“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” –J. Robert Oppenheimer
This post is part of Health Friday, a series of offerings related to Big Pharma, vaccines, general health, and associated topics. However, the discussion will not be limited to what is presented today; it is an Open Thread.
To begin, there are Important Wolf Moon Notifications, with a couple of extra items:
Free Speech is practiced here. “Use it or lose it.”
The following are alternate Q Tree sites for certain circumstances:
What Yours Truly presents in this series, as in her previous blog posts for this board, is not medical advice — they are based on her over 4 1/2 years (and continuing) of reading about, researching about, and writing about “all things COVID”, Big Pharma, and other health topics. Readers are encouraged to please consult a healthcare practitioner regarding health concerns or conditions.
Today’s post in the Health Friday series regards the ongoing efforts by what Yours Truly calls Establishment Medicine to minimize, marginalize, and/or outright punish those healthcare professionals (especially physicians) who speak the truth about the COVID-19 virus itself and the COVID-19 “vaccines.”
For purposes of the post today, Yours Truly begins here: ABIM: “Follow the consensus, not the science. Saving lives is not a priority.”, from The Burning Platform, a post by Steve Kirsch. This details the American Board of Internal Medicine revoking the certifications of Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik. The Washington Post and other media outlets gloated over this, trumpeting that the “medical disinformation spread” by these physicians (such as, that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine can prevent and cure COVID-19 infections; and, that the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” are dangerous) was finished. Yours Truly’s presentation focuses on the ABIM decision regarding Dr. Kory.
Dr. Pierre Kory is a co-founder of COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC): https://covid19criticalcare.com/. He has been, and is, since the beginning of the disaster of COVID-19 and the COVID-19 “vaccines”, a leading voice in exposing the truth of this situation, along with being a champion of using Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine to prevent a COVID-19 infection and to treat COVID-19 infected patients. Until this month, Dr. Kory held three board certifications from the American Board of Internal Medicine — until this happened: The American Board of Internal Medicine Revoked All 3 of My Board Certifications, 17 August 2024. This is a big deal. Here’s why: By this action, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) removed Dr. Kory’s ability to have hospital privileges; it removed his ability to hold an academic position; and, it removed his ability to work in a medical clinic or other facility where other physicians hold ABIM certifications. Dr. Kory can still practice medicine in a private clinic where there no ABIM physicians; or, he can work independently in a clinic that he himself establishes. Below are three screenshots from Dr. Kory’s article:
Note the above third screenshot. To remove the ability of physicians to “think out of the box” will be, in Yours Truly’s opinion, to implement “one-size-fits-all Establishment Medicine.” And this is not all — this approach will (if it hasn’t already) spill over into the CMS (Medicare / Medicaid) system, making it almost impossible for persons covered under this system to find physicians who want to “think out of the box.”
The history of medical board certification in the United States began in 1917. A brief history can be found here: www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2394686/, “Professionalism and Accountability: The Role of Specialty Board Certification”, by Christine K. Cassell, MD, and Eric S. Holmhoe, MD, 2008. There are multiple entities that grant board certifications to physicians. Two of them are: the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) www.abms.org/, which grants certifications in 40 specialties and 89 “sub-specialties”; and, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) www.abim.org/, which grants certifications in 14 specialties. In essence, board certification, which was at one time was an “add-on” to a physician’s already-established reputation and expertise is now anecessity — there is hardly a hospital, or a medical school, or a group practice that will consider hiring a physician who does not have a board certification, or is not working toward one. And, with the advent of “get board certified or forget about being hired”, comes what Yours Truly will call “the potential tyranny” of the granting entity over the physician who is board certified. There is continuing education and exams to renew the certifications; all of these cost money. There is “oversight” on the physician who obtains board certification — for example, are there any complaints from patients? Does the physician “spread misinformation” about things like the COVID-19 “vaccines” and/or “unapproved treatments” for COVID-19 infection? The granting entity can “charge” a physician who has board certification with “spreading misinformation” and/or “treating a patient with unapproved drugs”; the physician has to “defend” themself before the granting board in order to keep or to renew their certification(s). The granting entity has the sole power to either renew or to revoke the physician’s certification(s).
An opposite point of view on board certification is expressed here: Is Board Certification Overrated?, by Robert Anthony, 2010 (copyright 2010 by UBM). Below is a portion of the article:
Which appears, in Yours Truly’s opinion, to imply that a physician who is not board certified is somehow “lacking” in skills and knowledge and, perhaps, does not “meet a higher standard.”
Perhaps the most damning statement by Dr. Kory regarding the ABIM revoking his board credentials is this one, from his blog article referred to above:
Read the above again. The ABIM has removed Dr. Kory’s ability to see patients in a hospital. He can’t participate in insurance plans — which means that any patient he sees in his own clinic must pay for all services, tests, and so on, out of pocket. This may include charges that would normally be covered by Medicare / Medicaid. He will have to carry less medical malpractice insurance. All of these can potentially mean that patients who need his services but cannot pay cash for them, are also potentially shut out from his services. His article above needs to be read: in it, he “exposes the underbelly” of the ABIM.
Dr. Meryl Nass (https://merylnass.substack.com/) also had her board certification revoked by the ABIM. The organization did not even bother to tell her that this was done: https://merylnass.substack.com/p/kory-and-marik-were-just-stripped, “Kory and Marik were just stripped of their specialty board certifications. So was I, but the ABIM never even bothered to tell me”, 14 August 2024. Dr. Nass also, in another blog post, reveals what may one item behind what the ABIM is doing — the organization apparently wants to replace the physicians whose certifications were revoked with medical doctors from foreign countries: https://merylnass.substack.com/p/after-stripping-doctors-of-their, “After stripping doctors of their credentials and making it impossible to practice ethical medicine, the ABIM wants to bring in foreign medical doctors as replacements”, 24 August 2024. Below is a JPG of the ABIM’s statement, shared by Dr. Nass from another physician:
To add another aspect to the discussion, Yours Truly believes there ** may ** be some involvement of the AMA (American Medical Association) in the revoking of board certifications: AMA adopts new policy aimed at addressing public health disinformation, 13 June 2022. Below is a screenshot from the press release:
Note the penultimate point regarding “specialty boards.” In Yours Truly’s opinion, the AMA is one of the bastions of what may be called “Establishment Medicine” (the others being entities such as: the CDC; the FDA; the medical schools of Harvard University, Stanford University, Cornell University, etc.)
Let’s say that a board-certified physician, “fully vaccinated and boosted” who “followed the science”, after watching “vaccinated and boosted” patients, colleagues, perhaps even family members, begin to present with “the doctors are baffled” medical issues; or, perhaps, a cancer that was in remission that has returned. Let’s say that this physician starts to feel a little uneasy regarding the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” and does a little research — perhaps, by reading a blog or two written by someone like Dr. Kory; perhaps, by reading some published scientific literature regarding “first onset of psychosis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination” (there are multiple papers discussing this that can be found online.) Let’s say that this physician comes to the realization that the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” are not “safe and effective”, but instead are the opposite. Let’s say this physician has board-certification renewal coming up in a few months. And, to top it off, let’s say that this physician has a family to provide for, a mortgage to pay, and medical school debt to pay off. What is this physician to do? — without jeopardizing the job, the board certification, perhaps even the License to Practice Medicine? It is Yours Truly’s opinion that this kind of situation is starting to “bubble under the surface” of more than one physician currently in practice. It is not an easy situation to be in.
Where does this situation leave the patient? If the physician who discovers that the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” (actually, gene therapy and modification injections [the DNA of the “vaccinated” person is changed by the ingredients and mechanisms of these “vaccines”]) are ineffective and dangerous, but doesn’t / can’t say a word to the patient to not take them — doesn’t this violate the oath of “First, Do No Harm” that the physician swore upon receiving the degree of Doctor of Medicine? If the physician who finds out, for example, that Paxlovid has a high “rebound infection” percentage, but doesn’t / can’t say a word to the patient to not take this combo-drug but substitute, say, Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Vitamin D to combat a COVID infection — doesn’t this silence put the patient at risk? One in Five Experience Rebound COVID After Antiviral Drug, New Study Shows, 13 November 2023. The article regarding the DNA change made by the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” is here: https://doctors4covidethics.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/causality-article. “Vascular and organ damage induced by mRNA vaccines: irrefutable proof of causality”, by Michael Palmer, MD, and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD, 18 August 2022. Slide 14 of this article is a graphic showing how the DNA of the COVID-19 “vaccinated” person is changed by the Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine.”
How did the ABIM, the ABMS, and the other privately-run board certification granting entities in the United States come to have such power over the practice of medicine and over the physicians who obtain board certification? (There are literally dozens of these boards: www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/so-what-does-physician-board-certification-actually-mean/, 7 February 2019.) To Yours Truly, it appears that they possibly used a combination of influence, lobbying, personal connections with medical schools, and other “tactics.” The result may well be an “authority” that these certification boards created and arrogatedto themselves, in the name of “ensuring quality delivery of healthcare by qualified physicians.” While this may have been a true and worthy aspiration previously, it seems it has “evolved” into “Follow these dictates, or else.”
And, from there, where does this potentially go? If a physician is stripped of board certification(s), that physician can still practice medicine — unless their state medical licensing board (perhaps with the involvement of the AMA, please see above in today’s post) decides to “charge” the physician with “spreading disinformation to the public” in “violation” of the diktats of Establishment Medicine. The physician now faces the possibility of losing the License to Practice Medicine. The case of Dr. Carrie Madej, DO, comes to mind. (Doctors of Osteopathy are medical doctors who have somewhat different training from MDs, but who are recognized and licensed to practice medicine and write prescriptions.) She was brought up on similar “charges” by the medical licensing board of Georgia. After a protracted fight, Dr. Madej ultimately decided to surrender her License to Practice Medicine in 2023. (Recall that Dr. Madej was one of the first to demonstrate that the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” contain substances that appeared to be strange.)
And, from there, where does the potential for innovation in medicine go? If physicians (especially board-certified physicians) have to, in effect, constantly “look over their shoulder” and “toe the line” to Establishment Medicine, doesn’t this affect the potential to come up with new theories and to investigate them? — such as in, using drugs in “off-label” circumstances to help patients? — such as in, using Hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19 infection, instead of injecting a patient with a modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” that changes that patient’s DNA and can also lead to the appearance of myocarditis or even to the death of the patient? Instead of hospitalized COVID-19 infected patients being put on ventilators and given Remdesivir, a drug that can kill the patient instead of helping the patient? Why Remdesivir Failed: Preclinical Assumptions Overestimate the Clinical Efficacy of Remdesivir for COVID-19 and Ebola, Victoria C. Yan and Florian L. Muller, 17 September 2021.
Yours Truly will say it is vitally important that all persons, COVID-19 “vaccinated” or not, to have and keep their natural immune system in the best condition possible; to become educated regarding any prescription medication that they take; and, to research any medical injectables that are recommended / required that they be given.
“For you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32
The above image of a physician performing a vaccination is courtesy of Google Images and The New York Times.
This post is the first of “Health Friday”, a new series of offerings related to Big Pharma, vaccines, general health, and related topics. It is an honor and privilege to contribute this series to the board. Since today’s post relates to COVID-19 and the COVID-19 “vaccines”, it is dedicated to the memory of Yours Truly’s cousin Bill, who “died suddenly and unexpectedly” in September 2023. However, the discussion will not be limited to what is presented today; it is an Open Thread.
To begin, there are Important Wolf Moon Notifications, with a couple of extra items:
Free Speech is practiced here. “Use it or lose it.”
The following are alternate Q Tree sites for certain circumstances:
What Yours Truly writes in this series, as in her previous blog posts for this board, is not medical advice — they are opinions based on her over 4 1/2 years (and continuing) of reading about, researching about, and writing about “all things COVID”, Big Pharma, and other health topics. Readers are encouraged to please consult a healthcare practitioner regarding health concerns or conditions.
And now, to dive in. There is a lot to “unpack.”
The modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” induce IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD.)IgG4-related disease(IgG4-RD) is a term that covers multiple medical conditions, ranging from neurological to ocular to cardiovascular to respiratory to gastrointestinal to urogenital. Since it is a chronic inflammatory condition, there can be more than one location of an IgG4-RD associated ailment within the patient’s body. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IgG4-related_disease, “IgG4-related disease”, which has a list of symptoms in reported cases of IgG4-RD, and a list of body area sites that can be affected by IgG4-RD. The first instance of what is now called IgG4-RD was discovered in 1892 by Johann von Mikulicz, who diagnosed an “inflammatory disease of the salivary glands” in a patient (this condition was later called Mikulicz’ disease.) In 2021, Hamano et al. found elevated IgG4 levels in patients with Autoimmune Pancreatitis (AIP.) Please see: https://ojrd.biomedicalcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13023-014-0110-z, “IgG4-related disease: an orphan disease with many faces”, Herwig Pieringer, et al., 16 July 2014. It appears that an issue with obtaining a true diagnosis of an IgG4-related disease is that many of the presenting elements can “mimic” other conditions, such as cancer or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In addition, IgG4-RD can simply not present symptoms at all, until the patient concludes that “something is going on here.” In terms of the presenting symptoms of an IgG4-RD disease, there are, among others: storiform fibrosis (“spindle-shaped” cells that can, with collagen fibers, form a “flowing arrangement”); and, eosinophilia (high elevation of a type of white blood cell [eosinophils] that supports the natural immune system.) Please see: https://academic.oup.com/mr/article/31/3/529/6300281, “The 2020 revised comprehensive diagnostic (RCD) criteria for IgG4-RD”, Hisamori Umehara, et al., 4 May 2021. (Note: the entire article is restricted access.) Below is a portion from “IgG4-Related Disease” from StatPearls – NCBI Bookshelf, an article by Sudheer Nambiar and Tony I. Oliver (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499825):
There are some IgG4-RD conditions that may be genetically-based; one example is Autoimmune Pancreatitis (AIP.) Please see: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31104539/, “Genetic analysis of IgG4-related disease”, Yuki Ishikawa and Chikashi Terao, 7 June 2020. (Note: again, the entire article is restricted-access.) On the other hand, another IgG4-RD condition, Autoimmune Lymphoproliferative Syndrome (ALPS) appears to strike children. In addition, IgG4-RD conditions can be “immune-mediated” (meaning, the body’s immune system response is either inappropriate or excessive); and/or “autoimmune” (meaning, the body’s immune system attacks healthy tissues in the body.)
Yours Truly will examine the presence of eosinophilia as an indicator of IgG4-RD. This is an important “marker.” And it ties into the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” — the COVID-19 “vaccinated” person’s natural immune system being damaged and/or destroyed by the ingredients and mechanisms of these “vaccines”; and, with repeated injections of these “vaccines” compounding this damage and/or destruction.
The first item is a blog article by Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/igg4-related-disease-and-igg4-means, “IgG4-related disease (IgG4RD) means FIBROSIS and organ destruction”, 28 December 2022. It is now known that the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” induce a “class switch” in the COVID-19 “vaccinated” person’s natural immune system; this “class switch” is the damage and/or destruction of IgG3 immune system cells (these cells help to fight off infections and other enemies that “invade” the natural immune system), replacing IgG3 cells with increased numbers of IgG4 cells (these cells help to allow the body to “tolerate” assaults to the natural immune system.) Repeated injections of modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” exacerbate this process: please see https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798, “Class switch toward non inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination”, Irrgang P, et al., 22 December 2022. Notice the title: “non inflammatory”, “spike-specific”, “IgG4”, and “repeated SARS CoV-2 mRNA vaccination.” IgG4-RD conditions can present as non-inflammatory (the patient doesn’t notice anything wrong for some period of time, see above in today’s post); however, the IgG4 levels in the patient are high upon examination. Below is a portion of the Introduction of the above paper. Note: Comirnaty was the non-United States version of the Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” BNT162b2. Comirnaty and BNT162b2 are the same product. Note 2: the 2023-2024 Comirnaty modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” was given full FDA approval for use in the United States on 23 September 2023 for persons age 12 above: www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-receive-us-fda-approval-2023-2024-covid; the version that the FDA authorized (the “2023-2024 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” by the same company) was for persons age 6 months through 11 years of age (www.fda.gov/media/167211/download.)
