now browsing by category


‘Highly Probable’ Military Developed COVID, Leaked From Lab

PREORDER | The Truth About COVID-19 | A New Book by Dr.Joseph Mercola
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola    Fact Checked    March 29, 2021
Reproduced from original article:


  • According to David Asher, former lead investigator for the U.S. State Department’s task force that looked into the origins of COVID-19, the data “made us feel the Wuhan Institute was highly probably the source of the COVID pandemic”
  • Asher also admits there is evidence in the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 suggesting it’s been synthetically altered
  • An assessment report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency states SARS-CoV-2 was likely an accidental release from an infectious diseases laboratory. Intentional release was ruled out
  • The Chinese tried to remove viral sequencing data from a European database. The sequences included adenovirus, a vaccine vector, which could indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is part of a vaccine program. Such a vaccine would likely be the antidote to a biological weapon
  • There’s evidence the Wuhan Institute of Virology worked on classified military programs, and since the NIH has funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV, this could mean the U.S. funded research that ended up being used in a Chinese military bioweapons program

It typically takes a lot longer for truth to become public knowledge than the finely orchestrated propaganda we are all exposed to on a daily basis, but eventually, truth tends to rise to the surface.

This appears to be the case with the origin of SARS-CoV-2 as well, as we’re now starting to see more mainstream media reporting what alternative media have been saying for months, which is that the most likely origin of the virus is a laboratory.

I first mentioned that the outbreak had the hallmarks of a laboratory escape in my February 4, 2020, article, “Novel Coronavirus — The Latest Pandemic Scare.” Currently, the mainstream narrative is that while it may indeed have been a lab creation after all, it’s certainly not part of a bioweapons project.

Well, at least that brings us halfway, and this is good news. Personally, I wouldn’t dismiss the bioweapon’s angle just yet, though. In the end, we may well find that this pandemic was the result of a bioweapon program after all, which is precisely why I believe we need to permanently ban gain-of-function research. The risks to public health are simply too great.

As noted by investigative journalist Alison Young in a recent USA Today op-ed, in which she details a number of hair-raising near-misses involving extremely lethal pathogens that could have led to unmitigated disaster were it not for sheer luck:1

“The risk that a laboratory-released virus — carried into the community by a worker who didn’t know they were infected or through the leak of infectious waste — could cause a deadly outbreak has been a growing concern for many years.

In America, scientists and members of Congress … and the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office have expressed concerns for years. In reports and hearings, they’ve worried that the proliferation of laboratories working with high-risk pathogens is increasing the aggregate threat of a deliberate or accidental lab release causing a catastrophic outbreak …

If the COVID-19 pandemic were found to have been caused by a lab accident, it would have far-reaching implications for the fragmented and secretive oversight of biological research in the United States and worldwide that currently relies heavily on the scientific community to police itself.”

US State Department Suspects Lab Leak

In a March 21, 2021, interview with Sky News Australia2 (video above), David Asher, former lead investigator for the U.S. State Department’s task force that looked into the origins of COVID-19, said the data they collected “made us feel the Wuhan Institute was highly probably the source of the COVID pandemic.”

According to Asher, three workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) who worked with the RatG13 coronavirus — the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2 identified to date — appear to have been the first cluster of cases of COVID-19. They fell ill with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 as early as October 2019. At least one of the workers required hospitalization.

He also points out there is evidence in the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 suggesting it’s been synthetically altered. It has the backbone of a bat coronavirus, combined with a pangolin receptor and “some sort of humanized mice transceptor.” “These things don’t naturally make sense,” Asher says, adding that experts around the world agree that the odds of this configuration occurring naturally is “very low.”

Another troubling indicator that something was amiss at the WIV was the Chinese government’s taking down of a WIV database in September 2019. According to the Chinese, this was done because of “thousands of hacking attempts.”

However, Asher points out many other databases were taken offline around the same time as well.3 The Chinese also tried to remove data posted in a European database containing viral sequencing from patients exhibiting COVID-19-related symptoms.

Click here to learn more

SARS-CoV-2, a Suspected Bioweapon Vector

Interestingly, the sequences posted in the European database included adenovirus, which is a vaccine vector. This, Asher says, could indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is part of a vaccine program.

Now, it doesn’t make sense to create a vaccine for just any virus that they happen to be working on. It is, however, consistent with a biological weapons program. Meaning, first a biological weapon is created, and then an antidote, such as a vaccine, is developed to defend your own population and your allies.

In an earlier article4 by The Sun, Asher is quoted saying the WIV “was operating a secret, classified program,” and that “In my view … it was a biological weapons program.” He stops short of accusing China of intentional release, however, which also would not make sense from a bioweapon point of view. Instead, he said he believes is was a weapon vector that, during development, “somehow leaked.”5

This falls in line with a March 27, 2020, assessment report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, which stated that SARS-CoV-2 was likely an accidental release from an infectious diseases laboratory. According to Newsweek,6 “The classified report, titled ‘China: Origins of COVID-19 Outbreak Remain Unknown,’ ruled out that the disease was genetically engineered or released intentionally as a biological weapon.”

In a March 8, 2021, Politico article,7 columnist Josh Rogin also pointed out that “just months into the pandemic, a large swath of the government already believed the virus had escaped from the WIV lab, rather than having leaped from an animal to a human …”

Hallmarks of Guilt

Asher also told Sky News8 he’s never seen a more systematic cover-up, and The Sun9 quotes him as saying that “Motive, cover-up, conspiracy, all the hallmarks of guilt are associated with this.”

Regardless of how the virus came about, Asher is unequivocal about China’s behavior resulting in a global pandemic, as they delayed border closings and even claimed the virus didn’t appear to spread from human to human, even though there were clear indications that it did. Indeed, people were secretly complaining about China’s lack of transparency from the earliest days of the pandemic. As reported by RTE:10

“China insists that it was transparent during the early outbreak, delivering ‘timely’ information to the WHO. Indeed, the WHO publicly praised China for its openness and cooperation. Yet behind the scenes, the Irishman leading the emergency response complained they weren’t getting the information or access they needed.

In leaked recordings obtained by Prime Time, Dr. Michael Ryan is heard comparing it to China’s cover-up during the SARS outbreak in 2003. ‘This is exactly the same scenario, endlessly trying to get updates from China about what was going on in Guangdong and then, bang,’ he said.

‘The WHO barely got out of that one with its neck intact given the issues that arose around transparency in southern China … We do need to shift gears here.

‘There’s been no evidence of human-to-human transmission’ is not good enough,’ Dr. Ryan is heard saying in the recordings … ‘We need to see the data, we need to be able to determine for ourselves the geographic distribution, the timeline, the epicurve and all of that,’ he said.”

Chinese Researchers Sought to Distance China From the Virus

In a March 22, 2021, article,11 The Sun also reported that emails from Dr. Shi Zhengli at WIV, obtained by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) via freedom of information act requests, “shows how Chinese scientists fought to shift blame” for the pandemic away from China and Wuhan.

To distance themselves from the virus, they initially tried to get it renamed, as SARS-CoV-2 links it to the Chinese SARS outbreak of 2003. Shi suggested the virus be called TARS-CoV or HARS-CoV, to clearly differentiate it from the Chinese SARS outbreak.

They also feared the virus might become known as the “Wuhan coronavirus” or “Wuhan pneumonia.” The scientists’ effort to change the scientific name “shows their conscription into political processes,” Gary Ruskin, executive director of USRTK said, adding that “The power to name is the power to define.”

Congress Demands Information From the NIH

Other good news includes a March 18, 2021, letter12 from the U.S. Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce to the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, requesting “information, assistance and needed-leadership” from the agency “to advance an independent scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

In the letter, they quote Stanford professor David Relman, who in a November 2020 commentary in the journal PNAS stated that:

“A more complete understanding of the origins of COVID-19 clearly serves the interests of every person in every country on this planet. It will limit further recriminations and diminish the likelihood of conflict; it will lead to more effective responses to this pandemic, as well as efforts to anticipate and prevent the next one.

It will also advance our discussions about risky science. And it will do something else: Delineating COVID-19’s origin story will help elucidate the nature of our very precarious coexistence within the biosphere.”

The Committee also stresses that while the WHO attempted to investigate the origins of the virus and had vowed to be guided by science and not exclude any hypothesis, they failed to live up to this promise, as China “did not provide complete access or independence” for the team.

Without conducting a thorough investigation, but rather relying on information provided by the Chinese, the team roundly dismissed the lab-origin theory and announced it would no longer be part of their investigation.

Within days, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus walked back the team’s outright dismissal saying “I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study.”13 Perhaps he realized the WHO was about to make a public relations mistake so severe it would never recover.

China Cites ‘Privacy Laws’ to Avoid Crucial Data Sharing

In response to questions as to why China refused to share original patient data with the WHO’s investigative team, the Chinese head of the WHO joint team claims such data cannot be copied and shared due to patient privacy and data protection laws.14

As noted by OneShared.World founder Jamie Metzl in a Tweet,15 this sounds like a dubious justification considering the Chinese government is “forcibly extracting genetic samples from Uighurs [and] Tibetans,” a practice reported by The New York Times in June 2020.16 Besides, Metzl notes, “If anonymized data can be shared safely in democracies, it can be shared safely everywhere.”

WHO Investigation Was Tainted From the Start

Lastly, while not discussed in the Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce’s letter, the WHO’s investigative team was also severely biased from the start, thanks to the inclusion of Peter Daszak, Ph.D., president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization focused on pandemic prevention that worked closely with bat coronavirus researchers at the WIV, including Shi.

Daszak was also found to have played a central role in the early plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by crafting a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”17,18 Mainstream media have been referring to and relying on this manufactured “consensus” statement ever since to “debunk” counternarratives.

Was US-Funded Research Used in Chinese Bioweapons Program?

The Committee on Energy and Commerce does raise the issue of the U.S. having potentially funded the research that resulted in SARS-CoV-2, and that the Chinese military may have been involved as well. According to the letter,19 the U.S. government has “determined that the WIV has collaborated on projects with China’s military,” and “engaged in classified research … on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.”

Disturbingly, since the NIH has funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV through grants to the EcoHealth Alliance, this could mean the U.S. actually funded research that ended up being used in a Chinese military bioweapons program.

“Accordingly, it is imperative to determine not only where SARS-CoV-2 originated, but also how and if NIH’s funding and research to projects at the WIV could have contributed to SARS CoV-2,” the letter states.20

The letter includes a long list of information requests, including:

  • All information the NIH has about laboratory accidents at the WIV since January 2015.
  • Any communication between NIH staff, grantees, subgrantees, contractors and subcontractors with the China-based NIH, the Chinese National Science Foundation, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Chinese CDC, regarding events at the WIV between August 2019 and the present.
  • Whether the WIV invited researchers from the University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston (UTMBG), as indicated in an April 2018 State Department cable, whether any UTMBG researchers ended up conducting research there, and any documents relating to that research.
  • All correspondence between the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance since January 1, 2020, related to funding involving the WIV.
  • The sources for its April 2020 communication with EcoHealth Alliance, in which the NIH stated it had “received reports” that the WIV “has been conducting research … that pose serious biosafety concerns.”

Scientists Also Call for Independent Investigation

Two dozen scientists and policy experts have also signed an open letter21 calling for an independent investigation into the virus’ origin,22 listing a number of flaws in the joint WHO-China inquiry, including the universal absence of evidence demonstrating a wholly natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. If the virus was truly natural, surely, we’d have some evidence of its evolution at this point, yet we have nothing.

In addition to the shortcomings of the WHO’s investigative commission, the letter also details what a full and independent investigation “should look like,” starting with the creation of a multidisciplinary team, whose members have “no unresolved conflicts of interest and no full or partial control by any specific agenda or country.”

They also recommend “considering all possible scenarios for each pathway,” and then following standard forensic approaches, which include securing full access to all relevant sites, records, logs, databases and samples.

