now browsing by category
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:
- 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
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Whitney Webb July 23, 2021
- President Biden is calling for a “new biomedical research agency” that would operate under the guise of treatments for chronic diseases, but which, if implemented, would merge national security with health security
- The plan would suck up masses of private data from “Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo, and Google Home” and other consumer electronic devices, as well as information from health care providers to determine if an individual might be likely to commit a crime
- The plan also would work toward merging “biology, engineering and computer science to harness the power of natural systems for national security” along with “advancements in biotechnology, supercomputing, big data and artificial intelligence” to accomplish its goals
- In the interests of national safety, the Department of Defense wants everyone to have biometric wearables that could monitor 165 different biomarkers using an algorithm that could “recognize an infection or virus around 48 hours before the onset of symptoms”
- Ultimately, promoters of the technology want to “develop tools to record, mark and manipulate precisely defined neurons in the living brain” that are determined to be linked to an “abnormal” function or a neurological disease
A “new” proposal by the Biden administration to create a health-focused federal agency modeled after DARPA is not what it appears to be. Promoted as a way to “end cancer,” this resuscitated “health DARPA” conceals a dangerous agenda.
[April 28, 2020], President Biden was widely praised in mainstream and health-care–focused media for his call to create a “new biomedical research agency” modeled after the U.S. military’s “high-risk, high-reward” Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. As touted by the president, the agency would seek to develop “innovative” and “breakthrough” treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes, with a call to “end cancer as we know it.”
Far from “ending cancer” in the way most Americans might envision it, the proposed agency would merge “national security” with “health security” in such a way as to use both physical and mental health “warning signs” to prevent outbreaks of disease or violence before they occur. Such a system is a recipe for a technocratic “pre-crime” organization with the potential to criminalize both mental and physical illness as well as “wrongthink.”
The Biden administration has asked Congress for $6.5 billion to fund the agency, which would be largely guided by Biden’s recently confirmed top science adviser, Eric Lander.
Lander, formerly the head of the Silicon Valley-dominated Broad Institute, has been controversial for his ties to eugenicist and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his relatively recent praise for James Watson, an overtly racist eugenicist. Despite that, Lander is set to be confirmed by the Senate and Congress and is reportedly significantly enthusiastic about the proposed new “health DARPA.”
This new agency, set to be called ARPA-H or HARPA, would be housed within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and would raise the NIH budget to over $51 billion. Unlike other agencies at NIH, ARPA-H would differ in that the projects it funds would not be peer reviewed prior to approval; instead, hand-picked program managers would make all funding decisions. Funding would also take the form of milestone-driven payments instead of the more traditional multiyear grants.
ARPA-H will likely heavily fund and promote mRNA vaccines as one of the “breakthroughs” that will cure cancer. Some of the mRNA vaccine manufacturers that have produced some of the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines, such as the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, stated just last month that “cancer is the next problem to tackle with mRNA tech” post-COVID.
BioNTech has been developing mRNA gene therapies for cancer for years and is collaborating with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to create mRNA-based treatments for tuberculosis and HIV. Other “innovative” technologies that will be a focus of this agency are less well known to the public and arguably more concerning.
The Long Road to ARPA-H
ARPA-H is not a new and exclusive Biden administration idea; there was a previous attempt to create a “health DARPA” during the Trump administration in late 2019. Biden began to promote the idea during his presidential campaign as early as June 2019, albeit using a very different justification for the agency than what had been pitched by its advocates to Trump.
In 2019, the same foundation and individuals currently backing Biden’s ARPA-H had urged then-President Trump to create “HARPA,” not for the main purpose of researching treatments for cancer and Alzheimer’s, but to stop mass shootings before they happen through the monitoring of Americans for “neuropsychiatric” warning signs.
For the last few years, one man has been the driving force behind HARPA — former vice chair of General Electric and former president of NBCUniversal, Robert Wright. Through the Suzanne Wright Foundation (named for his late wife), Wright has spent years lobbying for an agency that “would develop biomedical capabilities — detection tools, treatments, medical devices, cures, etc. — for the millions of Americans who are not benefiting from the current system.”
While he, like Biden, has cloaked the agency’s actual purpose by claiming it will be mainly focused on treating cancer, Wright’s 2019 proposal to his personal friend Donald Trump revealed its underlying ambitions.
As first proposed by Wright in 2019, the flagship program of HARPA would be SAFE HOME, short for Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes.
SAFE HOME would suck up masses of private data from “Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo, and Google Home” and other consumer electronic devices, as well as information from health care providers to determine if an individual might be likely to commit a crime. The data would be analyzed by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms “for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence.”
The Department of Justice’s pre-crime approach known as DEEP was activated just months before Trump left office; it was also justified as a way to “stop mass shootings before they happen.” Soon after Biden’s inauguration, the new administration began using information from social media to make pre-crime arrests as part of its approach toward combating “domestic terror.”
Given the history of Silicon Valley companies collaborating with the government on matters of warrantless surveillance, it appears that aspects of SAFE HOME may already be covertly active under Biden, only waiting for the formalization of ARPA-H/HARPA to be legitimized as public policy.
The national-security applications of Robert Wright’s HARPA are also illustrated by the man who was its lead scientific adviser — former head of DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office Geoffrey Ling. Not only is Ling the main scientific adviser of HARPA, but the original proposal by Wright would have Ling both personally design HARPA and lead it once it was established.
A Plan to Merge Biology, Engineering and Computer Science
Ling’s work at DARPA can be summarized by BTO’s stated mission, which is to work toward merging “biology, engineering and computer science to harness the power of natural systems for national security.” BTO-favored technologies are also poised to be the mainstays of HARPA, which plans to specifically use “advancements in biotechnology, supercomputing, big data and artificial intelligence” to accomplish its goals.
The direct DARPA connection to HARPA underscores that the agenda behind this coming agency dates back to the failed Bio-Surveillance project of DARPA’s Total Information Awareness program, which was launched after the events of September 11, 2001.
TIA’s Bio-Surveillance project sought to develop the “necessary information technologies and resulting prototype capable of detecting the covert release of a biological pathogen automatically, and significantly earlier than traditional approaches,” accomplishing this “by monitoring nontraditional data sources” including “prediagnostic medical data” and “behavioral indicators.”
While nominally focused on “bioterrorist attacks,” TIA’s Bio-Surveillance project also sought to acquire early detection capabilities for “normal” disease outbreaks. Bio-Surveillance and related DARPA projects at the time, such as LifeLog, sought to harvest data through the mass use of some sort of wearable or handheld technology.
These DARPA programs were ultimately shut down due to the controversy over claims they would be used to profile domestic dissidents and eliminate privacy for all Americans in the US.
That DARPA’s past total surveillance dragnet is coming back to life under a supposedly separate health-focused agency, and one that emulates its organizational model no less, confirms that many TIA-related programs were merely distanced from the Department of Defense when officially shut down.
By separating the military from the public image of such technologies and programs, it made them more palatable to the masses, despite the military remaining heavily involved behind the scenes.
As Unlimited Hangout has recently reported, major aspects of TIA were merely privatized, giving rise to companies such as Facebook and Palantir, which resulted in such DARPA projects being widely used and accepted. Now, under the guise of the proposed ARPA-H, DARPA’s original TIA would essentially be making a comeback for all intents and purposes as its own spin-off.
Silicon Valley, the Military and the Wearable ‘Revolution’
This most recent effort to create ARPA-H/HARPA combines well with the coordinated push of Silicon Valley companies into the field of health care, specifically Silicon Valley companies that double as contractors to U.S. intelligence and/or the military (e.g., Microsoft, Google and Amazon).
During the COVID-19 crisis, this trend toward Silicon Valley dominance of the health-care sector has accelerated considerably due to a top-down push toward digitalization with telemedicine, remote monitoring and the like.
One interesting example is Amazon, which launched a wearable last year that purports to not only use biometrics to monitor people’s physical health and fitness, but to track their emotional state as well. The previous year, Amazon acquired the online pharmacy PillPack, and it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which data from Amazon’s Halo wellness band is used to offer treatment recommendations that are then supplied by Amazon-owned PillPack.
Companies such as Amazon, Palantir and Google are set to be intimately involved in ARPA-H’s activities. In particular, Google, which launched numerous health-tech initiatives in 2020, is set to have a major role in this new agency due to its long-standing ties to the Obama administration when Biden was vice president and to President Biden’s top science adviser, Eric Lander.
As mentioned, Lander is poised to play a major role in ARPA-H/HARPA if and when it materializes. Before becoming the top scientist in the country, Lander was president and founding director of the Broad Institute.
While advertised as a partnership between MIT and Harvard, the Broad Institute is heavily influenced by Silicon Valley, with two former Google executives on its board, a partner of Silicon Valley venture capital firm Greylock Partners, and the former CEO of IBM, as well as some of its top endowments coming from prominent tech executives.
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who was intimately involved with Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and who is close to the Democratic Party in general, chairs the Broad Institute as of this April . In March 2021, Schmidt gave the institute $150 million to “connect biology and machine learning for understanding programs of life.”
During his time on the Broad Institute board, Schmidt also chaired the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, a group of mostly Silicon Valley, intelligence and military operatives who have now charted the direction of the U.S. government’s policies on emerging tech and AI. Schmidt was also pitched as potential head of a tech-industry task force by the Biden administration.
Government and Public and Private Agencies Team Up
Earlier, in January , the Broad Institute announced that its health-research platform, Terra, which was built with Google subsidiary Verily, would partner with Microsoft. As a result, Terra now allows Google and Microsoft to access a vast trove of genomic data that is poured into the platform by academics and research institutions from around the world.
In addition, last September , Google teamed up with the Department of Defense as part of a new AI-driven “predictive health” program that also has links to the US intelligence community. While initially focused on predicting cancer cases, this initiative clearly plans to expand to predicting the onset of other diseases before symptoms appear, including COVID-19.
As noted by Unlimited Hangout at the time, one of the ulterior motives for the program, from Google’s perspective, was for Google to gain access to “the largest repository of disease- and cancer-related medical data in the world,” which is held by the Defense Health Agency. Having exclusive access to this data is a huge boon for Google in its effort to develop and expand its growing suite of AI health-care products.
The military is currently being used to pilot COVID-19-related biometric wearables for “returning to work safely.” Last December , it was announced that Hill Air Force Base in Utah would make biometric wearables a mandatory part of the uniform for some squadrons. For example, the airmen of the Air Force’s 649th Munitions Squadron must now wear a smart watch made by Garmin and a smart ring made by Oura as part of their uniform.
According to the Air Force, these devices detect biometric indicators that are then analyzed for 165 different biomarkers by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency/Philips Healthcare AI algorithm that “attempts to recognize an infection or virus around 48 hours before the onset of symptoms.”
The development of that algorithm began well before the COVID-19 crisis and is a recent iteration of a series of military research projects that appear to have begun under the 2007 DARPA Predicting Health and Disease (PHD) project.
While of interest to the military, these wearables are primarily intended for mass use — a big step toward the infrastructure needed for the resurrection of a biosurveillance program to be run by the national-security state.
Starting first with the military makes sense from the national-security apparatus’s perspective, as the ability to monitor biometric data, including emotions, has obvious appeal for those managing the recently expanded “insider threat” programs in the military and the Department of Homeland Security.
One indicator of the push for mass use is that the same Oura smart ring being used by the Air Force was also recently utilized by the NBA to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks among basketball players.
Prior to COVID-19, it was promoted for consumer use by members of the British Royal family and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for improving sleep. As recently as last Monday [April 26, 2021], Oura’s CEO, Harpeet Rai, said that the entire future of wearable health tech will soon be “proactive rather than reactive” because it will focus on predicting disease based on biometric data obtained from wearables in real time.