Note that the IgG4 cell increase extended for months after the second injection of Comirnaty and was further increased after the third injection. This correlates to the original “two-injection Primary Series” plus the original “booster shot” of Comirnaty that millions of persons took between December 2020 and early 2022. This would also include, since the formulations were the same, of the “Primary Series” and the original “booster shot” of BNT162b2 that were taken by millions of persons in the United States from December 2020, until Comirnaty was given full FDA approval in the United States on 8 July 2022 for persons age 12 and older (at which point, BNT162b2 was “replaced” by Comirnaty except for use in persons age 6 months to 11 years; the FDA authorized the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” for this age group.) This “product name situation” may seem a little confusing: at bottom, it had to with removal of liability for the “vaccine” manufacturer. This will be discussed at a later date.) Note also that “VOC” means Variants of Concern (in other words, the Delta, the Omicron, the XBB.1.5 variants of the SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] virus, and so on.)
The second item is here: www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf, 5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021, given by Pfizer-BioNTech to the FDA on 30 April 2021. This report covers Adverse Event Reports that were submitted to the company between 11 December 2020 (the date on which the FDA in the United States granted the initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for BNT162b2 to be used in the United States, 21 December 2020 (the date on which the EMA (European Medicines Agency) granted its initial EUA for BNT162b2 to be used in Europe / Scandinavia; and, 28 February 2021. The APPENDIX 1. LIST OF ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST, which begins on Page 30 of this report, lists over 1,200 different types of medical adverse events that were reported to Pfizer-BioNTech from the worldwide EUA start dates above. On Page 3 and Page 4 of the APPENDIX 1. (Page 32 and Page 33 of the report), there are the following Adverse Events of Special Interest listed: Eosinopenia; Eosinophilic fasciitis; Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis; Eosinophilic oesophagitis. On Page 5 of the APPENDIX 1. (Page 34) of the report, there is listed: Immunoglobulin G4 related disease. On Page 8 of the APPENDIX 1. (Page 37 of the report) there is listed: Sjogren’s syndrome (another type of IgG4-RD.) These are a few of the IgG4-RD types of reports that are listed in the APPENDIX 1. section. Thus, the FDA knew, on 30 April 2021, that BNT162b2 “vaccination” induces IgG4-related disease conditions. Yet, the FDA did nothing to stop the continuing rollout of BNT162b2.
A third item is here: https://mole.substack.com/cp/147758416, a 15 August 2024 cross-post from Lioness of Judah Ministry, “German Study Links Covid Shots to Surge in VITAL ORGAN DAMAGE among Children”. The study found that there was a large increase of organ damage induced by BNT162b2 in children in Germany ages 5 to 11 years old. The study is here: https://journals.lww.com/pidj/fulltext/9900/delayed_induction_of_noninflammatory_sars_cov_2.959.aspx, “Delayed Induction of Noninflammatory SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Specific IgG4 Antibodies Detected 1 Year After BNT162b2 Vaccination in Children”. Kobbe, Robin MD, et al., 30 July 2024. The IgG4 antibodies were detected after the second dose of BNT162b2 (in other words, after the “Primary Series” of two BNT162b2 injections was completed.)
And, a fourth item is here, related to COVID-19, the COVID-19 “vaccines” and autoimmune conditions: https://wmcresearch.substack.com/p/long-covid-is-an-autoimmune-disease, “Long COVID is an Autoimmune Disease: Injecting Mice with IgG from Long COVID Patients Induces Symptomology”, by Walter M Chesnut, 4 June 2024. Mr. Chesnut has long posited that the spike protein of the COVID-19 virus itself contains elements that attack the natural immune system of the body of a person infected with this virus; and that the COVID-19 virus itself can induce what is now called “Long COVID.” Yours Truly will add the opinion that the difference between “Long COVID” in a person who is “unvaccinated” against COVID-19, and “Long COVID” in a COVID-19 “vaccinated” person, is this: the natural immune system of the “unvaccinated” person still has the potential to not only fight off a COVID-19 infection, but also to mitigate or eliminate the chance that “Long COVID” may result from the infection; whereas, the natural immune system of the COVID-19 “vaccinated” person has been damaged (or worse), resulting in a much larger potential for “Long COVID” (both in presentation and in duration.)
Yours Truly believes that the COVID-19 virus itself, and the ingredients and mechanisms of the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” (one of these ingredients being a “lab-modified” form of the RNA of said virus), both attack the natural immune system of the body. The COVID-19 “vaccines” have been shown to damage and/or destroy the IgG3 cells of the body’s natural immune system (these cells help to fight off viruses, etc.), replacing these with increased amounts of IgG4 cells (“toleration facilitator” cells.) In Yours Truly’s opinion, one of the important details here is the targeting of HLA cells (human leukocyte antigen cells, a type of white blood cells) by the COVID-19 virus itself, and, by extension, the COVID-19 “vaccines.”
And, from this paper: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10864075, “HLA-DRB1 Is Associated with Therapeutic Responsiveness in IgG4-related disease”, Motohisa Yamamoto, et al., 23 May 2024:
Note that one of the most-recommended and used treatments for IgG4-RD conditions is glucocorticoids (steroids); and that cessation of treatment likely results in relapse of the condition. But, long-term use of glucocorticoids have risks, including high blood pressure and Cushing’s Disease. Please see: www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosis/what-are-glucocorticoids.
Yours Truly will posit that the lab-created SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus itself, with the lab enhancements made to the mRNA of this virus to create the modRNA of the COVID-19 “vaccines” (such as the SV40 African Green Monkey cancer promoter gene piece in BNT162b2), plus the addition of dangerous lipid nanoparticles (ALC-0159 and ALC-0315 in BNT162b2 and its “descendant” COVID-19 “vaccines”; and, SM-102 in the Moderna mRNA-1273 modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” and its “descendant” COVID-19 “vaccines”) and other ingredients in these “vaccines” — have been, and continue to be, designed to wreak as much havoc and damage on the human race as possible. This havoc and damage includes that done to the body’s natural immune system, its elements, mechanisms, and responses. Recall that the “descendant” modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” use the original (lab-enhanced) SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) virus modRNA that was present in the earlier versions of these “vaccines”, but in smaller amounts. Therefore, in one’s opinion, the potential exists for immune system damage in persons who take these “descendant” modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines.”
Until fairly recently, it was not known HOW, or the DETAILS behind WHY, the COVID-19 virus itselfand the COVID-19 “vaccines” have such potential for havoc and damage — all that was beginning to present were, and are, the ADVERSE EFFECTS of the virus and especially of the “vaccines”: turbo-cancers; miscarriages; Bell’s Palsy; deaths; the Adverse Events of Special Interest listings of negative effects induced by BNT162b2 in the APPENDIX 1. cited above. It is now starting to become more clear as to what SPECIFIC elements likely used in the creation of both the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, and in the development of the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines.” Yours Truly will posit that one of these SPECIFIC elements is something that attacks and compromises at least one important component of the human body’s immune system: the antigen site of the human leukocyte protein DRB1 (HLA-DRB1.) It took time, effort, and large amounts of funding to investigate these SPECIFIC elements; to experiment with them to ascertain the damage that could be caused; then, to “insert” these elements into the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, and, by extension, into the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines.” And, as the passage of time obscures or obliterates “fingerprints” of the damage done by the COVID-19 “vaccines” in the “vaccinated” individual, the involvement of these “vaccines” may well become harder and harder to trace (even though the damage is continuing in the “vaccinated” person, since one of the mechanisms of said “vaccines” is to change the DNA of the person who takes them.) Below is Slide 14 from the Palmer, MD and Sucharit, MD, article regarding what the COVID-19 “vaccines” do to the “vaccinated” person’s body. Slide 14 shows how the Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” BNT162b2 changes the DNA of the “vaccinated” person:
Yours Truly will emphasize that it is of the utmost importance that all persons, COVID-19 “vaccinated” or not, have and maintain the highest degree possible of natural immune system health. A healthy diet is one of many ways to support and maintain a healthy natural immune system. Here is an article on this topic: www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322412, “The best foods for boosting your immune system”, by Lana Burgess, 10 July 2018. Among other ways to help the natural immune system are lifestyle changes, regular exercise, taking supplements, and addressing stress, as discussed here: www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-to-boost-immune-health, “9 Ways to Boost Your Body’s Natural Defenses”, by SaVanna Shoemaker, RDN, 1 April 2020. Yours Truly will add the opinion that avoiding unnecessary antibiotics and “certain injectables” are additional items to consider.
The above image is of mass vaccination against smallpox in Paris in 1905. (Courtesy, Getty Images.)
Today’s post will trace what ** may be ** a “sleight-of-hand” that started out with Xavier Becerra, the Secretary of the United States government Department of Health and Human Services, giving the “Go-Ahead” for the use of the H5N1 Avian Influenza “vaccine”, AUDENZ, in anticipation of a potential “bird flu pandemic” in the United States; but, which since has been “transformed” into the American Medical Association just issuing new CPT codes for an Avian Influenza “vaccine” for a different strain, called H5N8. Meanwhile, the CDC / FDA / United States government, are all sending out warnings related to the H5N1 strain. Stay with Yours Truly, it gets even better — “Mais, mon Dieu!” — the twists and turns! This post is a kind of “snapshot” of the situation — it is an evolving issue.
For purposes of today’s post, the trail begins here: www.ernst.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fowl_play_squeal.pdf, the letter that Sen. Jodi Ernst (R-Iowa) sent to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack on 14 February 2024. In this letter, Sen. Ernst demands answers regarding United States government funding of what appears to be Gain-of-Function research experiments on Avian Influenza viruses; which experiments involve a scientist linked to the Chinese Communist Party. Yours Truly can find to date, no response from Sec. Vilsack to Sen. Ernst. A screenshot of Page 1 of her letter is below:
Yours Truly now turns to this: www.aha.org/news/headline/2024-07-23-hhs-broadens-emergency-declaration-facilitate-response-bird-flu-other-viruses-pandemic-potential, “HHS broadens emergency declaration to facilitate response to bird flu, other viruses with pandemic potential”, dated 23 July 2024, which “expanded” the 2013 amendment to the Federal Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act to now include “other viruses” that may have “pandemic potential.” The document, from HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, specifically mentions three types of Avian Influenza strains: H1N1 (from 2009); H7N9 (from the 2013 amendment);, and H5N1 (from the 24 March 2024 USDA statement regarding H5N1 infections in dairy cows in Kansas and in Texas.) https://public-inspection.federalregister.com/2024-16247.pdf. Below is a screenshot from the AHA (American Hospital Association) press release:
And, for reference, here is the Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar document related to what the HHS Secretary can “declare” under the PREP Act (including removing liability options), updated 21 July 2023: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10730, “The PREP Act and COVID-19, Part 2: The PREP Act Declaration for COVID-19 Countermeasures.”
Meanwhile, the USDA had already issued a press release regarding how dairy farmers can apply to receive expanded livestock assistance to compensate for milk production lost due to their cows infected with H5N1: www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2024/06/27/usda-begin-accepting-applications-expanded-emergency-livestock, “USDA to Begin Accepting Applications for Expanded Emergency Livestock Assistance Program to Help Dairy Producers Offset Milk Loss Due to H5N1”, dated 27 June 2024.
So, it would appear that the HHS gave the “go-ahead” for a kind of “EUA” regarding the use of the protein-subunit H5N1 “vaccine”, AUDENZ (a supply is already in the National Vaccine Stockpile); and, for the increased production of this “vaccine.” What follows is a “closer look” at AUDENZ. Yours Truly will begin with the FDA-issued Fact Sheet for healthcare providers for this “vaccine”: www.fda.gov/media/135020/download; three screenshots from the document are below. The first screenshot shows clearly that there was no Placebo group (Control/saline group) in at least two clinical trials for AUDENZ. The second screenshot shows clearly that no Toxicology studies were performed for AUDENZ. The third screenshot is Page 10 of the Fact Sheet.
Note this language in the first screenshot: “In both Studies 1 and 2, all SAEs appeared unrelated to study treatment.” This indicates at least two important details: One, that Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) did occur during at least two clinical trials of AUDENZ; and, Two, that these Serious Adverse Events were not considered to be related to the clinical trials for AUDENZ. This is the same type of language that Pfizer-BioNTech used regarding Serious Adverse Events that occurred during the (shortened and data-compromised) clinical trials for the company’s “flagship” COVID-19 modRNA “vaccine” BNT162b2. Note also that a “complete dose series” for AUDENZ is two separate doses of 0.5mL each, for all age groups age six months and up. AUDENZ uses an adjuvant (an ingredient that facilities the activities of the injectable) called MF59. MF59 is a squalene-based, oil-in-water adjuvant. The Safety Data Sheet for MF59 is here: https://file.medchemexpress.com/batch_PDF/HY-153206/MF59-SDS-MedChemExpress.pdf. The product is listed as “Not a hazardous product or mixture” in section 2.2 of this document. However, reading further down the same document, one finds all sorts of contradictory information in the sections on “First Aid Measures”, on “Handling and Storage”, on “Exposure Controls”, and more.
Note also the list of reported adverse events in section 6.2 of Page 10, above. These are same types of adverse events reactions to the Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine”, BNT162b2, in the post-authorization report that this company gave to the FDA on 30 April 2021; and in reports to VAERS; and, which are listed within the FDA-issued Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers for the “2023-2024 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” by Pfizer-BioNTech (www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf; www.openvaers.com/; www.fda.gov/media/167211/download?attachment. Very troubling are the listings in section 6.2 of Page 10 above in the AUDENZ fact sheet for “convulsions”; “demyelination”; “encephalitis”; and, “Guillain-Barre’ syndrome.”
A blog post by Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD, on 27 June 2024, presents a summary of clinical trial for AUDENZ (NCT02839440), in which she proves that the fatality rate is 1/200 chances for AUDENZ: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/1200-chance-of-death-in-context-of, “1/200 chance of death in context of new bird flu injection – 5 times higher than placebo according to clinical trial.” NCT02839440 did have a Placebo control group, (Scroll down the blog post to the discussion of this clinical trial for AUDENZ.)
To date, Yours Truly can find no exact set of CPT Codes for AUDENZ. The closest item found is here: www.hhs.gov/guidance/document/flu-shot-coding-0; the listing is “Q2039 Influenza virus vaccination otherwise specified.”
AUDENZ is produced by CSL Seqirus, part of the much-larger CSL multinational drug company. Following is a JPG of the list of CSL offices and locations, sourced from: www.csl.com/:
The United States government awarded CSL Seqirus a contract to produce millions of doses of an Avian Influenza “vaccine” in May 2024: www.cslseqirus.us/news/csl-seqirus-announces-us-government-award-in-response-to-avian-influenza. The “vaccine” will be manufactured by the CSL Seqirus facility at Holly Springs, North Carolina. This facility was built in partnership with BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority), a department of the United States government. The Avian Influenza “vaccine” that this facility will manufacture is “cell-based”, as opposed to “egg-based”; with a six-month “turnaround” for production: www.csl.com/we-are-csl/our-business-and-products/csl-seqirus/csl-seqirus-manufacturing-technologies. Below are two images from the article related to this facility:
Note that whatever Avian Influenza cell-based “vaccine” from the CSL Seqirus facility at Holly Springs will use the MF59 adjuvant. (By the way, MF59 is trademarked by Novartis AG, which was acquired by CSL.)
So far, it appears that the H5N1 strain of Avian Influenza is the one that the United States government is focused upon. However, here’s where the trail veers to another path.
Please refer back to the American Hospital Association press release above in today’s post. Note this language: “The amendment now applies to pandemic influenza A viruses and others with pandemic potential, such as the current H5N1 strain of bird flu…” (Italics, Yours Truly) In Yours Truly’s opinion, this is “a hole big enough to drive a truck through” — or, perhaps, another strain of Avian Influenza.
The following article beings to “lift the curtain” on what ** may ** really be going on — which, again in Yours Truly’s opinion, appears to be a kind of “sleight-of-hand”: www.naturalnews.com/2024-07-26-fda-grant-eua-mrna-bird-flu-vaccines.html, “Pandemic 2.0 ready to go: FDA to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) to mRNA bird flu shots, just like what happened with COVID“, by Ethan Huff. And, “right out of the gate”, the article begins with this:
But, wasn’t the “upcoming potential bird flu pandemic” supposed to be the H5N1 strain that the government is warning about? Where does the H5N8 strain come in? According to Wikipedia, the H5N8 strain of Avian Influenza is “is typically not associated with humans.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H5N8. Very few humans have contracted a case of H5N8; this virus strain predominates among wild birds. However, the mortality rate among wild birds infected with H5N8 is “at least 75%”, again according to the Wikipedia article above.
