhumanist agenda
- DARPA is heavily invested in transhumanist technologies for the use in soldiers, including brain-machine interfaces and other even more extreme ideas. They recently teamed up with the Wellcome Trust to create something called “Wellcome Leap,” a movement to usher in transhumanism
- Normally, there are very strict rules and regulations surrounding the testing and use of gene modification technology in humans. It’s only because they’re calling the COVID shots “vaccines” that they were able to get the EUA, which allows some standard safety regulations to be bypassed
In the video above, German attorney and co-founder of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss1),2,3 Dr. Reiner Fuellmich,4 interviews Whitney Webb, an independent investigative reporter, about who’s really behind YouTube’s censorship of medical researchers and their published works.
He recounts how a medical doctor who after a great deal of trouble managed to get a risk-benefit analysis of mask mandates published in the Journal of Pediatrics. He created a short video about his findings, and within minutes of posting it to YouTube, the video was removed. What is actually going on here? Who is behind the censoring of peer-reviewed science? Who is trying to influence what?
Google Is Invested in the COVID ‘Vaccine’
As noted by Webb, YouTube’s parent company, Google, is directly invested in the AstraZeneca/Oxford COVID “vaccine.” While the AstraZeneca jab has been framed as a not-for-profit product, this is far from true. The developers of this gene modification tool are Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert with the Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research.
While the Jenner Institute is the official developer of the shot, the actual patents and royalty rights for the AstraZeneca shot are held by a private company called Vaccitech, which was founded by Hill and Gilbert. Vaccitech’s investors include:5,6,7,8
- Google Ventures
- The Wellcome Trust, which has longstanding links to the eugenics movement
- The British government
- BRAAVOS, a capital investment company set up by a Deutsche Bank executive. BRAAVO’s investment is partially hidden, as BRAAVO is the main shareholder of Oxford Science Innovation, which in turn is invested in Vaccitech
- Chinese interests, including a Chinese bank branch and a drug company called Fosun Pharma
All of these investors stand to profit from this “vaccine” at some point in the near future, and Vaccitech has been quite open about the future profit potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 shot will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season much like the seasonal flu vaccine.
Sure, AstraZeneca promised it would not make any profit from this COVID-19 vaccine, but there’s a time limit on this pledge. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself can decide when that is.
Google Is Protecting Its Financial Stakes
Since Google has a direct financial interest in AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 “vaccine,” is it any wonder that its subsidiaries, like YouTube, are censoring information that threatens the future profitability of these products? I would think not.
More broadly, Silicon Valley has been pushing to transform the health care system as a whole into a system based on telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI). Essentially, they’re looking to replace doctors with AI-driven apps and the like.
“They’ve started to sort of reimagine health care as a way of taking control over people’s lives, telling them it’s for the benefit of the public, the collective, and also their personal health, whereas it’s really a way to implement these transhumanist or technocratic technologies under the guise of that being a health-related venture,” Webb says.
Google, of course, is intimately involved in all of this. They’re also partnered directly with the U.S. military. “So, the fact that they’re censoring stuff that goes against the narrative that they want to put forth on matters relating to public health … really shouldn’t surprise anyone,” Webb says.
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson & Johnson’s COVID shot, meanwhile, is manufactured by an American company called Emergent BioSolutions, which was previously called BioPort. According to Webb, BioPort was created as a spinoff of the British biodefence facility at Porton Down.
In her April 2020 article, “A Killer Enterprise: How One of Big Pharma’s Most Corrupt Companies Plans to Corner the COVID-19 Cure Market,”9 Webb details the scandal-ridden history of BioPort and its role in the 2001 anthrax attacks and the opioid crisis. The company was rebranded as Emergent BioSolutions in 2004. In the featured video, she says:
“They were intimately involved in what happened with the 2001 anthrax attacks, because it was basically the only way they were going to manage to save their mandatory — for U.S. military personnel — anthrax vaccine program,” she says.
“They’ve been involved in scandals really ever since then … but were chosen to manufacture [the Johnson & Johnson COVID shot] despite that, and the person they put in charge of quality control at this facility that was manufacturing these Johnson & Johnson vaccines has no experience in that at all, or really in the field of any sort of pharmaceutical development or chemistry.