Another wearable tied to the military that is creeping into mass use is the BioButton and its predecessor the BioSticker. Produced by the company BioIntelliSense, the sleek new BioButton is advertised as a wearable system that is “a scalable and cost-effective solution for COVID-19 symptom monitoring at school, home and work.” BioIntelliSense received $2.8 million from the Pentagon last December to develop the BioButton and BioSticker wearables for COVID-19.
BioIntelliSense, cofounded and led by former Microsoft HealthVault developer James Mault, now has its wearable sensors being rolled out for widespread use on some college campuses and at some U.S. hospitals. In some of those instances, the company’s wearables are being used to specifically monitor the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine as opposed to symptoms of COVID-19 itself.
BioIntelliSense is currently running a study, partnered with Philips Healthcare and the University of Colorado, on the use of its wearables for early COVID-19 detection, which is entirely funded by the US military.
While the use of these wearables is currently “encouraged but optional” at these pilot locations, could there come a time when they are mandated in a workplace or by a government? It would not be unheard of, as several countries have already required foreign arrivals to be monitored through use of a wearable during a mandatory quarantine period. Saint Lucia is currently using BioButton for this purpose.
Singapore, which seeks to be among the first “smart nations” in the world, has given every single one of its residents a wearable called a “TraceTogether token” for its contact-tracing program. Either the wearable token or the TraceTogether smartphone app is mandatory for all workplaces, shopping malls, hotels, schools, health care facilities, grocery stores and hair salons. Those without access to a smartphone are expected to use the “free” government-issued wearable token.
The Era of Digital Dictatorships Is Nearly Here
Making mandatory wearables the new normal not just for COVID-19 prevention, but for monitoring health in general, would institutionalize quarantining people who have no symptoms of an illness but only an opaque algorithm’s determination that vital signs indicate “abnormal” activity.
Given that no AI is 100% accurate and that AI is only as good as the data it is trained on, such a system would be guaranteed to make regular errors: The question is how many.
One AI algorithm being used to “predict COVID-19 outbreaks” in Israel and some U.S. states is marketed by Diagnostic Robotics; the (likely inflated) accuracy rate the company provides for its product is only 73 percent. That means, by the company’s own admission, their AI is wrong 27 percent of the time. Probably, it is even less accurate, as the 73 percent figure has never been independently verified.
Adoption of these technologies has benefited from the COVID-19 crisis, as supporters are seizing the opportunity to accelerate their introduction. As a result, their use will soon become ubiquitous if this advancing agenda continues unimpeded.
Though this push for wearables is obvious now, signs of this agenda were visible several years ago. In 2018, for instance, insurer John Hancock announced that it would replace its life insurance offerings with “interactive policies” that involve individuals having their health monitored by commercial health wearables.
Insurance Companies Push for ‘Fitness’ Wearables
Prior to that announcement, John Hancock and other insurers such as Aetna, Cigna, and UnitedHealthcare offered various rewards for policyholders who wore a fitness wearable and shared that data with their insurance company.
In another pre-COVID example, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article in August 2019 that claimed that wearables “encourage healthy behaviors and empower individuals to participate in their health.” The authors of the article, who are affiliated with Harvard, further claimed that “incentivizing use of these devices [wearables] by integrating them in insurance policies” may be an “attractive” policy approach.
The use of wearables for policyholders has since been heavily promoted by the insurance industry, both prior to and after COVID-19, and some speculate that health insurers could soon mandate their use in certain cases or as a broader policy.
These biometric “fitness” devices — such as Amazon’s Halo — can monitor more than your physical vital signs, however, as they can also monitor your emotional state. ARPA-H/HARPA’s flagship SAFE HOME program reveals that the ability to monitor thoughts and feelings is an already existing goal of those seeking to establish this new agency.
According to World Economic Forum luminary and historian Yuval Noah Harari, the transition to “digital dictatorships” will have a “big watershed” moment once governments “start monitoring and surveying what is happening inside your body and inside your brain.”
He says that the mass adoption of such technology would make human beings “hackable animals,” while those who abstain from having this technology on or in their bodies would become part of a new “useless” class. Harari has also asserted that biometric wearables will someday be used by governments to target individuals who have the “wrong” emotional reactions to government leaders.
Unsurprisingly, one of Harari’s biggest fans, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, has recently led his company into the development of a comprehensive biometric and “neural” wearable based on technology from a “neural interface” start-up that Facebook acquired in 2019.
Per Facebook, the wearable “will integrate with AR [augmented reality], VR [virtual reality], and human neural signals” and is set to become commercially available soon. Facebook also notably owns the VR company Oculus Rift, whose founder, Palmer Luckey, now runs the U.S. military AI contractor Anduril.
As recently reported, Facebook was shaped in its early days to be a private-sector replacement for DARPA’s controversial LifeLog program, which sought to both “humanize” AI and build profiles on domestic dissidents and terror suspects. LifeLog was also promoted by DARPA as “supporting medical research and the early detection of an emerging pandemic.”
It appears that current trends and events show that DARPA’s decadeslong effort to merge “health security” and “national security” have now advanced further than ever before.
This may partially be because Bill Gates, who has wielded significant influence over health policy globally in the last year, is a long-time advocate of fusing health security and national security to thwart both pandemics and “bioterrorists” before they can strike, as can be heard in his 2017 speech delivered at that year’s Munich Security Conference.
That same year, Gates also publicly urged the U.S. military to “focus more training on preparing to fight a global pandemic or bioterror attack.”
In the merging of “national security” and “health security,” any decision or mandate promulgated as a public health measure could be justified as necessary for “national security,” much in the same way that the mass abuses and war crimes that occurred during the post-9/11 “war on terror” were similarly justified by “national security” with little to no oversight.
Yet, in this case, instead of only losing our civil liberties and control over our external lives, we stand to lose sovereignty over our individual bodies.
The NIH, which would house this new ARPA-H/HARPA, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars experimenting with the use of wearables since 2015, not only for detecting disease symptoms but also for monitoring individuals’ diets and illegal drug consumption.
Biden played a key part in that project, known as the Precision Medicine initiative, and separately highlighted the use of wearables in cancer patients as part of the Obama administration’s related Cancer Moonshot program.
A Plan to Record, Mark and Manipulate Your Brain
The third Obama-era health research project was the NIH’s BRAIN initiative, which was launched, among other things, to “develop tools to record, mark and manipulate precisely defined neurons in the living brain” that are determined to be linked to an “abnormal” function or a neurological disease.
These initiatives took place at a time when Eric Lander was the cochair of Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology while still leading the Broad Institute. It is hardly a coincidence that Eric Lander is now Biden’s top science adviser, elevated to a new cabinet-level position and set to guide the course of ARPA-H/HARPA.
Thus, Biden’s newly announced agency, if approved by Congress, would integrate those past Obama-era initiatives with Orwellian applications under one roof, but with even less oversight than before. It would also seek to expand and mainstream the uses of these technologies and potentially move toward developing policies that would mandate their use.
If ARPA-H/HARPA is approved by Congress and ultimately established, it will be used to resurrect dangerous and long-standing agendas of the national-security state and its Silicon Valley contractors, creating a “digital dictatorship” that threatens human freedom, human society and potentially the very definition of what it means to be human.
To find more of Webb’s work, be sure to check out her website, unlimitedhangout.com. You can also find her videos by searching Bitchute, and she has her own podcast channel called Unlimited Hangout on Rokfin.com. Warp Speed reporting can also be found on thelastamericanvagabond.com. At present, Webb is also still on Twitter @_whitneywebb.
Reproduced from original article:
- Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal by reigning heath authorities to issue early treatment guidance. Instead, they’ve done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work, whether it be corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with zinc, ivermectin, vitamin D or NAC
- According to Dr. Peter McCullough, 85% of COVID deaths could have been prevented had early treatment protocols been widely implemented rather than censored
- It appears the intense censoring and suppression of early treatments was a strategy to promote as much fear, suffering, hospitalization and death as possible in order to prepare the population to accept a new genre of gene transfer technologies on a mass scale
- The overwhelming drive to get a “needle in every arm” is such that health authorities are not even acknowledging the fact that those who have recovered from COVID-19 and many groups have no possibility of benefiting from the vaccine, including younger individuals, pregnant women, women of childbearing potential, and those with immunodeficiencies
- Despite FDA warnings for myocarditis with Pfizer and Moderna and cavernous venous thrombosis with Johnson & Johnson, the vaccine cabal keeps propaganda on full blast
In this interview, Dr. Peter McCullough discusses the importance of early treatment for COVID-19, and the potential motivations behind the suppression of safe and effective treatments.
McCullough has impeccable academic credentials. He’s an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, a 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 United States and is the editor of two medical journals.
Early Outpatient Treatment Is Key for Positive Outcomes
McCullough has been an outspoken advocate for early treatment for COVID. In August 2020, McCullough’s landmark paper “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection”1 was published online in the American Journal of Medicine.
The follow-up paper is titled “Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19)”2 and was published in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in December 2020.
Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal by reigning heath authorities to issue early treatment guidance. Instead, they’ve done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work, whether it be corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with zinc, ivermectin, vitamin D or NAC.
Patients were simply told to stay home and do nothing. Once the infection had worsened to the point of near-death, patients were told to go to the hospital where most were routinely placed on mechanical ventilation — a practice that was quickly discovered to be lethal. Many doctors also seemingly panicked and refused to see patients with COVID symptoms.
“I’m glad that I personally always treated all my patients,” he says. “I wasn’t going to have the virus slaughter one of my senior citizens. And it is, I think, terrible that none of our major academic institutions innovated with a single protocol. To my knowledge, not a single major academic medical center, as an institution, attempted even to treat patients with COVID-19.
But I did use my publication power, and my editorial authority, and my position in internal medicine and some specialty medicine to publish the breakthrough paper called ‘The Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19’ in the American Journal of Medicine.
It was an international effort, both community physicians and academic physicians. And to this day, that is the most frequently downloaded paper in the American Journal of Medicine.”
Early Treatment Guidelines Have Saved Millions of Lives
In December 2020, McCullough published an updated protocol, co-written with 56 other authors who also had extensive experience with treating COVID-19 outpatients. The article, “Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection,”3 was published in the journal Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, of which McCullough is the editor-in-chief.
“That paper, today … is the most frequently downloaded paper from BET Journal,” McCullough says. “It also is the basis for the American Association of Physician and Surgeons COVID early treatment guide.4
We have evidence that the treatment guide has been downloaded and utilized millions of times. And it was part of the early huge kick that we had in ambulatory treatment at home towards the end of December into January, which basically crushed the U.S. curve.
We were on schedule to have 1.7 to 2.1 million fatalities in the United States, as estimated by the CDC and others. We cut it off at about 600,000. That still is a tragedy. I’ve testified that 85% of that 600,000 could have been saved if we would have had … the protocols in place from the start.
But suffice it to say, the early treatment heroes, and you’re part of that team Dr. Mercola, has really made the biggest impact. We have saved millions of lives, spared millions and millions of hospitalizations, and in a sense, have brought the pandemic now to a winnowing close.”
While the World Health Organization and national health agencies have all rejected treatments suggested by doctors for lack of large-scale randomized controlled studies, McCullough and other doctors working the frontlines took an empiric approach. They looked for signals of benefit in the literature.
“We didn’t demand large randomized trials because we knew they weren’t going to be available for years in the future,” McCullough says. “We didn’t wait for a guidelines body to tell us what to do or some medical society, because we know they work in slow motion. We knew we had to take care of patients now.”
A Global Collusion to Harm Patients
When you look at how comprehensive and intense the censoring and suppression of early treatments were, it’s hard to come to any other conclusion than this was a strategy aimed at securing emergency use authorization (EUA) for COVID gene therapies.