Gain-of-Function Research Must Be Banned

I firmly believe we need to ban gain-of-function research across the world. As noted by Marc Lipsitch in his 2018 review, “Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?”:23

“This is a question of intense debate … Experiments to create potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs) are nearly unique in that they present biosafety risks that extend well beyond the experimenter or laboratory performing them; an accidental release could, as the name suggests, lead to global spread of a virulent virus, a biosafety incident on a scale never before seen …

While there are indisputably certain questions that can be answered only by gain-of-function experiments in highly pathogenic strains, these questions are narrow and unlikely to meaningfully advance public health goals such as vaccine production and pandemic prediction.

Alternative approaches to experimental influenza virology and characterization of existing strains are in general completely safe, higher throughput, more generalizable, and less costly than creation of PPP in the laboratory and can thereby better inform public health. Indeed, virtually every finding of recent PPP experiments that has been cited for its public health value was predated by similar findings using safe methodologies.”

While the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains to be conclusively proven, a paper24 published in Nature in 2015 discussed how a “lab-made coronavirus related to SARS” capable of infecting human cells had stirred up debate as to whether or not this kind of research is worth the risks:

“Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that ‘grows remarkably well’ in human cells. ‘If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,’ he says.”

With 20/20 hindsight, we now have a much clearer idea of what the release of such a virus can do. We may chalk it up to luck that SARS-CoV-2 turned out to be orders of magnitude less lethal than initially suspected, although government containment measures have turned out to be devastating and deadly as well. If this kind of research is allowed to continue, the next time there’s a leak, we may not be nearly as lucky.

Top Eight COVID Lies

The Truth About COVID-19 | A New Book by Dr.Joseph Mercola
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Fact Checked March 20, 2021
Reproduced from original article:

misinformation on coronavirus


  • Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner in Cheshire, England, has made it his mission to add some balance to the widespread fear-mongering that occurs at the hands of the health care lobby and media, including in regard to COVID-19
  • The top COVID lies include that there’s no such thing as naturally acquired herd immunity and that vaccines induce stronger and longer lasting immunity than recovery from natural infection
  • COVID-19 death statistics are also misleading, and the universal mask mandates and lockdowns said to save lives are a farce
  • Other COVID lies include the myth of asymptomatic spreaders driving the pandemic and the “official” narrative that the virus didn’t leak from a laboratory accident

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner in Cheshire, England, and the author of three books, including “Statin Nation,” has made it his mission to add some balance to the widespread fear-mongering that occurs at the hands of the health care lobby and media.

“In a world where the truth can be, literally, turned upside down, how can you know what to believe, and who to believe?” he asks. His blog attempts to “dig down to find the meaning behind the headlines,” and one of his recent posts centered on COVID-19 and the “impossible things” — some might call them lies — that are being propagated in its name.1

Top Eight COVID Lies

Kendrick’s post takes aim at widespread COVID-themed disinformation, highlighting six top inconsistencies. I’ve added two more as well.

1.No Such Thing as Herd Immunity — Except From Vaccines — Herd immunity occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community. When the number susceptible is low enough to prevent epidemic growth, herd immunity is said to have been reached. Prior to the introduction of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved via exposure to and recovery from an infectious disease.

Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only the naturally acquired immunity that comes from prior illness but also the temporary vaccine-acquired immunity that can occur after vaccination.

In the case of COVID-19, however, we’ve been told that the idea of natural herd immunity to COVID-19 is not achievable — and even considering that it could be is “deadly and dangerous.”2 Yet, a curious thing happened. When vaccines became available, the idea of vaccine-induced herd immunity to COVID-19 became widespread. According to Kendrick:3

“First, I was told that attempting to create herd immunity was not achievable. It would also be extremely dangerous and would inevitably result in many hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.

Then the vaccines arrived at fantastical speed and I was told that mass vaccination, by creating herd immunity, would be the factor that would allow us to conquer COVID19 and return to normal life. I am not entirely sure which of these things is impossible, but one of them must be.”

2.Vaccines Induce ‘Stronger and Longer Lasting Immunity’ — In February 2021, The HuffPost reported that the COVID-19 vaccine would “induce stronger and longer lasting immunity” than the immunity induced by natural infection.4 However, an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, Dr. Meryl Nass, suggests the protection the COVID vaccine provides will be inferior to that acquired via natural infection:

“No one knows how long immunity lasts, if in fact the vaccines do provide some degree of immunity … For every known vaccine, the immunity it provides is less robust and long-lasting than the immunity obtained from having had the infection.

People who have had Covid really have no business getting vaccinated — they get all the risk and none of the benefit.”

In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises people who have previously been infected with COVID-19 to still get vaccinated, even though trials suggest there’s no benefit in this population. A CDC report also incorrectly cited the vaccine’s effectiveness for those previously infected, prompting one congressman to say they’re “lying.”

In a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.5

But according to Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky, “That sentence is wrong. There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either.”6 Kendrick adds:7

“I also know that vaccinations can only ever really create an attenuated response. Whereas a full-blown infection triggers a full-blown immune response.

So, I think it is pretty close to impossible that vaccination can provide greater protection than that from getting the actual disease. Which is why I think it is utterly bonkers we are actually vaccinating people who have circulating antibodies in their blood.”

3.Universal Mask Use Is Essential to Stop COVID-19 — It’s been touted that face masks are essential to stopping the spread of COVID-19 and could save 130,000 lives in the U.S. alone.8 But in 2019, the World Health Organization analyzed 10 randomized controlled trials and concluded, “there was no evidence that facemasks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”9

Only one randomized controlled trial has been conducted on mask usage and COVID-19 transmission, and it found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.10

“Never has a trial been subjected to such immediate and hostile reporting. Fact-checkers (whoever exactly they might be, or what understanding they have of medical research) immediately attacked it,” Kendrick noted, adding:11

“Yes, we have now entered a world when political fact checkers feel free to attack and contradict the findings of scientific papers, using such scientific terms as ‘Mostly false’ … Ignoring the modern-day Spanish Inquisition, and their ill-informed criticisms, I will simply call this study.

More evidence that face masks don’t work. Perhaps someone will come along with a study proving that face masks work. So far … nada. Another impossible thing.”

4.COVID-19 Death Statistics — The positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for COVID-19 are plagued with problems, one of which is that they are not designed to be used as diagnostic tools as they cannot distinguish between inactive (noninfectious) viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.12

If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick from it and you cannot spread it to others. Further, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.” These false positive tests, in turn, can contribute to the number of people dying “with” COVID-19, but not actually dying “of” the disease.

“[W]e have the very strange concept that any death within twenty-eight days of a positive COVID19 swab is recorded as a COVID19 death,” Kendrick said, explaining:13

“You can have a positive swab long after you have been infected — and recovered. There are just some bits of virus up your nose that can be magnified, through the wonders of the PCR test, into a positive result.

Which means that an elderly person, infected months ago, can be admitted to hospital for any reason whatsoever. The they can have a positive swab — everyone is swabbed. Then they can die, from whatever it was they were admitted for in the first place. Then, they will be recorded as a COVID19 death.

In truth, this is just the start of impossible things when it comes to the number of COVID19 deaths. Do not get me started on PCR cycle numbers, and false positives. We would be here all day.”

5.The Swedish COVID-19 Response Was a Disaster — Sweden handled the pandemic differently than most of the globe, and has been chided for its looser restrictions and lack of severe lockdowns. In October 2020, TIME called the Swedish COVID-19 response a “disaster,”14 but Kendrick cites data showing that the death rate in Sweden in 2020 was right in line with other years — nothing out of the ordinary.15

When Kendrick compared the number of deaths in Sweden in 2012 — one of their highest death statistics — to 2020, the difference between absolute death rate in 2012 and 2020 is 0.012%.

“That is 120 extra deaths per million of the population, which is 1,224 people in a population of 10.2 million. The statistics tell us that twelve thousand people died from COVID19 in Sweden. Maybe you can make all that add up. Frankly, I find it impossible.”16

6.Lockdowns Have Worked — Available data reveal lockdowns have been completely ineffective at lowering positive test rates, while extracting a huge cost in terms of human suffering and societal health.

Using data from the Worldometer,17 Kendrick compiled a list of the countries with the highest rate of COVID-19, based on deaths per million of the population. Every country on the list, which included the U.K., Italy, the U.S., Spain, Mexico and others, had “fairly strict” lockdowns.

Four countries that have been criticized for not having strict lockdowns — Sweden, Japan, Belarus and Nicaragua — did not make the list, and have an average death rate of 391 per million. In contrast, the top 20 “lockdown” countries have an average death rate of 1,520 per million. According to Kendrick:18

“Yet although this evidence is out there, I am being asked to believe that lockdowns work. At least the WHO agrees with me on this impossible thing.

As Dr. David Nabarro, the WHO special envoy on COVID19 said‘We really do appeal to all world leaders, stop using lockdown as your primary method of control. Lockdowns have just one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.’19

7.Asymptomatic Spreaders Are Driving the Pandemic — The reasoning given for lockdowns, masks and social distancing is to stop the spread of disease among people who are asymptomatic. It’s common sense to stay home if you’re sick and exhibiting symptoms, but for people who feel healthy, the institution of lockdowns to prevent asymptomatic spread is unprecedented.

Yet, during a June 8, 2020, press briefing, Maria Van Kerkhove, the World Health Organization’s technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that asymptomatic transmission is very rare, meaning an individual who tests positive but does not exhibit symptoms is highly unlikely to transmit live virus to others.

A study in Nature Communications also found “there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts.”20 When they further tested asymptomatic patients for antibodies, they discovered that 190 of the 300, or 63.3%, had actually had a “hot” or productive infection resulting in the production of antibodies. Still, none of their contacts had been infected.21

8.The Virus Didn’t Come From a Lab Accident — Despite the complete absence of a plausible zoonotic origin theory, WHO’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has officially cleared the Wuhan Institute of Virology and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.22

The WHO investigation was riddled with conflicts of interest from the start, and no credible theory for natural zoonotic spillover has been presented to date. However, there are at least four distinct lab origin theories, including the serial passage theory, which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture, as well as evidence for genetic manipulation.23

You may be wondering, if there’s so much evidence pointing toward a lab origin, why are leading health authorities and scientists dismissing it all and insisting SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence, mysterious as it might be?

Should the COVID-19 pandemic be officially recognized as the result of a lab accident, the world might be forced to take a cold hard look at gain-of-function research that allows for the creation of these new pathogens. The end result would ideally be the banning of such research worldwide, with significant financial repercussions, the ending of prestigious careers in that realm and potential criminal charges for those involved as well.

In the face of misinformation and manipulation, what you can do now is keep your eyes open and your ears tuned to the science, so you don’t fall victim to the unnecessary panic and fear, or the increased surveillance and control, that is being created.

Click here to learn more

SHOCKING: Pfizer expects many vaccine injury LAWSUITS, demands global indemnity

Reproduced from original article:

by:  | March 15, 2021

vaccine-injury-lawsuits(NaturalHealth365) As of March 11, 2021, an estimated 10 percent of the United States population has been “fully vaccinated” for COVID-19, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  We say “fully vaccinated” because it’s not yet clear how effective a COVID vaccine is, nor is it clear if officials will decide that additional vaccine doses are necessary (the Pfizer CEO certainly seems to think so).

Sadly, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) continues to be updated with serious or even fatal reactions following coronavirus vaccinations — some within a matter of minutes or hours following vaccination.  And while we don’t have enough data to prove causation yet, it seems telling that Pfizer is working hard to cover its … assets … in the face of what they clearly expect will be numerous vaccine injury lawsuits in the near future.

An ominous flex from Pfizer? COVID vaccine maker demands extreme guarantees from countries ahead of vaccine injury lawsuits — while Pfizer CEO openly admits he wants people to get COVID vaccine “every year”

In a February 25, 2021 interview with NBC News, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla (who owns an estimated $5.68 million in Pfizer stock) made a jaw-dropping statement as he was conditioning the audience to the idea of an up-and-coming third dose for the Pfizer COVID vaccine.

“Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine,” Bourla said.  “It’s going to be the same with COVID.  In a year, you will have to go and get your annual shot for COVID to be protected.”

It’s far too early to be making such claims, many argue, especially given what Pfizer is reportedly doing now to protect itself against future litigation.

The notorious pharmaceutical company has allegedly been pressuring countries to put up collateral — in the form of military bases, embassy buildings, bank reserves, and sovereign assets — in order to contend with anticipated COVID lawsuits.  At least two countries, Argentina and Brazil, have rejected these demands, which many legal experts say reflect a blatant abuse of power from the Big Pharma giant.

Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air.  These chemicals – the ‘off-gassing’ of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials – increase your risk of nasal congestion, fatigue, poor sleep, skin issues plus many other health issues.

Get the BEST indoor air purification system – at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers.  I, personally use this system in my home AND office.  Click HERE to order now – before the sale ends.

It’s hardly surprising Pfizer is working so hard to protect its bottom line, given the absolutely unprecedented nature of the current situation.  The Pfizer COVID vaccine — which contains brand-new mRNA technology — was developed and authorized for emergency use (NOT approved, as some social media “fact-checkers” claim) in eight months.  Prior to this, the quickest vaccine ever developed was for mumps — which took four years.

By the way…

If you’re an American and injured by a COVID vaccine, you won’t be able to sue Pfizer for damages (or any other pharmaceutical company, for that matter) until at least 2024 — and maybe not even then.

Here’s the context surrounding vaccines that you need to know (and why 1986 is an important year)

In March 2020, when U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), legal protection was automatically granted to all companies distributing investigational vaccines and other unapproved treatments for COVID-19.  Due to the PREP Act, people also cannot sue the FDA for authorizing emergency use of these drugs, nor hold employers accountable if they mandate a COVID jab.  This protection lasts until 2024.

Of course, Americans aren’t able to sue pharmaceutical companies for damages caused by approved vaccines, either.  That’s been the case since 1986 when President Ronald Reagan signed into law the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).  This law grants immunity to pharmaceutical companies.  In other words, you can’t sue Pfizer or other companies for an injury you or a loved one sustain due to one of their vaccines, “unless the company engaged in wrongful or criminal misconduct involving the vaccine,” according to the FDA.

What recourse do you have?  One option is to submit a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).  It should be noted that the VICP is overseen by the Health Resources and Services Administration, which is a branch of the HHS — a potential conflict of interest, to say the least.

Since 1988, $4.5 billion in compensation have been paid out among 7,874 petitions (out of a total 23,902 petitions filed).

Pharmaceutical companies don’t enjoy the same legal protections in certain other countries that they have here in the United States.  So, as the vaccine rollout continues and millions of more people line up for the jab, it will be interesting to see how countries will handle the cases of their injured citizens.

Sources for this article include:

COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy

The Truth About COVID-19 | A New Book by Dr.Joseph Mercola

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola    Fact Checked    March 16, 2021
Reproduced from original article:

mrna vaccine gene therapy


  • mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are gene therapies. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine. This matters, as you cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk for
  • mRNA contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies
  • The only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the vaccinated individual, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit, it makes no sense to demand you accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community
  • Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine, marketing them as such is a deceptive practice that violates the law that governs advertising of medical practices
  • SARS-CoV-2 has not even been proven to be the cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot be said to be preventive against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked

As calls for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination grow around the world, it’s becoming ever more crucial to understand what these injections actually are. The mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are in fact gene therapies.

As I’ll explain below, there’s simply no way around this, and drug manufacturers and public health officials must be made to admit this fact. Why? Because it makes all the difference in the world. You cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk for.

Interestingly enough, mainstream media, fact checkers and various industry front groups insist the gene therapy claim is bogus, even though every single detail about the vaccines shouts otherwise. Why are they spreading this disinformation? Why do they not want you to know what these injections actually are?

In short, they know labeling them as “gene therapies” would be like slapping a skull and crossbones label on them. Most people have enough common sense to realize that gene therapy is a different ballgame from a regular vaccination, and might be a bad idea, especially for children and younger individuals.

mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Fulfill None of the Criteria for a Vaccine

To start, let’s take a look at some basic definitions of words. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is:1

  • “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

Immunity, in turn, is defined as:

  • “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

That’s the medical definition. The legal definition, in the few cases where it has been detailed, is equally unequivocal:

  • Iowa code2 — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.”
  • Washington state code3,4 — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” The statute also specifies that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”

These definitions, both medical and legal, present problems for mRNA “vaccines,” since:

  • mRNA injections do not impart immunity. Moderna and Pfizer both admit that their clinical trials aren’t even looking at immunity. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.
  • They do not inhibit transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.

Dictionaries Attempt to Rewrite Medical Terms

We should not be fooled by attempts to condition the public to accept redefined terms. As of February 2019, Merriam-Webster defined5 “vaccine” as “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.” By February 26, 2021, they had updated the definition of “vaccine” to:6

“A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease:

a:an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated … pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)

b:a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)”

Let’s be clear. Merriam-Webster does not dictate medical terminology. It can be used, however, to confuse people. For now, all medical dictionaries still show the traditional definition of vaccine,7 as Merriam-Webster did up until this year. That said, I would not be surprised if changes are made there as well, eventually, if the misrepresentation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is allowed to stand.

Click here to learn more

mRNA Therapy Doesn’t Satisfy Public Health Measure Directive

There’s also the issue of whether a gene therapy can be mandated, and this may hinge on it being accepted as a vaccine. The 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts8 essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit.

Put another way, the ruling argues (although legal experts diverge on some of the finer details of its interpretation) that it’s acceptable for some individuals to be harmed by a public health directive as long as it benefits the collective. However, if vaccination is a public health measure meant to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to accomplish two things:

  1. Ensure that the vaccinated person is rendered immune from the disease.
  2. Inhibit transmission of the disease from the vaccinated person to other individuals.

We’re now back to the original problem that mRNA therapies for COVID-19 do not accomplish either of these things. Since these gene therapies do not render the person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk.

On the contrary, the only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the individual receiving the gene therapy, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein.

In other words, they won’t keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they are only supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected. So, getting vaccinated protects no one but yourself. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit (less severe COVID-19 symptoms upon infection), the justification to accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community is blatantly irrational.

Marketing mRNA Therapy as Vaccine Violates Federal Law

Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine, referring to them as vaccines, and marketing them as such, is a deceptive practice that violates9 15 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,10 the law that governs advertising of medical practices.

The lack of completed human trials also puts these mRNA products at odds with 15 U.S. Code Section 41. Per this law,11,12 it is unlawful to advertise “that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”

Here’s the problem: The primary end point in the COVID-19 “vaccine” trials is not an actual vaccine trial end point because, again, vaccine trial end points have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those was measured.

What’s more, key secondary end points in Moderna’s trial include prevention of severe COVID-19 disease (defined as need for hospitalization) and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms.13,14 However, Moderna did not actually measure rate of infection, stating that it was too “impractical” to do so.

That means there’s no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence … substantiating that the claims are true.”

Making matters worse, both Pfizer and Moderna are now eliminating their control groups by offering the real vaccine to any and all placebo recipients who want it.15 The studies are supposed to go on for a full two years, but by eliminating the control group, determining effectiveness and risks is going to be near impossible.

What Makes COVID Vaccines Gene Therapy?

Alright. Let’s move on to the definition of “gene therapy.” As detailed on’s “What Is Gene Therapy” page:16

“Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent disease … Researchers are testing several approaches to gene therapy, including: … Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease …

Although gene therapy is a promising treatment option for a number of diseases (including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain viral infections), the technique remains risky and is still under study to make sure that it will be safe and effective. Gene therapy is currently being tested only for diseases that have no other cures.”

Here, it’s worth noting that there are many different treatments that have been shown to be very effective against COVID-19, so it certainly does not qualify as a disease that has no cure. It makes sense that gene therapy should be restricted to incurable diseases, as this is the only time that taking drastic risks might be warranted. That said, here’s how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines gene therapy:17

“Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene

Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly

Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease”

November 17, 2020, the American Society of Gene + Cell Therapy (ASGCT) announced “COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Show Gene Therapy Is a Viable Strategy,” noting that:18

“Two COVID-19 vaccine trials, both of which use messenger RNA (or mRNA) technology to teach the body to fight the virus, have reported efficacy over 90 percent.

These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 … demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19.

Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a person’s cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.”

mRNA Deliver New Genetic Instructions

As explained in the ASGCT’s video above, mRNA are molecules that contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies. Then there’s Moderna’s trial website,19 where they describe their technology thus:

“Typical vaccines for viruses are made from a weakened or inactive virus, but mRNA-1273 is not made from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is made from messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), a genetic code that tells cells how to make protein, which help the body’s immune system make antibodies to fight the virus.”

November 18, 2020, Wired magazine made a big deal about COVID-19 vaccines being “genetic vaccines,” noting:20

“The active ingredient inside their shot is mRNA — mobile strings of genetic code that contain the blueprints for proteins. Cells use mRNA to get those specs out of hard DNA storage and into their protein-making factories. The mRNA inside Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine directs any cells it reaches to run a coronavirus spike-building program.”

Importantly, as reported by David Martin, Ph.D.,21,22 “Moderna … describes its product not as a vaccine, but as ‘gene therapy technology’ in SEC filings. This is because neither Moderna nor Pfizer … make any claims about their products creating immunity or preventing transmission.” Additionally, Moderna’s SEC filings specifically state that “Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA,” as well.23

mRNA Is ‘Proven Form of Gene Therapy’

In a February 2021 article, MIT Technology Review reviewed the history of mRNA technology in general, and Moderna’s in particular, stating:24

“Vaccines were not their focus. At the company’s founding in 2010, its leaders imagined they might be able to use RNA to replace the injected proteins that make up most of the biotech pharmacopoeia, essentially producing drugs inside the patient’s own cells from an RNA blueprint. ‘We were asking, could we turn a human into a bioreactor?’ says Noubar Afeyan, the company’s cofounder …”

Bloomberg, in August 2020, reported25 that the Moderna vaccine would seek to transform your body into “a vaccine-making machine.” The New York Times was more to the point. In May 2020, they reported26 that “Researchers at two Harvard-affiliated hospitals are adapting a proven form of gene therapy to develop a coronavirus vaccine.” Read it again — A proven form of gene therapy.

So, to summarize: The definition of “genetic” is something relating to genes, and the definition of “therapy” is the medical treatment of a disease. The definition of “gene therapy” is the process of modifying or manipulating the expression of a gene, or altering the biological properties of living cells.

mRNA are snippets of genetic code that instructs cells to produce proteins. mRNA COVID-19 therapies “deliver genetic instructions into your cells,” thereby triggering your body to produce a fragment of the virus (the spike protein). So, mRNA vaccines ARE gene therapy. There’s simply no way around this. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine.

Defining ‘COVID-19’

There’s yet one more potential problem with the “COVID-19 vaccine” narrative as a whole, which Martin unpacked in a January 25, 2021, interview on the Wise Traditions podcast (above).27 In it, he explains:

“COVID-19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases.

The problem that we have is that in February [2020], the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between [SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19]. One is a virus, in their definition, and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19.

The problem with that definition, and with the expectation, is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2, are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That’s the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.”

In short, SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be definitively proven to be the actual cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot even be touted as a preventative against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked.

“They have been willfully lying since the inception of this,” Martin says in the interview. “There is not a causal link between these things … It has never even been close to established.

We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, ‘I don’t want to get COVID-19.’ What they mean is they don’t want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other. A viral infection hasn’t been documented in the majority of what is called cases.

There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That’s the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination … is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy …

What is this doing? It’s sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen … A vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin …

It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all … It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then, allegedly, your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine — which is to trigger the immune response — this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.”

Why the Misrepresentation?

As for why drug companies are misrepresenting this technology, Martin suspects “it’s done exclusively so that they can get themselves under the umbrella of public health laws that exploit vaccination.”

Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. This is indeed a major incentive to make sure this technology is perceived as a vaccine and nothing else.

So, by maintaining the illusion that COVID-19 is a state of emergency, when in reality it is not, government leaders are providing cover for these gene therapy companies so that they are insulated from any liability.

Experimental Gene Therapy Is a Bad Idea

I’ve written many articles detailing the potential and expected side effects of these gene therapy “vaccines.” If all of this is new to you, consider reviewing “How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System,” “Seniors Dying After COVID Vaccine Labeled as Natural Causes” and “Side Effects and Data Gaps Raise Questions on COVID Vaccine.”

The take-home message here is that these injections are not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, they do not render you immune and they do not prevent transmission of the disease. Instead, they alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. What’s happening here is a medical fraud of unprecedented magnitude, and it really needs to be stopped before it’s too late for a majority of people.

If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. I review these strategies at the end of “Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce.”

Last but not least, if you got the vaccine and are having side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:28

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the CHD website

BREAKING: Johnson & Johnson targets newborns, infants, and pregnant women next for COVID vaccine trials

Reproduced from original article:

by:  | March 13, 2021

covid-vaccine-trials(NaturalHealth365) On February 26, 2021, the pharmaceutical company and COVID vaccine maker Johnson and Johnson (of Janssen Biotech, Inc.) held an advisory committee briefing with their sponsors.  In the briefing (page 34), they outlined their plans to test their investigational viral vector vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S, in an upcoming cohort of participants.

But while many in the mainstream media are applauding these “fast-tracked” vaccination trials, many question the safety and necessity of testing a brand-new vaccine in populations as vulnerable as newborn infants.

Johnson & Johnson preparing to trial its genetically engineered, investigational vaccine on adolescents, newborns and pregnant moms

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently authorized Johnson & Johnson to offer its COVID vaccine to adults aged 18 and older in the United States.  On the heels of their clinical trials, Johnson & Johnson is now quickly turning their investigative aims toward yet untested populations much more quickly than their pharmaceutical counterparts are.

While Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna plan to study the effects of their experimental drugs on younger kids in a more gradual manner, Johnson & Johnson appears to be going full-steam ahead.  First, they’ll be testing their vaccine on children between the ages of 12 and 18 years old, and immediately thereafter in newborns and adolescents.  Next up in their vaccine trials will be pregnant women and their infants, and finally will be immunocompromised individuals.

Mainstream media and public health officials are celebrating this move, calling for the need for more data on these special populations.  However, children and infants appear to be extremely unlikely to suffer serious illness from COVID-19 and are thought to be less likely to catch or spread the virus.  One October 2020 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that children make up just 13 percent of all COVID-19 cases, and the CDC recently stated in a February 2021 release that “in-person learning in schools has not been associated with substantial community transmission.”

For these reasons and more, many parents and providers are wary of testing unapproved, investigational drugs on kids.

Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air.  These chemicals – the ‘off-gassing’ of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials – increase your risk of nasal congestion, fatigue, poor sleep, skin issues plus many other health issues.

Get the BEST indoor air purification system – at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers.  I, personally use this system in my home AND office.  Click HERE to order now – before the sale ends.

It should be noted that testing a COVID vaccine in a newborn infant or even young child is likely to go on in tandem with the normal childhood vaccination schedule, which is already astronomical by historical standards.  As outlined by the Children’s Health Defense, the 1986 childhood vaccine schedule featured just 12 jabs against 8 diseases.  Today’s vaccination schedule boasts 54 shots against 16 diseases … 17, potentially, if a COVID-19 vaccination is added to the mandatory list.

Johnson & Johnson jab different from other COVID vaccines – here’s how

The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines that are currently authorized for emergency use are based on new mRNA technology and require (at least) 2 doses.  The Johnson and Johnson drug is a viral vector vaccine and requires only one dose, for the time being anyway.

This vaccine is made with a disabled adenovirus (similar to viruses that cause the common cold) that has been engineered to enter human cells.  Once inside, the tampered virus delivers genetic instructions that force these cells to create copies of the characteristic spike proteins found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2.  Once these spike proteins have been made, the vaccine recipient’s immune system is supposed to trigger a powerful response and create antibodies that are believed to protect the person against SARS-CoV-2 in the future.

Notably, viral vector vaccines typically require the use of unusual adenoviruses not commonly exposed to humans, such as those found in chimpanzees, in order to promote a strong immune response.

According to the CDC, current clinical trials on the Johnson & Johnson jab reveal that the vaccine is roughly 66 percent effective at preventing COVID-19.  This is barely any better than the seasonal flu vaccine, which the CDC says boasts an efficacy rate of anywhere from 40 to 60 percent.

At the moment, no COVID vaccine has been licensed nor approved by the FDA.  Stay tuned, as we at NaturalHealth365 continue to closely monitor this situation.  Let us know how you feel about this issue.

Sources for this article include:


Exploring the Oxford-AstraZeneca Eugenics Links

The Truth About COVID-19 | A New Book by Dr.Joseph Mercola
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola    Fact Checked    March 13, 2021Reproduced from original article:


  • The AstraZeneca vaccine is being promoted for developing countries, in part because it doesn’t require the deep-freeze cold storage that mRNA vaccines do, so the logistics surrounding distribution are less complex
  • Patents and royalties for the AstraZeneca vaccine are held by a private company called Vaccitech, investors of which include Google Ventures, the Wellcome Trust, the Chinese branch of Sequoia Capital, the Chinese drug company Fosun Pharma and the British government
  • While AstraZeneca has promised it will not make any profit from its vaccine, there’s a time limit on this pledge. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself appears to have a say when it comes to declaring the end date
  • The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was co-developed by Adrian Hill, who has long-term ties to the British eugenics movement through his work with the Wellcome Trust’s Centre for Human Genetics and affiliation with the Galton Institute, formerly the U.K. Eugenics Society
  • Members of the Galton Institute have called for population reduction in Latin America, South and Southeast Asia and Africa, the very areas where the AstraZeneca vaccine is being promoted

While the two currently available COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. are based on novel mRNA technology — which in actuality are experimental gene therapies, not true vaccines — the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is a bit different. It uses a chimpanzee adenovirus vector genetically engineered to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein instead.

In the video above, James Corbett of The Corbett Report interviews1 Whitney Webb, a writer and researcher who covers intelligence, Big Tech, surveillance and civil liberties, about some of the basic differences between these vaccines.

They then delve into the curious ties between Oxford University, AstraZeneca and the British eugenics movement — a topic Webb covered in her in-depth December 26, 2020, investigative report “Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to U.K. Eugenics Movement,”2 co-written with Jeremy Loffredo.

The Corbett Report interview and this article offer only a cursory summary of the findings in that report, so I highly recommend reading Webb’s original article for a more detailed view.

The Not for Profit Myth

Webb points out that one of the reasons the AstraZeneca vaccine is being promoted for developing countries is because it doesn’t require the deep-freeze cold storage that mRNA vaccines do, so the logistics surrounding distribution are far less cumbersome and complex. As a result, GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, has partnered with AstraZeneca to bring the vaccine to the developing world, including Africa3 and Egypt.4

Now, while AstraZeneca has promised it will not make any profit from its vaccine, there’s a time limit on this pledge that most media pundits fail to note. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself appears to have a say when it comes to declaring the end date. It could be as early as July 1, 2021, according to a company memo obtained by the Financial Times.5

As explained by Webb, the patents and royalties for the AstraZeneca vaccine are held by a private company called Vaccitech, the investors of which include BRAAVOS (a capital investment company set up by a Deutche Bank executive), Google Ventures, the Wellcome Trust, the Chinese branch of Sequoia Capital, the Chinese drug company Fosun Pharma and the British government.

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 vaccine will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season much like the seasonal flu vaccine.

In her article, Webb quotes Vaccitech’s CEO Bill Enright, who promised that investors will receive “a big chunk of the royalties from a successful vaccine as well as ‘milestone’ payments if and when the pandemic is declared over and COVID-19 vaccines become a seasonal event.”6

Mapping the Players

The actual developer of the vaccine, Webb explains, is the Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research, founded in 1995 as a public-private partnership between GlaxoSmithKline and the British government.

After a few years, a reorganization took place, turning the Jenner Institute into a partnership between the University of Oxford and the Pirbright Institute (previously known as the Institute for Animal Health). The Jenner Institute is also part of the Oxford Vaccine Group.

The AstraZeneca vaccine has also received U.S. funding. In 2020, the company received $1 billion in funding for its COVID-19 vaccine from the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which is part of the Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is among those who have promoted the idea that the COVID-19 vaccine will need to become an annual inoculation, which will allow Vaccitech and its investors to massively profit well into the future.

Among the profiteers will be The Wellcome Trust7 which, like other Vaccitech investors, is part of the technocratic globalist network. Wellcome is the largest charity in the U.K. that funds “innovative biomedical research.” It was formed in 1936 after the death of Sir Henry Wellcome, a pharmaceutical pioneer and progressive industrialist.

Their board consists of present or former bankers, insurance executives and investment board members. Sir Henry Wellcome, while still alive, founded the company that went on to become GlaxoSmithKline, so the Wellcome Trust is essentially the “philanthropic arm” of GSK.

Click here to learn more

Adrian Hill’s Ties to Eugenics

Adrian Hill is the director of the Jenner Institute and was a lead developer of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Hill also heads the U.K. Vaccine Network, a government entity that decides where to funnel funding and vaccine technology.

One of Hill’s bosses early on in his career, and his thesis adviser when he was a doctoral student, was the late David Weatherall, founder of the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, a research institute at the University of Oxford.

Weatherall was a member of the Galton Institute from a time when it was known as the U.K. Eugenics Society, and he remained a member until his death in 2018. Hill gave a lecture at Galton in 2008 for its 100-year anniversary. As noted in Webb’s article:8

“Arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine’s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK eugenics movement.

The latter organization, named for the ‘father of eugenics’ Francis Galton, is the renamed U.K. Eugenics Society, a group notorious for over a century for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to ‘improve racial stock’ by reducing the population of those deemed inferior.

The ties of Adrian Hill to the Galton Institute should raise obvious concerns given the push to make the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine he developed with [Sarah] Gilbert the vaccine of choice for the developing world, particularly countries in Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa, the very areas where the Galton Institute’s past members have called for reducing population growth …

While the Galton Institute has attempted to distance itself from its past of promoting racial eugenics with surface-level public relations efforts, it has not stopped family members of the infamous racist from achieving leadership positions at the institute.

Emeritus professor of molecular genetics at the Galton Institute and one of its officers is none other than David J. Galton, whose work includes ‘Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century.’

David Galton has written that the Human Genome Mapping Project, originally dreamt up by Galton’s former president Walter Bodmer, had ‘enormously increased … the scope for eugenics … because of the development of a very powerful technology for the manipulation of DNA.’

This new ‘wider definition of eugenics,’ Galton has said, ‘would cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.’ In expanding on this new definition, Galton is neutral as to ‘whether some methods should be made compulsory by the state, or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual.'”

Hill and the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics

Hill also holds a senior position at the Wellcome Trust’s Centre for Human Genetics. One of his former students there was Sarah Gilbert, who served as program director for the Centre. Gilbert is also co-founder of Vaccitech and a lead researcher on the COVID-19 vaccine along with Hill.

At the Centre for Human Genetics, Hill’s focus has been “population genetics and race, particularly in Africa” Webb explains. In general terms, the Centre investigates race genetics and susceptibility to diseases and infertility. Hill’s specialty is genetics and respiratory illnesses. The Wellcome Trust is also the archivist for the Eugenics Society, now the Galton Institute. Webb writes:9

“The crossroads between race and genes is important in the center’s work, as an entire working group at the center, the Myers Group, is dedicated to mapping the ‘genetic impacts of migration events.’

The center also funded a paper that argued that so long as eugenics is not coercive it’s an acceptable policy initiative. The paper asks, ‘Is the fact that an action or policy is a case of eugenics necessarily a reason not to do it?’