His background is being head of military intelligence teams for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. [He] is also an expert on Iran and North Korea …
More recently, the scandal that’s developed in the U.S. with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is that these batches were ‘ruined,’ they say basically unusable, and who knows what would have happened to people if that had been widely used …
Of course, they gave Johnson & Johnson a pass on that, and the blame has been placed on Emergent BioSolutions, but of course, nothing has really been done to them as a company. They’re intimately connected to the U.S. military and also to the CIA and a military contractor in Ohio, Battelle, which has a lot of ties to the anthrax attacks as well.”
Many Unanswered Questions
One of several deep concerns raised in this interview is whether there are any independent controls or reviews of the contents of these COVID jabs. What’s really in them? Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, German physician and epidemiologist, asks. They’re all used under emergency use authorization (EUA), which allows many standard controls to be bypassed.
Wodarg wonders whether the drug industry may simply be using the EUA to learn more about how the mRNA technology actually works, using the public as guinea pigs.
Normally, there are very strict rules and regulations surrounding the use of gene modification technology in humans. It’s only because they’re calling them “vaccines” that they were able to get the EUA that allows a lot of standard safety regulations to be bypassed.
So, who controls what goes into these shots? Wodarg points out that some injections have been found to be nothing but saline, which suggests some people are actually getting a placebo injection, even though they’re being told they’re getting the real thing and they’ve not signed up for a formal trial.
Are “undercover” studies being performed that we’ve not been told about? There are many unanswered questions about what’s really going on with this COVID “vaccine” rollout. Webb comments:
“There definitely needs to be more attention given to the manufacturers of the vaccine because the developers ostensibly just develop the formula, which is then given to the manufacturers who actually produce and create the vaccine that is injected into people.
In the case of the U.S., the main manufacturer, not just for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, [but also] a few others, is that same company, Emergent BioSolutions, which has an awful track record. The Pentagon lost a lawsuit in 2004 where they were accused of using U.S. military personnel as lab rats in an experimental off-label use of that particular anthrax vaccine they were producing …
BioPort, now Emergent BioSolutions, have a lot of interlocking ties with the U.S. military, and also with the department of health and human services. In terms of the mRNA technology, I definitely agree that they seized on this opportunity to use it more widely. So, the hidden hand, I would argue, with the mRNA vaccine, is the U.S. military.
If you look at both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA technology, those both really started with a significant investment in 2013, to both companies, from DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], which is the advanced research branch of the U.S. military …”
Google’s ‘DARPA’ Program
DARPA, Webb says, is also heavily invested in transhumanist technologies for the use in soldiers, including brain-machine interfaces and other even more extreme ideas. They recently teamed up with the Wellcome Trust to create something called “Wellcome Leap,” a rather unsettling movement to usher in transhumanism.
As mentioned, the Wellcome Trust has deep roots in the eugenics movement, making the collaboration doubly disturbing. For more on this, read Webb’s investigative report “A ‘Leap’ Toward Humanity’s Destruction.”10
Now, the CEO of Wellcome Leap, Regina Dugan,11 worked at DARPA. She began working there in 1996 and between 2009 and 2012 served as its first female director. She was the one who greenlighted the 2013 DARPA funding to Pfizer and Moderna. In 2012, she left DARPA to create a DARPA equivalent for Google called Advanced Technology and Projects (ATAP).
She later took on a similar project at Facebook, called Building 8. Wellcome Leap is basically slated to be a “global health DARPA,” Webb says, with all the transhumanist connotations that brings.
Getting back to the issue of undercover experiments taking place in an unsuspecting public, Wodarg is very concerned that COVID-19 “vaccine” makers may be experimenting with various amounts of lipid nanoparticles, which could help explain some of the acutely lethal effects, and perhaps even the transfer phenomenon that appears to be occurring between vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated ones.
Of course, we don’t know if secret comparison trials are being done without our knowledge. What we do know is that Moderna has been working on mRNA vaccine technology for many years, and had been unable to solve the nanolipid toxicity problem. When the dosage was too low, the mRNA didn’t stick around long enough for the drug to work, and when too high, it became toxic.
Despite years of work, they were never able to determine an effective nontoxic dose of mRNA in nanolipid. At least they never announced success. Now we’re supposed to take their word that they got it all figured out in less than a year? No, most likely, they never did figure it out and are using the cover of the pandemic to release an untested vaccine on the public under the guise of emergency use authorization.
Effective nontoxic dosing is probably what the public COVID vaccination campaign is going to help them determine, so that knowledge can then be applied to other gene modification drugs and vaccines. It’s convenient in the extreme, seeing how they are not accountable for any of the damage and death their products are causing, and their unremunerated human test subjects now number in the billions.