To get an EUA, there cannot be any safe and effective alternatives, and since the COVID shots are using a brand-new, never before used technology, making sure there were no effective treatments available was crucial for the success of the roll-out of these shots. Prestigious medical journals like The Lancet were even caught colluding with the drug industry, publishing a completely fabricated study on HCQ, showing it was dangerous. As noted by McCullough:
“What’s so interesting is how airtight the collusion was. It was extraordinary. Look at The Lancet paper [on HCQ]. You had a doctor from Harvard, a company called Surgisphere that had data, you had the reviewers at Lancet, the associate editor and the editor at Lancet. How could they all collude together to publish a falsified paper?
When that paper came out, we looked at it. I was checking the literature very carefully. [As editor-in-chief of two medical journals] I’ve reviewed more papers and analyzed more data, I think, than anybody in the game. And I can tell you, I looked at that paper and in two seconds, I knew it was fake. I mean, I do this every day.
I’m also the senior associate editor for the American Journal of Cardiology. That’s the most venerated journal in our entire field. And I can tell you that a paper like that would never get past my editorial desk because it was so obviously fake. It was a huge sample size that we knew was not possible at that time. And it was people in their 40s hospitalized with astronomical mortality rates.
It was just no way that was legit. And The Lancet let that hang up there for two weeks, scaring the entire world against hydroxychloroquine — which turns out to be one of the safest and most effective widely utilized in people with COVID-19. And when they took it down, it was unapologetic.
My interpretation of this is that was very intentional. What happened with ivermectin’s use in the ICU was also very intentional and a collusion … Dr. J.J Rashtak had used it in hundreds and hundreds of patients in Florida and published in CHEST, one of the best pulmonary journals, that ivermectin reduced mortality.
Yet to this day, hospitals across the United States flat out refuse to use ivermectin. Desperate patients and families have to get court orders to order these doctors to use ivermectin. So, there’s a mass mentality of almost intentionally harming patients.
There’s absolutely no grounds for doctors and administrators … to deny patients ivermectin. There is a global collusion, specifically in U.S. hospitals, to cause as much harm and death as conceivable. It’s beyond belief … These cases where the families had to get court orders to force the doctors and administrators to administer a simple generic drug, these are going to be case studies in medical ethics for decades to come.”
The Goal = Mass Vaccination
As for why patient harm was a desirable thing, McCullough believes the end goal was to secure the rollout of a mass vaccination campaign. All the propaganda we’ve been fed over this past year and a half points in that direction.
“Propaganda is the dissemination of false or misleading information by people of authority in a collusional manner. And that’s exactly what’s going on. We have a propagandized campaign for mass vaccination. There’s no doubt about it. It’s actually very overt … And believe me, there are hundreds of millions of people under the propagandized spell that the COVID-19 vaccine is going to deliver us from this crisis.”
What we do not know for sure is why the World Health Organization and governments around the world want a needle in every arm. Why are they so eager, so relentless in their push to inject everyone with this novel gene therapy that turns your body into a toxic spike protein factory?
The intent to vaccinate everyone is such that health authorities are not even acknowledging the fact that staggering numbers of injuries and deaths are occurring shortly after these injections. They’re even letting children die from these shots without any hint of slowing down the rate of injections. Why?
Our Next Task: Dispelling Vaccine Propaganda
While we’ve made great strides in circumventing censorship and getting the information out about early treatment, we still face a tremendous challenge, and that is dispelling the misinformation and confusion that surrounds the COVID shots.
Very clearly, there’s massive collusion to suppress the truth about these gene therapies as well. Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines, recently spoke out about his concerns, and not only did YouTube ban the interview, but Wikipedia also erased his name from the historical section of the mRNA vaccine.
They clearly want everyone to believe that these shots are similar to, and even superior to, conventional vaccines. They absolutely do not want you to think of them as gene therapy, which is what they are. Even Malone himself has made this distinction.
Malone is more than a little concerned about the coercion going on to get people to take these injections. He’s also pointed out that there’s no comprehensive system in place to prospectively capture side effects, despite the fact that the manufacturers bypassed at least 10 to 15 years’ worth of safety studies, including toxicological studies. This too appears entirely intentional. Again, the question is why?
“They had no system to catch the complications, but even worse, they had no plans for safety. They had none of the traditional mechanisms for risk mitigation … [such as] critical event committees, Data and Safety Monitoring Boards, IRBs or Human Ethics Committees.
The public should know these are the structures that we have in place in biomedical research. I’ve led two dozen Data Safety Monitoring Boards. The co-sponsors of the U.S. vaccine program are the FDA and the CDC.
It’s their obligation to have in place, from the very beginning, a Clinical Event Committee, Data Safety Monitoring Board, and a Human Ethics Committee [and provide] regular updates, because these committees are supposed to be identifying signals of harm, and then make recommendations to the sponsors about how to make the program safer.
This was the fiduciary responsibility of the FDA and the NIH. Again, this is going to go down in regulatory history as one of the most colossal blunders of all time. How can you do the largest clinical investigation in the history of medicine and have no safeguards? You have no mechanisms to protect Americans from what could happen with the vaccine program?”
Why Were Standardized Safety Protocols Omitted?
As for the motivation or reason for ignoring virtually all standardized safety measures, McCullough says:
“There has been such a suppression of early treatment … and a complete propagandized campaign for social distancing, wearing masks, promoting fear, suffering, hospitalization and death. And to prepare the population for mass vaccination, the last thing they wanted to do is have anything that could potentially restrict the population that would be taking the vaccine.
And so, I don’t think they actually wanted any safety safeguards. I thought their goal, from the very beginning, was to try to railroad every single individual with two legs [into getting the shot]. The most important moniker was a needle in every arm.
When those billboards went up in every city in the United States, the stakeholders — which are the CDC, the NIH, the FDA, and then Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson outside the United States, and AstraZeneca — they meant business.
When they say needle in every arm, that’s not a joke. It’s not a needle in every arm for whom it’s appropriate, or a needle in every arm for medically indicated. No, it’s a needle in every arm of every human being. They mean it, and I think Americans should be frightened.”
A Crime Against Humanity
What we’re experiencing is really a crime against humanity, and hopefully the responsible individuals will ultimately be held accountable and found guilty of such a charge. As noted by McCullough:
“How could one possibly have a large clinical investigation, ask individuals to sign consent, and then provide no safety mechanisms, really provide nothing with respect to safety of individuals? Everything about the vaccine is about safety. The reports that have accrued are so voluminous that if the stakeholders wanted to make the case that the vaccines are safe, they should make it with data.
They don’t, they simply say the vaccines are safe. And the medical societies are just as complicit. If you go to the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, they say the same thing, “The vaccine is safe.” Within those organizations also, there’s a large swathe of individuals who are going to have to answer [for their actions].”
The Spike Protein Is Not a Cure; It’s a Disease Agent
As of June 18, 2021, we have 387,087 adverse event reports filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), including 6,113 deaths, a large portion of which occurred within days of injection, and 6,435 life threatening reactions.5
We also have very good evidence to suggest this is a gross undercount, in part due to general underreporting, and in part due to VAERS refusing to accept reports — particularly those involving deaths — and scrubbing reports that have already been filed. So, these already alarming numbers likely only represent the tip of the iceberg.
“We have red hot problems, like children and young adults developing myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. I just saw such a patient yesterday,” McCullough says. “These are proven cases. This is not make believe. This is for real.
So, you may ask the question, how in the world could this happen? Well, the first element of this happening is the vaccines as they exist today, either messenger RNA, or adenoviral DNA, the mechanism of action is not safe. The mechanism of action poses a biologic danger.
These vaccines all trick the body into making the spike protein of the virus. The spike protein itself is pathogenic. It’s actually what makes the virus dangerous. It was the object of gain-of-function research. So, it has a dangerous mechanism of action. Why? Because the spike protein is produced in an uncontrolled fashion. It’s not like a tetanus shot where there’s only a certain amount of protein that’s injected.
This is an uncontrolled quantity of spike protein. Probably each person is different, so may have [lower] production of it. They have very little symptoms after the vaccine, they’re fine.
Hopefully that’s the majority of individuals, but there are unfortunate individuals that must have massive amount of spike protein, and that spike protein ravages the body wherever the spike protein is locally made, and we do know the messenger RNA and the adenoviral DNA gets distributed in all the organs.
So if messenger RNA is up in the brain and we start producing spike protein in the brain, we cause local brain injury. There are now well-described neurologic injury cases with the vaccine. Many of them. In the heart, it causes myocarditis and cardiac injury. In the liver, it causes liver injury, in the lung, lung injury, in the kidney, kidney injury.
And very importantly, the spike protein damages endothelial cells and causes blood clotting. So, blood clotting, the dreaded complication of the infection itself, is now caused by the vaccine. Everything we’ve found out about the vaccine since its release has been bad.”
What Can We Expect to Happen in the Future?
Beyond the acute injury phase, there’s the very real possibility of long term health hazards. If you make it past the first couple of months without significant problems, you’re still not out of the woods. My main concern is the possibility of paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE), also known as pathogenic priming, or antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which essentially results in a cascade of immunological overreactions that wind up killing you.
The autumn and winter of 2021 will be our first “trial by fire.” We’ll just have to wait and see how many fully “vaccinated” people end up succumbing to the seasonal flu and other infections. That’ll give us a benchmark for how prevalent PIE might be. When asked what he predicts for the future, McCullough says:
“We’re so busy with the acute toxicity to the vaccine. We’re just absolutely overwhelmed, so, it’s hard to imagine in three to six months where we will be … There are hints right now that the messenger RNA doesn’t break down in a few days, that the natural disposal systems that we have for the messenger RNA doesn’t work [for the synthetic mRNA].
Now, we don’t know about the adenoviral DNA. I have a more favorable view of the adenoviral DNA products in the sense that maybe the body … can fight that off and dispose of it. The Johnson & Johnson, per number of injections, has the fewest complications. And most Americans think just the opposite because of that misdirection activity.
I think the vaccine stakeholders intentionally picked on Johnson & Johnson in order to distract attention away from the terrible safety events we’ve seen with Pfizer and Moderna. The vast majority of all the devastation we’ve seen is with Pfizer and Moderna …
When you generate a really strong antibody response, it’s actually more pathogenic. The belief is it’s more pathogenic than the natural infection, because we’re seeing syndromes in vaccine victims that are way worse than getting COVID-19 itself. I mean, the syndromes are actually horrendous.
I have seen neurologic blindness, cervical myelitis, cerebellar syndrome. It’s absolutely awful. It’s depends where the messenger RNA goes … and everything I can put together biologically, and what I see clinically, is that vaccines aren’t going to work but for a few months …
After the first shot of mRNA, one is actually more susceptible to COVID-19. This has been shown time and time again. My first rash of patients with post-vaccination COVID-19 in my practice was always after the first injection. The theory here is that the body has been hit with the messenger RNA, the spike protein is generated, it’s damaging some endothelial cells, and there’s an immature library of antibodies that are being formed.
And those antibodies, instead of protecting against the next exposure to COVID-19, they actually facilitate entry. That’s called antibody-dependent enhancement, and I think there is evidence for that … As for what we can expect long-term, that’s anyone’s guess.”
Long Term Risks Are Unknown
Before COVID came along, the FDA required vaccine makers to provide 24 months’ worth of data before they’d allow it. This was truncated down to two months for the COVID shots. So, anyone who says the shots are safe long term is lying because no such data exists to prove this.
“The consent form says, ‘We don’t know if this is going to work, we don’t know if it’s going to last, and we don’t know if it’s going to be safe.’ They say that. So, anybody who takes the vaccine is going to have to think about this and understand that we don’t know anything beyond two months.
Given all the short-term risks, if there are any long-term risks, it is absolutely compounding this unknown. 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.”
DNA Changes, Cancer and Chronic Illness Are Possible Effects
McCullough also discusses the risk that these mRNA injections might become permanently incorporated into your DNA by way of reverse transcriptase.