What’s going on here? The picture is, to say the least, somewhat “murky.” There are, however, a few potential clues. Among them is this: www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2024/may/penn-researchers-develop-experimental-mrna-avian-flu-vaccine, dated 23 May 2024. Note on the screenshot, below, from the article, the language regarding “a specific type of the H5N1 virus”; and, that animals other than wild birds were being used for the experiments:
And, a fourth clue is here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05874713, a clinical trial that appears to be in the “wrapping-up” stages regarding testing an mRNA-based H5N8 “vaccine.” Below is a screenshot from the Clinical Trials webpage for this clinical trial:
Note the very low test subject enrollment (480 persons); the presence of the MF59 adjuvant in the H5N8 “vaccine” candidate used in the clinical trial; and, a “two-dose” series of “primary run” injections of the “vaccine” candidate, followed by a “booster shot” on Day 209 for the H5N8 “vaccine” candidate.
There are three other clinical trials of an H5N8 “vaccine” listed on the https://clinicaltrials.gov/ website: NCT02624219 (Completed); NCT05975840 (Active); and, NCT03014310 (Completed.) All of these clinical trials were/are Phase I or Phase I/II. None of them have a Placebo/saline control group. Each of them have fewer than 600 subjects (NCT02624219 had 275 test subjects.) Two of these three other clinical trials have the NIAID as the Sponsor.
What does all this mean? Is it possible that the current H5N1 “Avian Influenza infecting cattle, cows, and domesticated pets, in addition to poultry” situation, while it is indeed occurring, is also a sort of “Look, squirrel!” to distract from something that may be more dangerous?: from, perhaps, Gain-of-Function experiments on the H5N8 strain of the Avian Influenza (recall that this strain has a 75%+ mortality rate among the wild birds that it infects); plus, perhaps. the development of “vaccines” for this “perhaps-enhanced” H5N8 strain, which may include the millions of doses of an “Avian Influenza cell-based vaccine” that will be manufactured at the CSL Seqirus facility in North Carolina? In other words, “Pandemic 2.0”?
The above is a vintage image of mass vaccination. (Courtesy Google Images.)
This series on the disaster of the COVID-19 virus itself, and of the COVID-19 “vaccines”, is dedicated to the memory of Yours Truly’s cousin Bill, who “died suddenly and unexpectedly” in September 2023.
The origination of today’s post begins here: www.dossier.today/p/double-digits-biden-admin-tells-americans, “Double Digits: Biden Admin tells Americans that it’s soon time for their 10th Covid shot“, by Jordan Schachtel, 13 June 2024. (Mr. Schachtel wrote about the ninth COVID-19 “vaccine” injection here: www.dossier.today/p/dose-number-nine-cdc-panel-green, “Dose number NINE: CDC panel green lights yet another Covid mRNA shot“, 29 February 2024. The CDC recommended that persons over age 65 take another “booster shot” of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or of the Moderna “2023-2024 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” of these manufacturers.) A person age 65 or older, if that person adhered to every CDC recommendation regarding taking a COVID-19 “vaccine” injection since December 2020 (when the FDA granted first Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer-BioNTech and to Moderna for these companies’ “flagship” modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” (BNT162b2 by Pfizer-BioNTech; and, mRNA-1273 by Moderna), would have taken injection number nine starting on 28 February 2024.
Today’s post is long. There is a large amount of information to “unpack.” Stay with me here.
Note the language regarding the “selection of a specific JN.1 lineage SARS-CoV-2 strain…” More about that later.
The trail behind the 5 June 2024 FDA announcement begins with the VRBPAC Briefing Document for the meeting held on 28 June 2022: www.fda.gov/media/159452/download, “FDA Briefing Document Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting June 28, 2022.” It was at this meeting that the FDA “codified” the types of “strain composition recommendations” that the agency would use regarding “new versions” of COVID-19 “vaccines.” Yours Truly presents page 17, page 18, and page 19 of this document:
It appears that the FDA simply decided that it would be permissible for the agency to authorize a new COVID-19 “vaccine” strain composition along what, in Yours Truly’s opinion, may be called “very flexible” options. For example, the Pfizer-BioNTech XBB.1.5 COVID-19 “vaccine”, which was FDA authorized in the fall of 2023, had test results only from mouse testing prior to FDA authorization. Following are: The link to the Pfizer-BioNTech slide presentation about this “vaccine” to the CDC’s ACIP committee (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) meeting of 12 September 2023; and, an image of slide CC4 from this presentation. First, the presentation: www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/10-COVID-Modjarrad-508.pdf.
Second, slide CC-4 from the above presentation:
The XBB.1.5. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 “vaccine” had only been given as a single injection to humans in the company’s clinical trial; a clinical trial which had only just begun prior to the ACIP meeting. Slide CC-5 of the presentation, the start of the company’s human trial of this “vaccine”, is below:
Slide CC-6 of the presentation has to do with the mouse studies of this “vaccine”, which were of longer duration.
Notwithstanding the above, the FDA authorized the use of the company’s XBB.1.5 COVID-19 “vaccine” on 11 September 2023 (in Yours Truly’s opinion, it appears that the ACIP meeting of 12 September 2023 was a “catch-up” formality.) It also appears (again, in Yours Truly’s opinion), that the FDA used a very loose interpretation of “Option 4” on page 18 of the FDA Briefing Document above in granting the EUA for this “vaccine”.
** Now, on to the latest “new version” of the COVID-19 “vaccines”, the “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccines”, that the FDA authorized in June 2024.
The following linked items are important regarding background information related to this situation and to the FDA: First, the FDA document, stating that the agency would “align” its COVID-19 “vaccine” antigen composition to the recommendations of the World Health Organization’s TAG-CO-VAC recommendations: www.fda.gov/media/179139/download (the TAG-CO-VAC recommendation for the “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccines” was to use the JN.1 strain); second, the FDA document regarding “considerations and recommendations” for the “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” composition: www.fda.gov/media/179145/download; third, the FDA announcement of the 5 June meeting of its VRBPAC committee (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.): www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee-june-5-2024-meeting-announcement. From this last link, chick on “Event Materials” to see the slide presentations and other items that were discussed at this meeting.
Two important items from the “Event Materials” list: the FDA Briefing Document; and the VRBPAC roster for this meeting. First, the FDA Briefing Document: www.fda.gov/media/179003/download; and, second, the VRBPAC roster for this meeting: www.fda.gov/media/179225/download. The roster for the 5 June 2024 meeting has some “familiar” members and speakers: Paul Offit, MD; and Peter Marks, MD (director of CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation the Research of the FDA]); and, among the “Temporary Voting Members”, are: Bruce Gellin, M.D., M. PH., the Chief of Global Public Health Strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation; and, Melinda Wharton, M.D., M. PH., Associate Director of Vaccine Policy of the CDC. (Italics mine)
The VRBPAC members voted unanimously to endorse the Pfizer-BioNTech, the Moderna, and the Novavax “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” by these companies, based on the presentations of these companies’ representatives at the meeting. Yours Truly can find noregistered human clinical trials performed in advance of the 5 June VRBPAC meeting by Pfizer-BioNTech, or by Moderna, or by Novavax, for any “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine”; that would indicate that any “clinical trials” were performed in these companies’ facilities on mice; and that any “human trials” were also performed in these companies’ facilities, prior to the meeting. The FDA then issued the agency’s original announcement of 7 June 2024: www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-roundup-june-7-2024; and, a screenshot from this announcement:
Note in particular “…the selection of a specific JN.1 lineage SARS-CoV-2 strain (e.g., JN.1. or KP.2) and expressed a strong preference for JN.1.” Here’s where it starts to “get interesting.”
What was it that happened? Part of the answer lies in the fact that the NIH and Moderna co-own the patents (and, therefore, share the royalties) for the Moderna “flagship” modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine”, mRNA-1273. This agreement would extend to “descendant clone COVID-19 vaccines” by Moderna. www.citizen.org/article/modernas-mrna-1273-vaccine-patent-landscape/. The NIH’s Dale and Betty Bumpers Vaccine Research Center (part of NIAID — which Dr. Anthony Fauci led from November 1984 until his retirement in December 2022) and Moderna co-developed mRNA-1273. https://covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stories/nih-vaccine-research-center; a screenshot from the article is below:
The other part of the answer is that Moderna was already developing a KP.2 strain COVID-19 “vaccine” for 2024-2025. This, and the FDA’s decision to shift away from the JN.1 strain to the KP.2 strain, are described in this post at Sasha Latypova’s blog: https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/all-roads-lead-to-resilience, “All Roads lead to Resilience. FDA is removing competitors for the Pentagon & CIA’s baby…Moderna”, 23 June 2024.
However, there’s yet another detail in play here, regarding the FDA’s switch, “based on evaluation of the most recent circulating strains of COVID-19”, from JN.1 to KP.2 — the CIA and the Pentagon. Here is a screenshot from Sasha Latypova’s Substack article:
But wait, there’s more! Resilience lists multiple “partners”, such as the Mayo Clinic. The company also, apparently, has a “partnership” with the United States Army’s Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense https://resilience.com/learn/partnerships. Below is a screenshot from this website:
It appears, then, in Yours Truly’s opinion, that the FDA was perhaps “reminded” of the”details” regarding the NIH-Moderna co-ownership (and royalties – sharing) agreement related to Moderna’s modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines”; and, the role of the CIA-Pentagon-National Resilience (aka Resilience) in manufacturing the mRNA used in the Moderna COVID-19 Omicron “booster vaccines” — and the KP.2. strain is indeed a “descendant strain” in the Omicron lineage (as is the JN.1 strain.) Hence, the FDA’s 2024-2025 COVID-19 “vaccine” strain “sudden switch” announcement of 13 June 2024, only one week after the agency gave the nod to the JN.1 strain.
In Yours Truly’s opinion, it is statistically, medically, and ethically impossible for a new vaccine (let alone any COVID-19 “vaccine”) to be developed; tested (on lab animals, then on human subjects); the test data thoroughly collated and analyzed for “safety and efficacy” on both lab animals and on human subjects; then, which data is presented to the CDC / FDA for consideration; then, these agencies doing their own “due diligence” research; then, and only then, being granted an EUA by the FDA; then, and only then, manufactured for use in humans — in a time span of fewer than three to five years, let alone within a time span of only a few months. It appears, again in Yours Truly’s opinion, that the CDC and the FDA are playing “fast and loose” with the health and safety of the people who choose (or will be “mandated”) to take the “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine.” And, also, that “other entities” are in play here to perhaps “influence” decision making by these agencies.
All of above is in addition to the fact that the COVID-19 “vaccines” (actually, gene therapy injections) have caused, are causing, and will cause, multiple health issues, serious adverse reactions, and deaths, in those who are “vaccinated.” Just two of the most recent discoveries: One, the COVID-19 “vaccines” can cause brain damage, an article by Dr. William Makis: www.globalresearch.ca/brain-damage-covid-19-mrna-vaccines/5861012, “Brain Damage Caused by COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines”, 26 June 2024. Below is a screenshot from Dr. Makis’ article:
The second most recent discovery, that the COVID-19 “vaccines” reduce life expectancy (even in “all-cause” analysis) among COVID-19 “vaccinated” persons, by Dr. Peter A. McCullough: https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/breaking-publication-a-critical-analysis, “BREAKING Publication — A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province”, 1 July 2024. The peer-reviewed paper is here: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071343, “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province”, Marco Alessandria, et al., published 30 June 2024. Below is a screenshot from the Conclusions section of this paper:
In Yours Truly’ opinion, it is apparent at “half a glance” that the COVID-19 “vaccines” (actually, gene therapy injections) must be completely withdrawn for human use until these products have been fully investigated, and then re-designed, before being re-introduced for human use; and, that there is no “co-ownership” or sharing of royalties between a government agency and a COVID-19 “vaccine” manufacturer; and, that there is no involvement of the United States military in the development or manufacture of such products.
The above is an image of Father Christmas from a vintage postcard.
The following may be a bit “heavy” — please regard it as a kind of rich “Christmas Pudding” of COVID-19 “vaccine” knowledge base. Not a “lump of coal!”
Just in time for Christmas, Yours Truly presents a list of what she considers to be the “Top 12” types of damage that the COVID-19 “vaccines” can do to the body of the “vaccine” recipient. This list has been gathered from the 1600+ hours of investigating “all things COVID-19” that Yours Truly has done since March 2020. Therefore, it is only her opinion. People who read through the report that Pfizer-BioNTech gave to the FDA on 30 April 2021, regarding the over 1,000 serious adverse events medical conditions that the company’s COVID-19 “vaccine”, BNT162b2, caused in persons who took this “vaccine” IN FEWER THAN THREE MONTHS after the FDA granted the initial EUA for this “vaccine” in December 2020 for its use in the United States, may come up with “Top Lists” of their own. The report can be found here: https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf, BNT162b2 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Events Reports. The APPENDIX 1. LIST OF ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST, found at the end of the report, lists these serious adverse events conditions reports that BNT162b2 caused in “vaccinated” persons.
However, what is NOT opinion is that the FDA then knew, on 30 April 2021, that the Pfizer-BioNTech “flagship” COVID-19 “vaccine” BNT162b2 (actually, an untried gene therapy injection), was capable of damaging the body of the “vaccine” recipient in over 1,000 different ways, including the ways on Yours Truly’s “Top 12 List..” However, instead of performing its regulatory (and moral and ethical) obligations to immediately pull BNT162b2 off the market and out of use until the situation could be further investigated, the FDA chose to CONTINUE the EUA that it granted in December 2020 for BNT162b2. Not only that, but the FDA went ahead and granted “full approval” for the use of the European version of BNT162b2, called COMIRNATY, in the United States. Not only that, but the FDA granted EUA’s for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 “bivalent vaccine” to be used in the United States. Finally, in the spring of 2023, the FDA quietly stopped all use of BNT162b2 in the United States — in Yours Truly’s opinion, after mounting reports of serious adverse events, including deaths, being caused by this “vaccine” were beginning to circulate widely and to be confirmed by professional researchers and by doctors — and substituted the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech (and the Moderna) “booster vaccines” for the Omicron variant. In the summer of 2023, the FDA granted EUA’s for both the Pfizer-BioNTech and for the Moderna “2023-2024 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine”, which had only been tested on mice.
Here is Yours Truly’s “Top 12 List”: The first nine, from the APPENDIX 1. cited above:
Death: neonatal and Sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (page 3 and page 8); Myocarditis and Pericarditis (page 6 and page 7); Stroke (Cerebral artery embolism page 2; Cerebral thrombosis, page 2); Thrombotic Stroke (page 9), among other types; THIRTY different types of Autoimmune disorders (page 2); FORTY different types of Herpes disorders (page 4 and page 5); THIRTY-PLUS different types of Liver disorders (page 4); TWENTY-FIVE different types of Immune System disorders (page 5); SIXTEEN different types of Neurological (brain and/or central nervous system) disorders (page 6); and, COVID-19 and COVID-19 Pneumonia (page 3).
As an example, here is a handy-dandy image of page 4 of the APPENDIX 1., with Yours Truly’s notes:
To round out the “Top 12 List” of COVID-19 “vaccine” damage to the body of the recipient, there are these three:
One: Heart tissue and lung tissue damage / destruction: Please refer to: https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/causality-article.pdf, by Michael Palmer, MD, and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD; Two: Fetal / Neonatal disorders, including 1p36 deletion syndrome (also listed on page 1 of the APPENDIX 1.): Please refer to the following regarding 1p36 deletion syndrome: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/1p36-deletion-syndrome/ (more on this condition below); and, Three: Cancer induced with the assistance of the SV40 cancer promoter DNA that has been recently discovered in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 “vaccines” (more on this below): Please refer to the following: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/mjc97, “DNA fragments detected in monovalent and bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada: Exploratory dose response relationship with serious adverse events”, David Speicher, Jessica Rose, Kevin McKernan, et al. From lines 94-95 of this paper: “McKernan, et al., found SV40 promoter-enhancer-ori [DNA], and SV40 polyA signal sequences in the Pfizer vaccines.” The SV40 promoter-enhancer DNA is also in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 “vaccines” that were used in the United States: https://rumble.com/v3r1pqf-vaccine-adulteration-wkevin-mckernan-byram-bridle-chris-martenson-steve-kir.html, beginning at 3:32 in the video. Please also refer to the letter of December 2023 from Florida Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, to the directors of the FDA and the CDC: www.floridahealth.gov/about/_documents/12-06-2023-DOH-Letter-to-FDA-RFI-on-COVID-19-Vaccines.pdf. Yours Truly will posit that, since the modRNA + its spike protein and the “Process 2” manufacturing method for the current “2023-2024 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” by this company in use in the United States are both based on its original “vaccine” formulations (BNT162b2 and the “booster and bivalent vaccines”), it appears that this opens up the possibility that the SV40 promoter-enhancer DNA is present in this “vaccine” also. Important: The SV40 promoter-enhancer DNA in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 “vaccines” is not the entire code, only a part of it. In and of itself, this “partial code” likely would not cause cancer; however, it can be involved in the general damage / destruction that the COVID-19 “vaccines” do to the “vaccine” recipient’s body, which can, in turn, be involved in the onset of cancer, or the re-emergence of cancer already in remission, in that person’s body. In addition, Pfizer-BioNTech DID NOT TELL the Canadian health authorities, nor, apparently, the FDA in the United States, about the SV40 issue.