What Is the Vaccination Campaign Really About?
According to Fuellmich, all the evidence currently suggests we’re not actually dealing with a medical emergency that would warrant the use of these gene modification tools, so the question is, why are they being pushed in such an unprecedented manner? There must be a reason for it, and if it’s not to address a medical emergency then what is it? Webb weighs in, saying:
“The Silicon Valley push to remake health care, a key part of that is what they call precision medicine … They describe it as medications and vaccines and gene therapies targeted to the individual, i.e., targeted to an individual’s own genome. This is why we’re seeing this increase, under the guise of COVID-19 testing, of this huge effort to amass genetic data of people across the world.
Of course, a lot of this is actually being held by the same Silicon Valley companies. In the case of the Western [part of] the U.S., a lot of COVID-19 testing has been done by Verily, which is a Google subsidiary, which at the same time is trying to make their AI health care based on this genetic data.
A lot of those same technologies for precision medicine also come from the U.S., military [and] involve predictive diagnoses where they say, based on an AI algorithm, you are likely to have this disease, whether it’s COVID or cancer or anything else, before you actually show symptoms of it.
That’s being co-developed right now by Google in a part of the military called the Defense Innovation Unit. There are lots of other examples of this going on. And so, I would argue that the wide-ranging use of these RNA vaccines, and treating them as regular vaccines instead of … gene therapy, is a way to normalize the same type of Silicon Valley-based precision medicine that they want to be the new normal in healthcare around the world.”
As you begin to unravel the interconnected web of players involved in this global vaccination campaign, you keep coming back to two key movements: the transhumanist movement and the eugenics movement, which in the mid-1950s actually began to merge. As noted by Fuellmich, it appears we’re observing “the coming out of a very long-running strategy” to reduce the population and alter those who are left.
“Yes, absolutely,” Webb says. “If you look back to someone like Julian Huxley, the [founding] director general of UNESCO and former president of the British Eugenics Society, which still exists today. It’s called the Galton Institute. They didn’t rename until 1989.
Adrian Hill of the AstraZeneca vaccine spoke at their 100-year anniversary, celebrating 100 years of … eugenics. The Wellcome Trust houses their archive, which they think is a great use to medicine in general.
Going back to Julian Huxley, in 1946 he said we should make the unthinkable thinkable again. Roughly 10 years later, he coined the term transhumanism and said that gene editing as a eugenics science needed to be applied along with … efforts to merge humans with machines as a way to create a new human being or human being 2.0 …
Recently, one of their board members … [published] a book that was actually positively reviewed and the UK press about eugenics in the 21st century. Front and center are these gene editing ‘medicines’ … I think it’s about control, and, ultimately … about eugenics.”
Webb goes on to discuss the January 2020 meeting of technocratic elites in Davos, Switzerland, at which an Israeli keynote speaker, Yuval Harari, warned we are entering an age of digital dictatorship where humans “are no longer mysterious souls — we are now hackable animals,”12 through the use of genetic engineering and advances in brain machine interface and technology. Needless to say, he urged the World Economic Forum members to make wise use of this technology.
It’s a very interesting discussion so, if you have the time, please do listen to the whole interview. In closing, Webb suggests that probably the best, most effective form or resistance is counter-economics. To joint together with others to produce what you need to survive, independent of the centralized systems and corporations that seek to control us.
“The most powerful protest at this point is going to be an economic protest,” Webb says. “Governments around the world are just waiting for more violent protest or riots. They have lots of tools and plans to deal with those. For example, in the U.S., they’re launching a war on domestic terror that is obviously going to target dissidence, from the way it is written …
That is the type of response that they’re expecting, whereas a passive nonviolent protest of economic resistance and counter-economics, just becoming independent of these people trying to build these systems [of control], I think is the most effective way to really counter it at this point.
And I think a broader counter-economics movement, in addition to a larger movement of people not consenting and just not engaging with the system, is something they fear a lot more, [which] I think could be really powerful.”
- 1 Acu2020.org Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss
- 2 Acu2020.org Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, English
- 3 Algora October 4, 2020
- 4 Fuellmich.com, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Bio (German)
- 5 The Wall Street Journal August 2, 2020
- 6 BioSpace January 15, 2018
- 7 MedRxiv April 10, 2021
- 8 The Week August 4, 2020
- 9 Unlimited Hangout April 9, 2020
- 10 Unlimited Hangout June 25, 2021
- 11 Wellcomeleap.org Regina Dugan
- 12 WEF January 24, 2020