“There now have been enough studies to suggest there is some reverse transcription — that in fact the RNA creates DNA and then DNA gets permanently put into the human genome,” he explains.
“We know this from the natural infection. The T-Detect test actually checks the T-cells when it tracks the DNA. This is a commercial test you can get if you had COVID-19, and it looks for minor chromosomal re-arrangements that code for cell surface receptors on T-cells.”
The question is, if the synthetic mRNA or adenoviral DNAs in fact create permanent changes to the genome, what effects will that have? Could it promote cancer, for example? McCullough cites a recent paper indicating the spike protein might in fact affect two important cancer suppressor genes.
“This is disturbing because we’re using novel genetic material and it’s possible that they’re oncogenic. We know some other viruses are oncogenic, including Epstein-Barr virus. So, when that paper hit, we said, ‘Oh no, are we setting up people for cancer risk of solid organ cancers, like breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, et cetera.
It is a sick feeling what we’ve learned there. We do understand now that there must be cell damage that’s occurring with this spike protein inside cells. And that if it’s not turned off, that that spike protein generation could end up with some type of chronic disease.
There are elements of the spike protein that are similar to prions that occur in neurologic disease, for instance. There may be intracellular changes as the body keeps cranking the spike protein which you’re not supposed to crank, that causes other problems in cells …
Future development of heart failure comes to mind, gastrointestinal illnesses, pulmonary fibrosis, neurodegenerative diseases. We could be on to the start of a whole new genre of chronic disease in America due to this mass experimentation of genetic products in the human body.”
Impossible for Vaccination Program to Improve Disease Curve
In a sane and rational world not laboring under some hidden agenda to kill off a portion of the population, these shots would have only been rolled out to the highest-risk individuals. The rest of the population would have been excluded from the experiment.
Remember the COVID injection trials conflated absolute and relative risk. Pfizer claimed its mRNA shot was 95% effective, but that was the relative risk reduction — the absolute risk reduction was actually less than 1%.6 As noted by McCullough, healthy adults under 50, teens and children have a less than 1% chance of hospitalization and death from COVID-19, so they don’t have a medical need for it.
“You can’t make less than 1% smaller and have it be clinically meaningful. That’s the reason why the vaccine program will never have an impact on the epidemiologic curves. Dr. [Ronald] Brown from Canada has done the analysis. It’s impossible.
Someone sent me an email the other day [saying], ‘Dr. McCullough, don’t you think that the pandemic is being favorably impacted by the vaccination program?’ The answer is no. We look at the clinical trials. There’s less than 1% absolute risk reduction. It means that, mathematically, it’s impossible for mass vaccination to have a favorable impact on the population.”
COVID Shot May Raise Your Risk of COVID Death
What’s worse, McCullough cites data showing that those who have gotten the shot and end up with COVID-19 anyway have far higher rates of hospitalization and death.
“The CDC was so overwhelmed [with adverse reports], they gave up. God knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans got vaccinated and got COVID-19 anyway. It looks just like regular COVID. In the data they had, it was a 9% risk of hospitalization and then a 3% risk of death.”
What this means is that, by taking the injection, you trade in a 0.26%7 risk of death, should you contract COVID-19, for a 3% risk of death if you get infected. If you’re younger than 40, you’re trading a 0.01%8 risk of death for a 3% risk.
The Way Forward Demands We Just Say No
If you want to hear more of what McCullough has to say, you can find his podcast, The McCullough Report, on America Out Loud. Every week, he talks to medical experts from different countries to get a range of perspectives and innovative approaches. In closing, he notes:
“My personal view is that I think the vaccine program has been a disaster. We should have just treated COVID-19 as an illness. We should never have shut down the schools or anything else. None of this wearing masks. We should have just treated the acute problem, and we would have gotten ourselves out of the pandemic.”
As for how we move forward, first of all, we need to stop the acute injury, and that means we need to stop taking these COVID shots. Beyond that, we’ll need to experiment to determine the best ways to block the damage done by the spike protein, for however long that is produced and stays in circulation.
“If there’s any mother who’s concerned about their child developing myocarditis, the way to avoid it is just don’t bring your child to a vaccination center,” McCullough says.
“Everyone is just going to have to learn to say no. We cannot be harmed by the vaccine if we just decline it. And the vaccine is completely elective. The CDC, the NIH, FDA, they’ve all said it’s elective. You don’t have to take it. Those agencies, by the way, they’re not taking it.
So, nobody has to take it. And everyone who is in a school or a university, or a workplace where they’re saying you have to take it, or say you have to take it for travel, the answer is no you don’t. You do not have to take it for travel. And yes, you can show up to work without the vaccine. And yes, you can show up to school without the vaccine.
These are forms of intimidation and almost every one of these institutions actually hasn’t written a policy. And if they don’t have a policy that’s been vetted with fair exemptions, that’s just intimidation. That’s like saying you can’t show up to work with a blue tie. If I want to wear a blue tie, I’m going to show up to work in a blue tie.
I think Americans are going to have to have that type of backbone in order to break this wave of propaganda, [this] ill intent that’s levered on the American people. I know so many people who are cowering … The fear is extraordinary …
If we had a Data Safety Monitoring Report in place, they would have been having emergency meetings at the end of January 2021, and said, ‘You know what? What we’re seeing is not good.’ We can actually calculate what’s called the competence interval.
When we exceed a competence interval for risks above a certain risk limit, we call it, and that [competence interval was exceeded] on January 22, 2021. Yet here we are, five months later. This will go down in history as the biggest medical biological product safety catastrophe in human history, by far. There’s nothing close … You can imagine how many heads are going to roll when this thing ultimately comes to its finality.”
- 1 American Journal of Medicine January 2021; 134(1): 16-22
- 2, 3 Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020; 21(4): 517-530
- 4 A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment (PDF)
- 5 MedAlerts VAERS data as of 6/18/21
- 6 The BMJ Opinion November 26, 2020
- 7, 8 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
Reproduced from original article:
- The Lancet and Nature have both promoted the natural origin theory for SARS-CoV-2, and protected the theory by refusing to publish counter arguments and/or publishing scientific statements by individuals with serious conflicts of interest
- The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission included Peter Daszak, Ph.D., president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that collaborated with various universities and organizations on research in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). He was recently taken off the Commission due to controversy over his large number of conflicts of interest
- The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission also includes Danielle Anderson, an Australian WIV virologist who left Wuhan shortly before the pandemic broke out. Anderson says she “does not believe” the virus is manmade. Anderson’s Commission biography does not mention that she worked at the WIV
- In January 2021, 14 global experts submitted a letter to The Lancet in which they argued that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded.” The submission was rejected with the justification that the topic was “not a priority” for the journal
- Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet is now being criticized for his long defense and support of the Chinese regime, and is accused of using The Lancet to pursue political causes and stifle scientific debate
More than a year ago, in February 2020, a group of 27 scientists wrote a letter published in The Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”1
Although The Lancet — like other medical journals — requires contributors to disclose financial or personal interests that might be viewed as possible conflicts of interests with their submissions, the 27 authors declared they had “no competing interests.”
June 21, 2021, The Lancet published an addendum admitting that “some readers have questioned the validity of this disclosure, particularly as it relates to one of the authors, Peter Daszak.”2
As a result, The Lancet asked the 27 signers to “re-evaluate” their competing interests and to declare any “financial and nonfinancial relationships that may be relevant to interpreting the content of their manuscript.” So far, Daszak has updated his previous claim of having no competing interests to include a 416-word disclosure statement clarifying that, indeed, he had several conflicts of interest.
First, he is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that receives funding from a “range of U.S. Government funding agencies and non-governmental sources.”
Second — and most importantly — Daszak also explained that, although its work with China is currently unfunded, he and the Alliance have collaborated with various universities and organizations on research in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Specifically, this work includes studies of bats and viruses, including “the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines.”
The Lancet Accused of Kowtowing to China
The COVID pandemic has brought attention to any number of problems within the academic arena. Disturbingly, we’ve discovered that scientific journals held in high regard for many decades — The Lancet has been around for 198 years — are colluding to censor important facts and stifle scientific debate. The Lancet statement deriding the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory to be ignored is a prime example. As reported by the Daily Mail, June 26, 2021:3
“The Lancet letter, signed by 27 experts, played a key part in silencing scientific, political and media discussion of any idea that this pandemic might have begun with a lab incident rather than spilling over naturally from animals.
It was even reportedly used by Facebook to flag articles exploring the lab leak hypothesis as ‘false information’ … Yet it emerged later that The Lancet statement was covertly drafted by British scientist Peter Daszak — a long-term collaborator with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was carrying out high-risk research on bat coronaviruses and had known safety issues …
Four months later, The Lancet set up a ‘Covid-19 Commission’ to assist governments and scrutinize the origins. It was led by Jeffrey Sachs … Incredibly, he backed Daszak to lead his commission’s 12-person taskforce investigating Covid’s origins — joined by five fellow signatories to The Lancet statement …
Last week The Lancet finally ‘recused’ him from its commission and published an ‘addendum’ to its statement detailing some of his Chinese links. Yet critics say the journal has still failed to admit that six more signatories to that February statement have ties to Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance as directors or partners.
‘It would have been better for The Lancet to have stated that Daszak’s and other signers’ previous declarations were untruthful and to have attached an editorial expression of concern,’ said Richard Ebright, a bio-security expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
Now The Mail on Sunday has learned that The Lancet is set to publish a second statement by these signatories that presses the case that Covid probably emerged through natural ‘zoonotic’ transmission from animals to humans.”
Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet is now being criticized for his long defense and support of the Chinese regime, and is accused of using The Lancet to pursue political causes and stifle scientific debate.4
In January 2021, 14 global experts submitted a letter to The Lancet in which they argued that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded.” Horton rejected the submission, stating it was “not a priority” for the journal.5
Any medical journal worthy of a good reputation needs to be an open platform for wide-ranging debate. Horton’s refusal to publish the other side of the origins argument has without a doubt damaged the credibility and reputation of the journal. Tory MP Bob Seely told the Daily Mail:6
“The claims of a cover-up over the most important scientific issue of our time grow stronger by the day. It is vital we get to the truth over what appears to have been a cover-up on the pandemic origins with the collusion of journals such as The Lancet.”
Let’s also remember that The Lancet published an entirely fake study claiming hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. This paper using completely fabricated data made the media rounds and led to countries banning the drug’s use against COVID-19.
This too raises serious questions about the journal’s credibility. How was this fraud not discovered during the peer review process? Could it be that The Lancet allowed it because it would help protect the roll-out of profitable new COVID drugs and “vaccines”?
What’s Behind Science Journals’ Censorship?
What could possibly be behind science journals’ decision to silence debate in what appears to be a concerted effort to protect Chinese interests? In a June 18, 2021, article,7 Matt Ridley suggests it might have to do with the fact that “scientific papers have become increasingly dependent on the fees that Chinese scientists pay to publish in them, plus advertisements from Chinese firms and subscriptions from Chinese institutions.”
The Lancet is not alone in its less than objective stance on China. In 2017, the Nature journal admitted it censors articles containing words like “Taiwan,” “Tibet” and “cultural revolution” in its Chinese editions at the request of the Chinese government.8 “In April 2020 Nature ran an editorial apologizing for its ‘error’ in ‘associating the virus with Wuhan’ in its news coverage,” Ridley writes.9
Nature also attached an editorial note to several old articles, saying they were being misused “as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered,” and that “there is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.”
One of those articles, published in 2015, was titled “Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research.” The research being questioned was done by WIV researchers.
Gaslighting Alert: Abusers Now Play the Victim Card
For the past year and a half, scientists, doctors, reporters and anyone else who dared point out blatant discrepancies in the natural origins narrative have been attacked and painted as quacks and dangerous conspiracy theorists. They’ve been censored, deplatformed and publicly defamed and shamed. Many a fine career has been ruined or seriously tarnished by baseless personal attacks.