About the 1p36 deletion syndrome caused by the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines”: This is particularly troubling, since it effects UNBORN children and THE SPERM AND THE EGGS OF THE “VACCINATED” PARENTS. 1p36 deletion syndrome is a multi-faceted condition that negatively affects fetal development. Infants born with this condition have severe intellectual difficulties; weak muscle tone; have vision, hearing, and heart issues; and either do not speak, or can only speak a limited vocabulary; among other things. Please refer to the MedlinePlus link, above, for further information. It has been proven that large amounts of the dangerous lipid nanoparticles AND the enhanced spike protein + its modRNA in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 “vaccine” migrate to, and lodge in, two important areas of the recipient’s body — the OVARIES and the TESTES. Please refer to the image below, directly from Pfizer-BioNTech, on page 8 of a document that the company gave to the FDA on 21 January 2021. The document is called BNT162b2 2.6.5 Pharmacokinetics Tabulated Summary. It is available through https://phmpt.org/.
Please also refer to this graphic, which shows what the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” do in the pregnant mother’s body and in the body her unborn child or her nursling child (this is from a CDC presentation):
1p36 deletion syndrome is “...caused by a deletion of genetic material from a specific region in the short (p) arm of chromosome 1…Most cases of 1p36 deletion syndrome are not inherited.” (per the MedlinePlus link, above.) Think about that.
A final note on the current “2023-2024 Formula COVID-19 Vaccines” by both Pfizer-BioNTech and by Moderna: These apparently do include the ingredients (although in smaller amounts) of the original modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” made by each company (BNT162b2 by Pfizer-BioNTech; and, mRNA-1273 by Moderna), with additional elements of the Omicron XBB 1.5 variant lineage. Please refer to the following: www.fda.gov/media/167211/download, page 39 (Pfizer-BioNTech); www.fda.gov/media/167208/download, page 34 (Moderna); and, https://covid19.nih.gov/covid-19-vaccines.
As an aside, in case readers hear someone “congratulating themselves” for their taking either the Novavax or the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) COVID-19 “vaccines”, because they believed that somehow these “vaccines” are “safer” than those of Pfizer-BioNTech or of Moderna: The Novavax COVID-19 “vaccine” uses the same modRNA + its spike protein as in the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna COVID-19 “vaccines.” The difference with the Novavax COVID-19 “vaccine” is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is “marinated” in an insect culture, with the resulting modRNA “harvested” and mixed with “adjuvants” made from soap tree bark; this “vaccine” also uses lipid nanoparticles (LNPs.). The Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) COVID-19 “vaccine” was removed from use (revoked) in the United States by the FDA in May 2023. However, persons who took this “vaccine” prior to May 2023, are at risk for Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia, as listed on the “black letter warning” area on the (revoked) FDA Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers for this “vaccine.” Please refer to the following: for the Novavax COVID-19 “vaccine”: www.fda.gov/media/159897/download, page 33; www.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/en/healthu/2022/08/09/novavax-vaccine-how-its-different-and-how-it-works; and, for the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) revoked COVID-19 “vaccine”: www.fda.gov/media/146304/download, page 1.
Yours Truly will make it clear she believes that COVID-19, in its variants forms, is still a threat to health. Since one is a concerned citizen, not a healthcare practitioner, one can only offer the following thoughts:
First: it is of primary importance that all people have, and maintain, the best level of personal health and immunity that is possible; “un-vaccinated” people have a primary responsibility here to themselves. Second: It is of primary importance that all “un-vaccinated” people follow a protocol for prophylaxis against COVID-19, such as those outlined at https://covid19criticalcare.com/, and including judicious exposure to sunlight and daily mild to moderate exercise. Third: It is of primary importance that all people follow “common sense” approaches, such as washing the hands, and staying away from sick people if possible. Fourth: It is of importance that “vaccinated” people know about various protocols to try and mitigate the dangerous effects of the COVID-19 “vaccines” at work in their bodies; https://covid19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/. Fifth: It is of great importance to have and keep a positive connection with a Supreme Being.
“Then will you know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32
It is past time, in Yours Truly’s opinion, to bring to justice those who were/are involved in the development and manufacture of the COVID-19 “vaccines”; and those in the FDA / CDC / AMA, and other medical agencies and organizations, who either know, should have known, or knew of, the dangers of these “vaccines” — but still continue to push them. Some examples: Albert Bourla, DVM (CEO of Pfizer Inc.); Stephane Bancel (CEO of Moderna); Alex Gorsky (CEO of Johnson & Johnson until 2022); Anthony Fauci, MD (former head of the NIAID); Francis Collins, MD (former head of the NIH); Janet Woodcock, MD (former Acting Commissioner of the FDA); Rochelle Walensky, MD (former Director of the CDC); Peter Daszak, CEO of EcoHealth Alliance; Robert Califf, MD (current Commissioner of the FDA); Mandy Cohen, MD (current Director of the CDC); Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, (current head of the AMA); and, Ralph Baric, PhD, of the Baric Lab at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
I just wanted to document two things for the record, while I had the evidence in hand, before the “usual suspects” (Twitter, Google, etc.) cover it all up.
First – the “scientific misconduct” attack.
Second – the “big tech malign error” attack.
Assault With a Bik’s Pen
This is an interesting story about my encounter with some kind of “Act Blue” but “Fake Red” pharma-defending propagandist who alerted me to something I had not been aware of – that the scientific establishment has tried to attack HCQ researcher Didier Raoult by abusing a kind of scientific fraud-hunter named Elisabeth Bik.
Follow this conversation and you will learn the details.
It started with somebody publishing details about the attack on a dissident “Ivermectin doc” who I follow on Twitter.
Dr. Bowden is a Board Certified Stanford educated doctor from Houston, TX who’s treated & saved more than 5,500 patient lives, including my mom when she had Covid.
This tweet cites a study by the University of Kansas Medical Center, claiming that ivermectin has no effect. THAT is a whole ‘nuther topic, which is very interesting, and which implicated KUMC (not to be confused with UMKC) as engaging in woke politicized science, but set that aside for now.
Here was one nice response to the attack.
oh wow, it's almost as if they did everything wrong in this study. what are the odds?
"symptoms of acute infection for 7 days or less"
fucking lol. honestly, this study says more about you, than ivermectin.
There ARE indeed some big criticisms of that study – I believe that Pierre Kory had some of them – but set that issue aside. Watch a PHARMA RAT rush in, as soon as I say something which besmirches their money-maker remdesivir.
My comment:
What really shocks me is how bent out of shape the "mass formation med echoes" get over a drug with almost no side effects and admittedly limited antiviral activity (ivermectin), while utterly silent about remdesivir, proven to cause organ failure, too toxic for Ebola use. WTH
I mean, what the hell! The problems of remdesivir are very well documented, and I read about the organ failure MYSELF – not only the original failures in the Ebola trials, but massive kidney failure problems during COVID treatment. I read the (per Fauci) key paper myself, including the data section, and was shocked at how blithely Fauci had written off multiple kidney failures in the TREATED group, well above any occurring in the placebo group. NASTY!!!
This PhillyPharmaBoy either doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he’s lying. But I remained nice.
Here was my response.
I will definitely agree about ineffectiveness (see pix). However, IIRC, the original remdesivir study that Fauci cited with Trump as "gold standard" showed much worse results than Raoult showed in his full HCQ/AZM study, & the kidney failure rate under remdesivir was shocking. pic.twitter.com/22PZyI5ScN
I am missing something. Are you comparing Ebola to COVID? That comparison cannot be made. Oh, and Raoult is under criminal investigation for massive long-term fraud, including his hydroxychloroquine studies.
What the FUCK! “That comparison cannot be made”? A drug with a kidney failure problem in one disease can’t be compared to the same drug having a kidney failure problem with a similar disease of the same basic type? LOL!
But WHAT THE HELL!
“Oh, and Raoult is under criminal investigation for massive long-term fraud, including his hydroxychloroquine studies.”
That was the first I had heard about any “investigation” of Raoult.
My “foxhole buddy” on Twitter responded immediately.
I then did some quick research, and realized that these science progs were pulling a “Peekaboo James” attack investigation on Raoult! NASTY!!! Communist, fascist, progressive SWINE!
Exactly. Looks like woke-sci girl Bik (who does have a record of *selectively* pursuing science fraud) went after Raoult as a Covidian virtue signal, and he fought back. Good. I've read several of Raoult's papers, and he's a good researcher, IMO.https://t.co/nufjg7Ay2T
My buddy of the moment called her a straight-up fraud, but IMO this Bik lady is a victim, too – basically an autistic, woke “error-hunter”, much like the “plagiarism-hunters” who look for places where people have gotten lazy on citations, and are vulnerable like ALL academics are, with enough spotlight and draconian-enough standards.
Bik was used to go after Raoult, and she will pay the price of the Trump Curse.
From what little I have read now, she's good at casing shade and doubt, but may have gotten too far out over her skis in going after Raoult. An innocent man who knows it, is a very bad person for a serial accuser, trained on only guilty parties, to tangle with. Unforced error.
all these 'debunkers' eventually reveal themselves. Susan Oliver, the ultimate grifting 'debunker' jumped the shark when she claimed mRNA in mother's milk wasn't a big deal. a few of her more recent 'productions' have been pretty colourful to say the least…
I checked this out. It was a horrible pile-on of woke bullshitters, exactly like what all those lying NAT-SEC fascists did to Trump, for which 50-60 LIARS need to not only lose their security clearances, but in my opinion, go to prison as well, for abusing their credentials.
I do hope that also happens to these attackers of Raoult, with their precious “Expressions of Concern”!
Expressions of concern! Sacré bleu!
Another sad expression of the new Lysenkoism, IMO.
That was it. PhillyPharmaBoy was done with us. NO SALE.
SO – this was where I first learned about the “Bik” attack on Raoult.
My question now – what is the status of the situation?
I can find NOTHING in the English-speaking world about this. No further information, other than moans of sympathy for Bik, that mean old Raoult SUED her for attacking him.
It LOOKS like there is no news that serves the narrative, so nobody is talking about the confrontation. It LOOKS like Didier Raoult must be winning.
I needed to get into the French side of the web, if I was going to find anything.
And THAT is when I went looking for any word on the situation in Raoult’s Twitter account.
The guy writes almost entirely in French, and nobody comments on his timeline in anything but French, but we have Google Translate – R-I-I-I-I-I-G-H-T???
Google Mistranslate
This was cute, and is very typical of the kinds of “knives in the back” which can be done with “bad I.T.” while being passed off as an error, accident, or other plausibly deniable non-human problem. And, of course, if A.I. is responsible for this lie, then the situation is even worse, but I’m not ready to help them pass the blame to Rogue Woke A.I.
In looking for any – ANY – news about Didier Raoult’s lawsuit against Elisabeth Bik, I went to Raoult’s Twitter account, and began scanning down below his top, pinned Tweet, which was a kind homage to the director of his institute, who appears to be resigning. Hopefully she is not being forced into resignation, but who knows – things are bad right now, in Globonazi France, and I can imagine that there is yet another attempt to “take care of” Raoult before the next phony pandemic can take place.
Take out a friendly or honest director, and put an opponent or rat fink in place. Oldest trick in the book.
Anyway, I noticed this tweet:
Notre étude sur la baisse de la charge virale par le traitement par hydroxychloroquine dans le covid est en ligne et confirme notre première étude.Nous avons fait valider les données de la première par huissier montrant que l'émission''Complément d' enquête'' utilisait des faux.
Notre étude sur la baisse de la charge virale par le traitement par hydroxychloroquine dans le covid est en ligne et confirme notre première étude.Nous avons fait valider les données de la première par huissier montrant que l’émission”Complément d’ enquête” utilisait des faux.
Translated from French by [Google]
Our study on the drop in viral load by treatment with hydroxychloroquine in covid is online and confirms our first study. used fakes.
There is no chance that this perfectly reversing bad translation is an accident. This is deliberate sabotage under the color of a program error.
The mistranslation is easily removed/prevented by adding the missing space in “étude.Nous”, which results in (using Google Translate):
Our study on the drop in viral load by treatment with hydroxychloroquine in covid is online and confirms our first study. We had the data from the premiere validated by a bailiff showing that the ”Complément d’Enquête” program was using fakes.
Sneaky.
For completeness and durability of my evidence, screen captures:
Missing Space:
Added Space:
I alerted Raoult to this very nasty jab by the Nasty Jabbists:
S'il vous plaît, remarquez comment à cause d'un espace manquant, Google traduit "par erreur" ce tweet en un terrible aveu de fraude!
"Our study on the drop in viral load by treatment with hydroxychloroquine in covid is online and confirms our first study. used fakes."
Our study on the drop in viral load by treatment with hydroxychloroquine in covid is online and confirms our first study. We had the data from the premiere validated by a bailiff showing that the ''Complément d'Enquête'' program was using fakes.
For the visually impaired or deprived, my tweets, including the Google translations:
S’il vous plaît, remarquez comment à cause d’un espace manquant, Google traduit “par erreur” ce tweet en un terrible aveu de fraude! [Please notice how due to a missing space, Google “erroneously” translates this tweet into a terrible admission of fraud!]
“Our study on the drop in viral load by treatment with hydroxychloroquine in covid is online and confirms our first study. used fakes.”
Ajout d’un espace (étude. Nous): [Addition of a space …]
Our study on the drop in viral load by treatment with hydroxychloroquine in covid is online and confirms our first study. We had the data from the premiere validated by a bailiff showing that the ”Complément d’Enquête” program was using fakes.
It’s also worth looking at the other tweets in the thread, and their translations.
The second tweet simply says “Reference” and provides a link to this article.
The role of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in lowering the viral load of patients with COVID-19 is controversial. In our Institute, we treated more than 30,000 people with COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021, using the same diagnostic tools and the same treatment dosages. In this retrospective comparative study of data collected over this period, we aimed to compare the viral clearance in the nasopharynx as determined by qPCR in patients who were treated with HCQ and those who were not. As a new feature, we adjusted the data according to the most significant confounding factors (age, initial viral load, and timescale between the onset of symptoms and treatment). Of the 1 276 patients selected from our database, 776 were treated with HCQ and 500 were not. Viral clearance in the treatment group was reached significantly earlier than in the non-treatment group, at days 5, 10 and 30. These differences remain significant after adjustments for confounding factors. In conclusion, although age, initial viral load, and time to treatment do influence the viral load in patients with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine associated with azithromycin still independently significantly lowered viral load more rapidly than other treatments, including azithromycin alone.
Peer review status: UNDER REVIEW
22 Mar 2023 Submitted to Journal of Medical Virology
Cite as: Philippe Brouqui, Jean-Christophe Lagier, P. Parola, et al. Viral clearance in patients with COVID-19: associated factors and the role of antiviral treatment. Authorea. March 22, 2023. DOI: 10.22541/au.167948825.59270994/v1
The translation of the third tweet is the best.
Again, as text:
” Ce qui me bouleverse ce n’ est pas que tu m’ aies menti, c’ est que je ne pourrai plus te croire” Nietzsche
Translated from French by [Google]
“What upsets me is not that you lied to me, it’s that I won’t be able to believe you anymore” Nietzsche
SO – the bottom line is simple.
The other side is NOT giving up.
They lie, they cheat, and they attack good men by scurrilous means.
They sacrifice their own in the process.
The Trump Curse is real, and the WOKE are BROKEN when they attack the good and the true.
And when we stand up for what is right, we WIN in the end.
TRANS is clearly not an organic, ground-up movement. It seems to have some shadowy, top-down implementation, that speaks to a non-human or anti-human origin. When people call it demonic, I have to agree. If people called it alien, I would not dismiss the charge.
One of the first people to note how much of a role BILLIONAIRE FAMILIES have in the TRANS agenda, was Jennifer Bilek. People don’t generally remember her name in that regard, but she is the one who exposed the deep role of the notorious Pritzkers in promoting TRANS.