According to Hill’s page on the Wellcome Trust site, race and genetics have long played a central role in his scientific approach, and his group currently focuses on the role genetics plays in African populations with regard to susceptibility to specific infectious diseases.”

As noted by Webb in her interview, eugenics never really disappeared. It was simply rebranded into more acceptable terms revolving around “public health.” This raises all sorts of questions, starting with: Why is the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, which has such strong eugenics ties, being earmarked for and marketed specifically to developing countries?

Anti-Racism Agenda, or Eugenics?

Webb also points out how so-called “woke vaccine policy” is using systemic racism as a justification for making sure the COVID-19 vaccine is given to minorities first.

Such justifications become all the more questionable if not outright suspicious in light of the eugenics angle, which tends to be heavily focused on reducing populations of Blacks and various native groups.

In the case of the AstraZeneca vaccine, Webb suspects there’s an ulterior profit motive behind its not-for-profit pledge to developing countries. If the vaccine ends up being an annual inoculation, they may insist you keep getting the same brand. This way, if AstraZeneca ends up getting a majority share of the market from the start, Vaccitech and its investors will ultimately reap the greatest profits in years to come.

But in addition to the profit angle, there’s also the possibility that they might alter the vaccine at any point in the future to fit the eugenics agenda, and no one would be the wiser. As noted by Webb in her article:10

“There are plans in place to exercise what could reasonably be described as economic coercion to pressure people to ‘voluntarily’ get vaccinated. Such coercion will be obviously be more effective on poor and working communities, meaning communities of color will be disproportionately affected as well.

Considering these facts, and the case for scrutinizing the safety of Oxford-AstraZeneca’s ‘affordable’ vaccine option made above, any harm caused by vaccine allocation policy in the U.S. and beyond is likely to disproportionately affect poor communities, especially communities of color.

As such, the public should take all vaccine rollout policy assertions with a grain of salt, even when they come cloaked in language of inclusion, racial justice, and public health preservation.

As the cofounder of the American Eugenics Society (later renamed Society for the Study of Social Biology) Frederick Osborn put it in 1968, ‘Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics.'”

Africans Leery of AstraZeneca’s ‘Gift’

Considering the history of Big Pharma using Blacks as guinea pigs, both in Africa and the U.S., it’s not surprising that Africans are leery about the gift of COVID-19 vaccines. As just one example, a 2009 Jenner Institute vaccine trial in South Africa killed seven infants. In her article, Webb writes:11

“An investigation conducted by the British Medical Journal found that the Hill-led Jenner Institute had … knowingly misled parents about the negative results of and questionable methods used in animal studies as well the vaccine being known to be ineffective.

The vaccine in question, an experimental tuberculosis vaccine developed jointly by Emergent Biosolutions and the Jenner Institute, was scrapped after the controversial study in infants confirmed what was already known, that the vaccine was ineffective.”

As reported by the Inquirer in the video below, concern among South Africans has been so widespread that the South African government, in early February 2021, temporarily paused its rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Google Ventures’ Conflict of Interest

As mentioned earlier, Google Ventures is another investor in Vaccitech. Considering Google has a vested stake in the success of a COVID-19 vaccine, its policy to censor “vaccine misinformation” is a clear conflict of interest that they really should be held accountable for, Webb says.

Indeed, it makes no sense that Google, which stands to profit from a COVID-19 vaccine, is allowed to suppress reporting on it. Disturbingly, Webb points out that, as far as she could tell, she’s the only one who has pointed out this link between Google and the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The Gates Foundation

Not surprisingly, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation can also be found in this web of eugenics. Webb writes:12

“The Wellcome Centre regularly cofunds the research and development of vaccines and birth control methods with the Gates Foundation, a foundation that actively and admittedly engages in population and reproductive control in Africa and South Asia by, among other things, prioritizing the widespread distribution of injectable long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs).

The Wellcome Trust has also directly funded studies that sought to develop methods to ‘improve uptake’ of LARCs in places such as rural Rwanda. As researcher Jacob Levich wrote in the ‘Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism,’ LARCs afford women in the Global South ‘the least choice possible short of actual sterilization.’

Some LARCs can render women infertile for as long as five years, and, as Levich argues, they ‘leave far more control in the hands of providers, and less in the hands of women, than condoms, oral contraceptives, or traditional methods.’ One example is Norplant, a contraceptive implant manufactured by Schering (now Bayer) that can prevent pregnancy for up to five years.

It was taken off the U.S. market in 2002 after more than 50,000 women filed lawsuits against the company and the doctors who prescribed it. Seventy of those class action suits were related to side effects such as depression, extreme nausea, scalp-hair loss, ovarian cysts, migraines, and excessive bleeding.

Slightly modified and rebranded as Jadelle, the dangerous drug was promoted in Africa by the Gates Foundation in conjunction with USAID and EngenderHealth. Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth’s original mission, inspired by racial eugenics, was to ‘improve the biological stock of the human race.'”

Are Any of the COVID Vaccines Safe?

I’ve written many articles detailing the potential and suspected, if not inevitable, problems with COVID-19 vaccines, primarily the mRNA gene therapies since they are the two currently in use in the U.S. You can find them all using the search bar at the top of this page.

In addition to their high risk of allergic reactions, there’s compelling evidence to suggest they may trigger severe inflammation and immune dysregulation. Many scientists are also warning of the possibility for pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement, which will make subsequent infection with a coronavirus far more dangerous than were you not vaccinated.

In a paper13 titled, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Dr. Bart Classen also warns there are also troubling evidences suggesting some of the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS.

Meanwhile, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, has expressed concern about mRNA vaccines’ ability to cause “microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”14

Around the world, reports are now also pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving these COVID-19 vaccines.15,16,17,18,19,20 In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot. In others, death occurs within the span of a couple of weeks.

As of February 12, 2021, the number of side effects reported to VAERS totaled 15,923, including 929 deaths.21 Pfizer’s vaccine has so far been responsible for 58% of deaths in the U.S. VAERS list, while Moderna’s vaccine accounts for 41%.

As of March 11, 2021, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg have all suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, either in full or in part, following reports of blood clots.22

Austria has also suspended a particular batch of AstraZeneca’s vaccine in order to complete an investigation into the death of a 49-year-old woman who suddenly developed a severe coagulation disorder.23

Another Austrian vaccine recipient, a 35-year-old woman, developed acute lung disease from a dislodged blood clot. The same vaccine batch had reportedly been used in Denmark, where a 60-year-old woman died from a blood clot. According to a March 2, 2021, report24 by The Defender, U.K. data show the AstraZeneca vaccine has 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths than the Pfizer vaccine.

To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental therapy. Also remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. It’s lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.25

If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.

The Biggest Casualty of COVID-19 Is Your Individual Rights

The Truth About COVID-19 | A New Book by Dr.Joseph Mercola
Reproduced from original article:

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Fact Checked    March 11, 2021

impact of covid 19 on freedom


  • While the casualties of government-imposed COVID-19 countermeasures are manifold, the biggest and most tragic of them all is the loss of individual freedoms
  • We either choose freedom, or we choose to live under authoritarian rule. Even if restrictions are lifted, public attitude can place freedom on shaky ground, as public acceptance of overreach will allow for the same to occur again and again at a moment’s notice
  • The freedom to interact with other human beings is a crucial, most basic human need
  • The inevitabilities of life — which include uncertainty, moment-to-moment risk and the surety of death — demand that we not require people to cease living in order to “save” others from the ramifications of ill health
  • The answer, if we really want to protect the masses, is to educate and promote healthy living at all stages of life. Improving your health through a healthy lifestyle, sunshine, fresh air and real food, is the best way to protect the most people

While the casualties of government-imposed COVID-19 countermeasures are manifold, the biggest and most tragic of them all is the loss of individual freedoms. As noted by Jonathan Sumption in his February 15, 2021, Telegraph commentary:1

“What makes us a free society is that, although the state has vast powers, there are conventional limits on what it can do with them. The limits are conventional because they do not depend on our laws but on our attitudes.

There are islands of human life which are our own, a personal space into which the state should not intrude without some altogether exceptional justification.

Liberal democracy breaks down when frightened majorities demand mass coercion of their fellow citizens, and call for our personal spaces to be invaded. These demands are invariably based on what people conceive to be the public good. They all assert that despotism is in the public interest.”

A Fragile Freedom

As Sumption points out, “We cannot switch in and out of totalitarianism at will.” We either choose freedom, or we choose to live under authoritarian rule. Even if (and that’s a big if, at this point) restrictions are lifted, public attitude can place freedom on shaky ground, as public acceptance of overreach will allow for the same to occur again and again at a moment’s notice.

This is a serious problem, as there will always be other epidemics and pandemics. There is always the threat of terrorism and climate change. There will always be a public health calamity, be it obesity or diabetes, that can be used as justification for government intrusion into our private lives.

“A threshold has now been crossed,” Sumption writes.2 “A big taboo has gone. Other governments will say that the only question that matters is whether it works and whether they can ‘get away with it’ … We already have a striking example. The vaccine, which was supposed to make the lockdown unnecessary, has become a reason for keeping it in force …

Infections, hospitalizations and deaths are plunging, but millions who are at virtually no risk are being kept in house imprisonment. This is being done mainly because a selective regime of controls would be too difficult for the state to enforce. Coercion quickly becomes an object in itself.”

Personal Liberty Is Worth Fighting For

Personal liberty, as Sumption points out, is critically important, and perhaps most important of all, for our mental and physical health, is the freedom to interact with other human beings. It is an absolutely crucial and most basic of human needs. Infants robbed of physical interaction fail to thrive and are at increased risk of death.

But children, adolescents, adults and the elderly have no lesser need for it. We may tolerate it for longer without marked ill effect, but over time, it takes its toll on health, emotional stability and longevity. The fact that we’re allowing government to ban human interaction is a dire sign of a society at the brink of self-destruction.

“I do not doubt that there are extreme situations in which oppressive controls over our daily lives may be necessary and justified,” Sumption writes.3

An epidemic of Ebola, with a death rate of 50%, for example, might qualify. However, COVID-19 is nowhere near that serious a threat. As noted by Sumption, COVID-19 “is well within the range of perils which we have always had to live with, and always will.”

Data4 show the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio is 0.26%. People under the age of 40 have a mere 0.01% risk of dying from the infection. The vast majority that test positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, and most do not get seriously ill.

Click here to learn more

We Must Relearn to Accept the Inevitabilities of Life

What’s more, the average age of death from COVID-19 is somewhere between 76.9, according to one study,5 and 82, according to U.K. government data cited by Sumption.6

Either way, this is right around the average age of death from any cause anyway, and therefore not an outrageous threat to public health. Yet, the public willingly relinquishes the freedom to live a normal life, somehow oddly convinced that by trading in their freedom, people at the end of their life will be spared the pain of death. They won’t. None of us will.

The inevitabilities of life — which include uncertainty, moment-to-moment risk and the surety of death — demand that we not require people to cease living in order to “save” others from the ramifications of ill health, regardless of their age. It’s as inhumane as it is illogical.

Rather, the answer, if we really want to protect the masses, is to educate and promote healthy living at all stages of life. Improving your health through a healthy lifestyle, sunshine, fresh air and real food, is the best way to protect the most people. Quarantining and shunning human interaction are probably the worst things you can do for yourself and society at large.

And let’s not go down the road of all the psychological devastation caused by teaching children to fear their own hands, other people, the air they breathe, and that their very presence poses a lethal threat to others.

The Press Has Become an Instrument of Control

Historically, the press has been viewed as a crucial instrument for a well-informed public, and thus supportive of a free and democratically-run society. Indeed, this is why journalists and news outlets were known as “the Fourth Estate.” It was an acknowledgement of their societal influence. To be effective, the press had to develop a certain amount of public trust. Today, trust in mainstream media has dramatically eroded, and for good reason.

Time and again, reporters and entire news outlets have been caught peddling fake news, and when the press misleads rather than informs the public of the facts, they become tools for tyranny. Their viewers become more ignorant by the day rather than more informed, and thus more easily controlled and manipulated.