Now that undeniable evidence is finally reaching critical mass, natural origin defenders are playing the victim card. For example, Amy Maxmen, Ph.D., a journalist for Nature for the past 13 years, has been covering the SARS-CoV-2 origin debate. In a May 26, 2021, tweet, she stated the “debate over a lab-leak has become toxic and risky.”10
Angela Rasmussen, Ph.D., a natural origin proponent, responded saying that “the origins debate has become a toxic milieu dominated by opportunists, dilettantes, racist/misogynist assholes, and trolls.”11 Rasmussen claims she’s been personally attacked and abused for trying to explain the natural origin theory.
The irony is that the same people who abused others for talking about the lab leak theory are now getting a taste of their own medicine, and they don’t like it. They’re the ones who have been peddling misinformation all along, and as the masses are catching on to the deceit, they’re catching heat.
To deflect and finger-point yet again, abusers are now playing the victim. Another tactic is to claim that attacks on them are attacks on science itself. Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, has stated this on more than one occasion already.12,13 In a June 2021 MSNBC interview, Fauci said criticizing him was “very dangerous,” and that:14,15
“A lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science because all of the things I have spoken about from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science … If you are trying to get at me as a public health official and scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science.”
His comments didn’t go over well, based on social media responses.16 Reporter Glenn Greenwald’s Tweet will suffice to summarize the general consensus:17
“Beyond the dangerous arrogance and pomposity of proclaiming ‘anyone who criticizes me is attacking Science’ — thus placing himself off-limits from questioning — he *admitted* he purposely issued false, anti-science, politicized claims … Once you *admit* that you made false statements in violation of The Science™, you don’t then get to equate yourself to The Science™ such that attacks on you are attacks on it.”
Another example is that of Dr. Peter Hotez, one of the most shockingly hateful people in the medical field who has publicly stated he wants to “snuff out” vaccine skeptics and has called for cyberwarfare measures to be deployed against me and others who share vaccine safety information. Coincidentally, this public plea was published in the journal Nature.18
This man, who has spewed all sorts of vile language at parents of vaccine-injured children and called for physical harm and imprisonment of people who don’t agree with the one-size-fits-all vaccine agenda is now complaining about getting bombarded with “anti-vaxx hate speech.”19
Billions of Dollars at Stake
To circle back to the question of why prominent and previously respected science journals are publishing propaganda and suppressing open discussion, the most likely reason — aside from their dependence on Chinese publishing fees and advertising dollars — is the fact that if SARS-CoV-2 is proven to be a manmade virus that escaped from a lab (regardless of its location), billions of dollars in funding for gain-of-function research and even vaccine research could evaporate.
As a publisher of research, it makes sense that journals would be willing to protect the research industry as a whole, and provide a platform for chosen spokespeople — such as Hotez — who shamelessly promote the official narrative, no matter how tenuous or unscientific it might be, or how clear the conflicts of interest.
Here’s another case in point: June 28, 2021, Bloomberg tweeted out a short video featuring Danielle Anderson, an Australian WIV virologist who left Wuhan shortly before the pandemic broke out. Anderson says she “does not believe” the virus is manmade. In response, Hotez tweeted:20
“And we’re in agreement: SARS-2 coronavirus has natural origins, was not produced through GOF [gain-of-function] research, and probably has nothing to do with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Coincidentally, Anderson is also on The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission,21 the same Commission that Daszak was on. Her Lancet Commission bio22 says nothing about her work at the WIV, only that she is a senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Why is that? Is Anderson’s link to the WIV yet another “random coincidence” that has no bearing on her message? Or is it part of a pattern?
I believe the engineering of viruses and other pathogens is one of the greatest threats to life on earth at this point. We lucked out with SARS-CoV-2, as it turned out to be far less lethal than initially predicted. The next time we might not be so lucky.
As reported in July 2020, China has plans to erect high-security biolabs in all of its 23 provinces, despite concerns about leakage risks.23 Worldwide, there are hundreds of laboratories where this kind of research is taking place on a daily basis. Considering the history of lab leaks, it’s only a matter of time before something truly nasty gets out.
This is why we must get to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from. We must know if it was manmade because, if so, we need to ban gain-of-function research aimed at making pathogens more dangerous to humans.
Yes, there are harmless gain-of-function experiments, and that’s not what we’re talking about here, although, harmless experiments can, of course, be steps in a process that ultimately results in a dangerous bioweapon. Overall, I think we need to seriously reconsider the need and value of genetic manipulation of viruses and the creation of synthetic ones.
- 1 The Lancet February 19, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30418-9
- 2 The Lancet Addendum June 21, 2021 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01377-5
- 3, 4, 5, 6 Daily Mail June 26, 2021, Updated June 27, 2021
- 7, 9 Capx.co June 18, 2021
- 8 Yahoo News November 1, 2017
- 10, 11 Twitter Angela Rasmussen May 26, 2021
- 12 New York Post June 9, 2021
- 13 New York Post June 21, 2021
- 14 Twitter Stephen Miller June 9, 2021
- 15, 16 MSN June 9, 2021
- 17 Twitter Glenn Greenwald June 9, 2021
- 18 Nature April 27, 2021
- 19 Houston Chronicle May 7, 2021 (Archived)
- 20 Twitter Peter Hotez June 28, 2021
- 21 Covid19commission.org
- 22 Lancet COVID-19 Commission Danielle Anderson Bio
- 23 Asia Times July 7, 2020
Reproduced from original article:
- Reports of deaths and serious injuries from the COVID-19 jabs mount by the day. As of June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had posted 358,379 adverse events, including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious injuries
- In the European Union’s database of adverse drug reactions from COVID shorts, called EudraVigilance, there were 1,509,266 reported injuries, including 15,472 deaths as of June 19, 2021. EudraVigilance only accepts reports from EU members, so it covers only 27 countries. Remarkably, about HALF of all reported injuries — 753,657 — are listed as “serious”
- The British Yellow Card system had, as of June 9, 2021, received 276,867 adverse event reports following COVID “vaccination,” including 1,332 deaths
- Before you make the decision to participate in this unprecedented health experiment, it may be wise to assess your personal insurance and financial ability to handle a serious injury, as pandemic vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits
- If you are injured by a COVID shot and live in the U.S., your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP). Payouts are rare, cover only lost wages and unpaid medical bills, cannot be appealed, are capped around $370,000 for death, and require you to exhaust your private insurance before kicking in
Reports of deaths and serious injuries from the COVID-19 jabs have been mounting with breakneck rapidity. Those who look at the numbers and have some awareness of historical vaccine injury rates agree we’ve never seen anything like it, anywhere in the world. While data can be hard to come by for some countries, the ones we can check reveal deeply troubling patterns.
•United States — As of June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had posted 358,379 adverse events,1 including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious injuries. In the 12- to 17-year-old age group, there were 271 serious injuries2 and seven deaths. Among pregnant women, there were 2,136 adverse events, including 707 miscarriages or premature births.3
All of these are bound to be undercounts as, historically, less than 10% of vaccine side effects are reported to VAERS.4 An investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services put it as low as 1%.5,6
Be that as it may, the reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,7 which historically has been the most hazardous.
The COVID shots are also five times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate.8,9 Assuming the COVID shots had the same side effect rate, and assuming some 200 million got the vaccine, the estimated number of people suffering a serious side effect would be about 5,000. We’re well past that already, as 35,86410 people have been seriously injured or killed.
Even though there are nearly 6,000 reported deaths in VAERS, this number is likely seriously compromised. I recently interviewed Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who has treated COVID patients quite successfully, and we discussed the very distinct possibility that everyone who receives the COVID jab may die from complications in the next two to three years.
He personally knows of 28 COVID jab deaths that were not accepted by VAERS. Zelenko suspects the number of deaths may exceed 100,000 already.
Getting the COVID jab immediately places the injected individual in the very high risk of dying from COVID. Most have the false assurance that they are protected, but in reality, they are far more vulnerable and as a result will not take very aggressive proactive measures to avoid dying from pathogenic priming or paradoxical immune enhancement before it is too late.
Please be sure and make a notation in your calendar to review my groundbreaking interview with Zelenko this Sunday, July 4, 2021, which is only three days away. We will review protocols you can use to protect you and your family or those you love, who now regret getting the COVID jab.
•European Union — In the European Union’s database of adverse drug reactions from COVID shots, called EudraVigilance, there were 1,509,266 reported injuries, including 15,472 deaths as of June 19, 2021.11 EudraVigilance only accepts reports from EU members, so it covers only 27 of the 50 European countries.
Remarkably, about HALF of all reported injuries — 753,657 — are listed as “serious,” meaning the injury is life-threatening, requires hospitalization, results in a medically important condition, significant disability or persistent incapacity.
•U.K. — The British Yellow Card system had received, as of June 9, 2021, 276,867 adverse event reports following COVID “vaccination,” including 1,332 deaths.12
•Israel — According to a report by the Israeli People Committee, a civilian body of health experts, “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.”13 For example, Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal.14
(Myocarditis is also affecting teens and young adults in the U.S. Although CDC officials say no confirmed deaths have been reported, at least two deaths have been linked temporally to the vaccine.15,16,17,18,19)
•Australia — In Australia, two people have died from blood clots after taking AstraZeneca’s COVID shot. Meanwhile, only one person — an elderly woman — has died from COVID-19 this year.20,21
If Something Goes Wrong, You’re on Your Own
The pain and suffering these shots have already created is hard to imagine. Clearly, millions around the world have had their lives turned upside down by them. Many may not recover, physically or financially. It’s really important to realize that if something goes wrong, you’re largely on your own.
Before you make the decision to participate in this unprecedented health experiment, it may be wise to assess your personal insurance and financial ability to handle a serious injury, as pandemic vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits. You cannot sue them for damages. Nor can you sue the government or anyone else.
If you are injured by a COVID shot and live in the U.S., your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP), under which COVID-19 vaccines are a covered countermeasure.22 The CICP is run by a sparsely staffed agency under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Details and hyperlinks to benefit request forms can be found in the Congressional Research Service’s legal sidebar, “Compensation Programs for Potential COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries.”23 You cannot apply for and will not receive compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which covers other vaccines, including the flu vaccine.
Compensation from CICP is very limited and hard to get. In its 15-year history, it has paid out just 29 claims, fewer than 1 in 10.24,25,26 You only qualify if your injury requires hospitalization and results in significant disability and/or death, and even if you meet the eligibility criteria, it requires you to use up your private health insurance before it kicks in to pay the difference.
There’s no reimbursement for pain and suffering, only lost wages and unpaid medical bills. This means a retired person cannot qualify even if they die or end up in a wheelchair. Salary compensation is of limited duration, and capped at $50,000 a year. On top of all that, you cannot appeal the CICP’s decision. Appeals simply get reviewed by another staff member in the same office.
Can You Afford a COVID Shot Injury?
Even if they can get it, CICP awards are likely to be a drop in the bucket for most people. The average award is $200,000, and death cases are capped at $370,376.27 Meanwhile, you can easily rack up a $1 million hospital bill if you suffer a serious thrombotic event.28 You must also pay for your own legal help and any professional witnesses you may need to support your claim.
In early June 2021, KRDO news reported29 on the case of Kendra Lippy, a 38-year-old woman who had no health complaints prior to getting her Johnson & Johnson shot. Within a week, she developed headaches, abdominal pain and nausea. Her diagnosis: Severe blood clots that progressed into multiple organ failure and coma.
She had to have most of her small intestine removed and will need total parenteral nutrition for the rest of her life — a feeding method that bypasses her gastrointestinal tract. She was hospitalized for 33 days, including 22 days in the intensive care unit. She now needs occupational and physical therapy to regain basic functions like walking, writing and holding a fork.