The Billionaire Family Pushing Synthetic Sex Identities (SSI)
The wealthy, powerful, and sometimes very weird Pritzker cousins have set their sights on a new God-like goal: using gender ideology to remake human biology
This Substack hosts a very UN-SEXY YouTube video that I cannot recommend enough. The video is overly talky, repeatedly tangential, repetitive, progressive-centric, and “TERF-jargony” (trans-excluding radical feminist), and yet it contains information that really breaks open the entire TRANS conspiracy.
If you want to understand WHY Matt Walsh vs. sex surgery profiteering was so instantly successful in Tennessee, and why the FIGHT BACK by MK trans shooters was necessarily centered there, this explains it.
If you want to understand why TRANS has become enshrined in Jaydolph Inslee’s Washington state and Pritzker’s Chicago madhouse, those too.
It even explains why TRANS is slowly creeping up on Ohio, and WHO is responsible for the importation (DePat is gonna guess this one).
Like I said, this is an important video. Enjoy!
W
PS – this lady is definitely on the mark – the “antisemitism defense” is already in play.
How Two Fallen Theories of Medicine May Herald the Fate of Global Warming / Climate Change
Bad science does not stand forever, but it may stand long enough for people to make a lot of money on it. THAT will be the THEME of the three huge science scandals I’m going to discuss.
In case you’re short on time, the TLDR…..
TL;DR – Two fresh scandals showing how industry money and scientific misconduct kept bad theories “alive” for decades, may explain why the bad science behind politically useful climate alarmism persists.
I. Serotonin Uber Alles
The “serotonin scandal” is very diffuse, which is why it’s in many ways analogous to “climate change”. The bottom line is that what the pharmaceutical industry tells patients about antidepressants, and what scientists know about antidepressants, are not the same thing.
It’s best to start off with the following Tucker Carlson video.
An extremely important selling point of antidepressants, used by both doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, is the idea that people who are depressed, and therefore “need” to take them, actually have some kind of chemical imbalance in their brain that needs to be fixed. More often than any other chemical alleged to be “imbalanced” is serotonin – and hence the emergence of SSRIs, meaning serotonin-selective reuptake inhibitors.
Carlson’s centerpiece is a recent metaanalysis of antidepressant research which showed there is little or no evidence for this “chemical imbalance” assertion.
Antidepressants may work in some people, and thank God they do, but IF they do, and WHEN they do, the simple “chemical imbalance theory” is probably not the reason why.
There is a very good explanation of the study HERE:
No evidence that depression is caused by low serotonin levels, finds comprehensive review
After decades of study, there remains no clear evidence that serotonin levels or serotonin activity are responsible for depression, according to a major review of prior research led by UCL scientists.
The new umbrella review – an overview of existing meta-analyses and systematic reviews – published in Molecular Psychiatry, suggests that depression is not likely caused by a chemical imbalance,and calls into question what antidepressants do. Most antidepressants are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which were originally said to work by correcting abnormally low serotonin levels. There is no other accepted pharmacological mechanism by which antidepressants affect the symptoms of depression.
Lead author Professor Joanna Moncrieff, a Professor of Psychiatry at UCL and a consultant psychiatrist at North East London NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT), said: “It is always difficult to prove a negative, but I think we can safely say that after a vast amount of research conducted over several decades, there is no convincing evidence that depression is caused by serotonin abnormalities, particularly by lower levels or reduced activity of serotonin.
“The popularity of the ‘chemical imbalance’ theory of depression has coincided with a huge increase in the use of antidepressants. Prescriptions for antidepressants have risen dramatically since the 1990s, with one in six adults in England and 2% of teenagers now being prescribed an antidepressant in a given year.
“Many people take antidepressants because they have been led to believe their depression has a biochemical cause, but this new research suggests this belief is not grounded in evidence.”
Just for the record, I am personally NOT a fan of these sorts of “metaanalysis” papers. In my opinion they tend to be QUASI-OPINIONS with a veneer of science. However, in my own opinion, metaanalyses can be useful when highly conclusive or by reinterpreting data – but should be trusted even less than normal observational science.
Now – it is important to point out that this metaanalysis is not actually telling us anything NEW. Most scientists in the field ALREADY KNEW from all the various studies that were looked at by the metaanalysis, that the simple “chemical imbalance” idea was a load of crap. They’ve known this for YEARS.
REALLY? Yes. Really.
A good description of the state of things is here:
A Popular Theory About Depression Wasn’t “Debunked” by a New Review
The title is a bit deceptive – at least more so than the link which adds “it got debunked years ago”. Ah, the techniques of clickbait!
Anyway, the title could rightfully say:
A Still-Popular But Unproven Old Theory About Depression Wasn’t “Debunked” By A New Review – It Was Simply Confirmed To STILL Be Unsupported By The Data, Despite Being Pushed For Decades By Doctors And Big Pharma Who KNEW It Wasn’t True
Please click the link if you want all the details, but my proposed title says it all. People kept using the theory as a sales and prescription gimmick. Big Pharma “suggested” the theory to doctors, and doctors “suggested” the theory to patients, to get them to take a kind of drug that patients are sometimes very resistant to taking.
Remember – antidepressants do, in fact, work for many patients – particularly for very serious cases of depression. Many people who in the past had to be hospitalized, can now live happy, functional lives in society because of these drugs.
It’s understandable that doctors try to convince patients to take the drugs they think will work to treat their problems.
But should your kids be getting antidepressants because of “school trouble”?
A whole ‘nuther question.
Because THAT is the end result of the little white lie that “people can have an imbalance that needs these drugs.”
We NORMALIZED antidepressents by NORMALIZING an ABNORMALITY that didn’t even exist.
ANYWAY – if the very fact that a WRONG THEORY has been KNOWINGLY spoon-fed to you by “the experts” for DECADES, is not giving you ideas about “climate change” – particularly in the post-COVID world…..
BUT WAIT.
Not quite yet. We have ANOTHER scandal to look at, first.
II. It’s Bush’s Beta Amyloid’s Fault!
This scandal is at the opposite end of the spectrum, from the above one, in which an entire industry and all of medicine KNOWINGLY told a little white lie to the public.
In this case, ONE SCIENTIST tipped the scales inappropriately, sending the entire world, including the rest of science, on a wild goose chase.
The LIE was only caught after years, and almost accidentally.
This is a rather long and interesting story, and I’m not going to recount it all here. But I will give you links and extensive quotes. It’s FASCINATING.
One of the best quick summaries is in, of all places, The Daily Kos.
Last month, drug company Genentech reported on the first clinical trials of the drug crenezumab, a drug targeting amyloid proteins that form sticky plaques in the brains of Alzheimer’s disease patients. The drug had been particularly effective in animal models, and the trial results were eagerly awaited as one of the most promising treatments in years. It did not work. “Crenezumab did not slow or prevent cognitive decline” in people with a predisposition toward Alzheimer’s.
Last year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) narrowly approved the use of Aduhelm, a new drug from Biogen that the company has priced so highly that it’s expected to drive up the price of Medicare for everyone in America, even those who never need this drug. Aduhelm was the first drug to be approved that fights the accumulation of those “amyloid plaques” in the brain. What makes the approval of the $56,000-a-dose drug so controversial is that while it does decrease plaques, it doesn’t actually slow Alzheimer’s. In fact, clinical trials were suspended in 2019 after the treatment showed “no clinical benefits.” (Which did not keep Biogen from seeking the drug’s approval or pricing it astronomically.)
Over the last two decades, Alzheimer’s drugs have been notable mostly for having a 99% failure rate in human trials. It’s not unusual for drugs that are effective in vitro and in animal models to turn out to be less than successful when used in humans, but Alzheimer’s has a record that makes the batting average in other areas look like Hall of Fame material.
And now we have a good idea of why. Because it looks like the original paper that established the amyloid plaque model as the foundation of Alzheimer’s research over the last 16 years might not just be wrong, but a deliberate fraud.
This story is fantastic, and so I recommend starting with the above Daily Kos article.
Before going into more detail, let me begin to give you my perspective on Alzheimer’s drugs.
I’ve watched a lot of drug classes accumulate new and improved drugs over nearly half a century of interest in the topic, but the TWO categories that have stood out to ME as the WORST in terms of success have been antivirals and Alzheimer’s drugs.
Antivirals first.
As you have seen over the last two and a half years, antivirals are not impossible to find, and while they don’t work 100% of the time, they’re still sometimes VERY helpful.
What has been more shocking to me is that it’s clear that the pharmaceutical industry frequently and reliably OPPOSES successful antivirals, when they can’t make money off them. The industry wants NEW antivirals they can patent, and they are willing to DEFAME and DENY old antivirals, even SUPERIOR and SAFER antivirals, just to create a market for new ones.
New antivirals that may be CRAP, and dangerous as hell. And they will even LIE to the Commander In Chief about them.
But set the antivirals aside for now, knowing that the situation is corrupt.
Anti-Alzheimer’s drugs are even worse, because THEY JUST DON’T WORK. They’re notorious for not actually working. They’ve never worked. In desperation, the FDA occasionally approves these worthless drugs, if only for investigation, but they are “mercy punts”. The drugs get approved, as long as they don’t show too many side effects, because they are “better than nothing”. But that’s it.
The drugs out there for dementia, senility and Alzheimer’s are WORTHLESS.
A LOT of people thought this was suspicious. I was one of them. Every once in a while, when researchers would reveal just how BAD the next drug actually was – how terrible and limited the results were – I would “go back to my mental drawing board” and ask the question:
“Why don’t these drugs work? Maybe the theory behind them is wrong. What could the truth possibly be?”
HA! I had no idea! No clue!
NOBODY – and I mean nobody – suspected that it was because of FRAUD.
At least, not until recently.
So let’s move on to the fraud in more detail. SCIENCE MAGAZINE.
I am including a long segment which is just the beginning of the article. Please note an important point – the investigator was actually looking at a DIFFERENT fraud in the same field of Alzheimer’s research, when he found this one.
BLOTS ON A FIELD?
A neuroscience image sleuth finds signs of fabrication in scores of Alzheimer’s articles, threatening a reigning theory of the disease
In August 2021, Matthew Schrag, a neuroscientist and physician at Vanderbilt University, got a call that would plunge him into a maelstrom of possible scientific misconduct. A colleague wanted to connect him with an attorney investigating an experimental drug for Alzheimer’s disease called Simufilam. The drug’s developer, Cassava Sciences, claimed it improved cognition, partly by repairing a protein that can block sticky brain deposits of the protein amyloid beta (Aβ), a hallmark of Alzheimer’s. The attorney’s clients—two prominent neuroscientists who are also short sellers who profit if the company’s stock falls—believed some research related to Simufilam may have been “fraudulent,” according to a petition later filed on their behalf with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Schrag, 37, a softspoken, nonchalantly rumpled junior professor, had already gained some notoriety by publicly criticizing the controversial FDA approval of the anti-Aβ drug Aduhelm. His own research also contradicted some of Cassava’s claims. He feared volunteers in ongoing Simufilam trials faced risks of side effects with no chance of benefit.
So he applied his technical and medical knowledge to interrogate published images about the drug and its underlying science—for which the attorney paid him $18,000. He identified apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles. The attorney reported many of the discoveries in the FDA petition, and Schrag sent all of them to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which had invested tens of millions of dollars in the work. (Cassava denies any misconduct [see sidebar, below].)
But Schrag’s sleuthing drew him into a different episode of possible misconduct, leading to findings that threaten one of the most cited Alzheimer’s studies of this century and numerous related experiments.
The first author of that influential study, published in Nature in 2006, was an ascending neuroscientist: Sylvain Lesné of the University of Minnesota (UMN), Twin Cities. His work underpins a key element of the dominant yet controversial amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s, which holds that Aβ clumps, known as plaques, in brain tissue are a primary cause of the devastating illness, which afflicts tens of millions globally. In what looked like a smoking gun for the theory and a lead to possible therapies, Lesné and his colleagues discovered an Aβ subtype and seemed to prove it caused dementia in rats. If Schrag’s doubts are correct, Lesné’s findings were an elaborate mirage.
Schrag, who had not publicly revealed his role as a whistleblower until this article, avoids the word “fraud” in his critiques of Lesné’s work and the Cassava-related studies and does not claim to have proved misconduct. That would require access to original, complete, unpublished images and in some cases raw numerical data. “I focus on what we can see in the published images, and describe them as red flags, not final conclusions,” he says. “The data should speak for itself.”
A 6-month investigation by Science provided strong support for Schrag’s suspicions and raised questions about Lesné’s research. A leading independent image analyst and several top Alzheimer’s researchers—including George Perry of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and John Forsayeth of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)—reviewed most of Schrag’s findings at Science’s request. They concurred with his overall conclusions, which cast doubt on hundreds of images, including more than 70 in Lesné’s papers. Some look like “shockingly blatant” examples of image tampering, says Donna Wilcock, an Alzheimer’s expert at the University of Kentucky.
The authors “appeared to have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments,” says Elisabeth Bik, a molecular biologist and well-known forensic image consultant. “The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results, and that data might have been changed to … better fit a hypothesis.”
Early this year, Schrag raised his doubts with NIH and journals including Nature; two, including Nature last week, have published expressions of concern about papers by Lesné. Schrag’s work, done independently of Vanderbilt and its medical center, implies millions of federal dollars may have been misspent on the research—and much more on related efforts. Some Alzheimer’s experts now suspect Lesné’s studies have misdirected Alzheimer’s research for 16 years.
“The immediate, obvious damage is wasted NIH funding and wasted thinking in the field because people are using these results as a starting point for their own experiments,” says Stanford University neuroscientist Thomas Südhof, a Nobel laureate and expert on Alzheimer’s and related conditions.
Lesné did not respond to requests for comment. A UMN spokesperson says the university is reviewing complaints about his work.
To Schrag, the two disputed threads of Aβ research raise far-reaching questions about scientific integrity in the struggle to understand and cure Alzheimer’s. Some adherents of the amyloid hypothesis are too uncritical of work that seems to support it, he says. “Even if misconduct is rare, false ideas inserted into key nodes in our body of scientific knowledge can warp our understanding.”
This article goes deeply into the fraud. It’s a great detective story. It raises a whole bunch of tangential issues.
For starters, the fact that you are even hearing about this is because the investigator (Matthew Schrag) didn’t wait for NIH to do anything – particularly after it AWARDED MORE MONEY TO THE FRAUDSTER.
Yes – you got that right.
He [Lesné] became a leader of UMN’s neuroscience graduate program in 2020, and in May 2022, 4 months after Schrag delivered his concerns to NIH, Lesné received a coveted R01 grant from the agency, with up to 5 years of support. The NIH program officer for the grant, Austin Yang—a co-author on the 2006 Nature paper—declined to comment.
Notice how the “revolving door” nature of the science is on display. “Insiders” who are buddies with and coworkers of “outsiders”, give those outsiders the precious grants.
However, Schrag was not caught with his pants down by NIH “Comeyism” (failure to discipline friends). Schrag had also taken his evidence to Science magazine. SMART MOVE. But then, it appears that Schrag was raised by Mennonites, home-schooled, and in the military. Interesting.
More from the Science article:
IN HIS WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT to NIH about Lesné’s research, Schrag made its scope and stakes clear: “[This] dossier is a fraction of the anomalies easily visible on review of the publicly accessible data,” he wrote. The suspect work “not only represents a substantial investment in [NIH] research support, but has been cited … thousands of times and thus has the potential to mislead an entire field of research.”
The agency’s reply, which Schrag shared with Science, noted that complaints deemed credible will go to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity (ORI) for review. That agency could then instruct grantee universities to investigate prior to a final ORI review, a process that can take years and remains confidential absent an official misconduct finding. To Science, NIH said it takes research misconduct seriously, but otherwise declined to comment.
See how that works? Seriously – you CANNOT trust NIH, any more than you can trust Anthony Fauci.
NOW – things are starting to get interesting as all this news is hitting the mainstream media.
Gil00 brought me a link, in which the most famous coworker of the fraudster, Karen Ashe, finally responded to inquiries. Meanwhile, the fraudster has remained silent publicly. NOTE that in Schrag’s investigation (see below), Ashe was found innocent. ONLY in papers working with Lesné, were any of Ashe’s papers ever found to contain fraudulent images. Ditto for other authors. Lesné was the nexus of the fraud.
BUT the problem WAS spotted long ago, and yet this knowledge never bubbled up to a level of effectiveness in mainstream science. An early French coworker of Lesné found his images suspect, and refused to work with him after that.
From the Science article:
Questions about Lesné’s work are not new. Cell biologist Denis Vivien, a senior scientist at Caen, co-authored five Lesné papers flagged by Schrag or Bik. Vivien defends the validity of those articles, but says he had reason to be wary of Lesné.
Toward the end of Lesné’s time in France, Vivien says they worked together on a paper for Nature Neuroscience involving Aβ. During final revisions, he saw immunostaining images—in which antibodies detect proteins in tissue samples—that Lesné had provided. They looked dubious to Vivien, and he asked other students to replicate the findings. Their efforts failed. Vivien says he confronted Lesné, who denied wrongdoing. Although Vivien lacked “irrefutable proof” of misconduct, he withdrew the paper before publication “to preserve my scientific integrity,” and broke off all contact with Lesné, he says. “We are never safe from a student who would like to deceive us and we must remain vigilant.”
Schrag spot checked papers by Vivien or Ashe without Lesné. He found no anomalies—suggesting Vivien and Ashe were innocent of misconduct.
SO – what does Karen Ashe have to say?
University of Minnesota scientist responds to fraud allegations in Alzheimer’s research
While defending results, U researcher said it is “devastating” that a colleague might have doctored images.
A senior University of Minnesota scientist said it is “devastating” that a colleague might have doctored images to prop up research, but she defended the authenticity of her groundbreaking work on the origins of Alzheimer’s disease.
Dr. Karen Ashe declined to comment about a U investigation into the veracity of studies led by Sylvain Lesné, a neuroscientist she hired and a rising star in the field of Alzheimer’s research. However, she criticized an article in Science magazine that raised concerns this week about Lesné, because she said it confused and exaggerated the effect the U’s work had on downstream drug development to treat Alzheimer’s-related dementia.
“Having worked for decades to understand the cause of Alzheimer disease, so that better treatments can be found for patients, it is devastating to discover that a co-worker may have misled me and the scientific community through the doctoring of images,” Ashe said in an e-mail Friday morning. “It is, however, additionally distressing to find that a major scientific journal has flagrantly misrepresented the implications of my work.”
I’m undecided about this lady. This is a bit of a tangent, but it may be significant.
I trust her to some extent, based on the fact that Schrag found Ashe’s work CLEAN when it was NOT associated with Lesné. In my opinion she’s innocent.
AND YET, Ashe’s background is PERFECT for a two-stepper ChiCom, potentially brought to America as the child of secret socialist sleepers. [NOTE: “Two-steppers” are basically bi-generational spy families, with extreme cover used on the parents to throw off suspicions on the second generation as plants.] Ashe’s background – similar to that of the notorious Vindman twins, is also almost identical to several classic Chinese two-steppers in American media and politics, including relentless Trump character assassin, Weijia Jiang.
Video: Disenguous, pathetic stuff from @CBSNews's @Weijia Jiang, questioning the President's testing motives as suppressing them so as to tamp down case numbers and death tolls and then suggest he's playing politics with reopening state economies while Democratic governors aren't pic.twitter.com/acjiINrXxX
Video: @CBSNews's @Weijia Jiang came back for round two, bashing Trump for talking about testing like it's a "global competition" when so many are dying. Trump replies that she should ask China that question. So the media want Trump to ramp up testing, then hit him when he does?! pic.twitter.com/YYF13b3JrS
And don’t think this is just aimed at Karen Ashe – that I’m just blaming the innocent victim, which she may very well be. Let’s look at Sylvain Lesné. Let’s do a deep dive on the possibility that he was intentionally sabotaging science for more than just personal advancement.
This is just a theory to add to the pile of theories. But it’s a very intriguing theory, with enormous consequences, like – oh, say – “climate change”.
French communists, both agrarian and urban, are THICK in Normandy – where Sylvain Lesné grew up and went to university. The urban centers of Caen, Le Havre, and Rouen are communist strongholds.
You can see that Caen leans even further to the left than “worker’s paradise” Le Havre, where bleak Stalinist architecture rules. The vote against Le Pen was strong in Le Havre, but even stronger in Caen.
There is a reason why communism is persistent in Normandy. Not only is there a regional historical tradition of Jacobin thought – there was aggressive spread of Soviet-style communism to the area by Stalin, both before World War II and afterwards, in the devastation of the Allied liberation.
This was a significant part of the motivation for the Marshall plan – to not let the war feed Stalin’s slow but relentless ambitions, already at work in post-war France.
We already know that French “above-ground” communist Agnès Buzyn, who is weirdly allied with “conservative” Emmanuel Macron, was indicted for a plethora of COVID-19 “mistakes”, in which she seemed to aggressively “do the wrong thing” as COVID-19 began spreading into France.
We here in America are more familiar with one of these aggressive scientific mistakes – the “hiding” of hydroxychloroquine from the public by changing it from OTC to prescription only. (Please note that this “error” was at the bottom of the list, and is not even mentioned around the time of the indictment, which focused more on Buzyn’s downplaying of COVID dangers.)
Now – it’s very instructive to see how the French media (particularly the left-media, but all of it, really) has aggressively covered up for Buzyn on this point, with “fact-checking” in the Snopes style, where there are both clickbait strawmen and evasion on technicalities.
While the FORMAL reclassification of the drug HCQ from OTC to prescription occurred in January of 2020, which would make it seem more vindictive against Didier Raoult, and reactive against the treatment of the disease, that was merely the date of the effective reclassification.
The connection to Didier Raoult is a bit of a red herring, provided largely by his fan base. That is a typical irony useful to disinformation.
It turns out that the reclassification action itself took place in November of 2019. This point is then alleged by the fact-checkers to prove Buzyn’s “innocence”. As we now know, the deepest players in the COVID scam KNOWINGLY took many actions in September, October, and November of 2019.
Thus, in my opinion, these “fact checks” attempting to exonerate Buzyn’s scientific misconduct are in fact even more indicting, and indicative of her premeditated criminality.
Thus, if an analogous theory is correct, that Sylvain Lesné was intending to prop up bad science for more than just his own advancement, then there must be some VALUE in doing so.
Gil00 provided a possible answer to this – in thinking that perhaps there was an immunological connection to the scandal. THAT jumped out at me like a red flag. An immunity connection in Alzheimer’s is not only a known competitor of the beta amyloid theory – it fits in with my recent belief that the entire depopulation plot is connected to and being implemented through a very intentional and surreptitious set of actions leading to a decrease of individual human immunity, to make us EACH more vulnerable.
Thus, Lesné’s actions, which sent the majority of Alzheimer’s research down a primrose path to nowhere, may have been a DIVERSION away from the immunological origins of Alzheimer’s disease.
You know – an origin such as VACCINES.
Yes. Timing is everything.
NOW – even if Ashe and Lesné are completely innocent (and that would include brainwashing by communists), I think this is an EXCELLENT time to look at Alzheimer’s AGAIN, as a potential product of things like viruses and vaccines, which we KNOW can have neurological effects.
Yes. Vaccines which “go wrong” can affect the BRAIN through autoimmune actions.
Just sayin’.
III. Could Global Warming Concern in the Face of an Imminent Mini-Ice Age and an Incipient Full Ice Age Actually be Some Kind of Really Bad Science?
It should now be totally apparent that BAD SCIENCE on a global scale is not just possible – it’s EASY. This is without even bringing in the COVID debacle.
PLANET VULCAN, ANYONE?
You’ve seen it here in part I. BILLIONS of dollars have kept LIES alive and well in pharmaceutical science.
If it pays everybody to tell people there is a chemical imbalance that means they need a drug, it will be done, to sell the drug, or to tell the patient that there is hope. The bad information will be forwarded to doctors, and then to patients, to make those patients feel OK taking the drug. Eventually, it just becomes part of Fake Normal.
Consider (part II) that even a single author on a single scientific paper, followed by a few more images from that author on maybe a few dozen more papers, carrying subtle but convincing false evidence, can send BILLIONS of dollars, maybe tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, down a blind alley.
Not only that – the system will try to keep that money flowing in the same way, even when it is KNOWN by government bureaucrats to be based on faulty data.
Is it impossible that this kind of ERROR could extend to TRILLIONS of dollars?
I mean, who would actually WANT trillions of dollars?
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) were joined by Democratic lawmakers from both the House and Senate on February 7, 2019, to introduce Green New Deal legislation.
There is NOTHING in “anthropogenic global warming” or “climate change”, explained by the current theories, that cannot be explained equally well by the idea that a carbon dioxide prediction boondoggle (remember COVID models?) has occurred, as the result of BAD SCIENCE.
Indeed, the multiple and long-running FAILURES of the climate field would seem to this “poor” scientist to be rather similar to the FAILURES in anti-Alzheimer’s drugs. This kind of failure SHOULD point to severe theoretical problems in any NORMAL science situation, once freed from TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS of bad economic bets by politicians and financiers.
I remember – PERSONALLY – when we scientists were told by the leadership of the American Chemical Society that “anthropogenic global warming” was “settled science”. I knew MANY scientists in all branches of science – who were all SCIENTIFICALLY AFFECTED by this idea – who were still very actively debating the topic – and who like me were not convinced of AGW being real, true, or important, even if it did exist. The entire enterprise seemed HASTY and WRONG.
It seemed TOP-DOWN. It seemed IMPOSED. It seemed to contradict everything we knew about how science was supposed to operate – with major ideas normally taking YEARS if not DECADES of FIGHTING INSIDE SCIENCE to become crystal clear.
And OH YES – we had TIME.
SO – after reading about these two incidents of WRONG science being perpetuated by industry or academia, both knowingly and unknowingly, I do NOT think that “climate change” should be granted a pass.
I think the whole question of climate needs to “go back to the people”. That includes both SCIENTISTS who tell us WHAT IS FOUND, and THE PEOPLE who tell us WHAT MATTERS, once we find the truth.
Everybody else – the money, the media, the “leaders”, the shills, and the malevolent liars – need to get out of the way.
In particular, the MEDIA that pushes scientists’ opinions around with their “fake normal” and “fake science news” needs to STFU.
Don’t “trust the science”.
LET SCIENCE DISTRUST ITSELF.
And maybe, in fact definitely, YOU THE PEOPLE can help US, THE SCIENTISTS to DISTRUST SCIENCE……
Newly Uncovered COVID Vaccine Contracts Lead Unexpectedly to Academic Corruption and Shill Science Attacks on Honest, Skeptical Scientists
A Gail Combs deep dive into a tangent of Karen Kingston’s latest revelation on Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine deaths and injuries, leads back to the war against truth-telling doctors and scientists – this time by their own CORRUPT university employers.
PREFACE by Wolf Moon
Remember people saying that there was no such thing as the “FDA-approved” Comirnaty version of the Pfizer vaccine in existence?
Well, it turns out that REAL, LIVE COMIRNATY is out there, it has already killed over 50 people [in VAERS – yeah – do the math – x20 (1000), x40 (2000), or x100 (5000)], and – now even more shocking – there was some kind of bureaucratic screw-up in the contract and approval process which makes Pfizer LIABLE for all the deaths and injuries.
Look – I don’t know about the latter part – that’s “the law”, which is basically filled with LIES at this point. Whether any of these people will ever answer for anything is highly debatable, in my opinion.
But that’s not where this goes.
Gail Combs started looking at this video, and discovered ANOTHER scandal – the fact that universities which are silencing and firing honest doctors and scientists are not doing so from some misperception or moral high ground. These universities are turning on honest doctors and scientists because the universities themselves are COMPROMISED – by money, corruption, and the involvement of OTHER scientists at those same universities in the “scamdemic”.
We don’t yet know how deep this goes, but we do know this – the universities are clearly in cover-up mode. It’s not just limited to the vaccines. Fauci’s horrifying executioner remdesivir was forwarded past Trump, thanks to “work” done at one such university.
Follow along with Gail and you’ll see the SHAME of what has happened to many American universities, once bastions of free thinking and HONESTY – now CORRUPT and enemies of TRUTH.
-Wolf
START HERE….
FDA Broke Pfizer’s EUA Shield: Liability Protection Gone, Time To Bring Down The Gavel (10 minutes)
Stew Peters interviews former Pfizer employee and analyst Karen Kingston, who does deep dives into patents and contracts. She found the three major contracts for Moderna, J&J and Pfizer.
Stew: “Karen says she found contracts showing the DOD was in control of what data went to the FDA from vaccine trials. If that is true, then DOD not Big Pharm, was the central figure in any vaccine cover-up…. Military leaders maybe exposed as well…. When the FDA approved the Pfizer vax under the name Cormirnaty, it somehow broke their immunity shield.”
That is not exactly correct. DOD delegated it to Pfizer. With the Pfizer contract with the US Army, it appears that, it was delegated to Pfizer to have the ability to manipulate the data that was submitted to the FDA.
With the Moderna contract for example it shows HHS [US Dept of Health & Human Services] had the authority to manipulate the data that was submitted to the FDA. The contract date is 4/03/2020 for ½ billion $$$ with NIH subsidizing a lot of the contract. It was for producing 100 million mRNA vaccines. The contract (shown) states:
* Contractor shall submit draft FDA submission to BARDA at least 15 days prior to FDA submission
* BARDA will provide feedback to Contractor within 10 days of receipts
* The Contractor MUST address, in writing its consideration of all concerns raised by BARDA prior to FDA Submission.
NOTICE THE DATE 4/03/202. No wonder they wanted to kill HCQ in April!
Karen goes on to say that the contract says that BARDA can provide EDITS to the Data and THAT gets submitted to the FDA. She has never seen anything like this before. This [editing] is why the data was so phenomenally positive. This explains why the Whistle Blowers at Ron Johnson’s Formun found the DOD data had been ‘edited’ to remove the tons of adverse events.
She also said a lot of that contract is redacted including the Key personnel at BARDA .
The J&J contract of an mRNA vaccine was signed 08-Apr-2015 and 60 out of the 90 pages are redacted.
She then goes into the most recent contract. It is a joint mission of Dept of Defense and Dept of Health & Human services who contract with Pfizer/BoiNTech “for the co-development and distribution (excluding China) of a potential mRNA-based Coronavirus vaccine aimed at preventing Covid-19 infection“….. LOTS OF REDACTION….
The Research Collaboration & License Agreement by and between PFIZER INC. and BIONTECH RNA PHARMACEUTICALS GmbH [Germany] and BIOTECH AG July 20, 2018
Again the DATE July 20 2018 shows mRNA vaccines for the next outbreak of Covid WAS A DONE DEAL!
@5:00 Karen EXPLAINS the OOPS in the Contract. You can not have a contract for commercialization WITHOUT A FDA APPROVAL DATE!!! So how in Hades did they KNOW there would be FDA APPROVAL? This shows it was PRE-PLANNED IN 2018.
@7:00 She also found the Cormirnaty lots used in the USA and the VAERs data
The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, provides an integrated, systematic approach to the development of the necessary vaccines, drugs, therapies, and diagnostic tools for public health medical emergencies such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) accidents, incidents and attacks, pandemic influenza, and emerging infectious diseases.
Together with our industry partners, BARDA promotes the advanced development of medical countermeasures to protect Americans and respond to 21st century health security threats.
A part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIH is the largest biomedical research agency in the world
So there is your Fauci connection.
And that brings me to the digging I have been doing.
I start with the Chair of the COVID VACCINE ADVISORY BOARD, Hana El Sahly, M.D. of Baylor College of Medicine. She is the one who wrote the Remdesivir paper for Fauci, just in the nick of time so he could get that toxin approved for the use in hospitalized elderly Covid patients.
Baylor College rang a major bell with me. This Yahoo News articles shows why:
Dr. Peter McCullough is being sued by the healthcare system that just mandated 40,000 employees to get the jab, and they’re doing it out of spite. Here’s the list of emails to those targeting him, if you wish to let them know how you feel….
Sidebar by Wolf – Dr. McCullough on Stew Peters
I dare anybody to watch this and find anything wrong with anything that Peter McCullough is saying. He is basically admitting – at a time when social media was still removing people for saying as much – that the vaccines seemed to no longer be working. And NOW we know why – because of the delta variant.
Dr. Peter McCullough, a Dallas cardiologist who is largely discredited by the scientific community [Remember Dr McCullough is the MOST PUBLISHED AUTHOR OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS IN THE USA.] for his assertions that the COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe and that early treatment options have been suppressed….
While McCullough said that doctors were probably afraid to show up to the event, one of Oklahoma’s top infectious disease physicians, Dr. Anuj Malik, director of infection prevention and control at Ascension St. John, said that the doctors he spoke to were not afraid to attend. They were just not interested in sitting through what would be seen as a “politically-motivated, ideological speech by a modern-day quack.”
Malik said. “With all due respect, none of McCullough’s ideas have been supported by any randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials,” [<=== THIS IS ALWAYS THE EXCUSE! NO data is allowed except that PAID FOR BY BIG PHARMA/NIH.]
McCullough shared what he said was a threatening letter from the American Board of Internal Medicine warning that he could lose his certification for spreading misinformation. There is likely a good reason for his concern about losing certification. A Dallas County court granted a temporary restraining order against him in July on behalf of Baylor Scott & White Health for continuing to claim titles, including vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, even after he was fired from Baylor in February. In addition, an article in Medscape, an online global news source for physicians and healthcare professionals, reported that Texas A&M College of Medicine, Texas Christian University and University of North Texas Health Science Center School of Medicine have also cut ties with McCullough for spreading misinformation….
>
So the Baylor Connection made me curious.
And looky what I found! No wonder Baylor sued Dr McCollough in the hopes of shutting him up as they entice people to be lab rats!
Researchers at the Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Unit at Baylor College of Medicine have launched a clinical trial to study the safety and efficacy of a booster dose of the Moderna-mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine…. The study is being conducted by the Infectious Disease Clinical Research Consortium in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health…. “It’s important to determine the magnitude of the immune response after a booster dose in persons who received different vaccines in their initial vaccine regimen. We will also be looking at the safety of a booster dose,” said Dr. Robert Atmar, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor and co-principal investigator of the national study.
This activity is supported by the Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium (IDCRC) through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (UM1AI148684). The IDCRC, consisting of the Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Units (VTEUs) and the IDCRC Leadership Group, was formed in 2019 to support the planning and implementation of infectious diseases clinical research that efficiently addresses the scientific priorities of NIAID. The consortium includes infectious diseases leaders and clinical researchers from Emory University, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, FHI360, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, New York University, Saint Louis University, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, University of Rochester, University of Washington, and NIAID. For more information about the IDCRC, please visit www.IDCRC.org.
With presentations from members of the NIAID, the Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium (IDCRC) Leadership Group, and VTEU PIs, the inaugural meeting of the IDCRC began with opening remarks from Anthony Fauci, MD, NIAID director. Session topics featured details on working with the NIAID, the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, and grants management. Breakout sessions facilitated thoughtful discuss on the consortium’s scientific agenda, flu, STIs, malaria, enteric, and emerging diseases, mentoring and career development, special populations, emerging lab sciences, and operations.
The IDCRC institutions are leaders of influential infectious diseases, immunology and clinical research programs focused on vaccines and STIs at eight top academic institutions and affiliates across the country. The programs, faculty and collaborators at these institutions have exceptional NIH/NIAID network and international connectivity, a history of performing outstanding ID clinical research and the experience and capability of rapidly responding to ID threats.
Dr. Atmar is a member of the Baylor Vaccine Research Center and the federally funded Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Unit (VTEU). This research group performs Phase I to Phase IV studies of experimental and licensed vaccines, and Dr. Atmar serves as Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator for the clinical trials. Dr. Atmar and the research group have been involved in important studies that led to the licensure of live attenuated and high dose inactivated influenza virus vaccines. They also have performed many studies evaluating vaccines targeting pandemic influenza, including H5N1, H9N2 and H7N9 viruses, and they have evaluated methods to improve vaccine immunogenicity, including delivery of vaccine by different routes of administration, different dosages, and with different adjuvant preparations. The group has also evaluated vaccines targeting other pathogens, including those with importance to biodefense.
Pajon R, Doria-Rose NA, Shen X, Schmidt SD, O’Dell S, McDanal C, Feng W, Tong J, Eaton A, Maglinao M, Tang H, Manning KE, Edara VV, Lai L, Ellis M, Moore KM, Floyd K, Foster SL, Posavad CM, Atmar RL, Lyke KE, Zhou T, Wang L, Zhang Y, Gaudinski MR, Black WP, Gordon I, Guech M, Ledgerwood JE, Misasi JN, Widge A, Sullivan NJ, Roberts PC, Beigel JH, Korber B, Baden LR, El Sahly H, Chalkias S, Zhou H, Feng J, Girard B, Das R, Aunins A, Edwards DK, Suthar MS, Mascola JR, Montefiori DC.
N Engl J Med.
And the Affiliations:
• Moderna, Cambridge, MA. • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Bethesda, MD. • Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. • NIAID, Bethesda, MD. • Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. • Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. • Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. • University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. • National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. • Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM. • Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA. …..
Atmar RL, Lyke KE, Deming ME, Jackson LA, Branche AR, El Sahly HM, Rostad CA, Martin JM, Johnston C, Rupp RE, Mulligan MJ, Brady RC, Frenck RW Jr, Bäcker M, Kottkamp AC, Babu TM, Rajakumar K, Edupuganti S, Dobrzynski D, Coler RN, Posavad CM, Archer JI, Crandon S, Nayak SU, Szydlo D, Zemanek JA, Dominguez Islas CP, Brown ER, Suthar MS, McElrath MJ, McDermott AB, O’Connell SE, Montefiori DC, Eaton A, Neuzil KM, Stephens DS, Roberts PC, Beigel JH; DMID 21-0012 Study Group.N Engl J Med.
Affiliation • From the Departments of Medicine and Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (R.L.A., H.M.E.S.), and Sealy Institute for Vaccine Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston (R.E.R.); the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore (K.E.L., M.E.D., K.M.N.), and the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (S.C., S.U.N., P.C.R., J.H.B.) and the Vaccine Research Center (A.B.M., S.E.O.), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda; Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (L.A.J.), the Departments of Medicine (C.J., T.M.B., M.J. McElrath) and Laboratory Medicine and Pathology (C.J., C.M.P.), University of Washington, the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division (C.J., C.M.P., C.P.D.I., E.R.B., M.J. McElrath) and the Statistical Center for HIV/AIDS Research and Prevention (D.S., J.A.Z.), Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and Seattle Children’s Research Institute (R.N.C.) and the Department of Pediatrics (R.N.C.), University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle; the Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Rochester, Rochester (A.R.B., D.D.), NYU Langone Vaccine Center and Division of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Department of Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York (M.J. Mulligan, A.C.K.), and NYU Langone Hospital-Long Island Vaccine Center Research Clinic and the Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola (M.B.) – all in New York; the Departments of Pediatrics (C.A.R.), Microbiology and Immunology (M.S.S.), and Medicine (S.E., D.S.S.), the Center for Childhood Infections and Vaccines (C.A.R.), Hope Clinic of Emory Vaccine Center (S.E.), Emory Vaccine Center, and Yerkes National Primate Research Center (M.S.S.), Emory University School of Medicine, Emory University, and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta (C.A.R.) – all in Atlanta; the Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh (J.M.M., K.R.); Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati (R.C.B., R.W.F.); and FHI 360 (formerly Family Health International) (J.I.A.) and Duke Human Vaccine Institute (D.C.M.) and the Department of Surgery (D.C.M., A.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Hana M. El Sahly, MD is principal investigator for Baylor and under her is listed Jennifer A. Whitaker, C. Mary Healy, Christine Akamine, Wendy A Keitel, Robert L Atmar, Annette Nagel, Sandra Francisco, Thea Marie Cordero, Janet Brown, Jennifer Christensen, Caroline Doughty-Skierski, Connie Rangel, Carrie Kibler, Coni Cheesman, Lisreina Toro, Chanei Henry, Chianti Wade Bowers, Pedro Piedra, Kathy Bosworth, Kayla Burrell, Jesus Banay, Tykel Eddy, Trent Davis, Shetel Anassi, Yvette Rugeley, Olga Rybina-Willis …..
So what about the OTHER 15 on the ‘Advisory Board’ I checked, none are in the COVE study group.
Wang EW, Parchem JG, Atmar RL, Clark EH.Open Forum Infect Dis.
2021 Apr 10
Abstract As the first severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines passed UK and US regulatory milestones in late 2020 and early 2021, multiple professional societies offered recommendations to assist pregnant and breastfeeding people as they choose whether to undergo vaccination. Despite such guidance, the lack of data describing vaccine safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy in pregnant and breastfeeding people has made this decision challenging for many. However, even considering the paucity of data, the known risks of coronavirus disease 2019 during pregnancy likely outweigh the not yet fully elucidated risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, which have reassuring safety and efficacy profiles among nonpregnant people.
The Chair of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is so compromised she should NEVER have been anywhere near the approval process!
-GC
Summary
After viewing the tape of Dr. Peter McCullough on Stew Peters, I’m both shocked and disappointed that Baylor (IMO both the College of Medicine and the allied University) would do anything except DEFEND Dr. McCullough for simply speaking TRUTH when nobody else dared to say it.
At a time when all of social media was defending what now amounts to SCIENTIFIC ERROR, Baylor – a renowned institution – accused a TRUTH-TELLER of “misinformation” for being on the cutting edge.
To borrow from Trump…… “SAD!”
We know now that everything Dr. Peter McCullough said was not only true, but that the science he cited was LEADING EDGE – pointing in the direction of future findings.
It is not “misinformation” to state scientific and medical findings which are both TRUE and in the process of CHANGING narratives. That IS what science is supposed to do.
China won’t have to fire a SHOT to steal academic leadership from the United States, if Baylor – in TEXAS of all places – is going to hand them scientific superiority on a silver platter.
Get the politics and the self-dealing OUT OF YOUR SCIENCE, BAYLOR.
It is a TRAVESTY for you, Baylor, to let your “big money scientists” force out your TRUTH-TELLERS based on POLITICS and motivated by their own SCIENTIFIC MISJUDGMENTS.
*And One Study Showing How Much of a SCAM Fauci’s Beloved Remdesivir Actually Was
The old wisdom of science and medicine, from when I was a kid, has never been disproved. Stated simply:
Disease-conferred immunity in the recovered is always superior to any form of vaccination.
This is why, when we were kids, most scientists and doctors were “unimpressed” by the idea of moving to vaccines for the three main childhood diseases, which diseases themselves provide LIFELONG IMMUNITY against three illnesses that are MUCH ROUGHER on adults.
Why go to a lesser immunity? The diseases are mild in children. The outcomes are excellent. The immunity is SOLID.
Now you can push around the edges of this generality, and find examples where individuals DON’T get good immunity from a “first case” of a disease, and catch it again, whereas some other person gets life-long immunity from a vaccine. Nonetheless, the generality holds at the statistical level, and has always held, because it is LOGICAL.
The whole point of vaccination is to provoke a SUFFICIENT DEFENSE by a LESSER ASSAULT than the disease being prevented.
Thus, for the generality of the old wisdom to be violated, logic, math, and basic biology have to be overturned.
Which is not hard with Democrat minds.
Democrats want to believe things that are politically expedient but simply untrue. I wish I could say the same accusation cannot be leveled against our side, but I can’t. Nevertheless, I find that I can gently correct our side with actual scientific logic, whereas the other side demands “authority”, which they instantly deny to any person or organization that disagrees with them. It’s a solid defense, but it’s not a REAL defense.
In any case, communism is “politics as religion”, and thus it can lead to articles of hope and faith that are held in violation of common sense and widely agreed simple facts – even the most basic science that can be proven at home by anybody.
Thus, the much more solid and honest wisdom of 1960s and 1970s medicine and science began to disappear as the Soviets and Maoists began chipping away at it. By now, it’s in real trouble.
With the COVID hoax, I pretty much thought science was done for. Surprisingly, in the wake of the hoax’s general failure to convince EVERYBODY that up is down and vice versa, we are seeing more and more of the sheepish scientists and doctors who initially went along with things, turning around and disagreeing – although very gently – with the COVID madness.
I would like to show you SIX important points that are now known from scientific studies. You will not see the Bidenistas and Bidenazis trumpeting any of these.
What these points do, is basically show why we don’t need COVID vaccines, nor a particular bad drug called remdesivir.
Indeed, in my opinion, all of these things call into question the entire COVID response, and appear to make it some kind of scam – likely by the World Economic Forum.
I believe that the scam is for global population control, the latter meaning both control of people and control of reproduction.
I’ll explain that at the end, but a bit along the way, too.
PS – thanks to Wheatie for the above image, to RF121 for the link to 4 of these papers, and to Wheatie again for information about the Rockefeller Foundation censoring “misinformation” through Red Jen and Actor Vivek.
Six Points, To The Point
1 – Disease-conferred immunity appears to be 6.72 TIMES as strong as immunity from the COVID vaccines
2 – mRNA vaccines cause spike protein to begin circulating in the bloodstream almost immediately
3 – The antibodies raised by COVID vaccines show pre-existing “memory” immunity to COVID and the vaccines
4 – 99% of those infected by C19 show fast, specific, and effective (“robust”) antibody response
5 – For 2-shot vaccines, shot 1 needlessly elicits memory antibodies, but shot 2 dangerously elicits prompt antibodies
6 – Remdesivir does NOT work against COVID, but it does lengthen time in the hospital
OK, people. Let me break down THOSE items with fuller descriptions.
Six Points, Explained
1 – Disease-conferred immunity appears to be 6.72 TIMES as strong as immunity from the COVID vaccines
Yeah, gotta love those insignificant digits. SEVEN WILL DO – roughly.
This is from an Israeli study that looked at all the people getting infected right now. You will recall that almost all Israelis are vaccinated, yet all of a sudden, people are getting it again – which means that most of them have to be (and in fact WERE) vaccinated.
It turns out that, among the people who are getting COVID in Israel right now, are a few people who had it already – but VERY few of them. If you do the numbers, then it’s clear that catching the disease provides better protection than the vaccine. This is hardly unexpected – like I said – this was old school predictable knowledge back in the 1960s and 1970s.
Stated differently: “Catch a cold one year, you probably won’t catch it again next year, or the year after.”
COMMON. WISDOM.
The number may be a quibble – earlier estimates were actually HIGHER than a factor of 7. So this is a conservative estimate.
But let me repeat what I said. This is exactly what we expect from colds and flu bugs. EXACTLY.
Bottom line, they tried to take something that we already knew, and repackage it as something new and scary. Now, it’s easy to see that this was all about keeping and gaining power over us.
2 – mRNA vaccines cause spike protein to begin circulating in the bloodstream almost immediately
This is actually one of FOUR papers cited in a frontline doctor organizational email, which was then explained in the now-famous video by Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi.
If you have NOT seen this video, you should watch it. If you have seen it, then what you will be reading here (the next 4 points) is what he’s talking about, but related more directly to each of the 4 papers.
The email that describes the 4 papers will be included as an appendix. It describes the significance of the 4 papers, but I am restating that significance in my own terms, here, from my own perspective.
In my opinion, this first point shows exactly why the mRNA vaccines are so problematic, and were never a good idea. Not only is there a ton of vaccine migration PROVEN by the Pfizer leaked documents – there is massive spike protein circulation in the bloodstream. This spike protein activity circulating throughout the body is clearly the cause of all the problems associated with the vaccine.
In my opinion, it’s not a mistake. I believe the manipulated purpose of the vaccines was in fact incremental population reduction by flushing very early pregnancies on a huge but statistically significant scale.
3 – The antibodies raised by COVID vaccines show pre-existing “memory” immunity to COVID and the vaccines
This is a SMOKING GUN. What this means is that all the health authorities LIED to us about a lack of pre-existing immunity. The vaccines are immunizing people to something they are already somewhat or even completely immune to.
Read that again. “Asymptomatic cases” = “basically already almost completely immune”.
Remember early in 2020, when a lone, old, distinguished professor of immunology in Europe dared to publish online a STATEMENT (no way could he get it into a journal) that only pre-existing immunity could explain what we were seeing clinically with COVID-19, and his letter was then censored everywhere?
He is proven COMPLETELY RIGHT in this paper.
Now that we can carefully study new infections with COVID-19, it turns out that people are responding to the disease as “something they’ve seen before”. Yes – it’s THAT similar to the other weak beta coronaviruses.
As many have said, the disease was not actually novel. It was JUST NOVEL ENOUGH. Just novel enough, thanks to gain of function, to win the race for the seasonal best-seller. It’s like a new paperback romance that breaks no new ground as either literature or love-porn, but simply puts tiny tweaks on something everybody has seen before.
Fifty Shades of Nonfluenza.
I repeat. This was a WEAPONIZED COLD – a “new” cold – and THEY KNEW IT.
This was an ECONOMIC ASSAULT on the world. And likely by the World Economic Forum.
Which incidentally sponsored Event 201.
You FUCKERS.
4 – 99% of those infected by C19 show fast, specific, and effective (“robust”) antibody response
The point here was that EVERYBODY who gets COVID-19 – including those who barely have any symptoms or NONE AT ALL – get excellent antibody response – and they SHOW IT. The antibodies may go away, leaving the strong and effective MEMORY antibodies on standby, but the system is soon primed and ready to go.
Which then raises the question – in combination with the prior points…..
Wouldn’t most healthy people just want to get the DISEASE instead of the vaccine? They get better immunity, proven, even if they have ZERO symptoms.
We were SNOOKERED.
This goes back to something that the Fake News media and Fake Medicine CDC hid from us.
When antibody tests first became available, there was an apparent hesitation by authorities (particularly in blue states) to release results. HOWEVER, there were several “blooper” releases of information from hospitals and doctors – at least one of which was forced into disavowing their own prior statement.
What they were finding was double-digit numbers of people who already had antibodies to COVID-19. At that point, the antibody tests were SUPPOSED TO BE unique for COVID-19, and NOT for the prior beta coronaviruses. But yet, they showed antibodies for 30% of people or HIGHER. Later, authorities (including CDC) badmouthed the antibody tests as being flawed because they were picking up antibodies to “other coronaviruses”.
NOW it is completely possible to see what they were trying not to admit. Between prior exposure to both COVID-19 itself and strains of the other 4 weak beta coronaviruses, people were ALREADY IMMUNE.
OLD ANTIBODIES WORKED ON COVID-19.
You see what I’m saying? They would rather falsely “admit” that the tests were “not working”, than to truly admit that the tests worked TOO WELL, and most of us were already immune to COVID-19 to varying degrees. Why? Because that would eliminate the FEAR.
They reframed the PROTECTIVE cross-strain immunity as a test problem, rather than a natural immunity blessing.
It was all about the election. It was all about government control.
It was all a LIE and a HOAX.
5 – For 2-shot vaccines, shot 1 needlessly elicits memory antibodies, but shot 2 dangerously elicits prompt antibodies
This part is actually rather interesting. This is a point that Dr. Bhakdi makes late in his video. The first vaccine shot is NEEDLESS but HARMLESS. Well – more or less. Most people are actually IMMUNE TO THE VACCINE.
Yeah, I want you to read that again.
They can reframe reality – I WILL REFRAME IT BACK.
When you inject somebody with a needless vaccine to which they are already immune, the people simply have an immune response to the assault. Yeah, you can call it a booster, or whatever, but the point is that you have caused the immune memory to replay an old tape and pump out antibodies that work IN GENERAL on your new COVID strain. Vaccine. Whatever.
But the second injection, coming shortly thereafter, is potentially WORSE than NEEDLESS. With two injections, the first kicks up fresh antibodies to spike protein. The second infects YOUR cells and makes them a target of those antibodies.
This is why we saw all those people DIE after their second injection.
THEY. DID. NOT. NEED. THAT. SECOND. INJECTION.
Yeah, this will be a good fight in science – AND the courtroom.
Frankly, I think there need to be lawsuits here, for anybody who would have had a normal contraindication to a second shot, which IMO should have been ALL diabetics, cardiovascular patients, etc. In fact, many of those folks should not have gotten a first shot, because IMO the people that COVID didn’t kill in spring of 2020 were mostly immune, INCLUDING diabetics.
They didn’t need the vaccine. And the vaccine – especially the second shot – killed them.
And hey! If it had been ok to criticize vaccines earlier on social media and not get kicked off, we might have discovered this earlier, and saved a few lives! And dollars!
But no, we live in a fully Orwellian world, where Polish pink diaper that censors people telling the truth about vaccines gets AWARDS for protecting free speech.
6 – Remdesivir does NOT work against COVID, but it does lengthen time in the hospital
This is just “sweet revenge” as Ted Nugent called it. KARMA.
Now I have to admit that I was just as fooled as Trump on this. Fauci – what a scammer.
I saw in the very earliest results that remdesivir was WORSE than not working – it was removing people’s kidneys faster than COVID was. AYE-YI-YI. Bad stuff.
And yet Fauci had the BRASS ASS to go on national television and call remdesivir the “GOLD STANDARD” after that performance. Sheesh! Trust me – Trump saw it, too. This was CLASSIC “you have to show them”.
Admittedly, to some extent, this was “fighting the fear”, and you can see why the POTUS has to take part. But who was generating the fear?
Yeah. Much easier to see the controlling characteristics of the hoax NOW.
Anyway, scientifically, the problem is, there is no point in giving people an antiviral like remdesivir AFTER the virus has already created devastation. You have to deliver the antiviral EARLY – exactly like Dr. Zelenko realized very early on.
Doesn’t matter what KIND of an antiviral – even a piss-poor one, or an atypical one, like hydroxychloroquine, is going to WORK if it gets there EARLY. Late – it simply doesn’t matter.
Now the thing is, remdesivir has to be INJECTED. It could only be used in a HOSPITAL setting – or at least, so they said. I disagreed. People inject stuff in SUBWAYS. Let’s get SMART here.
Well, as a CHUMP HONEST SCIENTIST, my thought was, why not simply administer remdesivir early, by injection, at a lower and safer dose, on an outpatient basis, upon diagnosis? In the doctor’s office, or at a specialist. Nothing worse than a blood draw. Same time that people are being given hydroxychloroquine, or regeneron. It would actually WORK then.
WELL, you see, this paper does more than just prove that remdesivir doesn’t work. I proves WHY they never did the logical thing with it.
Administer it early and effectively, and you don’t SELL AS MUCH. Administer it late and desperately, and you sell a TON of it. And it’s expensive as HELL.
Oh. My. God. I was such a chump. I assumed they would do the right thing if they knew what that was.
The pharmaceutical industry, at this point, is CRAVEN. THEY JUST SELL PRODUCT.
Y’all remember how Fauci bullshitted Trump about remdesivir – how he lied about moving the goal posts? Helps if you know the full story about it, but here’s new evidence that the shit’s actually harmful.
In my opinion, it is now time to call this crap out.
This is one of the most needless vaccines ever – one of the worst outcomes for a vaccine ever – no matter which one – and it is BECAUSE COVID-19 is fundamentally a case where there should not BE a vaccine for most people.
This is a case that was KNOWN not to be very amenable to a vaccine. It was only by a FEAR PSYCHOLOGY OPERATION that we were scammed into accepting the idea that we needed a really badly performing COLD VACCINE.
It’s a MONEYMAKER for industry – their PAWN MOTIVE – and a CONTROL AGENT for various levels of government – their PAWN MOTIVE. Ultimately, it’s about a global effort to gain control – most likely being mediated through the World Economic Forum, since almost all the guilty parties are either “partners” like Google/Alphabet or “organizations” like the Rockefeller Foundation.
And THAT is where we find the really basic motivation for the COVID hoax – as a PLATFORM of human control.
Once I realized that Bill Gates created Windows not as an operating system, but as a PLATFORM to change human behavior into a path he created, I realized the power of creating PLATFORMS. It’s a GOD THING.
You see, the mandatory vaccine platform is basically “The Island” where the entire planet is “The Island”. The people in control are liars, they can inject you with whatever they want, and they then have power of life and death over you, because they lie with impunity.
To start with, I believe the globalist scum are introducing a kind of limited, very incremental contraceptive.
TL;DR – you MUST listen to a short podcast of a scientist revealing the latest research on the spike protein vaccines. The VACCINE ITSELF (not just the spike protein – the mRNA vaccine itself) is persistent and is not only concentrating in ovaries – THE VACCINE ITSELF IS EXCRETED – e.g., in breast milk. Meaning …
“When the people have any power to object to a socialist solution, a deniable 5% fait accompli is always more desirable to socialists than a negotiated 50% solution, because they can always negotiate on the remaining 95%.” -Wolf Moon When I first heard about a case of a miscarriage by a pregnant doctor, due to …
Using Principles of Protein Equivalence and Analogy as Predictive Tools for Coronavirus Understanding Surely you’ve heard of the BROWN RECLUSE SPIDER. The brown recluse is related to several other recluses, and a couple of other families of spiders, that all have a similar venom – a protein called sphingomyelinase D. This is an enzyme that …
Now – if you followed that patent history work that Dr. David “Bowtie” Martin did on the coronavirus and vaccines, then you realize that they’ve been aware of the spike protein for TWENTY YEARS. Its CONTRACEPTIVE activities had to have been known – likely from before understanding of the spike protein per se, when coronaviruses were just viruses which caused potentially contraceptive symptoms in some patients.
This is a no-brainer, people. We have been manipulated.
W
John Fink and James Coburn discuss case in a scene from the film ‘The Carey Treatment’, 1972. (Photo by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/Getty Images)
Appendix: The Letter
Letter to Physicians: Four New Scientific Discoveries Regarding the Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines
SCIENTISTS CONCLUDE THE BENEFIT OF COVID-19 VACCINATION IS “HIGHLY DOUBTFUL” BUT VACCINE INJURY IS “WELL SUBSTANTIATED”
Doctors for Covid Ethics has sent the following letter to tens of thousands of doctors in Europe, summarising four recent scientific findings critical to the COVID-19 vaccination program. The letter explains each finding as it relates to the biology of COVID-19 vaccines, including interactions with the immune system.
Taken together, the letter warns that these new pieces of evidence force all physicians administering COVID-19 vaccines to re-evaluate the merits of COVID-19 vaccination, in the interests of their own ethical standing, and their patients’ safety and health.
A video explanation of the underlying immunology by Professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD is here, with German subtitles here.
*
Dear Colleague:
Four recent scientific discoveries are herewith brought to your urgent attention. They alter the entire landscape of the COVID-19 pandemic, and they force us to reassess the merits of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.
Summary
Rapid and efficient memory-type immune responses occur reliably in virtually all unvaccinated individuals who are exposed to SARS-CoV-2. The effectiveness of further boosting the immune response through vaccination is therefore highly doubtful. Vaccination may instead aggravate disease through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).
Discovery 1: SARS-CoV-2 spike protein circulates shortly after vaccination
SARS-CoV-2 proteins were measured in longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 participants who received two doses of Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine [1]. With 11 of the 13, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was detected in the blood within only one day after the first vaccine injection.
Significance. Spike protein molecules were produced within cells that are in contact with the bloodstream—mostly endothelial cells—and released into the circulation. This means that a) the immune system will attack those endothelial cells, and b) the circulating spike protein molecules will activate thrombocytes. Both effects will promote blood clotting. This explains the many clotting-related adverse events—stroke, heart attack, venous thrombosis—that are being reported after vaccination.
Discovery 2: Rapid, memory-type antibody response after vaccination
Several studies have demonstrated that circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgA antibodies became detectable within 1-2 weeks after application of mRNA vaccines [1–3].
Significance. Rapid production of IgG and IgA always indicates a secondary, memory-type response that is elicited through re-stimulation of pre-existing immune cells. Primary immune responses to novel antigens take longer to evolve and initially produce IgM antibodies, which is then followed by the isotype switch to IgG and IgA.
A certain amount of IgM was indeed detected alongside IgG and IgA in some studies [1,4]. Importantly, however, IgG rose faster than IgM [4], which confirms that the early IgG response was indeed of the memory type. This memory response indicates pre-existing, cross-reactive immunity due to previous infection with ordinary respiratory human coronavirus strains. The delayed IgM response most likely represents a primary response to novel epitopes which are specific to SARS-CoV-2.
Memory-type responses have also been documented with respect to T-cell-mediated immunity [5–7]. Overall, these findings indicate that our immune system efficiently recognizes SARS-CoV-2 as “known” even on first contact. Severe cases of the disease thus cannot be ascribed to lacking immunity. Instead, severe cases might very well be caused or aggravated by pre-existing immunity through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE, see below).
Serum antibody profiles were reported for 203 individuals following SARS-CoV-2 infection [8]. 202 (>99%) of the participants exhibited SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies. With 193 individuals (95%), these antibodies prevented SARS-CoV-2 infection in cell culture and also inhibited binding of the spike protein to the ACE2 receptor. Furthermore, CD8+ T-cell responses specific for SARS-CoV-2 were clear and quantifiable in 95 of 106 (90%) HLA-A2-positive individuals.
Significance. This study confirms the above assertion that the immune response to initial contact with SARS-CoV-2 is of the memory type. In addition, it shows that this reaction occurs with almost all individuals, and particularly also with those who experience no manifest clinical symptoms.
The goal of the vaccination is to stimulate production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, but we now know that such antibodies can and will be rapidly generated by everyone upon the slightest viral challenge, even without vaccination.
Severe lung infections always take many days to develop, which means that if the antibodies generated by the memory response are needed, they will arrive on time. Therefore, vaccination is unlikely to provide significant benefit with respect to the prevention of severe lung infection.
Discovery 4: Rapid increase of spike protein antibodies after the second injection of mRNA vaccines
IgG and IgA antibody titres were monitored before vaccination and after the first and the second injection of mRNA vaccines [3]. Antibody titres rose with some delay after the first injection, then plateaued, but rose again very shortly after the second injection.
Significance. Even though the antibody response to the first injection is of the memory type, the small time lag after the injection may mitigate adverse reactions, because the abundance of spike protein on the cells in the blood vessel walls and in other tissues may have already passed its peak when the antibodies arrive.
The situation changes dramatically with the second injection. Then the spikes are produced and protrude into the bloodstream that is already swarming with both reactive lymphocytes and antibodies. The antibodies will cause the complement system [9,10] and also neutrophil granulocytes to attack the spike protein-bearing cells. The possible consequences of all-out self-attack by the immune system are frightening.
Antibody-dependent enhancement of disease
As described, memory-type immune responses ensure the rapid rise of antibody titres after initial exposure to SARS-CoV-2, rendering the benefit of vaccine-induced antibody response exceedingly doubtful. Regardless, we should not assume that high antibody titres against SARS-CoV-2 will always improve the clinical outcome. With several virus families—in particular with Dengue virus, but also with coronaviruses—antibodies can aggravate rather than mitigate disease. This occurs because certain cells of the immune system take up antibody-tagged microbes and destroy them. If a virus particle to which antibodies have bound is taken up by such a cell, but it then manages to evade destruction, it may instead start to multiply within the cell. Overall, the antibody will then have enhanced the replication of the virus. Clinically, this antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) can cause a hyperinflammatory response (a “cytokine storm”) that will amplify the damage to the lungs, liver and other organs of our body.
Attempts to develop vaccines to the original SARS virus, which is closely related to SARS-CoV-2, repeatedly failed due to ADE. The vaccines did induce antibodies, but when the vaccinated animals were subsequently infected with the virus, they became more ill than the unvaccinated controls (see e.g. [11]). The possibility of ADE was not adequately addressed in the clinical trials on any of the COVID-19 vaccines. It is therefore prudent to avoid the danger of inducing ADE through vaccination and instead rely on proven forms of treatment [12] for dealing with clinically severe COVID-19 disease.
Conclusion
The collective findings discussed above clearly show that the benefits of vaccination are highly doubtful. In contrast, the harm the vaccines do is very well substantiated, with more than 15.000 vaccination-associated deaths now documented in the EU drug adverse events database (EudraVigilance), and over 7.000 more deaths within the UK and the US [13].
ALL PHYSICIANS MUST RECONSIDER THE ETHICAL ISSUES SURROUNDING COVID-19 VACCINATION.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
1. Ogata, A.F. et al. (2021) Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients. Clin. Infect. Dis. -:x-x
2. Amanat, F. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination induces functionally diverse antibodies to NTD, RBD and S2. Cell -:x-x
3. Wisnewski, A.V. et al. (2021) Human IgG and IgA responses to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. PLoS One 16:e0249499
4. Qu, J. et al. (2020) Profile of Immunoglobulin G and IgM Antibodies Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clin. Infect. Dis. 71:2255-2258
5. Le Bert, N. et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature 584:457-462
6. Grifoni, A. et al. (2020) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181:1489-1501.e15
7. Gallais, F. et al. (2021) Intrafamilial Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Associated with Cellular Immune Response without Seroconversion. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 27:x-x
8. Nielsen, S.S. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity. EBioMedicine 68:103410
9. Magro, C.M. et al. (2020) Docked severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 proteins within the cutaneous and subcutaneous microvasculature and their role in the pathogenesis of severe coronavirus disease 2019. Hum. Pathol. 106:106-116
10. Magro, C.M. et al. (2021) Severe COVID-19: A multifaceted viral vasculopathy syndrome. Annals of diagnostic pathology 50:151645
11. Tseng, C. et al. (2012) Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7:e35421
12. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2021) Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am. J. Med. 134:16-22
13. Johnson, L. (2021) Official Vaccine Injury and Fatality Data: EU, UK and US.