In a recent substack article,7 independent journalist Matt Taibbi addresses the attempt by UCLA professor and co-leader of the UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry, Sarah Roberts, to shame readers away from substack. “Substack is a dangerous direct threat to traditional news media,” Roberts tweeted.

According to her half-baked reasoning, journalists who leave mainstream newsrooms for substack and other independent portals are taking unfair advantage of the trust they earned while gainfully employed within the Fourth Estate. Then, once on their own, they can print whatever they want without having to go through the onerous chore of fact checking and other standard checks and balances.

“To imply that trust is a thing that can only be conferred by a mainstream newsroom is beyond insulting, especially since mainstream news organizations already long ago started to become infamous for betraying exactly those hallowed ‘norms’ to which Roberts refers,” Taibbi writes.8

“Why did a source like former NSA contractor Edward Snowden choose to come forward to Glenn Greenwald in particular? He surely wasn’t bothered by the fact that Glenn didn’t come up through the ranks of a paper like the New York Times or Washington Post.

The answer connects to one of the primary reasons audiences are moving to places like Substack: the perception that traditional news outlets have become tools of the very corporate and political interests they’re supposed to be overseeing.

Roberts complains about lines between opinion and reporting being blurred at Substack (an absurd comment on its own, but that’s a separate issue), but the ‘blurring’ problem at those other organizations is far more severe. Are newspapers like the New York Times checks on power, or agents of it?”

A Century of Controlled Media

As detailed in “Reuters and BBC Caught Taking Money for Propaganda Campaign,” infiltration and manipulation of the media has been a routine occurrence since 1915, when J.P. Morgan interests, including the steel and shipbuilding industries, purchased editorial control of 25 of the most influential newspapers, thereby allowing them to control news about military preparedness, financial policies and other stories deemed crucial to their private and corporate interests.

Then, in 1948, the CIA launched Operation Mockingbird, a clandestine media infiltration campaign that allowed the agency to control and inject its own propaganda into the mainstream press. Today, several decades later, it’s clear that Operation Mockingbird never ceased. As noted by Taibbi:9

“The major ‘traditional’ cable networks, as well as many of the bigger daily newspapers, have for years now been engaged in mad hiring sprees of ex-spooks, putting whole nests of known perjurers and Langley goons on their payrolls as contributors, where they regularly provide ‘commentary’ on news stories in which they themselves have involvement.”

The modern propaganda machine also includes Big Tech, which allows for previously unthinkable information control through automated censorship across a much broader spectrum of sources.

Literally overnight, an individual or company involved in the dissemination of truthful information that goes against the status quo can have their website shadow banned by search engines, their social media accounts eliminated, their web hosting and email services canceled and their online payment systems shut down. From one day to the next, you, your thoughts, opinions and all your hard work can be effectively erased.

Political Powerbrokers Call for Massive Censoring

We’re now even seeing politicians starting to throw their weight around, demanding censoring of political opponents and news outlets that fail to properly toe the political line.

U.S. House Democrats from California — Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney — went so far as to send a letter to a dozen cable, satellite and streaming TV companies, basically telling them to censor or remove Fox News, Newsmax and OANN. As noted by Glenn Greenwald in an article10 on the rapid escalation of government calls for censorship:

“Democrats’ justification for silencing their adversaries online and in media — ‘They are spreading fake news and inciting extremism’ — is what despots everywhere say … Since when is it the role of the U.S. Government to arbitrate and enforce precepts of ‘journalistic integrity’?

Unless you believe in the right of the government to regulate and control what the press says — a power which the First Amendment explicitly prohibits — how can anyone be comfortable with members of Congress arrogating unto themselves the power to dictate what media outlets are permitted to report and control how they discuss and analyze the news of the day?”

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has strongly denounced the Democrats’ actions, calling it a “marked departure from First Amendment norms,” adding that the demands are “a chilling transgression of the free speech rights that every media outlet in this country enjoys … No government official has any business inquiring about the ‘moral principles’ that guide a private entity’s decision about what news to carry.”11

To What Aim Control?

It’s important to realize that authoritarian dictators are not, in fact, trying to help you. They’re trying to change you. Censorship does not protect the public. It’s a control mechanism, as you are unlikely to rebel against an injustice that you don’t even know exists, or if you know about it, your understanding of the problem is diametrically opposed to the truth; hence, you’ll support a “solution” that will perpetuate or deepen the problem.

At an even deeper level, censorship and information suppression is an effort to alter your cognitive faculties, because how do you even define people and things that you are not allowed to criticize? As noted by Taibbi, Big Tech and media are tools for politicians, corporations and the intelligence industry, the interests of which are frequently diametrically opposed to that of the people.

Chemical companies cannot sell their toxic wares if an informed public shuns them. The fake food industry cannot flourish if the public understands the basics of health. Technocracy cannot be implemented if an informed public opposes the agenda, and so on.

What we see clearer than ever these days, is the schism in journalism where the old-school norms of gathering data and then delivering it to the audience and allowing them to make up their own minds as to whether it’s good or bad has been replaced by subjective interpretation of the data.

Essentially, most mainstream reporters now tell you how to think about a given topic. They even tell us how to think about people who refuse to think the way they’re instructed to think. That way, the public ends up doing the dirty work of censoring, canceling and dehumanizing the undesirables for them.

Rule Through Medicine

While the rise of dictatorships has historically involved the use of armed forces to subdue an unruly public, the budding dictatorship of today relies heavily on weaponized medicine and the control of information. If you’ve taken the time to familiarize yourself with the concept of technocracy, which has a distinct transhumanist component to it, you will see why this makes perfect sense and was, in fact, entirely predictable.

By tying the issue of health care into the digital surveillance apparatus, you end up with a very robust platform for automated mass control. The use of fear also works well in this scenario, since most are keen to stay alive and don’t want their loved ones to die. So, they fall for lies like “we have to shut down the world and sequester indoors for months on end or else we all die.”

A leading figure in this medical dictatorship scheme is Bill Gates, who now wields a dominating influence over not just Big Tech but also global health policy, agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification and other climate technologies,12 surveillance, education and media. As reported by The GrayZone:13

“Beyond the public relations bonanza about Gates lies a disturbing history that should raise concerns about whether his foundation’s plans for resolving the pandemic will benefit the global public as much as it expands and entrenches its power over international institutions.

The Gates Foundation has already effectively privatized the international body charged with creating health policy, transforming it into a vehicle for corporate dominance. It has facilitated the dumping of toxic products onto the people of the Global South, and even used the world’s poor as guinea pigs for drug experiments.

The Gates Foundation’s influence over public health policy is practically contingent on ensuring that safety regulations and other government functions are weak enough to be circumvented … Strong evidence suggests that the Gates Foundation functions as a Trojan horse for Western corporations, which of course have no goal greater than an increased bottom line.”

Indeed, as reviewed in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” Gates donates billions to private companies, and is invested in the very products and businesses he donates money to and otherwise promotes as solutions to the world’s problems, be they hunger, disease, pandemic viruses or climate change.

As suggested by The GrayZone, Gates’ global health empire is more about building an empire for himself and his technocrat cronies than promoting public health.14

The Great Reset — A Plan to Capitalize on COVID-19 Pandemic

For a time, there was so much uncertainty about SARS-CoV-2 and the infection it causes, you’re forgiven if you opted to err on the side of caution. Now, however, a full year later, it’s become obvious that this pandemic was never as serious as portrayed by the media, and that it is being used (whether preplanned or not) as a convenient vehicle for a radical overhaul of just about every aspect of life. And not for the better.

In a recent report, independent journalist Johnny Vedmore delved into the professional history and personal background Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, who wrote the books “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2016), “Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2018) and “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” thereby cementing his role as a leading figurehead for the modern technocracy movement. Vedmore writes:15

“As the driving force behind the World Economic Forum … Schwab has courted heads of state, leading business executives, and the elite of academic and scientific circles into the Davos fold for over 50 years.

More recently, he has also courted the ire of many due to his more recent role as the frontman of the Great Reset, a sweeping effort to remake civilization globally for the express benefit of the elite of the World Economic Forum and their allies …

Like many prominent frontmen for elite-sponsored agendas, the online record of Schwab has been well-sanitized, making it difficult to come across information on his early history as well as information on his family.

Yet, having been born in Ravensburg, Germany in 1938, many have speculated in recent months that Schwab’s family may have had some tie to Axis war efforts, ties that, if exposed, could threaten the reputation of the World Economic Forum and bring unwanted scrutiny to its professed missions and motives …

Digging even deeper into his activities, it becomes clear that Schwab’s real role has long been to ‘shape global, regional and industry agendas’ of the present in order to ensure the continuity of larger, much older agendas that came into disrepute after World War II, not just nuclear technology, but also eugenics-influenced population control policies …

Is Klaus Schwab trying to create the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or is he trying to create the Fourth Reich?”

Is Depopulation Part of the Agenda?

Gates’ family history is also heavy on eugenics,16 as is the Club of Rome’s agenda,17 another technocratic power center. The United Nation’s Agenda 21 also hints at the need for a dramatic reduction in population size in the coming decade.18

The idea that eugenics might make a comeback may seem like a remote possibility, but considering the history of using vaccinations to secretly inhibit fertility in native populations, it would be naïve to dismiss the possibility out of hand. As reported in a 2014 paper written by researchers at the University of Louisiana and the University of British Columbia:19

“Published research shows that by 1976 WHO researchers had conjugated tetanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) producing a ‘birth-control’ vaccine.

Conjugating TT with hCG causes pregnancy hormones to be attacked by the immune system. Expected results are abortions in females already pregnant and/or infertility in recipients not yet impregnated. Repeated inoculations prolong infertility. Currently WHO researchers are working on more potent anti-fertility vaccines using recombinant DNA.

WHO publications show a long-range purpose to reduce population growth in unstable ‘less developed countries.’ By November 1993 Catholic publications appeared saying an abortifacient vaccine was being used as a tetanus prophylactic.

In November 2014, the Catholic Church asserted that such a program was underway in Kenya. Three independent Nairobi accredited biochemistry laboratories tested samples from vials of the WHO tetanus vaccine being used in March 2014 and found hCG where none should be present …

Given that hCG was found in at least half the WHO vaccine samples known by the doctors involved in administering the vaccines to have been used in Kenya, our opinion is that the Kenya ‘anti-tetanus’ campaign was reasonably called into question by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association as a front for population growth reduction.”

Certain vaccines have also been found to cause infertility as an unexpected side effect. For example, a 2018 study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health20 found that women who received HPV vaccinations suffered higher rates of infertility.

According to this study, “if 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million.” After “skeptic” critics of scientific evidence that vaccines have significant health risks publicly attacked the study, the paper was withdrawn by the publisher.21

What We Lose Is Exponentially Harder to Get Back

Safeguarding our Constitutional rights and civil liberties against unlawful government overreach is essential. Yet many are willingly giving up freedoms that, once gone, may be difficult, if not impossible, to get back. Vaccine passports are just one example.

By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, through a digital certificate or app on your phone, the hope is that you can once again board an airplane and travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.

Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s a loss of personal liberty that you once had, one that disappeared right before your eyes and one that’s setting the stage for even more intrusive surveillance and privacy erosion.

While government has a duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, this duty must be balanced against the loss of individual rights and liberties. Right now we’re facing a battle of freedom versus tyranny. Long term lockdowns are clearly not in the public’s best interest. Rather, it’s tantamount to abuse.

Will You Obey or Fight for Freedom?

It is vital to understand that the vast majority of information you are exposed to in mainstream media is carefully designed propaganda crafted from nearly two decades of stolen personal data collected from you.

This data is then run through very sophisticated and advanced deep learning algorithms that are then able to accurately predict what will trigger your emotions to achieve their desired behavior.

As I have carefully identified in many previous articles, this plan will result in progressive loss in your freedom and liberty that eventually results in tyranny and slavery. So, be ever vigilant and seek the truth so you can understand reality well enough to distinguish between fact and a fictional narrative that promises to offer you liberation but, rather, eventually enslaves you.

In my newest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” I investigate the origins of this virus and how the elite use it to slowly erode your personal liberty and freedom. I’ll also show how you can protect yourself against this disease and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic overlords.

The Truth About COVID-19 preorder

My book will be available April 29, but you can preorder it now on Amazon. Why Amazon, you may ask? Well, this book talks in detail about pandemic profiteers, and by getting its ranking pushed up via one of the biggest Big Tech companies benefiting from this global pandemic — although I am not thrilled about associating with Amazon — we are actually using their platform against them!

France slows COVID vaccine rollout for hospital workers due to “side effects”

Reproduced from original article:

by:  | March 5, 2021

covid-vaccine-side-effects(NaturalHealth365) On a webpage about vaccine safety, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that while “clinical trials provide important information on vaccine safety, the data are somewhat limited because of the relatively small number (hundreds to thousands) of study participants.  Rare side effects and delayed reactions might not be evident until the vaccine is administered to millions of people.” (Emphasis ours.)

And so, here we are: the experimental COVID-19 vaccine is now being administered to millions of people across the globe, and we are hearing time and again of serious adverse effects that warrant further investigation.  And many people – including healthcare providers in select French hospitals – aren’t willing to risk their health by lining up for a jab.

Non merci: French healthcare providers say “No, thank you” to AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine due to high rate of side effects

As was the case in other countries, healthcare workers were in the first wave of people in France to receive the investigational, non-FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine by AstraZeneca.  Anticipating the high rate of COVID vaccine side effects from the drugs, many healthcare facilities (including hundreds here in the United States) employed a “staggered” vaccination schedule to prevent entire departments from getting sick at once.

But for many hospitals, even that “precaution” didn’t work.

One report indicates that the university hospital of Brest in Brittany, Western France saw up to 25 percent of its vaccine recipients call out of work due to severe symptoms like headaches, muscle aches, and high fever.   Another report notes that the Hygiene and Safety Committee at the hospital in Périgueux, France reported serious adverse effects occurring in up to 70 percent of their recently-vaccinated healthcare workers.

Affected staff members include critical employees like intensive care unit (ICU) nurses and physical therapists.  Aside from threatening the staff members’ own comfort and safety, these mass call-outs also led to potentially dangerous staff shortages on ICU and COVID-19 units.

Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air.  These chemicals – the ‘off-gassing’ of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials – increase your risk of nasal congestion, fatigue, poor sleep, skin issues plus many other health issues.

Get the BEST indoor air purification system – at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers.  I, personally use this system in my home AND office.  Click HERE to order now – before the sale ends.

In other news: FDA authorizes emergency use of Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine despite lack of evidence that it prevents spread of coronavirus

The world is taking a big risk on these investigational drugs – drugs that aren’t even proven to work, per the FDA’s own admission.

In their recent news release detailing the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine (aka Janssen vaccine), the FDA states, “At this time, data are not available to determine how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.”  The same warnings were included in the FDA’s news releases about the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.

Given the lack of evidence, it’s no wonder Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public health officials continue to demand that even vaccinated citizens continue to abide by pandemic policies, including social distancing and mask-wearing.

Such admission from the FDA is doubly concerning given the alarming news that participants from the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials are dropping out in order to get the vaccine – meaning these studies are no longer truly “placebo-controlled” and that the ability of these trials to accurately assess long-term vaccine safety outcomes is now seriously threatened.

Of course, these (now-jeopardized) trials are already rife with conflicts of interest.  In their official disclosure forms provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, authors of the phase 3 Moderna trial endorse funding from the likes of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci-run National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Gates Foundation, and several pharmaceutical companies – including Moderna itself.

How far will public officials go with these unproven, mass-administered drugs – and how easily will the public accept continually restrictive policies, including vaccine passports?  Time will tell, although in a glimmer of hope more people are asking questions, seeking answers, and speaking out.

Sources for this article include:

How We Know SARS-CoV-2 Absolutely Leaked From a Chinese Lab

The Truth About COVID-19 | A New Book by Dr.Joseph Mercola
Reproduced from original article:

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola      Fact Checked      March 04, 2021
is coronavirus zoonotic


  • The chance of a person from Wuhan being patient zero is approximately 1 in 630, based on calculations that take into account the population size of Wuhan, the global population and the fact that coronavirus-carrying animals are found virtually all over the world
  • Taking into account that there are 28 Alpha- and Beta-coronavirus species with members that affect humans, the chance of Wuhan hosting a SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is 17,640 to 1
  • No credible theory for natural zoonotic spillover has been presented, to date
  • Meanwhile, there are at least four distinct lab origin theories, including the serial passage theory (which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture). There’s also a variety of evidence for genetic manipulation
  • A third theory is that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of vaccine development, and the fourth is the Mojiang miners passage theory, which proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 sickened the miners, and once inside these patients, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, many scientists suspected SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a biosafety laboratory, most likely in Wuhan, China, where the outbreak began in December 2019. Among them, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and a virologist, and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a molecular biologist were experts who discussed the idea of a lab origin.

I interviewed Latham about some of their theories in July 2020. His interview is featured in “Cover-Up of SARS-CoV-2 Origin?” Latham and Wilson argue that while the virus most likely has a bat origin, the mechanism by which it jumped from bat to human was not a natural one and they have previously presented three different theories by which the virus may have been created in and escaped from a lab.

In a February 16, 2021, article1 in Independent Science News, the pair again reviewed the evidence for a laboratory origin, and the reasons why a zoonotic origin will never be found.

Why Zoonotic Origin Is Most Unlikely

Aside from not being known for exotic culinary dishes involving animals such as bats, Wuhan, located in central China, is an unlikely location for zoonotic virus spillover as it has “no cultural, geographic or climatic predisposing factors,” Latham and Wilson note. Wuhan is also not a known hotspot for exotic animal smuggling.

The well-recognized absence of bats in Wuhan is why researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) traveled several hundred miles to collect bat coronavirus samples.

What’s more, Latham and Wilson cite research showing that “when WIV researchers needed to study a Chinese population that was not routinely exposed to bat coronaviruses (as a control group), they chose Wuhan residents.” Zheng-li Shi, head of coronavirus research at the WIV, even admitted that she “had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China.”

According to Latham and Wilson, “The chance of a person from Wuhan being patient zero is approximately 1 in 630,” based on calculations that take into account the population size of Wuhan, the global population and the fact that coronavirus-carrying animals are found virtually all over the world.

“It truly is very, very, unlikely that a natural zoonotic pandemic would start in Wuhan. Yet no commentator on the outbreak seems to have properly acknowledged the true scale of this improbability,” Latham and Wilson write.2

Another coincidence that strongly points to a lab origin is the fact that the WIV not only has the world’s largest collection of bat coronaviruses, but WIV researchers had also singled out one specific coronavirus out of 28 relevant species for more in-depth work, “and it is a member of this species that broke out in Wuhan,” Latham and Wilson note, adding:

“This, then, is a further curious coincidence: for a pandemic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) to emerge in Wuhan and be a member of the species most studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Zoonotic Spillover of SARS-CoV-2 Is Not Random

Latham and Wilson go on to review the research done at the WIV in more detail, comparing and contrasting it to the natural evolution of coronaviruses. There are four basic types of coronaviruses: Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses. (For an illustration of the evolutionary tree of these viruses, please see the original article.3)

Of these four, only two are of interest when we’re searching for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — the Alpha and Beta versions, of which there are 28 species, and “apparently random” coronavirus spillovers from Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to have occurred in the past. (There are very few Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses, and none is known to affect humans.)

Six of the 28 Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to affect humans: HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E, MERS, SARS, HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1 (SARS-CoV-2 makes No. 7). When you locate these six viruses on the coronavirus evolutionary tree, you find that they are widely distributed, which is an indication that previous zoonotic spillovers have been random.

Not so with SARS-CoV-2, though. When you place SARS-CoV-2 on this evolutionary tree, its location is not random like the others. Rather, it emerged from original SARS (as evidenced by its name). Latham and Wilson explain:4

“From a zoonotic perspective, nothing appears to be special about these SARS-related coronaviruses. Consequently, the emergence of a second pandemic virus from the same coronavirus species constitutes a second surprising coincidence.

We can again calculate its probability. If each Alpha and Beta coronavirus species is equally likely to spill over to humans, which is consistent with our understanding, then the probability of a virus from the SARS-related coronavirus species starting a zoonotic pandemic is 1 in 28.

(And if there are undiscovered coronavirus species — pretty much a certainty — the number will be greater still). It is a coincidence that, just like the emergence in Wuhan, heavily favors a lab escape if we take into account the specifics of the coronavirus research program at the WIV …”

Click here to learn more

Zheng-li’s Research Revolved Around the Pandemic Virus

Latham and Wilson then go on to review 18 publications by Zheng-li, starting in 2005, describing her research into SARS-like coronaviruses. They point out that while Zheng-li collected a wide array of bat viruses, her specific research focus was the zoonotic spillover potential of a single species, namely SARS-related coronaviruses (one of the six Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses known to infect humans).

“So while most discussions of a potential lab escape have mentioned that SARS-CoV-2 emerged within commuting distance of the WIV and that researchers at the WIV worked on bat coronaviruses, none have mentioned that the coincidence is much greater than that.

Zheng-li Shi concentrated, especially with her potentially highly risky molecular research, on the particular species of coronavirus that is responsible for the pandemic,” Latham and Wilson write, adding that:

“If one accepts as reasonable the assumptions made above, the probability of Wuhan being the site of a natural SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is obtained by multiplying 1 in 630 by 1 in 28. The chance of Wuhan hosting a SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is thus 17,640 to 1.”

They also dismiss the argument that these are little more than circumstantial evidences that could be due to sheer chance. Circumstantial evidence is not a “special category of evidence,” they point out; rather, “all evidence of causation is composed of coincidences.”

“All an observer can do is to add up the coincidences until they surmise that the threshold of reasonable doubt has been surpassed. Conclusions are always provisional, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, anyone open to persuasion ought at this point to conclude that a probability of 17,640 to 1 far exceeds that threshold. A lab escape should at this point be the default hypothesis.”

WIV Held Closest Known Relative to SARS-CoV-2

Since the beginning of the outbreak, we’ve also discovered that the WIV held a virus sample known as RaTG13 which, so far, is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2. While Zheng-li has denied extensive study on RaTG13, scientific publications reveal this virus has been studied since at least 2017.

In addition to all of this, no substantive zoonotic theory has ever been presented, which makes it far less plausible than any of the lab-origin theories. While several potential intermediate species have been proposed, none has actually been found to carry SARS-CoV-2 or a precursor to it.

What’s more, as detailed in “Top Medical Journal Caught in Massive Cover-Up” and “Lawsuits Begin Over SARS-CoV-2 Lab Leak,” the scientific cornerstone for the zoonotic origin theory hinges on two seriously flawed papers published in PLOS Pathogens and Nature.

Both journals apparently allowed data sets to be secretly changed without publishing notices of correction. Authors appear to have renamed samples, failed to attribute samples properly, and produced a genomic profile that doesn’t match the samples in the paper.

Some data are also missing. An investigation into the discrepancies found RaTG13, which is 96% identical to SARS-CoV-2, is actually btCoV-4991, a virus found in samples collected in 2013 and studies on them published in 2016. Meanwhile, there are at least “four distinct lab origin theories,” Wilson and Latham note, including:5

1.The serial passage theory, which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture.6

2.Evidence of genetic manipulation, including the chimeric structure of the virus and the presence of a furin cleavage site.7 While a majority of the viral genetic sequence is close to that of RaTG13, its receptor binding domain is nearly identical to that of a pangolin coronavirus, while the furin cleavage site has not been seen in any other SARS-like coronaviruses.

Others have pointed out that the virus, which is highly adapted to human lung cells, appears to have evolved in the absence of immune system antibodies, which suggests mutation within cell culture.8

In “China Deletes Key SARS-CoV-2 Related Science,” I also review evidence9 suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was created by serial passaging an ancestor virus through transgenic mice equipped with human ACE2 receptors. (Research10 has confirmed transgenic mice with human ACE2 receptors are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, whereas normal mice are not.)

3.The failed vaccine development theory.11

4.The Mojiang miners passage theory,12,13 which proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 — possibly RaTG13, as this virus was collected from that very same mine — sickened six miners in 2012, and once inside these patients, some of whom were ill for several weeks, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2. Samples from four of the hospitalized miners were sent to the WIV.

“To-date, there are conflicting claims about the results of those tests and nothing has been formally published. The Mojiang Miners Passage theory proposes, however, that, by the time they arrived at the WIV, these patient-derived samples contained a highly adapted human virus, which subsequently escaped,” Wilson and Latham write, adding:

“Our prediction … simply based on assessing the probabilities, is that no convincing natural zoonotic origin for the pandemic will ever be found by China or the WHO or anyone else — for the simple reason that one does not exist.”

WHO Investigation Into COVID-19 Origin Is Blatantly Corrupt

Despite the complete absence of a plausible zoonotic origin theory, the World Health Organization’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, has now officially cleared the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.14,15,16

They’ve also stated that the lab-escape theory will no longer be part of the team’s investigation going forward.

The WHO team and its Chinese counterparts now insist the most likely scenario is that SARS-CoV-2 piggybacked its way into the Wuhan market in shipments of frozen food from other areas of China where coronavirus-carrying bats are known to reside, or another country, possibly in Europe. As a result, the WHO team is considering expanding its scope to look into other countries as the potential source of the virus.

As noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed17 by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, “By lending credence to this improbable theory, WHO is damaging trust in the important project of figuring out where the virus originated.”

There are obvious problems with the WHO’s conclusions. For starters, no serious investigation was actually done. The WHO team was not equipped or designed to conduct a forensic examination of laboratory practices;18 rather, they relied on information obtained directly from the Chinese team.

Secondly, China was allowed to hand pick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the WIV and has gone on record dismissing the lab-origin theory as “pure baloney.”19,20

He was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”21,22 This manufactured “scientific consensus” was then relied on by the media to “debunk” theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.

No Credible Evidence Food Is a Route of Transmission

The inclusion of Dazsak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory from the very start, and based on the lame justifications given by the team leader, Danish food safety and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek, it seems clear they had no intention of looking at evidence that might implicate the WIV or any other Wuhan lab.

For example, Embarek claims that officials at the WIV “are the best ones to dismiss the claims and provide answers” about the potential for a lab leak. But suspects in an investigation are hardly the most reliable sources of evidence to dismiss suspicions against them.

Embarek further insisted that lab accidents are “extremely rare,” hence it’s “very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”23 This too is a wholly unconvincing argument that flies in the face of available data.

According to the Cambridge Working Group in 2014, “biosafety incidents involving regulated pathogens have been occurring on average over twice a week” in the U.S. alone,24,25 and virology labs accidentally released the original SARS virus on no less than four separate occasions.26,27 Three of those four instances led to outbreaks.28 The 1977 H1N1 influenza outbreaks in the Soviet Union and China were also the result of a lab escape.29

Thirdly, a number of scientific bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods have resolutely dismissed the frozen food origination story, as no credible evidence has surfaced suggesting food, food packaging or food handling might be a significant route of transmission.30

Why the Lab-Origin Theory Must Be Quashed

You may be wondering, if there’s so much evidence pointing toward a lab origin, why are leading health authorities and scientists dismissing it all and insisting SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence, mysterious as it might be? The answer undoubtedly comes down to money.

Should the COVID-19 pandemic be officially recognized as the result of a lab accident, the world might be forced to take a cold hard look at gain-of-function research that allows for the creation of these new pathogens. The end result would ideally be the banning of such research worldwide, which means tens of thousands of researchers would lose their jobs. Prestigious careers would be spoiled.

On top of that, the culprits might face criminal charges under the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, and nations might be held financially responsible for the economic destruction caused by the pandemic around the globe. These are no minor issues. They offer plenty of incentive to cover up the truth.

As Rutgers microbiologist and founding member of the Cambridge Working Group, Richard Ebright, told Boston Magazine:31

“For the substantial subset of virologists who perform gain-of-function research, avoiding restrictions on research funding, avoiding implementation of appropriate biosafety standards, and avoiding implementation of appropriate research oversight are powerful motivators.”

Antonio Regalado, biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, was even more blunt, stating that if SARS-CoV-2 was found to be a lab creation, “it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.”32 There’s little doubt that this is the reason why the lab origin theory has been roundly labeled as pure conspiracy theory spread by science deniers and Trump flag-wielding kooks.

Such a stance is extremely unhealthy, however, as it seeks to strangle not only free speech but also scientific inquiry, and “criminalizes” logic in general. In a February 15, 2021, AP News article,33 the three authors identify several professors and organizations as “superspreaders” of disinformation about SARS-CoV-2’s origin.

Among them are Francis Boyle, a bioweapons expert who drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act; Luc Montagnier, a world-renowned virologist who won the Nobel prize for his discovery of HIV; and the Center for Research on Globalization. The remainder are individuals and organizations that I, having written many hundreds of articles about COVID-19 over the past year, have never even heard of.

According to AP, the parties on this list have no training in virology (apparently, Nobel prize-winning virologists aren’t good enough) and therefore do not have the expertise to speak on the issue of viral origins. However, they don’t mention the many who have presented evidence for a lab origin who do have all the “right” credentials.

It’s also worth noting that the AP article was produced in collaboration with the Atlantic Council, which is part of the technocratic hub that is using the pandemic to further its Great Reset agenda. That alone qualifies the article as pure globalist propaganda.

If SARS-CoV-2 really was the result of zoonotic spillover, the easiest and most effective way to quash “conspiracy theories” about a lab origin would be to present compelling evidence for a plausible theory. So far, that hasn’t happened, and as noted by Latham and Wilson, the most likely reason for that is because the virus does not have a natural zoonotic origin, and you cannot find that which does not exist.

– Sources and References

Is the Covid Casedemic Over?

© March 1st 2021 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC.
Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here:
Reproduced from original article:
Posted on: Monday, March 1st 2021 at 10:45 am
Written By: Dr. Jeffrey Dach, MD

Originally published on

A lot of people have noticed the rapid decline in reported COVD-19 cases starting on January 8, 2021 (see above chart from CDC). According to an OP-Ed in the Wall Street Journal by Professor Marty Makary at Johns Hopkins, this rapid decline means “Herd Immunity” will be attained by April and Covid will be over. That is only a few short weeks away. Like every one else with “Covid Fatigue”, I am hoping the chart continues to decline and Professor Marty Makary is right about that.

The professor says this rapid decline is not due to vaccination nor to masking or social distancing type precautions, rather to developing herd immunity, heralding the end of a viral pandemic when enough people acquire immunity after recovering from natural infection.

Another explanation of this “rapid decline” in PCR positive cases is the new WHO guidance in amplification cycles for the PCR testing. Above 40 cycles false positives are excessive. Under 30 cycles gives fewer false positives. Simply reducing the amplification cycle rate will cause the number of new cases to drop precipitously. Perhaps this is part of the explanation. (1-6)(11)

Disappearing Influenza ?

Another anomaly in the CDC data is the disappearance of reported influenza cases by American laboratories. (See above chart from CDC). Some epidemiologists such as Knut Witkowski say this is because influenza cases are being relabeled as Covid cases. It seems that there are unlimited ways to manipulate and play with the data without any awareness of the general public.(6-7)

Dont Worry, The Vaccine is Safe and Effective

Many of my friends, neighbors and family members have hastened to get their Covid vaccine, and then boast in pride they have been vaccinated, contributing to the public good.

The vaccine is not without its problems. One of which is vaccine induced immune enhancement for people who have already been exposed to the virus, had the viral illness and recovered with natural immunity. These people now have natural immunity and don’t need a vaccine. If they do get the vaccine, they are at increased risk for adverse immune enhancement. Increased risk to “recently convalescent or asymptomatic carriers” was pointed out by a cardiovascular surgeon, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm in a letter to the FDA warning of:

“almost certain immunological prognostication that if viral antigens are present in the tissues of subjects who undergo vaccination, the antigen specific immune response triggered by the vaccine will target those tissues and cause tissue inflammation and damage.” (9-10)

Perhaps this is the explanation for a number of deaths within a day or two of the vaccination reported in the media and to VAERS. Although most have done well, we have had at least one death shortly after the vaccine in our community that I know of personally. Perhaps it would be wise to avoid vaccinating people in this high risk group who are now immune, have previously recovered from the virus. At present in the US no such precautions are being taken, and probably should be.

Reversing Position on Hydroxychloroquine.

Apparently even Facebook has now reversed its position on censoring information about Hydroxychloroquine, an old drug which is now recognized as one of many repurposed antivirals effective for coronavirus.(8) A number of repurposed antivirals such as Azithromycin, Ivermectin, melatoninZincVitamin D3Vitamin AVitamin C etc, are available as highly effective treatment for viral illness. Another good reason to question the need for an experimental vaccine for a disease with a 99.9% survival rate for the under 60. If we have effective treatment, then why do we need a vaccine? None of the vaccines have been officially FDA approved. They are all being given to people based on Emergency Use Authorization as part of an ongoing clinical trial.


Will the Casedemic be over in April? Only time will tell if the prediction by Dr Marty Makary is correct. I hope he is correct about that, so things can return to normal.

Links and References

1) We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April 
Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news. By Marty Makary Feb. 18, 2021 Wall Street Journal. Dr. Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, chief medical adviser to Sesame Care, and author of “The Price We Pay.”

2) Johns Hopkins doc: U.S. may hit COVID herd immunity ‘by April’

But the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity. Behavior didn’t suddenly improve over the holidays; Americans traveled more over Christmas than they had since March. Vaccines also don’t explain the steep decline in January. Vaccination rates were low and they take weeks to kick in.

My prediction that Covid-19 will be mostly gone by April is based on laboratory data, mathematical data, published literature and conversations with experts.

3) Your Coronavirus Test is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.Published in New York Times, August 29, 2020 Discussion from a hospital laboratory perspective by Marie L. Landry, M.D.Director, Clinical Virology Laboratory, Yale New Haven Hospital

4) WHO Finally Admits COVID19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’
Published on December 17, 2020 Written by John O’Sullivan

5) CDC Influenza Data

6) UK COVID Conundrum: The Mysterious Case of Disappearing Flu
Published on January 27, 2021
Written by Banson Wilcot PhD

7) Epidemiologist Says Influenza Cases Are Being Counted as COVID-19
“Influenza has been renamed COVID-19 in large part.”
Top epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski says that the massive drop in influenza cases can be attributed to the fact that many are being falsely counted as COVID-19 cases.

Wittkowski, former Head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Research Design at Rockefeller University, cautioned that, “Influenza has been renamed COVID-19 in large part.”

8) Facebook Oversight Reverses Hydroxychloroquine Censorship Decision by Tyler Durden


01/28/21 Cardiothoracic Surgeon Warns FDA, Pfizer on Immunological Danger of COVID Vaccines in Recently Convalescent and Asymptomatic Carriers

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm says FDA, Pfizer and Moderna must consider the danger COVID vaccines pose to the recently convalescent or asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2 — especially the elderly, frail or anyone with significant cardiovascular risk factors.

In a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pfizer and the press, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm warns of an “almost certain immunological prognotication that if viral antigens are present in the tissues of subjects who undergo vaccination, the antigen specific immune response triggered by the vaccine will target those tissues and cause tissue inflammation and damage.”

10) Cardozo T, Veazey R. Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease [published online ahead of print, 2020 Oct 28]. Int J Clin Pract. 2020;e13795.

Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

11) COVID: Herd immunity by April, says a Johns Hopkins professor Dated: February 24, 2021 by Sharyl Attkisson 6 Comments

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.