Lippy’s hospital bill already exceeds $1 million, a sum she’ll likely never be able to pay off, and there’s no telling what kind of medical treatment she’ll need in years to come. Clearly Lippy is headed for bankruptcy, and medical bills are the most common cause in the U.S.
Additional Stipulations That Make Payouts Rare
There are also time stipulations. You must file a request for benefits within one year of the date the vaccine was administered in order to qualify. This is a serious barrier, as serious side effects can take time to develop. For example, after the 2009 swine flu pandemic, people started reporting Guillain-Barre syndrome years after getting the pandemic H1N1 vaccine. At that point, they no longer qualified.30
Worst of all, however, is the fact that it is now your responsibility to prove your injury was the “direct result of the countermeasure’s administration based on compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence beyond mere temporal association.”
In other words, you basically have to prove what the vaccine developer itself has yet to ascertain, seeing how you are part of their still-ongoing study! The CICP is also notoriously secretive about why claims are approved or rejected. As reported by the Insurance Journal, “it doesn’t release even the most basic details such as the kinds of sicknesses people claim they got from vaccines.”31
As of June 1, 2021, 1,360 Americans had sought compensation from the CICP for injuries and deaths arising from pandemic countermeasures, but only 869 were deemed eligible to file a claim.32 None has been adjudicated. Professor Peter Meyers, a former director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic, who has referred to the CICP as a “black hole process,”33 warns that it’s a “lousy program.” He told Life Site News:34
“It’s a secretive, opaque program whereby some unknown officials within the Department of Health and Human Services will make decisions; we don’t know how many people are adjudicating, who they are, or what the process is.”
The secrecy means there are no official statistics on the types of injuries people are filing for, or what countermeasure is said to have caused their injury. By the way, vaccines are not the only countermeasures shielded from liability. Hospital treatment errors are shielded too, and we know some hospitals routinely killed patients, whether they had confirmed COVID-19 or not, by placing them on ventilators even when they didn’t need it.35
Can You Trust These White-Collar Criminals?
As mentioned, pandemic vaccine makers are shielded from financial liability. The only way you can sue is if you can prove “willful misconduct,” such as deliberate deception, fraudulent behavior or hiding relevant information. To get around this, vaccine makers may simply not look for certain problems.
The potential for infertility is a perfect example. The spike protein is suspected of having reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries.36 Despite that, Pfizer did not perform any reproductive toxicology tests. Since they didn’t look, they can with a straight face say they “didn’t know” the shot might cause reproductive failure. The thing is, they should have suspected it, and done the tests to make sure.
Already, we’re seeing signs of reproductive toxicity. Data suggest the miscarriage rate among women who get the COVID “vaccine” within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is a whopping 82%. The normal rate is 10%, so this is no minor increase. Infertility will be far more difficult to ascertain, and could take decades.37
In a May 28, 2021, letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, Drs. Ira Bernstein and Sanja Jovanovic and Deann McLeod, HBSc, of Toronto, pointed this out by highlighting that preliminary safety studies published in the NEJM in April 2021 were in error by including “clinically unrecognized pregnancies” in them.38
They included adjusted graphs reflecting this, and asked the study’s authors to remove the erroneous data but, interestingly, their letter disappeared from the internet the last week of June, although it was still in Wayback archives as of June 27, 2021. Coincidentally, June 17, 2021, the NEJM republished the April study with no explanation as to why it was being republished and with no adjustments to the data.
Considering the criminal history of Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, it’s hard to understand how millions of people trust these companies not to lie in order to make a buck. As reported by Life Site News:39
“Just three main vaccine makers, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, have been ordered by state and federal courts to pay a combined more than $8.6 billion in fines to resolve dozens of allegations of criminal and civil misconduct.
Pfizer alone was fined $2.3 billion — the largest such settlement in history, according to the Department of Justice — for willfully defrauding and misbranding its drugs that had already been yanked from shelves for their documented dangers.
But for six whistleblowers who brought evidence forward against the company, it may have continued misbranding and selling its dangerous wares.
‘We’ve made a trade-off in America,’ said Meyers, in giving vaccine manufacturers liability protection to ensure that they will keep making vaccines that, before legal immunity, were bogged down in lawsuit litigation for side effects.
Manufacturers who make cars or ladders or other products can be sued if they are faulty. Vaccine makers have blanket liability to ensure their products are produced, government funding to produce them, ensured government orders for products, government-paid mass-marketing and mandates …
‘The tradeoff seems unfair today because the CICP program is such as flawed program,’ said Meyers, particularly when vaccine companies are raking in colossal profits (Pfizer is set to haul in $26 billion from its COVID vaccines this year and COVID vaccine manufacturing is churning out billionaires whose annual salaries are multiples of a decade of CICP payouts to dozens of people).
The CICP benefits are ‘stingy compensations,’ he added, for people who are suffering and waiting in the face of corporate greed and government opacity. Notwithstanding the drug companies’ criminal records, Meyers thinks they would be ‘crazy to risk misconduct.’ If it turned out that vaccine makers were actually hiding information on risks of COVID vaccines, he said, ‘it would be a catastrophe.'”
Are Government and Big Pharma Guilty of Willful Misconduct?
I don’t know about you, but the feeling I get when I look at the cascade of injuries and deaths occurring within days or in many cases mere hours after injection is that something is terribly amiss, and vaccine makers are sweeping it all under the rug. Isn’t that willful misconduct? Failing to perform reproductive toxicology tests after they discover that spike protein accumulates in the ovaries — isn’t that reprehensible willful misconduct?
Continuing to claim that the mRNA stays in the shoulder muscle when they have data showing it gets distributed into virtually all organs in the human body — isn’t that hiding important information? Isn’t that reprehensible willful misconduct?
I would argue that government officials are also guilty of medical maleficence. As noted by Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,40 the most current version of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that governs these COVID shots reveals the FDA opted not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation, even though they had the power to do so.
Again, if you don’t look for injuries, you’re unlikely to find them. If there’s no robust data collection and review process, they can say the shots are safe and shuttle them through the licensing process far more easily. The problem they’re now facing is that VAERS is getting such an overwhelming number of reports that even if they account for only 10% of actual injuries, or less, it’s absolutely unmistakable that there are serious problems.
Failing to require vaccine makers to put together a comprehensive system to capture adverse event data is a sign of incompetence at best. But that’s not all. The FDA really starts appearing deceitful when refusing to acknowledge that the VAERS reports indicate there are problems.
To call “coincidence” more than 35,000 times is simply not believable, and to dismiss the risks of permanent disability and death as being “worth it” is beyond heartless, seeing how we have safe and effective treatments and no one actually needs to gamble their health on an experimental gene therapy.
COVID Shots Are Clearly Riskier Than Advertised
As noted in a June 22, 2021, Wall Street Journal article,41 while VAERS cannot tell us whether the shots were causative in any given side effect report, when you see clusters of reports that form a trend, it’s time to investigate.
Four serious adverse effects that are currently trending are thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), noninfectious myocarditis (heart inflammation), especially in those under 30, deep-vein thrombosis and death.42
In order for such effects to be tolerable, even if rare, the vaccine (or drug) would need to be absolutely crucial for survival. Think of a highly infectious pandemic of Ebola, for example — something where death is swift and virtually assured, and treatment, once infected, is ineffective.
None of those criteria apply to COVID-19, which has a lethality rate on par with the seasonal flu for all but the elderly and those most frail. The vaccine would also need to be an actual vaccine — something that provides immunity. COVID-19 gene therapy injections don’t do that either.
Overall, it’s clear that deaths and injuries from these shots are being swept under the rug, and we cannot allow that to continue. We must keep pushing for transparency, honesty and accountability.
Remember, mark your calendar to view my groundbreaking interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko this Sunday, which is only three days away. We will review protocols you can use to protect you and your family or those that you love who now regret getting the COVID jab.
- 1, 10 MedAlerts / VAERS June 11, 2021
- 2 MedAlerts / VAERS June 11, 2021, Cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Serious
- 3 The Defender June 18, 2021
- 4 BMJ 2005;330:433
- 5 AHRQ December 7, 2007
- 6 The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020
- 7, 37 Trial Site News May 25, 2021
- 8, 26, 27, 30, 31 Insurance Journal December 29, 2020
- 9 CNBC March 25, 2021
- 11 Based Underground June 22, 2021
- 12 Gov.UK Yellow Card Reporting Summary June 17, 2021 (Covers 12/9/2020 – 6/9/2021)
- 13 Aletho News April 21, 2021
- 14 Ottawa Citizen June 4, 2021
- 15 STAT News June 10, 2021
- 16 NBC News June 23, 2021
- 17 The Defender June 24, 2021
- 18 The Defender June 15, 2021
- 19 WLWT June 14, 2021
- 20 USA Today June 22, 2021
- 21 The Defender June 21, 2021
- 22, 23 Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar CICP March 22, 2021 (PDF)
- 24, 34, 39 Life Site News June 15, 2021
- 25 Insurance Journal August 14, 2020
- 28 The Defender June 2, 2021
- 29 KRDO June 2, 2021
- 32 HRSA June 1, 2021
- 33 Yahoo News August 21, 2020
- 35 11alive.com June 4, 2021
- 36 Trial Site News June 6, 2021
- 38 Wayback June 27, 2021
- 40 Trial Site News May 30, 2021
- 41, 42 WSJ Opinion June 22, 2021 (Archived)
Reproduced from original article:
- Dr. Robert Malone invented the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology. He has grave concerns about the lack of transparency of side effects, censoring of discussion and the lack of informed consent that these bring
- Free SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is biologically active — contrary to initial assumptions — and causes severe problems. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body and heart problems. These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people who have received the COVID-19 “vaccine”
- The spike protein also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries. Data suggests the miscarriage rate among women who get the COVID “vaccine” within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is 82%
- Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal
- The COVID-19 injections have emergency use authorization only, which can only be granted if there are no safe and effective remedies available. Such remedies do exist, but have been actively censored and suppressed
In the video above, DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., an evolutionary biologist, interviews Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,1 and Steve Kirsch, an entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID-19 gene therapies.
I realize that this is an absolutely epic three-hour interview but if you ever valued what I have been teaching, you must at a bare minimum very carefully read this entire article.
Malone is the scientist that actually invented the technology that makes the COVID jab possible and he spills the beans on just how this introduction has been ethically compromised to make informed consent absolutely impossible for the average person. Watch the interview if your schedule allows, but carefully read this article for sure.
Kirsch recently published the article, “Should You Get Vaccinated?” in which he reviews how and why he has changed his mind about the COVID-19 “vaccines.” This after he got both doses of the Moderna shot, as have his three daughters.
If you or someone you know is equivocal about the COVID jab, then please, you simply MUST read Kirsh’s article as it is clearly one of the best pieces written on the topic and provides the other side of the story that is NEVER given in the mainstream media. Remember, without full disclosure of the vaccine’s risk, it is impossible to have informed consent.2 If you read Kirsch’s article, you will get, in great detail, the other side that the conventional media refuses to share. He writes:
“I recently learned that these vaccines have likely killed over 25,800 Americans (which I confirmed 3 different ways) and disabled at least 1,000,000 more. And we’re only halfway to the finish line. We need to PAUSE these vaccines NOW before more people are killed.
Based on what I now know about the miniscule vaccine benefits (approximately a 0.3% reduction in absolute risk), side effects (including death), current COVID rates, and the success rate of early treatment protocols, the answer I would give today to anyone asking me for advice as to whether to take any of the current vaccines would be, ‘Just say NO.’
The current vaccines are particularly contraindicated if you have already been infected with COVID or are under age 20. For these people, I would say ‘NO! NO! NO!’
In this article, I will explain what I have learned since I was vaccinated that totally changed my mind. You will learn how these vaccines work and the shortcuts that led to the mistakes that were made.
You will understand why there are so many side effects and why these are so varied and why they usually happen within 30 days of vaccination. You will understand why kids are having heart issues (for which there is no treatment), and temporarily losing their sight, and ability to talk. You will understand why as many as 3% may be severely disabled by the vaccine.”
The Spike Protein Is a Bioactive Cytotoxin
As explained by Malone, many months ago he warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the spike protein — which the COVID-19 “vaccines” instruct your cells to make — could be dangerous. The FDA dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active. Besides, the vaccine makers specifically designed the injections so that the spike protein would stick and not float about freely.
Well, they were wrong on both accounts. It’s since been well-established that, indeed, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein gets free, and that it is biologically active and causes severe problems. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body and heart problems.
These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people having received one or two shots of COVID-19 “vaccine.” For more in-depth information about how the spike protein causes these problems, please see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.
Using the word vaccine isn’t really appropriate here, and I don’t want to contribute to the misuse of that word. These injections are clearly not vaccines. They don’t work like any previous conventional vaccines. As the actual inventor of the mRNA vaccines clearly says in the interview, they are gene therapy. So, please understand that when I say vaccine or vaccination, I’m really talking about gene therapy.
Spike Protein Disseminates Throughout Your Body
In a recent interview3 with Alex Pierson, Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D., discussed previously unseen research obtained from the Japanese regulatory agency through a freedom of information act request.
The study was a biodistribution study done by Pfizer, which showed that the mRNA in the vaccine does not stay in and around the vaccination site but is widely distributed in the body, as is the spike protein.4
This is a serious problem, as the spike protein is a toxin shown to cause cardiovascular and neurological damage. Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, it can cause platelets to clump together, resulting in blood clots, and/or cause abnormal bleeding. I detailed these and other findings in “Researcher: ‘We Made a Big Mistake’ on COVID-19 Vaccine.”
Dangerous Corners Were Cut
The spike protein also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries. Kirsch cites data suggesting the miscarriage rate among women who get the COVID “vaccine” within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is 82%.5 The normal rate is 10%, so this is no minor uptick. Kirsch writes:6
“It is baffling that the CDC says the vaccine is safe for pregnant women when it is so clear that this is not the case. For example, one our family friends is a victim of this. She miscarried at 25 weeks … She had her first shot 7 weeks ago, and her second shot 4 weeks ago.
The baby had severe bleeding of the brain and other disfigurements. Her gynecologist had never seen anything like that before in her life. They called in a specialist who said it was probably a genetic defect (because everyone buys into the narrative that the vaccine is safe it is always ruled out as a possible cause).
No VAERS report. No CDC report. Yet the doctors I’ve talked to say that it is over 99% certain it was the vaccine. The family doesn’t want an autopsy for fear that their daughter will find out it was the vaccine. This is a perfect example of how these horrible side effects just never get reported anywhere.”
Disturbingly, the Pfizer biodistribution data package reveals that corners were cut in the interest of speed, and one of the research facets that were skipped was reproductive toxicology. Yet, despite the lack of an initial reproductive toxicology investigation and a rapidly growing number of reports of miscarriages (which is likely to be a significant undercount), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is still urging pregnant women to get vaccinated. Why is that?
Is There Purposeful Suppression of VAERS Data?
What’s more, as discussed in the interview, there’s evidence that data in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is being manipulated as reports that were filed are now missing. Why were they removed? And without the filers’ consent?
Even with that manipulation, the number of deaths reported post-vaccination against COVID-19 is beyond anything we’ve ever seen. According to Kirsch, the rate of death from COVID-19 shots exceeds that of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,7 which historically has been the most hazardous.
Other serious effects are also off the charts. For example, Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal.8 Additionally, many young people are actually dying as a result of this myocarditis.9
Malone points out that, in re-reading the most current version of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that governs these COVID shots, he discovered that the FDA opted not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation, even though they had the latitude to do so.
As noted by Weinstein, this is yet another anomaly that needs an answer. Why did they opt for such lax data capture, because without it, there’s no way of evaluating the safety of these products. You cannot identify the danger signals if you don’t have a process for capturing effects data and evaluating all of it.
“The whole logic of EUA is you’re basically substituting real-time capture of key information for prospective capture of key information,” Malone explains. “But to do that, you’ve got to get the information and it has to be rigorous.”
Furthermore, as noted by Weinstein, if you release a vaccine under emergency use — because you say there’s an unprecedented health emergency and there are no other options, therefore it’s worth taking a larger than normal risk — then you still would not give it to people who are at no or low risk of the disease in question.
This would include children, teens and healthy individuals under the age of 40, at bare minimum. Children appear naturally immune against COVID-1910 and have been shown to not be disease vectors,11 and people under 40 have an infection fatality ratio of just 0.01%.12 That means their chances of survival is 99.99%, which is about as good as it gets.
Pregnant women would also be excluded as they are a high-risk category for any experimentation, and anyone who has recovered from COVID would be excluded as they now have natural immunity and have no need for a vaccine whatsoever. In fact, a recent Cleveland Clinic study13,14 found people who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least 42 days prior to vaccination reaped no additional benefit from the jabs.
Yet all of these incredibly low-risk groups are urged and even inappropriately incentivized to get vaccinated, and this too is anomalous behavior. Part of the risk-benefit analysis is not only the risk of serious outcomes and death from the disease, but also the availability of alternative treatments, and here we have the third massive anomaly.
We’ve seen a clear suppression of information showing that there are not just one but several effective remedies that could reduce the risk of COVID-19 to a number of cohorts down to virtually zero. Examples include hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, both of which have been safely used for decades in many millions of people around the world.
The precautionary principle dictates that as long as a drug or treatment strategy doesn’t do harm, even if the positive effect may be small, it should be used until better data or better treatments becomes available. This is the logic they used with masks (even though the data overwhelmingly showed no statistical benefit and there are a number of potential harms).
But when it comes to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, they suppressed the use of these drugs even though they are extremely safe when used in the appropriate doses and have been shown to work really well in many dozens of studies. As noted by Kirsch in his article:15
“Repurposed drugs [such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin] are safer and more effective than the current vaccines. In general, early treatment with an effective protocol reduces your risk of dying by more than 100X so instead of 600,000 deaths, we’d have fewer than 6,000 deaths. NOTE: The vaccine has already killed over 6,000 people and that’s from the vaccine alone (and doesn’t count any breakthrough deaths).”
Doctors are also being muzzled and their warnings suppressed and censored. Dr. Charles Hoffe has administered Moderna’s COVID-19 “vaccine” to 900 of his patients. Three are now permanently disabled and one has died. After writing an open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry, the provincial health officer for British Columbia, in which he stated that he’s “been quite alarmed at the high rate of serious side-effects from this novel treatment,”16 his hospital privileges were yanked.
Bioethics Laws Are Clearly Being Broken
In a May 30, 2021, essay,17 Malone reviewed the importance of informed consent, rightly concluding that censorship makes it so that informed consent simply cannot be given. Informed consent isn’t just a nice idea or an ideal. It is the law, both nationally and internationally. The current vaccine push also violates bioethical principles in general.
“By way of background, please understand that I am a vaccine specialist and advocate, as well as the original inventor of the mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology. But I also have extensive training in bioethics from the University of Maryland, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and Harvard Medical School, and advanced clinical development and regulatory affairs are core competencies for me,” Malone writes.
“Why is it necessary to suppress discussion and full disclosure of information concerning mRNA reactogenicity and safety risks? Let’s analyze the vaccine-related adverse event data rigorously. Is there information or patterns that can be found, such as the recent finding of the cardiomyopathy signals, or the latent virus reactivation signals?
We should be enlisting the best biostatistics and machine learning experts to examine these data, and the results should — no must — be made available to the public promptly. Please follow along and take a moment to examine the underlying bioethics of this situation with me …
The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene therapy technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine enterprise. It is my opinion that the adult public can handle information and open discussion. Furthermore, we must fully disclose any and all risks associated with these experimental research products.
In this context, the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial.
And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research — written or otherwise.
The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.18 There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects.”
Experimentation without proper informed consent also violates the Nuremberg Code,19 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles were developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.
Lines Have Been Crossed That Must Never Be Crossed
In the U.S., we also have the Belmont report,20 cited in Malone’s essay, which spells out the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, covered under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A). The Belmont report describes informed consent as follows:
“Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.
While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”
Americans, indeed the people of the whole earth, are being prevented from freely accessing and sharing information about these gene therapies. Worse, we are misled by fact checkers and Big Tech platforms that ban or put misinformation labels on anyone and anything discussing them in a critical or questioning way. The same censorship also prevents comprehension of risk.
Lastly, government and any number of vaccine stakeholders are encouraging companies and schools to make these experimental injections mandatory, which violates the rule of voluntariness. Government and private businesses are also creating massive incentives to participate in this experiment, including million-dollar lotteries and full college scholarships. None of this is ethical or even legal. As noted by Malone:21
“… as these vaccines are not yet market authorized (licensed), coercion of human subjects to participate in medical experimentation is specifically forbidden. Therefore, public health policies which meet generally accepted criteria for coercion to participate in clinical research are forbidden.
For example, if I were to propose a clinical trial involving children and entice participation by giving out ice cream to those willing to participate, any institutional human subjects safety board (IRB) in the United States would reject that protocol.
If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study, once again, that protocol would be rejected by any US IRB based on coercion of subject participation. No coercion to participate in the study is allowed.
In human subject clinical research, in most countries of the world this is considered a bright line that cannot be crossed. So, now we are told to waive that requirement without even so much as open public discussion being allowed? In conclusion, I hope that you will join me; stop to take a moment and consider for yourself what is going on. The logic seems clear to me.
1)An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development.
2)EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent.
3)The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion.”
Again, if your schedule allows, I sincerely hope you take the time to listen to Weinstein’s interview with Malone and Kirsch. Yes, it is very long — about 3 ½ hours — but they are all astute in their observations, which makes for an enlightening conversation. And remember to read and widely share Kirsch’s article, “Should You Get Vaccinated?”22
- 1, 17, 21 Trial Site News May 30, 2021
- 2, 6, 7, 15, 22 Trial Site News May 25, 2021
- 3 Newzworldtoday.com June 2, 2021
- 4 Trial Site News June 6, 2021
- 5 Letter to Editor, Comment on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons (PDF)
- 8 Ottawa Citizen June 4, 2021
- 9 The Defender June 15, 2021
- 10 Science May 14, 2021; 372(6543): 738-741
- 11 Archives of Disease in Childhood 2020;105:618-619
- 12 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
- 13 medRxiv June 5, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176
- 14 News Medical Life Sciences June 8, 2021
- 16 Open Letter from Dr. Charles Hoffe April 5, 2021
- 18 World Medical Association WMA Declaration of Helsinki
- 19 Nuremberg Code of 1947
- 20 HHS.gov The Belm
Reproduced from original article:
- The Center for Public Integrity is the latest media outlet to publish a hit piece against Mercola.com and others sharing viewpoints that go against the status quo
- The title of the article — “Spreading Vaccine Fears. And Cashing In.” — and its content, reveal that it’s far from actual journalism and nothing more than biased propaganda
- In the interest of full disclosure, I published my full response to reporter Liz Essley Whyte, as the majority was excluded from the article
- NPR and Coda Story have also published false articles recently with misleading and defamatory statements against Mercola.com
- The media and its “fact checkers” have succeeded in generating fear and in controlling human behavior via the pandemic while attempting to bury and discredit those who are speaking out against COVID propaganda
Yet another hit piece has been published blasting “anti-vaccine” influencers for sharing viewpoints that go against the status quo. This time, the article was published by The Center for Public Integrity, which claims to use investigative reporting to reveal the “causes and effects of inequality.”1
The title of the article — “Spreading Vaccine Fears. And Cashing In.” — and its content, however, reveal that it’s far from actual journalism and nothing more than biased propaganda.2
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m publishing my full response to reporter Liz Essley Whyte below. Whyte contacted Mercola.com in April 2021, stating she was “writing an article about anti-vaccine activists for whom activism is also a way to make money” and asking if I’d be willing to do an interview with her. My team asked for a list of questions and, after repeated follow-ups, those were provided about one month later.
Among them, “What is your response to critics who say your frequent criticism of mainstream medicine, including vaccines, serve to build a customer base and boost your profits?” and “How much does Mercola.com (and/or any other Mercola-branded companies) do in sales and/or profits (in dollar figures) per year? How has that grown over the years? How did the pandemic affect those figures?”
You can see that they’re trying to build a case that websites such as mine — which is solely interested in sharing the truth — are only out to make profits or are exploiting the fear generated by mainstream media to sell supplements. But as I stated previously, the real profiteers in this pandemic are not people selling supplements online but billionaires who are only getting richer.
Meanwhile, in their “investigative” piece, The Center for Public Integrity ignored the majority of my responses to their questions, publishing only this:3
“Disagreeing with big pharma and the federal agencies they’ve captured is a detriment to anyone,” Mercola said in a statement. “Placing yourself in the crosshairs of these coordinated attacks is not financially or personally beneficial.”
My Full Response to The Center for Public Integrity
If Whyte were truly interested in opening up a conversation about the spreading of fear by mainstream media and its implications to society and COVID-19 vaccinations, it would have been crucial to publish my response — but Whyte did not choose to include it.
For some background, in April 2021, Whyte wrote an article for The Center for Public Integrity titled, “I’m Pregnant. Here’s Why I Decided to Get the Coronavirus Vaccine.”4 Even her doctor told her that whether or not to get the experimental vaccine while pregnant is “a personal choice,” which she said “wasn’t exactly useful advice.” Ultimately, Whyte wrote, “I concluded the clear benefits of getting vaccinated outweighed unknown and possibly nonexistent risks.”5
In my view, giving these vaccines to pregnant women is beyond reprehensible. This experimentation is doubly unforgivable seeing how women of childbearing age have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, their fatality risk being a mere 0.01%.6 Pregnant women simply do not need this vaccine, and therefore any risk is likely excessive.
This does give you some insight into Whyte’s personal beliefs about vaccination, which were evident in her journalism as well. As for my response to Whyte’s questions, you can read it for yourself now, in its entirety:
Unfortunately, disagreeing with big pharma and the federal agencies they’ve captured is a detriment to anyone. Pharmaceutical PR groups, lobbied politicians, and the controlled media groups criticize those who interfere with the plan to vaccinate everyone from cradle to grave, even if they’re compromised. Placing yourself in the crosshairs of these coordinated attacks is not financially or personally beneficial.
Medical risk taking is a personal choice, and that choice must be preserved, and that’s exactly what we stand for — preserving the health freedoms of our global community while also exposing false health information provided by pharmaceutical public relations campaigns.
While you may promote the EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] vaccine to pregnant women based on a 20-week rat study, others find that to be reprehensibly negligent advice. The truth is that COVID vaccination for pregnant women is an experiment, and there is not adequate safety testing for these novel injections — even if the V-Safe program states quite clearly that only preliminary information is available.
Unlicensed COVID vaccinations during pregnancy is experimental. To suggest that safety data is ‘piling up’ is deliberate misinformation. Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons | NEJM.7
Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%). Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).
Restrictions to freedom of speech within the big tech monopoly platforms will only accelerate segregation of communities and alternative platforms for nonconformist points of view.
Trust in big tech, big pharma, federal agencies and the media is justifiably broken. I was one of the first to widely publicize that this virus leaked from the Wuhan lab and was immediately discredited by mainstream fact checkers and news sources — Please see attached from NewsGuard.
Ironically, NewsGuard is owned by Publicis, a big tech and big pharma public relations company.8,9 Publicis is not just the owner of the fact checkers, they are partners in campaigns against what they consider to be health ‘misinformation.’10
It turns out the owners of Newsguard, campaigning against misinformation, were directly responsible for the deadly opioid marketing campaigns that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.11 More information is available in my latest book if you wish to learn more.”12
Media Are on a Campaign to Spread Lies
The Center for Public Integrity hit piece is only the latest in a series of media articles aimed at spreading lies about anyone who speaks out against the standard COVID narrative.
As seems to be the pattern, the “expert” source quoted in the article is Imran Ahmed, who runs the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — a progressive U.K.-based cancel-culture leader13 with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that has labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as “threats to national security.”
Ahmed has gone on record saying he considers anti-vaxxers “an extremist group that pose a national security risk,”14 and admits tracking and spying on 425 vaccine-related Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter accounts.15 CCDH is also partnered with HealthGuard, which is NewsGuard’s health-related service.16
In Whyte’s article, Ahmed states, “These are old-fashioned snake-oil salesmen. They are willing to let people suffer death, disease in order to make profits for themselves.” He adds, “Anti-vaccine influencers are ‘a classic example of bad actors who are proficient in digital spaces, at creating outcomes which are bad for us and society … They react the way you would expect them to.”17
However, CCDH’s partner NewsGuard is in the business of censoring the truth. NewsGuard previously classified Mercola.com as fake news because we reported the SARS-CoV-2 virus as potentially having been leaked from the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan City, China, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak. Since then, several members of the U.S. Congress have vowed to launch their own investigation to explore the lab accident theory.18
In May 2021, NPR also published a hit piece about Mercola.com and other vaccine safety advocates designed to disparage and discredit those who are speaking out against COVID propaganda. Similar to The Center for Public Integrity, the line of questioning sent to Mercola.com for comment was not journalism but, rather, aimed at spreading pharmaceutical propaganda.
It wasn’t disclosed in the article, for instance, that NPR has received $17.5 million in donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which were intended to target coverage of global health and education.19 This may explain why NPR rarely publishes anything critical of Gates and, when it does, “it can feel scripted.”20
NPR has also praised Facebook for blatant censorship, with statements such as, “Facebook said it now limits the reach of posts that could discourage people from getting vaccinated, even if the messages don’t explicitly break its rules. But the cat-and-mouse game continues.”21 Then if you scroll to the bottom, you’ll see the editor’s note: “Facebook is among NPR’s financial supporters.”22
May 2021: More Fake News Against Mercola.com
In a similar vein, Coda Story published a false article on May 7, 2021, with misleading and defamatory statements against Mercola.com,23 even though it was in possession of an email with my side of the story. As was the case with The Center for Public Integrity and NPR, I published the full email exchange with Coda Story, so you could read my responses, which, again, were not included in the article.
Coda Story claims that it “tells you stories you never heard before, shows you connections you never knew existed, and investigates the nuance and complexity of the world.”24 Surely, then, its reporters would be eager to dive into the counterpoints provided in our email, in order to explore, investigate and share these connections with the world.
In reality, they revealed their true colors, both with the blatant lies they published and their refusal to explore the truth further, even after it was clearly presented. Meanwhile, media are largely ignoring news that deserves to be heard — like NewsGuard’s real disinformation campaign based on censoring COVID-19 truth and manufacturing pro-industry propaganda to serve Big Pharma, Big Tech and the deep state.
The fact that Publicis is being sued for its role in creating Purdue’s deceptive marketing for OxyContin, which is described as the “crime of the century,” is also mostly buried.
The media and its “fact checkers” have succeeded in generating fear and controlling human behavior via the pandemic, and anything that counters its final solution of vaccination is being censored and discredited via biased propaganda disguised as journalism — this is a clue that shouldn’t be overlooked.
If you’d like to get involved in the rally behind legislation that prevents the alteration of laws that safeguard our freedoms, check out the Five Freedoms Campaign, which focuses on creating legislation to preserve key freedoms and prevent emergency laws from infringing on your freedom to assemble, worship, protest and engage in business. Legislation is also being crafted to open schools, remove mask mandates and eliminate requirements for vaccine passports.
- 1 The Center for Public Integrity, About Us
- 2, 3, 17 The Center for Public Integrity June 8, 2021
- 4, 5 The Center for Public Integrity April 8, 2021
- 6 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
- 7 NEJM April 21, 2021
- 8 NewsGuard March 5, 2018
- 9 Business Wire October 10, 2019
- 10 Twitter April 27, 2021
- 11 Adweek May 7, 2021
- 12 Amazon, The Truth About COVID-19
- 13 Off-Guardian August 11, 2020
- 14 The Independent July 7, 2020
- 15 The Anti-Vaxx Playbook (PDF), Page 9
- 16 NewsGuard HealthGuard
- 18 Washington Post May 6, 2021
- 19, 20 Columbia Journalism Review August 21, 2020
- 21, 22 NPR May 14, 2021
- 23 Coda Story May 7, 2021
- 24 Coda Story, What is Coda?
Reproduced from original article:
by: Sara Middleton, staff writer | June 11, 2021
(NaturalHealth365) The first COVID shot administered in the United States happened back in December 2020 – seems like a lifetime ago, doesn’t it? Almost immediately, public health officials began pushing the message that widespread administration of COVID jabs was the only way to end the pandemic.
But despite reasonable concerns over adverse events – many of which would be discovered only after mass injections began, as predicted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – few in the public health sphere seemed to express any hesitancy over administering this drug to just about anyone. “It’s alarming,” a leading cardiologist said in a recently published interview available now on Rumble.com.
These are the people who should avoid the COVID jabs, according to cardiologist and Chief of Medicine at major Texas university
Dr. Peter McCullough is a consultant cardiologist, Professor of Medicine, and Vice Chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, TX. He’s been a strong and routinely silenced voice in the informed consent community during this pandemic and has recently expressed his concerns over the widespread administration of COVID shots.
In his professional opinion, groups of people who should NOT get the jab include:
- Pregnant and lactating women
- People who have previously had COVID-19
- Anyone who was explicitly excluded from the clinical drug trials (including older adults)
Aside from the lack of long-term data regarding the safety and effectiveness of these drugs, Dr. McCullough also points to his concerns over the drugs’ short-term effects.
Recent studies reveal that the COVID spike protein (which helps the coronavirus get into the cell) causes damage to the human body. Yet, this spike protein is exactly what jab recipients’ bodies are instructed to make after getting their experimental mRNA shots. (The response from public health officials and fact-checkers: the spike protein produced by COVID shots is not harmful, but the spike protein produced by SARS-CoV-2 is.)
These aren’t Dr. McCullough’s only points of contention with this highly controversial drug. For a full look at his professional insights regarding the COVID shot and his thoughts on COVID jab dangers, watch the video in its entirety here:
FDA urges people to inform providers about medical conditions before getting COVID shot, yet continues to recommend widespread administration of this experimental drug
So, is there anyone who should not get the COVID jab according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? Here’s who they advise against the shot in Pfizer‘s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) fact sheet:
- People who have had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose of the drug
- People who have had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient of the drug
As for pregnant and breastfeeding women, women planning to become pregnant, people who are immunocompromised, people with bleeding disorders/on blood thinners, people with “any allergies,” and anyone who have “ever fainted in association with an injection,” the FDA states that they should first alert their injection providers about these and any other medical conditions.
The question is: IS this actually happening? When exactly did the media tell millions of Americans to alert their providers about all their medical conditions before rolling up their sleeves?
Remember: choosing to get the COVID shot is a personal choice, and as of this writing, these jabs are still experimental and unapproved medical products.
And since the clinical trials from Pfizer and Moderna were unblinded, meaning those in the control group were allowed to receive the jab, it also remains to be seen just how much clarity we will get about these drugs’ safety even if they eventually receive FDA approval.
Sources for this article include: