© 2020 All rights reserved
Watch this video testimony from many doctors and scientists including Irish scientist Professor Dolores Cahill : Click link below:
Doctors Around the World Issue Dire WARNING: DO NOT GET THE COVID VACCINE!! (bitchute.com)
Doctors Around the World Issue Dire WARNING: DO NOT GET THE COVID VACCINE!! (healthimpactnews.com)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is from the official UK gov website
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An interesting article
So here are the reasons I’m opting out of the covid vaccine.
#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY
The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products, are vaccine makers.
First established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and reinforced by the PREP Act, vaccine makers cannot be sued, even if they are shown to be negligent.
The covid-vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on sub-populations (i.e. people with specific health conditions), and yet they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause.
If a company is not willing to stand behind their product as safe, especially one they rushed to market and skipped animal trials on, I am not willing to take a chance on their product.
No liability. No trust.
Here’s why…
#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES
The four major companies who are making these covid vaccines are/have either:
Moderna had been trying to “Modernize our RNA” (thus the company name)–for years, but had never successfully brought ANY product to market–how nice for them to get a major cash infusion from the government to keep trying.
In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when then knew those product would cause injuries and death–see Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Thalidomide, and Opioids as a few examples.
If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any product where they have NO liability?
In case it hasn’t sunk in, let me reiterate…3 of the 4 covid vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.
Let me reiterate this point:
Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board?
Where else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation?
To me that makes as much sense as expecting a remorseless, abusive, unfaithful lover to become a different person because a judge said deep down they are a good person.
No. I don’t trust them.
No liability. No trust.
Here’s another reason why I don’t trust them.
#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES
There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure, which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.
In the 1960’s, scientists attempted to make an RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus) vaccine for infants.
In that study, they skipped animal trials because they weren’t necessary back then.
In the end, the vaccinated infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization, and two of them died.
After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines.
For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960’s.
You can read a summary of this history/science here.
Or if you want to read the individual studies you can check out these links:
The typical pattern in the studies mentioned above is that the children and the animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated.
The manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot.
The problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.
When that happened, an unexplained phenomenon called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) occurred where the immune system produced a “cytokine storm” (i.e. overwhelmingly attacked the body), and the children/animals died.
Here’s the lingering issue…
The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed vaccines have overcome that problem.
In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology that is mRNA “vaccines” been safely brought to market, but hey, since they had billions of dollars in government funding, I’m sure they figured that out.
Except they don’t know if they have…
#4: THE “DATA GAPS” SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS
When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the FDA for the Emergency Use Authorization (Note: An EUA is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many “Data Gaps” they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of Vaccine Enhanced Disease.
They simply don’t know–i.e. they have no idea if the vaccines they’ve made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products.
As Joseph Mercola points out…
“Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic. An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?”
If that’s not alarming enough, here are other gaps in the data–i.e. there is no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:
Hard to believe right?
In case you think I’m making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.
For now let’s turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for emergency use authorization.
#5: NO ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA FROM THE TRIALS
Would you like to see the raw data that produced the “90% and 95% effective” claims touted in the news?
Me too…
But they won’t let us see that data.
As pointed out in the BMJ, something about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny.
There were “3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1,816 in the placebo group.”
Wait…what?
Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a major variable?
Could they not test those “suspected but unconfirmed” cases to find out if they had covid?
Apparently not.
Why not test all 3,410 participants for the sake of accuracy?
Can we only guess they didn’t test because it would mess up their “90-95% effective” claims?
Where’s the FDA?
Would it not be prudent for the FDA, to expect (demand) that the vaccine makers test people who have “covid-like symptoms,” and release their raw data so outside, third-parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers?
I mean it’s only every citizen of the world we’re trying to get to take these experimental products…
Why did the FDA not require that? Isn’t that the entire purpose of the FDA anyway?
Good question.
Foxes guarding the hen house?
Seems like it.
No liability. No trust.
#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING
Obviously, with products that have only been on the market a few months, we have no long-term safety data.
In other words, we have no idea what this product will do in the body months or years from now–for ANY population.
Given all the risks above (risks that ALL pharmaceutical products have), would it not be prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided?
Would it not make sense to want to fill those pesky “data gaps” before we try to give this to every man, woman, and child on the planet?
Well…that would make sense, but to have that data, they need to test it on people, which leads me to my next point…
#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT
What most who are taking the vaccine don’t know is that because these products are still in clinical trials, anyone who gets the shot is now part of the clinical trial.
They are part of the experiment.
Those (like me) who do not take it, are part of the control group.
Time will tell how this experiment works out.
But, you may be asking, if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldn’t we be seeing that all over the news?
Surely the FDA would step in and pause the distribution?
Well, if the adverse events reporting system was working, maybe things would be different.
#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH
According to a study done by Harvard (at the commission of our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to the National Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS) – read page 6 at the link above.
While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you can read about in this letter to the CDC), at the time of this writing VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current covid vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.
“VAERS data released today showed 50,861 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 2,249 deaths and 7,726 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 26, 2021.”
And those numbers don’t include (what is currently) 578 cases of Bell’s Palsy.
If those numbers are still only 1% of the total adverse reactions (or .8 to 2% of what this study published recently in the JAMA found), you can do the math, but that equates to somewhere around 110,00 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse reactions.
Bet you didn’t see that on the news.
That death number would currently still be lower than the 424,000 deaths from medical errors that happen every year (which you probably also don’t hear about), but we are not even six months into the rollout of these vaccines yet.
If you want a deeper dive into the problems with the VAERS reporting system, you can check this out, or check this out.
But then there’s my next point, which could be argued makes these covid vaccines seem pointless…
#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION
Wait, what?
Aren’t these vaccines supposed to be what we’ve been waiting for to “go back to normal”?
Nope.
Why do you think we’re getting all these conflicting messages about needing to practice social distancing and wear masks AFTER we get a vaccine?
The reason is because these vaccines were never designed to stop transmission OR infection.
If you don’t believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I linked to above.
The primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.
Sounds like just about every other drug on the market right?
That’s it…lowering your symptoms is the big payoff we’ve been waiting for.
Does that seem completely pointless to anyone but me?
Heck, there are plenty of other things I can do to lower my symptoms that don’t involve taking what appears to be a really risky product.
Now for the next logical question:
If we’re worried about asymptomatic spreaders, would the vaccine not make it more likely that we are creating asymptomatic spread?
If it indeed reduces symptoms, anyone who gets it might not even know they are sick and thus they are more likely to spread the virus, right?
For what it’s worth, I’ve heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine (especially the second dose) are worse than catching covid.
I can’t make sense of that either.
Take the risk.
Get no protection.
Suffer through the vaccine side-effects.
Keep wearing your mask and social distancing…
And continue to be able to spread the virus.
What?
It gets worse.
#10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED
Talk about a bummer.
You get vaccinated and you still catch covid.
In reality, this phenomenon is probably happening everywhere, but those are the ones making the news now.
Given the reasons above (and what’s below), maybe this doesn’t surprise you, but bummer if you thought the vaccine was a shield to keep you safe.
It’s not.
That was never the point.
If 66% of healthcare workers in L.A. are going to delay or skip the vaccine…maybe they aren’t wowed by the rushed science either.
Maybe they are watching the shady way deaths and cases are being reported…
#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID
According to the CDC’s own numbers, covid has a 99.74% survival rate.
Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesn’t stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of killing me–actually in my age range is has about a .1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids), but let’s not split hairs here.
With a bar (death rate) that low, we will be in lockdown every year…i.e. forever.
But wait, what about the 500,000 plus deaths, that’s alarming right?
I’m glad you asked.
#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS
Something smells really funny about this one.
Never before in the history of death certificates has our own government changed how deaths are reported.
Why now, are we reporting everyone who dies with covid in their body, as having died of covid, rather than the co-morbidities that actually took their life?
Until covid, all coronaviruses (common colds) were never listed as the primary cause of death when someone died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, auto-immune conditions, or any other major co-morbidity.
The disease was listed as the cause of death, and a confounding factor like flu or pneumonia was listed on a separate line.
To bloat the number even more, both the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. changed their guidelines such that those who are suspected or probable (but were never confirmed) of having died of covid, are also included in the death numbers.
Seriously?
If we are going to do that then should we not go back and change the numbers of all past cold and flu seasons so we can compare apples to apples when it comes to death rates?
According to the CDCs own numbers, (scroll down to the section “Comorbidities and other conditions”) only 6% of the deaths being attributed to covid are instances where covid seems to be the only issue at hand.
In other words, reduce the death numbers you see on the news by 94% and you have what is likely the real numbers of deaths from just covid.
Even if the former CDC director is correct and covid-19 was a lab-enhanced virus (see Reason #14 below), a .26% death rate is still in line with the viral death rate that circles the planet ever year.
Then there’s this Fauci guy.
I’d really love to trust him, but besides the fact that he hasn’t treated one covid patient…you should probably know…
#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE MODERNA VACCINE
Thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act, government workers are allowed to file patents on any research they do using tax payer funding.
Tony Fauci owns over 1,000 patents (see this video for more details), including patents being used on the Moderna vaccine…which he approved government funding for.
In fact, the NIH (which NIAID is part of) claims joint ownership of Moderna’s vaccine.
Does anyone else see this as a MAJOR conflict of interest, or criminal even?
I say criminal because there’s also this pesky problem that makes me even more distrustful of Fauci, NIAD, and the NIH in general.
#14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH
What is “Gain-of-Function” research?
It’s where scientists attempt to make viruses gain functions–i.e. make them more transmissible and deadlier.
Sounds at least a touch unethical, right?
How could that possibly be helpful?
Our government agreed, and banned the practice.
So what did the Fauci-led NIAID do?
They pivoted and outsourced the gain-of-function research (in coronaviruses no less) to China–to the tune of a $600K grant.
You can see more details, including the important timeline of these events in this fantastically well-researched documentary.
Mr. Fauci, you have some explaining to do…and I hope the cameras are recording when you have to defend your actions.
For now, let’s turn our attention back to the virus…
#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE
Not only does the virus (like all viruses) continue to mutate, but according to world-renowned vaccine developer Geert Vanden Bossche (who you’ll meet below if you don’t know him) it’s mutating about every 10 hours.
How in the world are we going to keep creating vaccines to keep up with that level of mutation?
We’re not.
Might that also explain why fully vaccinated people are continuing to catch covid?
Why, given that natural immunity has never ultimately failed humanity, do we suddenly not trust it?
Why, if I ask questions like the above, or post links like what you find above, will my thoughts be deleted from all major social media platforms?
That brings me to the next troubling problem I have with these vaccines.
#16: CENSORSHIP…AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE
I can’t help but get snarky here, so humor me.
How did you enjoy all those nationally and globally-televised, robust debates put on by public health officials, and broadcast simultaneously on every major news station?
Wasn’t it great hearing from the best minds in medicine, virology, epidemiology, economics, and vaccinology from all over the world as they vigorously and respectfully debated things like:
Wasn’t it great seeing public health officials (who never treated anyone with covid) have their “science” questioned.
Wasn’t it great seeing the FDA panel publicly grill the vaccine makers in prime time as they stood in the hot-seat of tough questions about products of which they have no liability?
Oh, wait…you didn’t see those debates?
No, you didn’t…because they never happened.
What happened instead was heavy-handed censorship of all but one narrative.
Ironically, Mark Zuckerberg can question vaccine safety, but I can’t?
Hypocrite?
When did the first amendment become a suggestion?
It’s the FIRST amendment Mark–the one our founders thought was most important.
With so much at stake, why are we fed only one narrative…shouldn’t many perspectives be heard and professionally debated?
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO SCIENCE?
What has happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions?
What happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society?
Why did anyone who disagrees with the WHO, or the CDC get censored so heavily?
Is the science of public health a religion now, or is science supposed to be about debate?
If someone says “the science is settled” that’s how I know I’m dealing with someone who is closed minded.
By definition science (especially biological science) is never settled.
If it was, it would be dogma, not science.
OK, before I get too worked up, let me say this…
I WANT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN
I really do.
If lockdowns work, I want to do my part and stay home.
If masks work, I want to wear them.
If social distancing is effective, I want to comply.
But, if there is evidence they don’t, I want to hear that evidence too.
If highly-credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they think.
I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind.
I don’t think I’m the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think.
Maybe I’m weird, but if someone is censored, then I REALLY want to hear what they think.
Don’t you?
To all my friends who don’t have a problem with censorship, will you have the same opinion when what you think is censored?
Is censorship not the technique of dictators, tyrants, and greedy, power-hungry people?
Is it not a sign that those who are doing the censoring know it’s the only way they can win?
What if a man who spent his entire life developing vaccines was willing to put his entire reputation on the line and call on all global leaders to immediately stop the covid vaccines because of problems with the science?
What if he pleaded for an open-scientific debate on a global stage?
Would you want to hear what he has to say?
Would you want to see the debate he’s asking for?
#17: THE WORLD’S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST IS SOUNDING THE ALARM…
Here is what may be the biggest reason this covid vaccine doesn’t make sense to me.
When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard.
In case you missed it, and in case you care to watch it, here is Geert Vanden Bossche, explaining:
If you want to see/read about a second, and longer, interview with Vanden Bossche, where he was asked some tough questions, you can check this out.
If half of what he says comes true, these vaccines could be the worst invention of all time.
If you don’t like his science, take it up with him.
I’m just the messenger.
But I can also speak to covid personally.
#18: I ALREADY HAD COVID
I didn’t enjoy it.
It was a nasty cold for two days:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic
https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/
Dr. Kauffman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4413&v=Ur7TjqzcATI&feature=emb_title
The corona virus (which is the common flu virus) is patented.
https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3172319B1/en
According to this Doctor the virus test does not even test for a virus it tests for exomes which can be caused by stress
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr8Dy5mnYx8
On another note – there appears to be an ongoing view that 5g rollout and EMF is causing people health issues.
http://www.electrosmogprevention.org/international-electrosmog-prevention-news/coronavirus5g/ www.es-ireland.com
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is also important
Toxic Aluminum linked with Alzheimers disease has been in almost all vaccine for decades…
Professor Exley has now been defunded at his university – a brave man providing the truth gets defunded – academia is polluted by corporate influences that prioritise profit not truth.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Corona virus is patented – see below
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10130701B2/en
https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3172319B1/en
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to an attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene, which causes the virus to have reduced pathogenicity. The present invention also relates to the use of such a coronavirus in a vaccine to prevent and/or treat a disease.
BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION
https://www.bitchute.com/video/888xJGA3HSdE/
Whether this video is all factual or not I dont know – looks like a smokescreen for a larger agenda – another 911.
Coronavirus
Abstract
The present invention provides a live, attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene encoding polyproteins comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein(s) (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16. The coronavirus may be used as a vaccine for treating and/or preventing a disease, such as infectious bronchitis, in a subject.
Images (15)
Classifications
C07K14/005 Peptides having more than 20 amino acids; Gastrins; Somatostatins; Melanotropins; Derivatives thereof from viruses
View 13 more classifications
US10130701B2
United States
Inventor
Current Assignee
PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE
Worldwide applications
2014 GB 2015 BR CN MX AU DK WO CA US EP KR PT JP
Application US15/328,179 events
2014-07-23
2015-07-23
Application filed by PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE
2017-08-03
Publication of US20170216427A1
2018-11-20
2018-11-20
Application granted
2020-03-30
Application status is Active
2035-07-23
Anticipated expiration
Show all events
Info
Priority and Related Applications
External links
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to an attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene, which causes the virus to have reduced pathogenicity. The present invention also relates to the use of such a coronavirus in a vaccine to prevent and/or treat a disease.
BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION
Avian infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), the aetiological agent of infectious bronchitis (IB), is a highly infectious and contagious pathogen of domestic fowl that replicates primarily in the respiratory tract but also in epithelial cells of the gut, kidney and oviduct. IBV is a member of the Order Nidovirales, Family Coronaviridae, Subfamily Corona virinae and Genus Gammacoronavirus; genetically very similar coronaviruses cause disease in turkeys, guinea fowl and pheasants.
Clinical signs of IB include sneezing, tracheal rales, nasal discharge and wheezing. Meat-type birds have reduced weight gain, whilst egg-laying birds lay fewer eggs and produce poor quality eggs. The respiratory infection predisposes chickens to secondary bacterial infections which can be fatal in chicks. The virus can also cause permanent damage to the oviduct, especially in chicks, leading to reduced egg production and quality; and kidney, sometimes leading to kidney disease which can be fatal.
IBV has been reported to be responsible for more economic loss to the poultry industry than any other infectious disease. Although live attenuated vaccines and inactivated vaccines are universally used in the control of IBV, the protection gained by use of vaccination can be lost either due to vaccine breakdown or the introduction of a new IBV serotype that is not related to the vaccine used, posing a risk to the poultry industry.
Further, there is a need in the industry to develop vaccines which are suitable for use in ovo, in order to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of vaccination programmes. A major challenge associated with in ovo vaccination is that the virus must be capable of replicating in the presence of maternally-derived antibodies against the virus, without being pathogenic to the embryo. Current IBV vaccines are derived following multiple passage in embryonated eggs, this results in viruses with reduced pathogenicity for chickens, so that they can be used as live attenuated vaccines. However such viruses almost always show an increased virulence to embryos and therefore cannot be used for in ova vaccination as they cause reduced hatchability. A 70% reduction in hatchability is seen in some cases.
Attenuation following multiple passage in embryonated eggs also suffers from other disadvantages. It is an empirical method, as attenuation of the viruses is random and will differ every time the virus is passaged, so passage of the same virus through a different series of eggs for attenuation purposes will lead to a different set of mutations leading to attenuation. There are also efficacy problems associated with the process: some mutations will affect the replication of the virus and some of the mutations may make the virus too attenuated. Mutations can also occur in the S gene which may also affect immunogenicity so that the desired immune response is affected and the potential vaccine may not protect against the required serotype. In addition there are problems associated with reversion to virulence and stability of vaccines.
It is important that new and safer vaccines are developed for the control of IBV. Thus there is a need for IBV vaccines which are not associated with these issues, in particular vaccines which may be used for in ovo vaccination.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MARCH 2020, THE MONTH WHEN THE WORLD STOPPED
” This age is very dangerous because society is being managed by demons and Rakshasas.” (SB 7.3.13)
For conditioned souls who identify the self with the body, who have little or no spiritual knowledge or realization, and who are generally absorbed in the materialistic conception of life, Srila Prabhupada’s message that a ‘satanic influence’ or ‘satanic consciousness’ is presently directing the world’s governments, economy, military, science, religion, etc., is of such supernatural magnitude that it is not easily received, understood, appreciated, accepted, or assimilated—even by his own followers. …. as people went about their everyday business there seemed to be no overt reason to think that any great spiritual battle was taking place, that the world had fallen under the rule of a demoniac or satanic power, or that ‘God’ had manifested on the Earth to save everyone from the threat. Now, as the world grinds to a halt in the face of the COVID-19 scare, the entire world waits with bated breathe to understand what it is all about, and of course, what comes next.
What goes by the name of the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a unique situation in the history of the world because it is the first time that all nations in the world are collectively brought to a complete standstill, and that all people, at the same time, face the same threat of impending death. It is an existential crisis that involves practically every member of the world. The fact that all the people of the world have been simultaneously forced to ‘stop’, surely signals that a reset is being made, and that a major change in the world is coming. The short term changes of this reset are more likely to be worse than better for most people, but the long term changes will eventually bring an end to the present satanic system.
Is the present world-wide ‘lock-down’ a responsible reaction by the concerned governments of the world to the impending threat of a catastrophic natural disaster (adhidaivika); or is COVID-19 (a particular strain of flu that is not likely to kill any more than the estimated 350,000-650,000 people who normally die from flu every year) simply a smokescreen for a further phase of an ingenious demoniac (adhibhautika) takeover? I personally believe the latter to be the case; but in either case, the point I wish to emphasize here is that whatever happens in this world, it is simply Sri Krishna (God) moving pieces on the board game of life.
Lets take the extreme position that the COVID-19 hysteria whipped up by the world’s government and media is not simply a very human reaction to an impending world-wide natural disaster, but is actually a smokescreen for asuras to gain further control over the world’s people and resources. As mentioned earlier, it is my own understanding that this is indeed the case; however, the present format of Sampradaya Sun is not the place to argue the specific details for such a position. I leave it to the reader to do their own research and come to their own conclusion. In this paper I simply wish to explain why members of the Krishna consciousness movement should understand the COVID-19 event in the context of Srila Prabhupada’s warning that the world is presently controlled by Rakshasas (the ‘satanic government’), and also why the devotees of Sri Krishna should not naively trust the official narrative, or blindly accept the so-called remedial measures to the ‘pandemic’. Regarding the word ‘pandemic’, according to the World Health Organization’s official statistics, up to 650,000 people normally die every year from flu, yet it is never before been called a ‘pandemic’, or regarded as a cause for a world lock-down. There is much to say regarding the official narrative, but here is not the place.
Likewise for those asuras who are incarnate on the Earth at this time, and who are intent on using the COVID-19 (or any other disaster) to further their own ends, let all be assured that Sri Krishna has His own plans in action, and that any hidden evil will be eventually exposed to the world, with the resulting karma coming back on the head of the evil-doers: ..Whatever the immediate result of the COVID-19 —whether the asuric world government are allowed to make another gain on the chess board of life, or whether their nefarious deeds will be dramatically exposed—the end result will be the inevitable defeat of satanic government.
In our own life-time we have lived under a regime which though pertaining to be made of individual and autonomous nation states, is actually a one world government that has stealthily introduced a poisonous atheistic ideology, an artificial monetary system that has caused economic enslavement to billions of people through-out the world, and a perpetual war machine which has caused death and injury to hundreds of millions of people through-out the world; it is a system which has introduced mass abortion, cow killing, illicit sex, gambling, and intoxication; it is a system that has introduced genetically modified foods, chemtrails, herbicides and pesticides, fluoridated water, toxic pharmaceuticals and vaccines, widespread ecological destruction, etc.; the list goes on and on. Though individual politicians have changed or died and been replaced by others, the same tamasic system of government has continued. Now in the midst of a ‘COVID-19 pandemic’, we are expected to believe that this one world government is suddenly concerned for the lives and health of people threatened by the COVID-19. Does a vulture wish the cow to be alive or dead? And does a vulture government wish for the physical, economic and spiritual health of its citizens?
Though many politicians are themselves unwitting pawns of a larger supernatural force, we should nonetheless understand that at this present time, where-ever there is a sphere of power and influence over others, one will find that the satanic or demoniac presence is operating in the background. This obviously includes major institutions such as the worlds religions and governments, finance and banking, military, education, health, and of course the media who are currently employing nothing less than trauma based mind control to convince the world’s population that they are all likely to die from COVID-19 unless they do exactly what the world government orders .”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
INTERVIEW: Debunking the COVID-19 Narrative with Prof. Dolores Cahill Irish
MAY 13, 2020 BY 21WIRE 4 COMMENTS
Are public health officials and the mainstream media really telling the public scientific accurate and correct information about the Coronavirus and treatment for COVID-19? Was there any scientific or medical basis for governments to impose a lockdown? Are the government-media complex irresponsibly spreading misinformation about COVID-19? Is this misinformation harming the public and causing needless suffering and additional deaths? Apparently, yes.
Computing Forever speaks with Professor Dolores Cahill an experienced biological scientist with over 25 years expertise in high-throughput protein array, antibody array, and proteomics technology development. Dr. Cahill dismantles many of the popular assumptions about Coronavirus repeated by politicians and public health officials. Watch: https://21stcenturywire.com/2020/05/13/interview-debunking-the-covid-19-narrative-with-prof-dolores-cahill/
EXCLUSIVE: Dr. Rashid Buttar BLASTS Gates, Fauci, EXPOSES Fake Pandemic Numbers As Economy Collapses
4,035,648 views •Premiered Apr 16, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OsxOo9oi-I askdrbuttar.com/nnn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2Nt5L8-MqI
PlanDemic, global plan to take control of our lives, liberty, health & freedom – Dr. Judy Mikovits BA PhD (American Researcher on Coronavirus) has worked in Laboratories with viruses for 40 years, published 51 peer reviewed scientific research papers, worked at the National Cancer Institute on leukemia, and AIDS, research director of CFS research organisation Whittemore Peterson Institute from 2006-2011 BA in Chemistry, PhD Molecular Biology. She won the Jeff Bradstreet award for Bravery and Courage.
Dr Mikovits •Apr 5, 2020 and 5.5.2020 For Videohttps://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmSgenVHqsJvaUXntePzkfKMHgar8ARmSKwzMiRFDuBnU5 or
Dr. Judy Mikovits’s Book “A Plague of Corruption – Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science”.
Quotes from the sensational presentation: “Legal and vaccine corruption, and the greatest crime this century” by David Noakes, dn@help.vg May 2020 “Dr Anthony Fauci gave $3.7 to the level 4 bioweapons laboratory in Wuhan, China, in 2015. That’s well known; Trump was discussing it on the 30th April.
Fauci was developing coronavirus cell lines in the Army’s USAMRICD lab in Fort Dietrich, Maryland; then the US government declared it illegal because its too dangerous to enhance viruses. So he transferred the cell lines to the Wuhan lab when it was illegal to do so, and the covid-19 outbreak was the result.
Fauci boasted on TV there’s a surprise pandemic coming. He knew – he was releasing it.
See John F Kennedy: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/u-s-governments-3-7-million-grant-to-wuhan-lab-at-center-of-coronavirus-outbreak/
Fauci’s behind Bill Gates to spread Covid-19 as far as possible, then force a mandatory vaccine on the world, and get us controlled by ID2020 RFID chips. They will make a trillion dolllars out of us…….” “Ebola was created in Maryland.
Italy got a new flu vaccine including H1N1 grown in dog cell lines; dogs have coronavirus. Thats why Italy had the highest numbers of deaths; no sorry, I’m wrong. Thats the UK.
There is no vaccine for any RNA virus that works. covid is an RNA virus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICtsXNtf_GQ&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq2uuHfmq8k&feature=youtu.be
For David’s full presentation: http://www.alternativeview.co.uk/watchagain/#clip=9qr03s3uh4ow&time=
To access David’s presentation you may need this code: GDGGI5AI9B
Newsbreak 68: David Noakes on Bill Gates & the COVID-19 Vaccine Plandemic Network
1,550 views
Recommended Reading 6 articles below by Peter Koenig:
Coronavirus – The Aftermath. A Coming Mega-Depression… By Peter Koenig Global Research, April 09, 2020
(Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.
Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Copyright © Peter Koenig, Global Research, 2020
For full article: https://www.globalresearch.ca/corona-aftermath/5708875
COVID-19 – The Fight for a Cure:One Gigantic Western Pharma Rip-Off
By Peter Koenig Global Research, March 24, 2020
https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-fight-cure-western-pharma-rip-off/5707360
The Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”
For full article: https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-causes-effects-real-danger-agenda-id2020/5706153
Coronavirus – No Vaccine Is Needed to Cure It By Peter Koenig Global Research, April 01, 2020
For full article: https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-no-vaccine-needed-cure/5708327
Coronavirus Is More Than a Health Disaster – It’s a Human Calamity
By Peter Koenig Global Research, March 30, 2020
The New York Times of March 20, asks rhetorically – “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?”
A Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in relation to China’s novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) categorized as a viral pneumonia. was declared by WHO’s Director General, Dr. Tedros on 30 January 2020, when outside of China there were only 150 WHO-registered infections. For full article: https://www.globalresearch.ca/corona-more-health-disaster-human-calamity/5708005?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
The Farce and Diabolical Agenda of A “Universal Lockdown” By Peter Koenig Global Research, April
27 April 2020 – First comes the farce, an (almost) universal government lie around the globe about a deadly virus, WHO named COVID-19. The decision for a global lockdown – literally for the collapse of the world economy – was already taken at the WEF conference in Davos, 21 – 24 January 2020. On January 30, WHO declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). At that time, there were only 150 known COVID-19 cases outside of China. No reason whatsoever to declare a pandemic. On March 11, Dr. Tedros, DG of WHO converted the PHEIC into a pandemic. This gave the green light for the start if implementing “The Plan”.
The pandemic was needed as a pretext to halt and collapse the world economy and the underlying social fabric. For full article:https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-cruelty-universal-lockdown/5710798
Fake Coronavirus Data, Fear Campaign. Spread of the COVID-19 Infection
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, April 05, 2020
Introduction
Do not let yourself be misled by the fear campaign, pointing to a Worldwide coronavirus calamity with repeated “predictions” that hundreds of thousands of people are going to die.
These are boldface lies. Scientific assessments of the health impacts of the COVID-19 have been withheld, they do not make the headlines.
While COVID-19 constitutes a serious health issue, why is it the object of fear and panic?
According to the WHO, “The most commonly reported symptoms [COV-19] included fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath, and most patients (80%) experienced mild illness.”
Examine the contradictory headlines: For complete article: https://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-coronavirus-data-fear-campaign-spread-of-the-covid-19-infection/5708643
| Biological Weapons: A Useful and Timely Factual Overview |
| By Larry Romanoff Global Research, February 07, 2020 |
The US government and its many agencies and educational and health institutions, have for many decades conducted intensive research into biological warfare, in many cases strongly focused on race-specific pathogens.
In a report to the US Congress, the Department of Defense revealed that its program of creating artificial biological agents included modifying non-fatal viruses to make them lethal, and genetic engineering to alter the immunology of biological agents to make treatment and vaccinations impossible. The military report admitted that at the time it operated about 130 bio-weapons research facilities, dozens at US universities and others at many international sites outside the purview of the US Congress and the jurisdiction of the courts. For full report:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/biological-weapons-useful-timely-factual-overview/5702842
2009 H1N1 Vaccine Caused Brain Damage in Children. Dr. Anthony Fauci on “Vaccine Safety” Issues – Don’t Let It Happen Again
By Prof Michel ChossudovskyGlobal Research, May 03, 2020
In 2009, NIAID Director Anthony Fauci was firmly in support of a multibillion dollar H1N1 vaccine project
Today he is an avid supporter of a COVID-19 vaccine.
What he fails to acknowledge is that the 2009 H1N1 Vaccine caused brain damage in children.
It was developed by Glaxo Smith Kline which today is at the forefront of the COVID-19 vaccine initiative.
Dr. Faucy addresses the H1N1 Vaccine Safety Issue in this video (starting at 6′.5o”).
Scroll down for the reports on H1N1 vaccine scam. For full article: https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-dr-anthony-fauci-on-the-2009-h1n1pandemic-the-2009-h1n1-vaccine-caused-brain-damage-in-children/5711540
Dr. Thomas Cowan Covid19
COV 19 Report 3003 By E.Hammel For full copy of this amazingreport:file:///C:/Users/User/Favorites/Downloads/Report%203003-zusammengef%C3%BCgt%20(1).pdf
In response to the unrelenting ungrounded aggression and racist moaning and groaning on the part of the Australian Government/press against China: – Australian government reminded by China that China buys Billions and Billions of $’s worth of Australian wine and meat, coal and gas annually – Millions of Chinese tourist to Australia each year bring millions of $’s to the Australian economy – Chinese students pay millions in to the Australian economy annually….. China has shipped and air freighted millions and millions $’s of vital medical equipment to Ireland the UK.Africa. Also to the USA. Russia likewise to the UK www.rt.com and.(People Against War Network -nowar@eircom.net). www.rt.com14.5.2020 Chinese spokesperson said that Australian beef not up to standard and not good quality. Boom and Bust 16.5.2020 China facing conflicts with US & Australia – To watch programme: https://www.rt.com/shows/boom-bust/488757-china-us-australia-tensions/
The Global Times editor, Hu Xijin, on Weibo: “Australia is always there, making trouble. It is a bit like chewing gum stuck on the sole of China’s shoes. Sometimes you have to find a stone to rub it off.”
The Guardian 27 April 2020 For full article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/chewing-gum-stuck-on-the-sole-of-our-shoes-the-china-australia-war-of-words-timeline
US Hospitals Getting Paid More to Label Cause of Death as ‘Coronavirus’
By Wayne Dupree Global Research, May 02, 2020
First published on April 15, 2020
Senator Scott Jensen represents Minnesota. He’s also a doctor. He appeared on Fox News with Laura Ingram where he revealed a very disturbing piece of information.
Dr. Scott Jensen says the American Medical Association is now “encouraging” doctors to overcount coronavirus deaths across the country. For full video and report: https://www.globalresearch.ca/hospitals-getting-paid-more-label-cause-death-coronavirus/5709720
Watch “Robert F Kennedy Jr. – Corporatism is using vaccines to turn Americans into commodities [Dec 2019]”To view the video:https://youtu.be/XXl99hfVCfI
Fighting the invisible enemy: imperial fascism 2020, not covid-19COVID-19 is not the time to fight for breadcrumbs and concessions, but the time to fight for revolutionary changes. by Lauren SmithApril 30, 2020 For full report: https://theduran.com/fighting-the-invisible-enemy-imperial-fascism-2020-not-covid-19/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_duran_daily&utm_term=2020-05-01
‘We’ve had the biggest science policy failure in a generation’ Financial Times April 26 2020 By Anjana Ahuja FT Science Commentator
https://www.ft.com/content/8e54c36a-8311-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714
Richard Horton: – Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal founded in 1823, said ‘It’s the biggest science policy failure in a generation’ For full article: https://www.ft.com/content/8e54c36a-8311-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714
Coronavirus mutates into US import as China tries to shift blame away from China
The Sunday Times 15.3.2020
Foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian demanded to know about America’s ‘patient zero’ In a headline-grabbing moment, Zhao suggested the virus might have been brought to Wuhan, the original centre of the pandemic, by the US military. According to one claim, the virus might have been carried to Wuhan last year by American competitors at the Military World Games….” “Then he took another leap: “It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make public your data! US owes us an explanation!” For full report: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-mutates-into-us-import-as-china-tries-to-shift-blame-zpr86v33h
If ‘Europe suffers with Italy’, the EU has a funny way of showing it By Naomi O’Leary The Irish Times, March 19, 2020 (This article is also titled “Italians look at aid from China and a series of slights from the EU”) Help has reached furious Italians, not from neighbours but from faraway China. It was a black Thursday in Italy. ….” US president Donald Trump has taken to calling it “the Chinese virus”, while Chinese officials promote a conspiracy theory that the disease originated in the US.” …” Last year Italy became the first G7 country to endorse China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a massive infrastructure and influence project to connect the continents, risking the ire of Washington and Brussels in the hopes of bringing investiment to its long-stagnant economy. For complete article: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/italians-look-at-aid-from-china-and-a-series-of-slights-from-the-eu-1.4206136 This article also titled “ Italians look at aid from China and a series of slights from the EU”- Same web link.
Dr Leonard Goldwell CORONA HOAX CURE
CORONA DEMOS in Germany on 09.05.2020 Picture gallery! Biggest mass demo since 1989! Stuttgart! Inform yourself on the net! We experience the biggest mass demonstrations since 1989! So many people in so many cities today! Stuttgart, Munich, Nuremberg, Berlin, simply everywhere! The state now only has two options: Either it takes massive action against the critics, which nobody hopes for, or it cancels the measures completely as quickly as possible. If not, there’ll be millions on the streets next week. This is a historic day today! Upload pictures of what you experienced today on demos! For Photos: http://coronahoaxcure.com/en/corona-images/corona-demos-in-germany-on-09-05-2020-picture-gallery-biggest-mass-demo-since-1989/
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
President Donald Trump’s legal counsel, Rudy Giuliani, in a recent chat on “The Cats Roundtable” on New York AM 970 radio, suggested a good U.S. attorney general move about now would be to investigate key members of the past Barack Obama administration on the Wuhan, China, laboratory, to see what they knew and when they knew it. For full article: http://coronahoaxcure.com/en/corona-aricles-us/anthony-fauci-should-explain-3-7-million-to-the-wuhan-laboratory/?utm_source=Pabbly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Untitled%20Subject&utm_campaign=http%3A%2F%2Fcoronahoaxcure.com%2Fen%2Fcorona-aricles-us%2Fanthony-fauci-should-explain-3-7-million-to-the-wuhan-laboratory%2F
FAUCIgate: OPERATION COVID-19 Point Man Tony Fauci Must Be Arrested and Prosecuted for Genocide Posted on May 11, 2020 by State of the Nation
For full article: http://stateofthenation.co/?p=13812
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SwissPolicy Research on the misrepresentation of Covid 19 in the media etc
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Study Proves Coronavirus Clusters Follow 5G Roll-outs Around the Globe
http://stateofthenation.co/?p=12846
Little difference in overall death rate
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Covid PCR test is bogus – the primer sequence is found in all humans
BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA – Piece of Mindful
This was important enough that I wanted to get it out immediately. My research into the NCBI database for nucleotide sequences has lead to a stunning discovery. One of the WHO primer sequences in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is found in all human DNA! The sequence “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT” is an 18-character primer sequence found in…
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Blockchain Education, A Ticket To Digital SerfdomPosted on September 22, 2020 by wrenchinthegears What is blockchain?Those in power will say:Blockchain is a secure way for people to own and control their digital footprint, the data they create living through devices and wearable / implantable / ingestible technology in “smart” environments. In essence, it is a digital ledger that keeps track of EVERYTHING across a decentralized computer network that is said to be permanent and secure. Picture a real time account book that keeps track not only of your monetary assets (bitcoin – this is how much folks understand blockchain); but also civil records like birth certificates, marriage certificates, and court proceedings; voting records; property ownership; certifications and education credentials; health information, including DNA, bioinformatics, and data from wearable technologies; public benefit access like food stamps; and now even one’s movements (geolocation data) and social interactions via QR code health passports and contact tracing. What I say:Whether we know it or not, when we agree to have our lives linked to blockchain, we are agreeing to live in a behaviorist panopticon. In exchange for convenience and limited privileges, we give up our free will. The future being handed to us is one that will be shaped by surveillance, artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, machine learning, and feedback loops. We risk swapping our vibrant human spirits, beautiful in their passionate creativity and flawed vulnerability, for sanitized digital twins that will be managed as human capital by callous technocrats to profit social impact investors. Before we walk through the door of digital identity, realize it opens onto a maze designed to disorient, confuse, and control us. The reason it’s important to talk about this now is because states are setting up task forces on blockchain government. Illinois convened a blockchain working group in 2018. California issued Blockchain in California: A Road Map this July. An August webinar sponsored by the Rhode Island Israel Collaborative on their big-data Covid reopen partnership started with a discussion about the timeliness of moving to blockchain systems and digital governance. All of this is being spurred by the push to virtualize social interactions in response to the lockdowns we’ve experienced over the past six months. With this great rush to adopt emerging technologies, it is important to grasp the bigger picture. The NAACP spent time considering the racial implications of this technology in 2019 and adopted a resolution that opposed linking blockchain identity to receiving any public service, including education. That resolution passed first in California and later at the July 2019 national meeting in Detroit. You can see the resolution below, pages 62 and 63 of this document, NAACP Resolutions Ratified By the National Board of Directors At Its October 2019 Board of Directors Meeting. A year after this resolution was passed, students in Chula Vista, CA are being asked to have their blood tested with results put on blockchain as a condition of accessing face-to-face public education. The plan is to administer cartridge-based blood tests in school settings where they are not protected by HIPPA and put the information onto the Adiona blockchain system, which was developed by Kahala Biosciences. This is NOT OK. We need for people to understand blockchain transcripts are one part of a much larger agenda tied to a global economic reboot. A goal of the World Economic Forum is to create a literal Internet of Bodies using 5G (soon 6G) and “smart city” Internet of Things sensors. Whether people are linked to blockchain via Covid biometric health passports or education transcripts, the result will be the same. We are crossing the threshold not just into surveillance capitalism, but into full-on biocapitalism. Our bodies mined for data that will run massive futures markets in human capital. They need blockchain identity, and they need it brought to scale. However until that happens, there is still time to change course and fight for a humane economic system that respects all children of the earth and future generations. Blockchain will not empower the people, it will turn them into digital commodities. Secured on ledgers, the plan is for us to be scored, sifted, and sorted in a brutish program of fierce competition and precariousness. Make no mistake, the oligarchs value the reliability of robots over the cunning of humans. Universal Basic Income, and digital vouchers for education, housing and healthcare are poison apples, not “solutions” meant to help the masses. Blockchain is a deception. If we take the bait, we’ll end up “playable” characters in an augmented reality “game of life” cooked up by the CIA and defense contractors to benefit hedge funds (webinar on that here). Don’t fall for it. Ten things you need to know about blockchain: 1. Blockchain provides the “trust” infrastructure that the billionaire class needs to advance Globalization 4.0. The next era of globalization will revolve around platform service and knowledge work and eventually telepresence labor employing remote control robotics. For additional information read this interview with economist Richard Baldwin on the impact of globalization and robotics (globotics) in white collar jobs. This is the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This is the World Economic Forum’s Covid global economic reset. 2. The labor force will be reduced to atomized skill sets, so artificial intelligence can efficiently sort individuals to meet the rapidly changing needs of free-market digital labor. Low-wage, micro-work contracts will be offered to those with the highest reputation scores. In the United States, jobs have been assigned skill codes by the Department of Labor. This system managed by O*Net will be the basis for the regional planned economies laid out in the Workforce Opportunities and Innovation Act guidelines. Below are excerpts from the regional workforce plan for southeastern Pennsylvania where I live. A high-growth area will be the gig economy. Most jobs will pay sub-standard wages that will not allow families to maintain a decent standard of living in a high-cost urban housing market. Source – Page 15 Source – Page 13 3. The Davos crowd envisions the “future of work” as a vast task-rabbit economy where people from around the world compete against one another on digital platforms in real time. Blockchain “transcripts” will be needed to sift and sort children and workers based on demonstrated standardized skills. That is the “trust” part. Almost all professions will lack stability, benefits, and retirement opportunities. Those in power imagine a day when no bricks and mortar schools remain. Children instead acquire skills Pokemon-Go-style in community-based settings like museums. They call these “learning ecosystems” or “cities of learning” where knowledge acquisition must be performed on a digital device for it to be made discoverable as a blockchain credential and used as impact data to fuel human capital bond markets. Read about this vision in the Ford Foundation-backed white paper Building the Future of Education: Museums and the Learning Ecosystem from 2014. The screenshot below states today’s schools are not preparing children for this planned “gig economy.” 4. They will call it “lifelong learning,” and everyone must anticipate being constantly re-skilled. Credentials will be uploaded to a learning record store. People will be made redundant, always needing new sets of skills that will require financing (debt – income sharing agreements) to cover the cost of soul-sucking online training modules. Again – “lifelong learning” credits will be logged on blockchain. See K12 “mastery transcripts” segueing to human resource “learning record stores.” The perpetual, just-in-time re-skilling model will destroy higher education as we know it. Face to face liberal arts education will be accessible only to top-tier students whose social capital allows them to obtain work outside the artificial intelligence-mediated, badge-sorting platforms. More on blockchain learning record stores here. Institute For The Future’s video conceptualizing the use of income sharing agreements on blockchain in which private investors cover training costs for individuals using smart contracts that garnish a student’s future wages. The test-pilot is Purdue’s “Back a Boiler” income sharing agreement. Source Global finance already has plans to securitize ISA debt to craft more instruments of predatory “innovative finance.” Click here to watch a short clip from a 2018 ASU+GSV conference panel on income sharing agreements. Full talk here. 5. xAPI captures information about competencies people successfully demonstrate. Competencies include cognitive skills as well as “soft” skills and desirable behaviors. Artificial intelligence incorporates behavioral data into predictive profiling for future micro-work assignments and wage allocations. xAPI tracks “learning” performance using digital technologies including smart phones, tablets, virtual and augmented reality, and other wearable technologies. These digital platforms can capture biometric information tied to physical and behavioral characteristics in very subtle ways. Such information can be stored on blockchain and used to refine profiles on students and workers. This video shows how “learning” is captured as noun-verb-object statements. Education reduced to narrow performance measures aligned to just-in-time workforce demands. Note the title, We Can Track It. Surveillance and signals intelligence for social engineering is built in. This is military technology. More on xAPI here. Full slide share on VR training, including work-based training for youth, from JCA Solutions, Orlando, FL defense contractor here. 6. In a world of uncertainly, employers want to know the mind-set of the workers whom they engage via digital contracts. Grit, resilience, empathy, and collaboration are considered prized traits. For that reason, social-emotional learning is being prioritized above knowledge acquisition. Cognitive skills have taken a backseat to the “soft skills” demanded by the business sector. A well-educated populace is one that might question the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s robot agenda. Can’t have that. Instead, focus on compliance training and figure out how to make money on it, too. Devices, especially virtual and augmented reality, are being used to predict, track, and shape behaviors. In fact, measurable behavior change has been identified as a global human capital impact market. As a result, blockchain, Internet of Things sensors, xAPI technology linked to Learning Record Stores, and skills badging, will be used to monitor behavior change in students over time (see JCA Solutions slide share above). This aggregated data will underpin emerging futures markets in digital educational programming / behavioral brainwashing. Use of Virtual Reality headsets to generate “measurable behavior change,” which will be tied to human capital bond markets. More here. World Economic Forum promoting use of technology to advance social emotional learning in order to enable bond markets in behavior change. Source Teachers College Columbia University crafted an equation that will enable an 11% rate of return on “high-impact” social-emotional curriculum. Read their 2015 study, The Economic Value of Social Emotional Learning, here. 7. Digital education and the tracking of competencies in learning record stores came out of military training. Transmedia learning is a technique developed by Elaine Raybourn of Sandia National Labs and the Orlando Office of Advanced Distributed Learning where narrative storylines are used to immerse participants in training simulations across a variety of digital platforms. The goal, once again, is measurable behavior change “at scale.” Note the slide below from her 2016 presentation, Transmedia Learning In the Wild: Supporting Military Training Through Story-Driven Engagement. Transmedia techniques have also been used in K12 settings, in such popular book series as the 39 Clues backed by Scholastic. Unicef’s Innovation Fund has invested blockchain and virtual reality education for all ages. Their primary funder is The Walt Disney Company, pure edu-tainment. Note the emphasis on training and social-emotional learning by Nubian VR, a company in Unicef’s portfolio. The question we need to be asking is whether society benefits from children being trained using an entertainment-based, chain-of-command, no-questions-asked, information on a need-to-know basis fed by artificial-intelligence scheme where performance on assigned tasks is valued above all else? Or if society benefits from children being nurtured in a way that allows them to engage with the real world in socially-connected ways, explore a wide range of interests, and creatively engage with the challenges they encounter so they can develop genuine resilience and self confidence rather than a dysfunctional Pavlovian response to their world? Use of transmedia learning to accomplish large-scale training and behavior change in military environments. See work of Elaine Raybourn at Sandia National Labs and Advanced Distributed Learning in Orlando, FL. Nubian VR is part of the Unicef Innovation Fund’s investment portfolio. Source This interactive map shows relationships between military simulation training, digital badging programs, media engagement, and social emotional data capture and impact investing. Click here for the interactive version. You may click on any dot or line and it will open a related database record. Source URLs can be found as hyperlinks on the right hand side of each record. 8. Blockchain is used to record digital assets, which can include many things, not just crypto-currency. The video game industry in coming to rely on blockchain to manage their in-game economies. These token economies are being normalized for children through the widespread adoption of gamified platforms like Class Dojo, ClassCraft, Red Critter, and PBIS. In a world run by robots and AI, we may very well be looking at a future of behavioral scrip. Red Critter behavioral currency tied to PBIS programs. Ripple on in-game economies on blockchain – virtual goods and currencies. 9. Social impact bond markets have been aligned to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to create new financial instruments for channelling global capital. The Impact Management Project features over 2,000 of the world’s largest asset holders, all of whom have a vested interest in seeing human relations run through digital technologies to generate data for their deals. Education is Sustainable Development Goal 4. Blockchain education is a central focus of both the European Union and the OECD. Pilot programs using blockchain transcripts are underway in the United States in Dallas and Tulsa and at Southern New Hampshire University. For complete list of practitioners click here. Even though ICT relies on rare minerals mined by child labor and creates problematic e-waste, device-based education is prioritized by the global elite. They demand the human capital data metrics. Source MIT has been a leader in prototyping alternative credentials on blockchain through Learning Machine, now Hyland Credentials. They are also in the vanguard of developing global digital currencies in addition to being a leader in emerging technology development, much of it tied to US defense interests. Blockcerts was the platform used at SNHU by Paul LeBlanc who is also an advisor to Ridge Lane LP, a merchant banking firm investing in this sector. Source 10. In order to assess their outcomes-based contracting deals, impact investors must compare inputs with outputs. This means transitioning to a system of education finance where funding follows the student. They will call it student-centered funding, and it will likely be weighted funding where larger allocations go to students with more complex learning needs, which will make those children more attractive to digital snake oil salesmen. The first phase involved pilots of education savings accounts (ESAs). I expect these will eventually be replaced with digital vouchers and e-wallets on blockchain. This concept was floated in a 2017 report by the Joint Research Centre for the European Commission, Blockchain Education. The Heritage Foundation was also talking about this in 2017. With Covid, the shift to learning ecosystems, cyber home schooling, and micro-schools has sped up. I anticipate there will be considerable pressure from families wanting to escape the system, and that will push the expansion of educational voucher programs. The obvious model is Arizona’s ESA, which is attached to a debit card and can be used to purchase a variety of education-related materials and services. What people don’t yet understand is that no money from the government comes without strings. Utilizing these vouchers will surely require adoption of standardized curriculum and sharing of impact data. That’s the whole reason they are dismantling the current system – to unbundle everything and unlock opportunities to run capital through expansive new education investment markets tied to United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4. All of it will run on data and all of that data will be stored on blockchain. They will tell you blockchain credentials and transcripts are about “convenience” and “privacy.” They don’t want you to know online education systems are steeped in military research and development. They don’t want you to know blockchain education vouchers will be tied to social impact metrics. They don’t want you to know micro-credentials and artificial intelligence-mediated human resource platforms will catalyze race-to-the-bottom globalized slave labor. They don’t want you to know they will put our entire life on blockchain, risk-profiling and threat-scoring children as fodder for their gig economy. They don’t want you to know about behavior modification programs that use virtual and augmented reality to track compliance on blockchain. They don’t want you to know debt agreements tied to perpetual re-skilling will be put on blockchain as well. Blockchain is the ledger that will run biocapitalism. The plan of Klaus Schwab and the Davos elite is to create a world for themselves and their robots with a few non-billionaires tasked with keeping the blockchain up and running. Don’t allow them to blockchain you or your children. To stop the matrix, we must collectively refuse blockchain now. Please share this information with your community and consider passing a resolution modeled after the one adopted by the NAACP. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. What comes after the left / right paradigm, if anything? In Need Of Repair – Possibilities on Sacred Land Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pandemic is crime, we have the evidence!https://ecoterra.info/index.php/en/2049-corona-committee-of-inquiry-in-germany
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AFTER OVER 50 SESSIONSThe Corona Committee was founded in June 2020 on the initiative of four lawyers experienced in litigation. Since then, weekly hearings have been held to document and process the scientific, political as well as economic contexts surrounding the Corona events. We summarize the main findings of these hearings of now almost 200 experts from science and practice as follows: 1. PCR tests, as a sole diagnostic tool, are not capable of reliably detecting infections or diseases. They also do not produce sufficient reason for this assumption as long as the CT value and the tested nucleic acids are not strictly defined and sensibly adjusted. 2. The lethality of COVID-19 has been shown (demonstrated in meta-studies by Prof. John P. Ioannidis and others) to be in the range of annual influenza, which can also be fatal for certain age groups and people with pre-existing conditions. 3. The usefulness of lockdowns has not been sufficiently proven scientifically. This urgently needs to be given a neutral weighting by experts. On the other hand, there are numerous studies on the collateral damage caused by lockdowns. 4. The vaccines currently available against COVID-19 are only subject to conditional approval due to the assumed emergency situation, which also means that under “normal” circumstances they would never have been approved in their present form . However, the emergency situation required for such an accelerated approach does not exist worldwide, as can be easily understood from the data in the official databases (RKI, ECC, CC, etc.). This prohibits the widespread use of this experimental treatment, as currently propagated by politicians, especially in children and adolescents. — UPDATE 28. May 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 54 – “In between Nudging and the Side-Effects” 11h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: ‘Vaccination Mania’ victim Ramona Klüglein (had been injected with AstraZeneka-Oxford), teacher Bianca Höltje (principal of an elementary school), former Naval Officer Brian Gerrish (investigative journalist, public speaker), Dr. Astrid Stückelberger (International Health Expert), physician and lawyer Dr. Simone Gold (Founder American Frontline Doctors), and lung specialist and internist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (pneumologist and social physician, former member of parliament) as medical-scientific advisor. (German / English) – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !) – in German and English– PLUS: Exklusive-Interview and Diskussion with James Corbett (Corbett-Report)(original plus a version with German translation) UPDATE 21. May 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 53 – “Self-determination” 11h CETNO – I DO NOT CONSENT !!! Corona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Attorney Wilfried Schmitz (lawyer), lawyer and book-author Andreas v. Bühlow (former Minister of Defense, State Secretary and Member of Parliament), historian Tobias Otto (focus on constitutional history), Prof. Dr. med. Hans-Joachim Maaz (psychiatrist and psychoanalyst), Dr. rer. nat. Dietmar Czycholl (psychologist and psychological psychotherapist) – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 15. Mai 2021: GLOBAL PROTEST LIVETREAMS + THE PEOPLE STAND UPUPDATE 14. May 2021: LIVESTREAM #Special Session Part 3 – “International Legal Offensive – Part 3” 15h CET (Session in English, German) + Session with German translationModerators: Attorney Dr. Reiner Füllmich (lawyer for consumer protection) and Attorney Viviane Fischer (lawyer and economist)Corona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Attorney Gina Cloud (USA), Restaurant owner Tony Roman (StayOpen activist – California/USA), Attorney Ellie Dilmann (Australia), Attorney Peter Weis (Slovakia), Attorney K. Michael Verstraeten (Belgium), Climatologist Suji Hameed (India and Japan), Attorney Alexis Stylianou (Cyprus) – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 14. May 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 52 – “Carrot and Stick” 11h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Dr. Josef Thoma (ear, nose and throat specialist), Lawyer’s and notary’s assistant Franziska Nicolau (office management criminal defence law firm), Physician Eugen Janzen (paediatrician), as well as lung specialist and internist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (pneumologist and sociomedician, former member of parliament) as medical-scientific advisor – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 07. May 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 51 – “The Reality Check” 10h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Alkje Fontes (Political party Chairwoman dieBasis – Saxony-Anhalt), Godrun Fontes (Political party Candidate dieBasis – Saxony-Anhalt), Media critic Olaf Kretschmann (founder of the initiative Rundfunk-frei), Constitutional lawyer Prof. Dr Dietrich Murswiek (expert on constitutional law, administrative law and international law), Attorney Wilfried Schmitz (lawyer), Nurse Steffi (co-founder of the Telegram channel Nursing and Hospital Staff for Awareness), Florian (nurse on a Corona isolation ward), Christiane (nurse on a Corona isolation ward), as well as lung specialist and internist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (pneumologist and sociomedician, former member of parliament) as medical-scientific advisor – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !)+ Whistleblower interview (profession: paramedic) on vaccination consequences, COVID-19 induced suicides etc.UPDATE 30. April 2021: LIVESTREAM #Special Session Part 2 – “International Legal Offensive – Part 2” 16h CET (Session in English with interpretation from Greek)
Moderators: Attorney Dr. Reiner Füllmich (lawyer for consumer protection) and Attorney Viviane Fischer (lawyer and economist) as well as Greek interpreter Maria Ardawani.Corona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Attorney at Law Antonio Papantoniou (Lawyer – Greece), Attorney Jean-Pierre Joseph (Lawyer – France), Pastor Dr John Mosepele (Pastor – South Africa), Uriel Cohen (NGO Representative Israeli People’s Committee – Israel), Advocte Ms. Rotem Brown (Lawyer and Activist – Israel), Lawyer Tamir Tugal (Advocate of an Activist group of lawyers and doctors – Israel), Attorney Tom Renz (Lawyer – USA / New Mexico), Journalist Werner Gertz (Economic Correspondent – Namibia), H.G. King Lemuel G. (South Africa). – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 30. April 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 50 – “SOLIDARITY!” 13h CET – 16h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Journalist and author Ken Jebsen (publisher KenFM), Attorney at Law Dr. Gerhard Strate (Defence Lawyer – Hamburg), High school teacher Thomas A. Pallushek (Head of the German School Chennai), Law Scholar Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab (Legal Historian Univ. Bielefeld), as well as lung specialist and internist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (pneumologist and sociomedician, former member of parliament) as medical-scientific advisor – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 23. April 2021: LIVESTREAM #Special Session Part 1 – “International Legal Offensive – Part 1” 17h CET (Session in English, partly in Español and/or Deutsch)Moderators: Attorney Dr. Reiner Füllmich (lawyer for consumer protection) and Attorney Viviane Fischer (lawyer and economist) as well as Christina from Chile as translator.Corona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Attorney Dr. Renate Holzeisen (Tyrol), Lawyer Francis E. Hoar (United Kingdom), Lawyer Dominic Desjarlais (Canada), Attorney Ana Garner (USA-New Mexico), Economist Leslie Manookian, MBA (President of the Health Freedom Defense Fund – USA), Attorney Andrea Steindl (Extra-Parliamentary Investigation Committee Austria, Lawyers for Fundamental Rights Austria – Vaccination Group), Lawyer Gerold Beneder (Extra-Parliamentary Investigation Committee Austria), Lawyer Dr. Michael Brunner (Lawyers for Fundamental Rights Austria), Attorney Miguel Luis Marcelo Iannolfi (lawyer and medical doctor – Argentina), Advocate Dr. Gustavo Salle Lorier (legal and social scientist, Doctors for Truth – Uruguay), Attorney Natalia Ravanales (Human Rights Lawyer – Chile), Attorney Michael Swinwood (Lead Council of the Class Actions in Canada – Canada, Peru) – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 23. April 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 49 – “The Oath of Disclosure” 15h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Lawyer Hans-Christian Prestien (former youth and family judge), Legal scholar Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab (legal historian Univ. Bielefeld), Dr. Justus P. Hoffmann (lawyer for medical law), spokesperson for a group of teachers Antonio Solo (stellv. Board of the Soest district association of the party dieBasis), lawyer Antonia Fischer (Berlin), as well as lung specialist and internist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (pneumologist and sociomedician, former member of parliament) as medical-scientific advisor – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 16. April 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 48 – “Of Lionesses and Lions” 11h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Lawyer Hans-Christian Prestien (former youth and family judge), Attorney Dr. Justus P. Hoffmann (lawyer for medical law), Managing Director Isabell Flaig (Pflegezentrum Kirchheim GmbH), Dipl.-Pädagogin Carola Hüttner (former teacher and chairperson of the association Kinder für Weltfrieden e.V.), Antonya-Fé Moll (educator and beauty salon owner), Psychologist Prof. Dr. Franz Ruppert (psychotherapist with a focus on psychotraumatology), Economist Dr. Ulf Steinecke (major event organiser and managing director Go2 Convent GmbH), Managing Director Christine Bögl (concept store operator), Restaurant Operator Tobias Fink (Restaurant s’Reiwerle), as well as Internist and lung specialist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (pneumologist and sociomedician, former member of parliament) as medical-scientific advisor – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 09. April 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 47 – “Expose & Tackle” 11h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Law Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab (Legal Historian Univ. Bielefeld), Rabbi Chananya Weissman (Orthodox Rabbi and author in Israel), entrepreneur Sabine Lehmann (Managing Director Lehmann GmbH, 14 employees), Attorney Mark Templin (Berlin, Germany), Axel Turck (CEO EMIL TURCK GmbH & CIE. KG), Helmut Ohlhoff (Managing Director Leguano GmbH), Hendrik Pahl (Managing Director Battle-Merchant Wacken GmbH), High school teacher Ingo Ritter (mathematics, physics), as well as internist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (pneumologist and sociomedical specialist) as medical-scientific advisor – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 02. April 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 46 – “Fear is Curable” 17h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Law Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab (Legal Historian Univ. Bielefeld), Psychology Prof. Dr. Torsten Schubert (Psychoneuroimmunologist, Psycholanalyst, Neuropsychology at the Institute for Psychology at the University of Halle – Saale), Psychologist, Medical Researcher as well as Historian and Philosopher of Science Prof. Dr. Harald Walach (Professor for Research Methodology in Complementary Medicine at the European University Viadrina Frankfurt-Oder), Business and Social Psychologist Katy Pracher-Hilander (management consultant), Meditation teacher Wolfgang Maly (psychological facilitator) – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de. Practical example of a recommended exercise – duration 25 min. (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 26. March 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 45 – “Can Arithmetics be a Sin?” 11h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Specialist in general medicine Dr. med. Rüdiger Pötsch (former Chairman of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians), mathematician and statistician Prof. Dr. Stephan Luckhaus (former member of the Leopoldina Academy and its Senator for Mathematics), Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi (Specialist in Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Microbiology), business and social psychologist Katy Pracher-Hilander (management consultant), as well as internist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (pneumologist and sociomedical specialist) as medical-scientific advisor – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de. (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 19. March 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 44 – “The Roots of EVIL” 11h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Law Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab (legal historian, University of Bielefeld), lawyer Hans-Christian Prestien (former judge, member of the board of the KinderSchutzBund, family law expert), toxicologist Dr. Michael (Mike) Yeadon (former Vice-President Research of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer), Vera Sharav (founder of the Alliance for Human Research Protection), IT specialist Hendrik Pötzschke (IT specialist) – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de. (Get involved with your good questions !)UPDATE 12. March 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 43 – “Once Fascism and Back” 10h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Human rights activist Ilana Rachel Daniel (health advisor / politician – Israel), psychologist Prof. Dr. Ludwig Lind (moral philosopher), book author Walter van Rossum (author for WDR, Df, FAZ), attack-victim Ricky Matyschiock (kiosk owner in Sömmerda), filmmaker Robert Cibis (Oval Media), author Dirk Pohlman (documentary filmmaker), writer and author Dr. Naomi Wolf (journalist and activist), as well as lung specialist and hygienist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg as medical-scientific advisor and public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.de (Get involved with your good questions !)– with important whistleblower-video: Only one in 98 examined patient data sets showed correct diagnosis, proper assessment and appropriate treatment of COVID-19 patients.UPDATE 05. March 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 42 – “The Systemic Crisis” 10h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Lawyer Wilfried Schmitz (consumer protection advocate), lawyer Luis de Miguel Ortega (Spain) with Jens Biermann, Dr. Angel Ruiz (medical doctor in Spain), ‘Mateo’ (Police for Freedom), Prof. Dr. Michael Esfeld (philosopher of science, Univ. Lausanne and member of the Leopoldina), Prof. Dr. Dr. Francis A. Boyle (human rights lawyer, specialist of the Biological Weapons Conventions), as well as lung specialist and hygienist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg as medical-scientific advisor.UPDATE 26. February 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 41 – “Troy Is Everywhere” 11h CETCorona Investigative Committee hears the experts: RA Dr. Reiner Füllmich (consumer protection lawyer) on the status quo of the class action and the lawsuits, Law historian Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab (law scientist), Administrative Lawyer Dr. Silvia Behrendt (Pandemic and WHO legal expert, Austria), Dr. Astrid Stücklberger (international health scientist), Publicist and politician Vera Lengsfeld (CDU, member of the Values Commission) – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.dePlus WHISTLEBLOWER VIDEO FROM THE CAREHOME with subtitles in EnglishUPDATE 17. February 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 40 – “The Great Recall” (German/English): in German: 13-18h CET and international part: from 19h CET (with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)
Corona Investigative Committee hears the experts – Part I: former official physician as well as EU and FRG deputy Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (internist, pneumologist and social physician), civil-law specialist and Univ.-Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab (Law-Scientist), Attorney at Law Tobias Ulbrich (consumer protection lawyer), Anthropologist Dr. Matthias Burchardt (educational philosopher), legal counsel and education-developer Thomas Pallushek (founder of a German School and head of the International Academy in Chennai / India) – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.dePart 2: Lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (Children’s Health Defence), Attorney Mary Holland (Children’s Health Defence), Attorney Mag. Dr. Gernold Beneder (Lawyers for Enlightenment & ACU Extra-Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, Austria), Lawyer Dr. Michael Brunner (Lawyers for Enlightenment, Austria), Attorney Beate Bahner (Medical Law Specialist, Heidelberg, Germany), Attorney Markus Hainz (Attorneys for Awareness, Ulm, Germany), Attorney Mark Templin (Berlin, Germany), Lawyer Ralf Ludwig (Germany), Attorney Tobias Ulbrich (consumer protection lawyer, Germany), Judge Dr. Angelo Giorgiani (former Anti-Mafia Prosecutor, Organizzazione Mondiale della Vita, Italy), Attorney Dr. Renate Holzeisen (Tyrol), Journalist Senta Depuydt (Children’s Health Defence, Belgium, France), Attorney Jeroen Pols (Netherlands), Lawyer Stephanie Biazoli (European Parliament), Attorney and Constructor Jens Biermann (Spain, Germany), Lawyer Tamir Tugal (Israel).WITH LIVE-VIDEO-CLIP OF THE ‘VACCINATION’ ATROCITIES IN A BERLIN NURSING HOMEUPDATE 12. February 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 39 – “The global context and the press: Russia, Sweden, Italy, etc.” (German/English)IMPORTANT ALERT: Video-interview with a whitleblower from a nursing home with forced ‘vaccinations’ of the eldery by a German army vaccination-team in military uniform and subsequent death of those vaccinated with the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA’vaccine’. Legal proceedings underway. WARNING TO ALL!!! Norway already stopped such inoculations.Corona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Engineer and big-data analyst Marius Krämer (Peru), Eastern Europe expert and media critic Thomas Röper (Russia), biochemist and pediatrics professor Prof. Dr. Björn Hammerskjöld (Academy of Strömstad), Judge Dr. Angelo Giorgiani (former Anti-Mafia Prosecutor, Organizzazione Mondiale della Vita, Italy), Attorney Dr. Renate Holzeisen (Tyrol), Lawyer Annu Palmu – former senior legal counsel of Nokia Mobile Phones, Finland) – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.deDr. Wolfgang Wodarg UPDATE 05. February 2021: LIVESTREAM #Session 38 – “Attack on the Human and Society” (German/English)Corona Investigative Committee hears the experts: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer (molecular biologist), former high school teacher Gunnar Kaiser (philosopher, writer and vlog author), molecular biologist Markus Fiedler (investigated Wikipedia and other opinion-manipulating platforms), investment banker Catherine Austin-Fitts (frm. Asst. Secr. of Housing, USA, solari.com) as well as pulmonary specialist and hygienist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg as medical-scientific consultant – with public participation | https://corona-ausschuss.deUPDATE 02. February 2021: Urgent message from Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi (live January 25th, 2021)
|
| In Sweden no change in mortality to all the years before |
===
Watch Censored WORLD DOCTORS ALLIANCE Announce Lawsuit Against COVID-19 Global Lockdown
banned.video/watch?id=5f89e0dc32cdbe13b341a897
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY THE GERMAN CORONA INVESTIGATION
https://worlddoctorsalliance.com/blog/crimes-against-humanity-the-german-corona-investigation/
https://worlddoctorsalliance.com/
https://acu2020.org/english-versions/
Pharma Death Clock website launched:
How many millions of people Big Pharma has killed since January 1, 2000 ?https://www.naturalnews.com/052613_pharma_death_clock_medication_side_effects_prescription_drug_deaths.html
BIG PHARMA’S CHEMICAL WARFARE ON HUMANITY DWARFS THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS KILLED BY ALL WORLD WARS AND ACTS OF TERRORISM COMBINED…
While drug companies profit billions, people are dying by the millions.
https://pharmadeathclock.com/
Interviewer
Ulf Bittner
You can read more about and by Ulf Bittner
eueeshealthcare.bloggproffs.se/
Further more interviews / conversations in the SWEDEN REVIEW series
@ulf-bittner
===
•Oct 15, 2020 [DELETED BY THE CRIMINAL CENSORS OF GooTube]
BACKUP
Re-ublished on BITCHUTE October 17th, 2020.
WHO just published Dr. Ionniadis study. Conclusion: “The inferred infection fatality rates tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic.
===
As expected, Youtube (better knows as GooTube) – the now biggest internet censor without brains – deleted this video when it had reached 1.5 million views, but we have plenty of backups.
Eric E. Schmidt and Larry (Lawrence Edward) Page of Alphabet Inc. who own Google and its Youtube will now be sued for the unbelievable havoc they create by forcing their tracker-dogs to take Youtube content down, though these brainless minders have no scientfic qualification whatsoever and only follow the BigPharma narrative.
•Oct 3, 2020 [In case YouTube deletes this video: BACKUP on BITCHUTE and on BRANDNEWTUBE ]
English: Mirror 1 | Mirror 2 | Mirror 3 | Mirror 4 |
Spanish: crímenes contra la humanidad – en español
German: Money Talks V – Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit
VERBRECHEN GEGEN DIE MENSCHLICHKEIT (DR. REINER FUELLMICH)
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and the #coronavirus investigative committee have prepared a class action for fraud and crimes against humanity. https://www.corona-schadensersatzklage.de/
German Lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich says that along with an international panel of attorneys, they are planning to file a class action lawsuit in the USA / or Canada against the perpetrators of the coronavirus scam based on notoriously useless PCR tests.
Clients from First Nations and Developing Nations can contact to get advise how to join. For Africa please contact
===
Hundred of experts heard, thousands of testimonies scrutinized and compiled – the SCA Commission of Inquiry is determined to bring the culprits to justice and to get compensation for the victims.
===
The COVID-19 test is scientific fraud
A list of arguments that illustrate the COVID-19 test, and PCR in general as a test, is scientific fraud.
wickedtruths.org
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
NO VIRUS ISOLATE IS EXISTNG:
https://markfarnelltruther.wordpress.com/2020/10/14/covid-19-does-not-exist-and-never-has
•Oct 10, 2020 – surely deleted by GooTube
What if there was a lie so pervasive, so effective, so powerful that almost everyone believed it? What if that lie was destroying people who believed it but mainstream media did nothing to expose it? What if the people who propagated this lie admitted it AFTER major global damage was done? Share this video with everybody you care about.
BACKUP
First published on BITCHUTE October 11th, 2020.
What if there was a lie so pervasive, so effective, so powerful that almost everyone believed it? What if that lie was destroying people who believed it but mainstream media did nothing to expose it? What if the people who propagated this lie admitted it AFTER major global damage was done? Share this video with everybody you care about.
Architect of the PCR test had no coronavirus ….
===
The Whistleblower Newsroom, a platform by whistleblowers, for whistleblowers and about whistleblowers with journalists Celia Farber, Kristina Borjesson and their whistleblowing guests Who stood up for the truth when others wouldn’t.
A GLOBAL FRAUD: LAWYER DR. REINER FUELLMICH AND THE GERMAN CORONA INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE SEEK ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FRAUDULENT VIRUS TESTING AND MASSIVE DESTRUCTION OF ECONOMIES AND LIVES.
Dr. Fuellmich talks about how his Committee is seeking to file an international class action suit for crimes perpetrated by those who he says used fraudulent testing to engineer a fraudulent pandemic and how more than 50 other countries so far are following suit.
Page | Direct Link | Download
===
•Aug 28, 2020 – Money Talks – www. corona-schadensersatzklage.de
Rechtsanwalt Marcel Templin
Kreuzbergstraße 72, 10965 Berlin
E-Mail:
Fax: 030 – 383 05 364
===
•Jul 27, 2020 [whole Channel delete by GooTube)
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, lawyer in Germany since 1993, licensed in California / USA since 1994, consumer protection lawyer, especially against banks, since 1991.
Contact: https://www.fuellmich.com/kontakt/ & YT-Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJB8…
● Lawyers have set up the C. Committee Foundation. It will investigate why federal and state governments have imposed unprecedented restrictions and what the consequences are for people. The foundation also promotes scientific studies in this area. The committee is headed by the lawyers Antonia Fischer and Viviane Fischer and the lawyers Dr. Reiner Füllmich and Dr. Justus Hoffmann. Accompanying experts from science and practice include the forensic scientist Prof. Pasquale Mario Bacco, the psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Dr. Hans Joachim Maaz, the nursing expert Adelheid von Stösser, the experimental immunologist Prof. emeritus Peter Capel, the clinical psychologist Prof. Dr. Harald Walach.
Known for his work in the swine flu investigation committee Wolfgang Wodarg (former medical officer, Member of the Bundestag, pneumologist and health scientist) will support the work of the committee.
===
– if your browser cries a Warning, you can just ignore and override it – the site and download are safe –
===
===
•Oct 25, 2020 – LOCKDOWNS HAVE NO BENEFITS! [original source OF VIDEO]
Nober-Prize winner Prof. John Ioannidis is the C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention, Professor of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, and (by courtesy) of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics; co-Director, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).
Vincent Chin, John Ioannidis, Martin Tanner, Sally Cripps
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.22.20160341
In this paper, we compare the inference regarding the effectiveness of the various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for COVID-19 obtained from three SIR models, all developed by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team. One model was applied to European countries and published in Nature (model 1), concluding that complete lockdown was by far the most effective measure, responsible for 80% of the reduction in R_t, and 3 million deaths were avoided in the examined countries. The Imperial College team applied a different model to the USA states (model 2), and in response to our original submission, the Imperial team has proposed in a referee report a third model which is a hybrid of the first two models (model 3).
We demonstrate that inference is highly nonrobust to model specification. In particular, inference regarding the relative effectiveness of NPIs changes substantially with the model and decision makers who are unaware of, or ignore, model uncertainty are underestimating the risk attached to any decisions based on that model. Our primary observation is that by applying to European countries the model that the Imperial College team used for the USA states (model 2), complete lockdown has no or little effect, since it was introduced typically at a point when R_t was already very low. Moreover, using several state-of-the-art metrics for Bayesian model comparison, we demonstrate that model 2 (when applied to the European data) is better supported by the data than the model published in Nature. In particular, serious doubt is cast on the conclusions in Flaxman et al., whether we examine the data up to May 5th (as in Flaxman et al.) or beyond the point when NPIs began to be lifted.
Only by objectively considering a wide variety of models in a statistically principled manner, can one begin to address the effectiveness of NPIs such as lockdown. The approach outlined in this paper provides one such path.
===
By TLB 20. October 2020
We published a Julian Rose article on this topic, of rushing risky GMO-based vaccines to market, back in July titled Towards a Totalitarian Regime? European Commission Adopts GMO Vaccine to Combat Non Existent Covid-19 Virus.
Here we’re reissuing the introduction to that piece as background to the current legal action to stop temporary relaxation of the safety protocols for the clinical trials and manufacture of a GMO-based covid vaccine, permitted under EU regulation 2020/1043. This regulation was adopted in emergency circumstances on July 15, 2020 without either parliamentary debate or scientific consultation:
In a panic to get a covid vaccine out, the European Commission is planning exemptions to established safety rules concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is the topic of Julian Rose’s article below. The vote in the European Parliament to permit this fast-tracking and exceptional status of vaccine trials and products containing GMOs occurred on July 7, 2020. Here is the press release issued on the same day: Parliament to allow COVID-19 vaccines to be developed more quickly.
We remind readers of the coalition of four EU countries formed – as the Inclusive Vaccines Alliance – to ensure it is European-made vaccines that are are delivered within the EU.
Addressing the issue, this report from Euractiv comes from June 18, 2020 (EU goes easy on GMOs in race for COVID-19 vaccine):
As part of its new vaccine strategy, the European Commission has proposed to temporarily relax the EU’s strict rules on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in order to speed up the search for a COVID-19 vaccine and cure.
Brussels is ready to loosen its stance on GMOs in order to avoid bottlenecks in clinical trials for a coronavirus vaccine involving multiple countries.
Current GMO legislation does not foresee situations of urgency, resulting in very complex and time-consuming procedures, the Commission argues, saying “there is considerable variety across member states in the national requirements and procedures implementing the GMO directives.”
Potential vaccines currently under development by pharmaceutical companies such as Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson contain or consist of GMOs.
The proposed derogation, which still needs to be voted by the European Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers, will last for as long as COVID-19 is regarded as a public health emergency, the Commission said.
The relaxed rules will apply not only for clinical trials on a COVID-19 vaccine but also for treatments, the Commission’s communication reads, although compliance with good manufacturing practices (GMPs) and an environmental risk assessment of the products will still be carried out before their marketing authorisation.
The Commission called on the EU’s co-legislators to adopt the proposal swiftly in order to enable clinical trials to take place in Europe as quickly as possible.
German MEP Peter Liese, European People’s Party (EPP) spokesperson for health, agreed with the Commission’s push on passing the derogation as soon as possible, saying that it needs to be done before the summer break. …
This report from Reuters of June 10, 2020 (Exclusive: Europe to accelerate trials of gene-engineered COVID-19 vaccines – sources) makes it clear that individual nations’ safety protocols concerning vaccines and other medicines are to be superseded:
… The reform is expected to reduce member states’ power to impose extra requirements on drug companies when they conduct clinical trials on medicines and vaccines containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), according to the sources.
In some countries like Italy and France, for example, treatments must receive authorization from government environment or research departments, as well as from health and drug authorities, under rules that are up to 20 years old and also cover the more publicly sensitive area of GMO crops.
This has long caused bottlenecks in a pharmaceutical industry that increasingly relies on genetic engineering.
Such delays could be particularly problematic now that Europe may quickly need to accelerate trials, an EU Commission official said, warning that some of the most promising COVID-19 shots under development contain GMOs. …
It is also clear from the Reuters’ piece that it is simply corporations fearing loss of market share in Europe in relation to other big pharma competitors, public health be damned:
The European Commission is expected to put forward the plans as early as next week. They are part of a wider EU strategy aimed at securing enough doses of a possible vaccine for the bloc as it fears lagging behind the United States and China.
Finally, this article from early 2018 (Why Does Europe Lag Behind the US and China in the Gene Editing Race?) explains how European biotechs are at a regulatory disadvantage in terms of getting out gene-edited medical products.
********
****
Represented by Mr. Guillaume TUMERELLE, lawyer (link), six associations and groups of citizens have filed an action for annulment against the European regulation concerning the vaccine.
The applicants are:
La Coordination nationale médicale sante environnement (CNMSE), European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance (EFVV), Children’s Health Defense Europe, La Ligue Nationale Pour la Liberté des Vaccinations (LNPV), International Association for Independent and Benevolent Scientific Medicine, Terra SOS-Tenible.
Thus, specific measures to control the risk related to genetic modification of living organisms are no longer applied in this area.
The stated objective of this suppression is to gain a few weeks in the eventual development of a vaccine. Risk analyses and control measures are therefore being eliminated for the sole purpose of speeding up the process. Before submitting its project, the Commission did not carry out any scientific consultation to analyze the risk, particularly in relation to new genetic modification techniques.
However, it is clearly established that genetic modification of living organisms, in particular microorganisms artificially modified to be injected into humans, presents numerous risks, in particular the risk of recombination of potentially more virulent viruses, or the risk of interactions with human DNA causing random and unknown diseases.
This elimination of all risk assessment measures and all biosafety control measures for the environment and for health is contrary to the precautionary principle, a fundamental principle of the European Union’s operating treaty and a constitutional principle of French law. This abolition of the guards is also contrary to the interest and health of citizens. Obtaining a useful and safe vaccine that is not dangerous is incompatible with the urgency and suppression of risk control measures.
The associations denounce this arbitrary suppression of risk control measures that constitute an indispensable protection of health and the environment. Public policies cannot be guided by fear, by immediate events of false urgency, but must respect the health of the citizen and provide all guarantees.
The applicant associations have therefore filed an action for annulment with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in order to obtain the annulment of this European regulation.
This confirms the statements made by Michèle Rivasil in her interview on September 7, where she explained that this decision was taken in secret in the European Parliament.
The press release is reproduced below:
On October 10, six associations in Europe filed an action for annulment before the European Court of Justice against a regulation abolishing the risk assessment of GMOs for vaccines against Covid 19.
Regulation 2020/1043, adopted this summer by the Union, allows producers of vaccines and anti-Covid19 treatments containing GMOs to dispense with the need to produce an environmental impact and biosafety study before the start of clinical trials. Published on July 17, the text was adopted by the European Parliament under an emergency procedure, without amendments or debate. This exception to the GMO legislation is contrary to the precautionary principle provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
These GMO vaccines against Covid 19, for which clinical trials have begun, present very real risks. The report by molecular geneticist Cristian Velot du Criigen, reminds us that they could lead to viral recombinations potentially more serious than the viruses that we are trying to fight with the vaccine, impacting animal life and human health. The risks of interaction with human DNA or the introduction of new genetic technologies may have unknown, potentially serious and irreversible consequences. In other words, no specific measures will be applied to control the risk of genetic modification of living beings.
The six requesting associations – CNMSE, Terra SOS Tenible, LNPLV, EFVV, AIMSIB, Children’s Health Defense Europe – denounce this dangerous experimentation, both for the participants in clinical trials and for the human population and the environment, and demand the immediate application of the precautionary principle, in compliance with the rules of law.
“Having had the chance to organize, under the aegis of the Ile-de-France Regional Council, an innovative experiment on personalized vaccination, I discovered highly toxic molecules and pesticides in the composition of vaccines. It therefore seems essential to me that the implementation of any new vaccine against Covid be exemplary and that all the essential steps be particularly respected” explains Dr Dominique Eraud, President of the National Medical Coordination Health Environment (CNMSE).
“The implementation of this regulation must be stopped immediately. EU Regulation 2020/1043 is fundamentally a regulation against life, reason, law, justice and science, since even the Commission, after bypassing all democratic controls, did not have the moral decency to ask for a scientific opinion,” says Josefina Fraile, President of Terra SoS Tenible.
“By publishing this regulation, the European institutions are giving the European Union member states the right to put in place dangerous, even biocidal, legislative measures that should be denounced,” emphasizes Jean-Pierre Eudier, President of the National League for Vaccination Freedom (LNPLV).
For Dr. Kris Gaublomme, President of the European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance (EFFV):
“We denounce the drift of European States towards authoritarianism, control and restriction of fundamental rights, through systematic derogations to the rules of law under the pretext of the Covid-19 epidemic, which we see particularly with the EU2020/1043 regulation. Our recourse to the Court of Justice of the European Union aims at enforcing the rules of law.”
“The European authority is offering a blank cheque to the pharmaceutical industry to bring to market new GM drug and vaccine technologies for which not all the studies demonstrating safety have been carried out. It is the patients in these conditions who serve as guinea pigs and we, as doctors, refuse this state of affairs” insists Philippe Harvault, President of the International Association for Independent and Caring Scientific Medicine (AIMSIB).
Finally, according to attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President of Children’s Health Defense Europe,
“The need to consider different types of risks before starting clinical trials of vaccines that will be accelerated and widely distributed cannot be underestimated. Vaccines using genetically modified organisms can have an impact on the environment. Other vaccines being considered for Covid 19, such as mRNA vaccines, use nanoparticles to introduce genetic material into our cells and program their response. Unlike the vaccines we know about, this mechanism is a form of “hacking” into our genetic functioning. It is an entirely new experimental technology about which we know very little. Many people have already experienced serious side effects in clinical trials with Covid vaccines under development. To allow and continue such experiments without any evaluation and without debate about the long-term risk they pose to our health or their ethical aspects is irresponsible and reckless. Urgency should not lead to blind decisions. Our political leaders have a duty to ensure that the precautionary principle is respected, otherwise we will all be in danger.”
************
===
OCTOBER 16, 2020 – In the midst of the sweeping socioeconomic devastation wrought by COVID-19 restrictions, one field, sadly, is booming: mental health. Many mental health professionals are reporting high demand and record caseloads, including more young clients who need help coping with the unprecedented convergence of fear, uncertainty, disruption to routine, physical and social isolation, increased time indoors and parental stress.
Experts and parents are expressing concern that COVID-19 may have damaging long-term repercussions for the young. Many children are already exhibiting signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a syndrome typically associated with events such as wars, natural disasters, or physical or sexual abuse. PTSD symptoms include increased negative thoughts and feelings, problems sleeping or concentrating, and “feeling more on guard or unsafe.” Trauma experts are suggesting that the mental health toll of the pandemic may be “far greater than previous mass traumas,” even exceeding the psychological impact of “large-scale traumas like Hurricane Katrina, September 11 or the Hong Kong unrest.” What’s worse, whereas a natural disaster is “limited to a specific time and place,” the coronavirus pandemic is “everywhere, and it doesn’t appear to have an end date.”
Experts are ready to admit that children’s current distress is a serious problem, but few seem willing to discuss the most obvious solution, which is to call an end to the demonstrably unwarranted lockdowns, school closures, edicts and fear-mongering that are proving so damaging to children’s psyches. Instead, a Yale child psychiatrist who acknowledges that there has been “a steady climb in the percentage of parents who worry about their children’s mental health” has only one suggestion — that parents should “spoil” their young children and be tolerant of kids’ “shenanigans” until “after the vaccine” — and then go back to expecting better behavior.
Alarming studies, escalating stress
Mental health researchers began documenting children’s skyrocketing anxiety and depression almost as soon as social isolation, masking and physical distancing measures began to be imposed. In a Wuhan-based study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), just one month of home confinement doubled Chinese schoolchildren’s anxiety levels (from 9% to 19%), prompting the investigators’ conclusion that “serious infectious diseases may influence the mental health of children as other traumatic experiences do.”
In the U.S., an October study published in Pediatrics indicated that three months of restrictions (March through May) had a similar impact on children as well as their parents. One in four U.S. parents (27%) reported a decline in their own mental health, and about one in seven (14%) perceived a corresponding decline in their children’s behavioral health.
Commenting on the study, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Virginia speculated that the survey might represent “the tip of the iceberg,” noting that “Every layer of protection for children’s well-being has been weakened or eliminated by the pandemic.” According to this psychiatrist, the most crucial “buffers” are the parents, but in a Canadian study that collected data in early May, seven in 10 pregnant and postpartum moms reported anxiety, and four in ten reported depression. Children have also been cut off from vital community resources that ordinarily form additional “layers of protection” — churches, recreational opportunities and schools. As of April, more than 90% of the world’s enrolled students had been affected by school closures.
Considering North America’s adolescents and young adults, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that during the month of June, three-fourths of 18-24-year-olds reported at least one adverse mental or behavioral health condition, and a dismaying one in four had seriously considered suicide that month. In a Canadian survey, nearly three out of five 15-17-year-olds (57%) rated their mental health as “somewhat worse” or “much worse” than before physical distancing began, while the proportion of 15-24-year-olds rating their mental health as “excellent” or “very good” was 20% lower than in 2018. Additional Canadian research found that 10-17-year-olds “primarily and intensely” report feeling both bored and lonely.
Similarly troubling trends are apparent across the pond, where, just one month into the UK’s lockdown (as reported in July in “The Lancet”), young people aged 16-24 displayed large increases in already high levels of clinically significant mental distress — from 24.5% the year before COVID-19 to 37% by April 2020. Parents of preschool-age children were a second group experiencing a steep rise in mental distress — a trend that does not bode well for small children. Moreover, as the authors of the UK study took pains to mention, their results captured only one month of restrictions:
“As the economic consequences of lockdown develop, when furloughs turn to redundancies [layoffs], mortgage holidays [suspension of payments] expire, and recession takes effect, we believe it is reasonable to expect not only sustained distress and clinically significant deterioration in mental health for some people, but emergence of well described long-term effects of economic recession on mental health including increasing suicide rates and hospital admissions for mental illness.”
Echoing this expectation, a Scottish survey conducted in October for World Mental Health Day found that one-third (32%) of parents perceived their children’s mental health, since COVID-19, as being “the worst it has ever been,” and 37% reported a serious deterioration in their own mental health.
Remote technology tradeoffs
COVID-19 has taken telemedicine into “overdrive,” significantly changing where and how mental health professionals provide services. As community mental health clinics and school and workplace-based resources close their doors or suspend their services, independent and agency psychiatrists and therapists are turning to sessions conducted by phone, videoconferencing, telehealth platforms or eTherapy apps.
A June survey conducted by the American Psychological Association found that since COVID-19, only 3% of psychologists are conducting all of their appointments in person, with another 16% using a mixture of in-person and remote sessions. Setting aside the time-honored face-to-face therapeutic model pioneered by figures like Carl Jung, three-fourths are “solely providing remote services.”
Mental health professionals appear generally enthusiastic about distance therapy’s potential as a “tool for the times,” although some report that “a day of Zoom therapy” can be mentally taxing in a way that in-person therapy is not. With a dearth of studies offering measurable results comparing telehealth to office visits, it is an open question whether the model is appropriate or effective for traumatized children and especially for special-needs children.
Researchers noted years ago that telemedicine can lead to a “breakdown in the relationship between health professional and patient.” Clinicians working in the time of COVID-19 agree not only that patient rapport is “extremely important” but that they are better able to pick up “nuances and subtle signs” in person. Recognizing in-home challenges such as screen exhaustion, distractibility, and technological barriers, one expert working in a high-volume counseling center has stated, “[telehealth] is a great resource when you need it, but it’s just not the same thing as in person.”
Forcing children into yet another tech-mediated interaction also adds to the amount of time they are spending on screens. The COVID-19-triggered remote learning paradigm has already resulted in a nearly 500% increase in children’s time online — about six hours a day, much of it unsupervised — with attendant risks to physical health as well as emotional health and privacy.
With regard to privacy, while advocates celebrate the opportunity for teletherapists to “see patients in their own surroundings,” this also represents an unprecedented digital intrusion into the sacrosanct home environment. Given the fact that domestic and internationalpublic health officials have publicly discussed the possibility of removing people — including children — from their homes for coronavirus quarantine, and given that Child Protective Services has also been known to unnecessarily separate children from their parents, families might want to consider the ramifications of enabling this type of intimate access.
Stop the madness
A May 2020 posting by the World Economic Forum asserted that “COVID-19 is hurting children’s mental health” and cautioned that “high levels of stress and isolation can affect brain development, sometimes with irreparable long-term consequences.” Ironically, the Forum is one of the primary cheerleaders of the global economic “reset” that is causing such hardship to children and their families.
What policy-makers and public health leaders have refused to acknowledge is that “every decision we make in response to the pandemic … reflects a choice and carries with it a set of costs.” At this juncture, few would dispute that the costs to children have been far too high or that the effects are likely to reverberate — whether at the individual, family, community or societal levels — for many years to come.
===
By RT – 06. October 2020
The hosts of the Keiser Report discuss the $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package passed by the US House, which includes a complete ban on eviction and foreclosure filings for 12 months.
There’s a big issue in terms of the properties that will no longer be paying rent, Max Keiser says.
He points out that landlords won’t be able to pay back loans to the banks which, in turn, won’t be able to service their portfolios, meaning that the Central Bank will have to bail them out. However, the central bankers are “already completely constrained with their ability to bail out the system anymore after they’ve been bailing out the system nonstop for 12 years,” he explains.
“This is just another piece of the sinking of the global financial Titanic. They hit the iceberg in 2008,”he concludes, adding, “That’s where we are at now – the beginning of the end.”
© Pixabay.com
===
•Oct 4, 2020
•Oct 3, 2020
“Medicine and the medicalization of society is becoming a major threat to humanity. You know medicine is becoming like a public enemy of health at the moment. And we need to take sides, you know we need to take sides are we with medicine, [or] are we with health? Are we with drugs and interventions? And now I need to add public health measures to the list? Or are we with humans, are we with human lives and with quality of life? It’s unfortunate that that it’s coming to this. But medicine is becoming an enemy of health and that 50 percent tipping point, the inflection point that you mentioned is probably not very far if you think that for example we had a 33 percent drop in in GDP in the US, you add the 20 percent of GBP that goes to medicine, here’s your 50 percent right now in in in some sort of calculation. I don’t think that we can sustain that, I think that we need to think of priorities, we need to think of what we are achieving with all these measures. We have lots of extremely effective medical interventions and this is wonderful chapeau bas. Medicine is saving lots of lives we have lots of ineffective interventions and when it comes to COVID-19 in the public health response I am afraid that many of the ineffective interventions are not just applied to one patient at s time which is still detrimental. But they’re applied to the whole world at large, so we’re not talking about a single patient being mismanaged we’re talking about 7.7 billion people being mismanaged and suffering.” — John P.A. Ioannidis (Professor Of Medicine Stanford Prevention Research, of Epidemiology and Population Health and By Courtesy, of Statistics and of Biomedical Data Science) Short BACKUP on Youtube
Oct 3, 2020 –
Prof. John Ioannidis is the C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention, Professor of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, and (by courtesy) of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics; co-Director, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS). Born in New York City in 1965 and raised in Athens, Greece. Valedictorian (1984) at Athens College; National Award of the Greek Mathematical Society (1984); MD (top rank of medical school class) from the National University of Athens in 1990; also received DSc in biopathology from the same institution. Trained at Harvard and Tufts (internal medicine and infectious diseases), then held positions at NIH, Johns Hopkins and Tufts. Chaired the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School in 1999-2010 while also holding adjunct professor positions at Harvard, Tufts, and Imperial College. Senior Advisor on Knowledge Integration at NCI/NIH (2012-6). Served as President, Society for Research Synthesis Methodology, and editorial board member of many leading journals (including PLoS Medicine, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, JNCI among others) and as Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation (2010-2019). Delivered ~600 invited and honorary lectures. Recipient of many awards (e.g. European Award for Excellence in Clinical Science [2007], Medal for Distinguished Service, Teachers College, Columbia University [2015], Chanchlani Global Health Award [2017], Epiphany Science Courage Award [2018], Einstein fellow [2018]). Inducted in the Association of American Physicians (2009), European Academy of Cancer Sciences (2010) American Epidemiological Society (2015), European Academy of Sciences and Arts (2015), National Academy of Medicine (2018). Honorary titles from FORTH (2014) and Ioannina (2015), honorary doctorates from Rotterdam (2015), Athens (2017), Tilburg (2019), Edinburgh (2019, ceremony planned for 2020). Multiple honorary lectureships/visiting professorships (Caltech, Oxford, LSHTM, Yale, U Utah, U Conn, UC Davis, U Penn, Wash U St. Louis, NIH among others). The PLoS Medicine paper on “Why most published research findings are false” has been the most-accessed article in the history of Public Library of Science (3 million hits). Author of 7 literary books in Greek, three of which were shortlisted for best book of the year Anagnostis awards. Brave Thinker scientist for 2010 according to Atlantic, “may be one of the most influential scientists alive”. Highly Cited Researcher according to Thomson Reuters in both Clinical Medicine and in Social Sciences. Citation indices: h=199, m=8 per Google Scholar. Current citation rate: more than 4,500 new citations per month (among the 10 scientists worldwide who are currently the most commonly cited, perhaps also the currently most-cited physician). When contrasted against my vast ignorance, these values offer excellent proof that citation metrics can be horribly unreliable. I have no personal social media accounts – I admire people who can outpour their error-free wisdom in them, but I make a lot of errors, I need to revisit my writings multiple times before publishing, and I see no reason to make a fool of myself more frequently than it is sadly unavoidable. I consider myself privileged to have learned and to continue to learn from interactions with students and young scientists (of all ages) from all over the world and I love to be constantly reminded that I know next to nothing.
===
•Sep 29, 2020
Recorded on June 18, 2020 and originally published on June 23,2020 – Original post accrued 719K views and 18.5K likes. – Reposted on September 28, 2020 (see note to viewers below)
Dr. Scott Atlas is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, an accomplished physician, and a scholar of public health. When this was recorded Dr. Atlas has been making the case in print and in other media that we as a society have overreacted in imposing draconian restrictions on movement, gatherings, schools, sports, and other activities. He believes the virus is a real threat and should be managed as such.
But, as Dr. Atlas argues, there are some age groups and activities that are subject to very low risk. The one-size-fits-all approach is overly authoritarian, inefficient, and not based in science. Dr. Atlas’s prescription includes more protection for people in nursing homes, two weeks of strict self-isolation for those with mild symptoms, and most importantly, the opening of all K–12 schools. Dr. Atlas was also adamant that an economic shutdown, and all of the attendant issues that go along with it, is a terrible solution— a cure that’s worse than the disease. Finally, Dr. Atlas revealed some steps he’d taken in his own life to try to get things back to normal.
NOTE TO VIEWERS: On September 11th, 2020 YouTube removed this episode of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson with Dr. Scott Atlas and notified The Hoover Institution that the video “violates our guidelines.” The takedown notice further explained that “YouTube does not allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts the World Health Organization (WHO) or local health authorities’ medical information about COVID-19, including on methods to prevent, treat, or diagnose COVID-19 and means of transmission of COVID-19.” In order to reinstate the interview on their platform, YouTube required the Hoover Institution to add the following disclaimer to two portions of the interview: “Prevailing medical consensus suggests that children can transmit the disease, but at a lower rate than adults.” While we disagree with YouTube’s interpretation of what Dr. Atlas said in this video, we have complied with this request to make the video available to viewers.
For further information on Uncommon Knowledge visit: https://www.hoover.org/publications/u…
===
By Derrick Broze – 17. September 2020
In the months since the COVID-19 panic began health authorities around the world have told the public to “get tested” to help track the spread of SARS-CoV-2. However, as fear and hysteria subside, the scientific community and public at large are calling into question the efficacy of the test used to determine a patients status. This article is a brief examination of the evidence that the PCR test is unreliable and should not be used as a determinant for the number of COVID-19 cases or as a factor in political decisions.
On August 31, I attended a press conference in Houston to ask the Mayor and Houston Health Authority about reports regarding problems with the Texas Department of State Health Services’ numbers on COVID-19 cases. TLAV has previously reported on these concerns with the COVID-19 case numbers in Texas. I also had a chance to ask Houston Health Authority Dr. David Persse about concerns around the test used to detect COVID-19.
The most common test is a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) lab test. This incredibly sensitive technique was developed by Berkeley scientist Kary Mullis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. The test is designed to detect the presence of a virus by amplifying the virus’ genetic material so it can be detected by scientists. The test is viewed as the gold standard, however, it is not without problems.
The PCR test uses chemicals to amplify the virus’s genetic material and then each sample goes through a number of cycles until a virus is recovered. This “cycle threshold” has become a key component in the debate around the efficacy of the PCR test.
Dr. Persse says that when the labs report numbers of COVID-19 cases to the City of Houston they only offer a binary option of “yes” for positive or “no” for negative. “But, in reality, it comes in what is called cycle-thresholds. It’s an inverse relationship, so the higher the number the less virus there was in the initial sample,” Persse explained. “Some labs will report out to 40 cycle-thresholds, and if they get a positive at 40 – which means there is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of virus there – that gets reported to us as positive and we don’t know any different.”
Persse noted that the key question is, at what value is someone considered still infectious?
“Because if you test me and I have a tiny amount of virus, does that mean I am contagious? that I am still infectious to someone else? If you are shedding a little bit of virus are you just starting? or are you on the downside?,” Dr. Persse asked in the lobby of Houston City Hall. He believes the answer is for the scientific community to set a national standard for cycle-threshold.
Unfortunately, a national standard would not solve the problems expressed by Dr. Persse and others.
In the first weeks of September a number of important revelations regarding the PCR test have come to light. First, new research from the University of Oxford’s Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England found that the PCR test poses the potential for false positives when testing for COVID-19. Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the authors of the study, Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment – a systematic review, said there was a risk that an increase in testing in the UK will lead to an increase in the risk of “sample contamination” and thus an increase in COVID-19 cases.
The team reviewed evidence from 25 studies where virus specimens had positive PCR tests. The researchers state that the “genetic photocopying” technique scientists use to magnify the sample of genetic material collected is so sensitive it could be picking up fragments of dead virus from previous infections. The researchers reach a similar conclusion as Dr. David Persse, namely that, “A binary Yes/No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health.”
Heneghan, who is also the the editor of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, told the BBC that the binary approach is a problem and tests should have a cut-off point so small amounts of virus do not lead to a positive result. This is because of the cycle threshold mentioned by Dr. Persse. A person who is shedding an active virus and someone who has leftover infection could both receive the same positive test result. He also stated that the test could be detecting old virus which would explain the rise in cases in the UK. Heneghan also stated that setting a standard for the cycle threshold would eliminate the quarantining and contact tracing of people who are healthy and help the public better understand the true nature of COVID-19.
The UK’s leading health agency, Public Health England, released an update on the testing methods used to detect COVID-19 and appeared to agree with Professor Heneghan regarding the concerns on the cycle threshold. On September 9, PHE released an update which concluded, “all laboratories should determine the threshold for a positive result at the limit of detection.”
This is not the first time Heneghan’s work has directly impacted the UK’s COVID-19 policies. In July, UK health secretary Matt Hancock called for an “urgent review” of the daily COVID-19 death numbers produced by Public Health England after it was revealed the stats included people who died from other causes. The Guardian reported:
“The oddity was revealed in a paper by Yoon K Loke and Carl Heneghan of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, called “Why no one can ever recover from Covid-19 in England – a statistical anomaly”.
Their analysis suggests PHE cross-checks the latest notifications of deaths against a database of positive test results – so that anyone who has ever tested positive is recorded in the COVID-19 death statistics.
A Department of Health and Social Care source said: ‘You could have been tested positive in February, have no symptoms, then hit by a bus in July and you’d be recorded as a COVID death.’”
Only days after Hancock called for the review of PHE data, the UK government put an immediate halt to its daily update of death numbers from COVID-19.
On September 8, Heneghan tweeted out another study on the limitations of the PCR test. The study, “SARS-CoV-2 Testing: The Limit of Detection Matters”, examines the limit of detection (LoD) for RNA. The researchers note similar problems with the PCR test and the cycle threshold, concluding, “the ultimate lesson from these studies bears repetition: LoD matters and directly impacts efforts to identify, control, and contain outbreaks during this pandemic.”
Heneghan also recently told the BMJ , “one issue in trying to interpret numbers of detected cases is that there is no set definition of a case. At the moment it seems that a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result is the only criterion required for a case to be recognised.”
“In any other disease we would have a clearly defined specification that would usually involve signs, symptoms, and a test result,” Heneghan explained. “We are moving into a biotech world where the norms of clinical reasoning are going out of the window. A PCR test does not equal covid-19; it should not, but in some definitions it does.”
Heneghan says he is concerned that as soon as there is the appearance of an outbreak there is panic and over-reacting. “This is a huge problem because politicians are operating in a non-evidence-based way when it comes to non-drug interventions,” he stated.
A recent report from NPR outlines the dangers of false positives with the PCR tests. Andrew Cohen, director of the Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions, was hired by the state of California to study an invasion of non-native mussels. The researchers took water samples and used a PCR test to search for genetic material from the mussels. After the tests came back overwhelmingly positive, Cohen grew suspicious.
“I began to realize that many of these — if not all of these — were false positives, especially when they started being reported in waters that had chemistry that would not allow the mussels to reproduce and establish themselves,” he told NPR. NPR notes that, depending on the lab, there was a 2 to 8 percent false positive rate.
Once COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, Cohen said he began asking if the reports of people with absolutely no symptoms and positive PCR test results could be false positives. “I began wondering whether these asymptomatic carriers weren’t in large part or in whole part the human counterparts of those false-positive results of quagga and zebra mussels in all those water bodies across the West,” he said.
Cohen emphasized the importance of researchers taking potential false positive PCR results seriously. “As near as we can tell, the medical establishment and public health authorities and researchers … appear to be assuming that the false-positive rate in in the PCR based test is zero, or at least so low that we can ignore it.”
Cohen is correct that the scientific authorities need to take false positives seriously, especially when a person can be sent to isolate or quarantine for weeks due to a positive test result. Even the U.S. FDA’s own fact sheet on testing acknowledges the dangers posed by false positives:
“The CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has been designed to minimize the likelihood of false positive test results. However, in the event of a false positive result, risks to patients could include the following: a recommendation for isolation of the patient, monitoring of household or other close contacts for symptoms, patient isolation that might limit contact with family or friends and may increase contact with other potentially COVID-19 patients, limits in the ability to work, the delayed diagnosis and treatment for the true infection causing the symptoms, unnecessary prescription of a treatment or therapy, or other unintended adverse effects.”
A CDC fact sheet also acknowledges the possibility of false positives with the PCR test.
Professor Heneghan believes the confusion around COVID-19 has come as a result of a shift away from “evidence-based medicine.” In a recent opinion piece published at The Spectator, Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, wrote that patients have become a “prisoner of a system labelling him or her as ‘positive’ when we are not sure what that label means.” The two scientists offer this conclusion and warning:
Governments are producing a series of contradictory and confusing policies which have a brief shelf life as the next crisis emerges. It is increasingly clear the evidence is often ignored. Keeping up to date is a full time occupation, and the advances of the last 30 years have at best been put on hold.
The duties of a good doctor include working in partnership with patients to inform them about what they want or need in a way they can understand, and respecting their rights to reach decisions with you about their treatment and care. Questions need to be asked as to how this will occur if you don’t see your doctor, particularly if all you have to do is queue in at a drive in to get your answer.
And ultimately what is a ‘good test’? We think it’s the test which helps your doctor narrow the uncertainty around the origins and management of your problem.
Author:
===
By RT – 08 September 2020
A June 24, 2020 file photo of one of the locations for the Oxford/AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine trials, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. © REUTERS/Amanda Perobelli
The Phase 3 trial of the Covid-19 vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca has been paused, reportedly due to a suspected ‘serious adverse reaction’ by one of the participants in the UK.
AstraZeneca only said that its “standard review process triggered a pause to vaccination to allow review of safety data,” according to a statement by a company spokesperson on Tuesday. It was unclear whether the hold was self-imposed or ordered by a regulator, what the adverse reaction may have been, or when it might have happened.
[TWITTER ACCOUNT CENSORED] Anonymous sources told the news site Stat that the participant is “expected to recover,” but the information could not be independently confirmed.
AstraZeneca’s vaccine is the first Covid-19 trial put on hold upon reaching Phase 3, according to Stat. The study on phases one and two, published in July by the medical journal Lancet, noted that about 60 percent of the participants had developed side effects – fever, headaches, muscle pain, and injection site reactions, mainly – that were described as “mild or moderate” and subsided during the course of the trials.
It is unclear what effect the UK pause will have on the plans for Phase 3 testing in the US, which is supposed to enroll some 30,000 participants at 80 locations, according to the National Institutes of Health.
AstraZeneca’s vaccine client, AZD1222, uses an adenovirus that shares a gene with SARS-Cov-2, the coronavirus that causes Covid-19. The adenovirus platform is considered experimental in the West, but has served as the basis for Russia’s own vaccine for the coronavirus, dubbed Sputnik-V, which was rolled out to the public this week.
A peer-reviewed study of the early stages of Sputnik-V testing, published by The Lancet last week, suggested the Russian vaccine was both effective and safe. The journal noted that longer-term trials, including a placebo comparison, would be required to establish its bona fides beyond a reasonable doubt.
===
By Malcolm Kendrick – 06 September 2020
FILE PHOTO: Adriana Cardenas, a medical technologist processes test samples for the coronavirus at the AdventHealth Tampa labs on June 25, 2020 in Tampa, Florida. © Getty Images / Octavio Jones
In February, US Covid guru Anthony Fauci predicted the virus was ‘akin to a severe flu’ and would therefore kill around 0.1 percent of people. Then fatality rate predictions were somehow mixed up to make it look ten times WORSE.
When you strip everything else out, the reason for lockdown comes from a single figure: one percent. This was the prediction that Covid, if left unchecked, would kill around one percent of us.
You may not think that percentage is enormous, but one percent of the population of the world is 70 million people – and that’s a lot. It would mean 3.2 million Americans dead, and 670,000 Britons.
But where did this one percent figure come from? You may find this hard to believe, but this figure emerged by mistake. A pretty major thing to make a mistake about, but that’s what happened.
Such things occur. On September 23, 1998, NASA permanently lost contact with the Mars Climate Orbiter. It was supposed to go round and round the planet looking at the weather, but instead it hit Mars at around 5,000 mph, exploding into tiny fragments. It didn’t measure the weather; it became the weather – for a few seconds anyway.
An investigation later found that the disaster happened because engineers had used the wrong units. They didn’t convert pound seconds into Newton seconds when doing their calculations. Imperial, not metric. This, remember, was NASA. An organisation not completely full of numbskulls.
Now you and I probably have no idea of the difference between a pound second and a Newton second (it’s 0.67 – I looked it up). But you would kind-of hope NASA would. In fact, I am sure they do, but they didn’t notice, so the figures came out wrong. The initial mistake was made, and was baked into the figures.
Kaboom!
With Covid, a similar mistake happened. One type of fatality rate was substituted for another. The wrong rate was then used to predict the likely death rate – and, as with NASA, no-one picked up the error.
In order to understand what happened, you have to understand the difference between two medical terms that sound the same – but are completely different. Rather like a pound second or a Newton second.
First, there’s the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). This is the total number of people who are infected by a disease and the number of them who die. This figure includes those who have no symptoms at all, or only very mild symptoms – those who stayed at home, coughed a bit and watched Outbreak.
Then there’s the Case Fatality Rate (CFR). This is the number of people suffering serious symptoms, who are probably ill enough to be in hospital. Clearly, people who are seriously ill – the “cases” – are going to have a higher mortality rate than those who are infected, many of whom don’t have symptoms. Put simply – all cases are infections, but not all infections are cases.
Which means that the CFR will always be far higher than the IFR. With influenza, the CFR is around ten times as high as the IFR. Covid seems to have a similar proportion.
Now, clearly, you do not want to get these figures mixed up. By doing so you would either wildly overestimate, or wildly underestimate, the impact of Covid. But mix these figures up, they did.
The error started in America, but didn’t end there. In healthcare, the US is very much the dog that wags the tail. The figures they come up with are used globally.
On February 28, 2020, an editorial was released by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the editorial stated: “… the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.”
They added that influenza has a CFR of approximately 0.1 percent. One person in a thousand who gets it badly, dies.
But that quoted CFR for influenza was ten times too low – they meant to say the IFR, the Infection Fatality Rate, for influenza was 0.1 percent. This was their fatal – quite literally – mistake.
The mistake was compounded. On March 11, the same experts testified to Congress, stating that Covid’s CFR was likely to be about one percent, so one person dying from a hundred who fell seriously ill. Which, as time has passed, has proved to be pretty accurate.
At this meeting, they compared the likely impact of Covid to flu. But they used the wrong CFR for influenza, the one stated in the previous NEJM editorial. 0.1 percent, or one in a thousand. The one that was ten times too low.
So, they matched up the one percent CFR of Covid with the incorrect 0.1 percent CFR of flu. Suddenly, Covid was going to be ten times as deadly.
If influenza killed 50, Covid was going to kill 500. If influenza killed a million, Covid was going to get 10 million. No wonder Congress, then the world, panicked. Because they were told Covid was going to be ten times worse than influenza. They could see three million deaths in the US alone, and 70 million around the world.
I don’t expect you or I to get this sort of thing right. But I bloody well expect the experts to do so. They didn’t. They got their IFR and CFR mixed up and multiplied the likely impact of Covid by a factor of ten.
Here’s what the paper, “Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation”,says: “On March 11, 2020,… based on the data available at the time, Congress was informed that the estimated mortality rate for the coronavirus was ten-times higher than for seasonal influenza, which helped launch a campaign of social distancing, organizational and business lockdowns, and shelter-in-place orders.”
On February 28 it was estimated that Covid was going to have about the same impact as a bad influenza season – almost certainly correct. Eleven days later, the same group of experts predicted that the mortality rate was going to be ten times as high. This was horribly, catastrophically, running-into-Mars-at-5,000-miles-an-hour wrong.
In the UK, the group I call the Mad Modellers of lockdown, the Imperial College experts, created the same panic. On March 16, they used an estimated IFR of 0.9 percent to predict that, without lockdown, Covid would kill around 500,000 in the UK.
Is this prediction anywhere close?
So far, the UK has had around 40,000 Covid deaths. Significantly less than 0.1 percent, but not that far off. Of course, people will say… “We had lockdown… without it so many more would have died. Most people have not been infected…” etc.
To answer this, we need to know the true IFR. Is it a 0.1 percent, or one percent? If it is one percent, we have more than 400,000 deaths to go. If it is 0.1 percent, this epidemic has run its course. For this year, at least.
With swine flu, remember that the IFR started at around two percent. In the end, it was 0.02 percent, which was five times lower than the lowest estimate during the outbreak. The more you test, the lower the IFR will fall.
So where can we look to get the current figures on the IFR? The best place to look is at the country that has tested more people than anywhere else as a proportion of their population: Iceland.
As of last week, Iceland’s IFR stood at 0.16 per cent. It cannot go up from here. It can only fall. People can’t start dying of a disease they haven’t got.
This means that we’ll probably end up with an IFR of about 0.1 percent, maybe less. Not the 0.02 percent of Swine Flu – somewhere between the two, perhaps. In short, the 0.1 percent prophecy has proved to be pretty much bang on.
Which means that we’ve had all the deaths we were ever going to get. And which also means that lockdown achieved, almost precisely nothing with regard to Covid. No deaths were prevented.
Yes, we are testing and testing, and finding more so-called cases. As you will. But the hospitals and ICUs are virtually empty. Almost no-one is dying of Covid anymore, and most of those who do were otherwise very ill.
Instead of celebrating that, we’ve artificially created a whole new thing to scare ourselves with. We now call a positive test a Covid “case.” This is not medicine. A “case” is someone who has symptoms. A case is not someone carrying tiny amounts of virus in their nose.
Now, however, you test positive, and you’re a “case.” Never in history has medical terminology been so badly mangled. Never have statistics been so badly mangled.
When researchers look back at this pandemic, they’ll have absolutely no idea who died because of Covid, or who died –coincidentally– with it. Everything’s been mashed together in a determined effort to make the virus look as deadly as possible.
Lockdown happened because we were told that Coivid could kill one percent. But Covid was never going to kill more than about 0.1 percent – max.
That’s the figure estimated back in February, by the major players in viral epidemiology. A figure that has turned out to be remarkably accurate. Bright guys… bad mistake.
But because we panicked, we’ve added hugely to the toll. Excess mortality between March and May was around 70,000, not the 40,000 who died of/with Covid. Which means 30,000 may have died directly as a result of the actions we took.
We protected the young, the children, who are at zero risk of Covid. But we threw our elderly and vulnerable under a bus. The very group who should have been shielded. Instead, we caused 20,000 excess deaths in care homes.
It was government policy to clear out hospitals, and stuff care homes with patients carrying Covid, or discharge them back to their own homes, to infect their nearest and dearest. Or any community care staff who visited them.
We threw – to use health secretary Matt Hancock’s ridiculous phrase – a ring of steel around care homes. As it turned out, this was not to protect them, but to trap the residents, as we turned their buildings into Covid incubators. Anyone working in care homes, as I do, knows why we got 20,000 excess deaths. Government policy did this.
That is far from all the damage. On top of care homes, the ONS estimates that 16,000 excess deaths were caused by lockdown. The heart attacks and strokes that were not treated. The empty, echoing hospitals and A&E units. The cancer treatments stopped entirely.
Which means that at least as many people have died as a result of the draconian actions taken to combat Covid, as have been killed by the virus itself. This has been a slow-motion stampede, where the elderly – in particular – were trampled to death.
We locked down in fear. We killed tens of thousands unnecessarily, in fear. We crippled the economy, and left millions in fear of their livelihoods. We have trapped abused women and children at home with their abusers. We have wiped out scores of companies, and crushed entire industries.
We stripped out the NHS, and left millions in prolonged pain and suffering, on ever lengtheningwaiting lists, which have doubled. There have also been tens of thousands of delayed cancer diagnoses – the effects of which are yet to be seen, but the Lancet has estimated at least sixty thousand years of life will be lost.
Lockdown can be seen as a complete and utter disaster. And it was all based on a nonsense, a claim that Covid was going to kill one percent. A claim that can now be seen to be utterly and completely wrong. Sweden, which did not lock down, has had a death rate of 0.0058 percent.
It takes a very big person to admit they have made a horrible, terrible mistake. But a horrible, terrible mistake has been made. Let’s end this ridiculous nonsense now. And vow never to let such monumental stupidity happen ever again.
Author:
Malcolm Kendrick, doctor and author who works as a GP in the National Health Service in England. His blog can be read here and his book, ‘Doctoring Data – How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense,’ is available here.
===
By Sophie Stigfur – 07. September 2020
Editor’s note: The ‘Swedish model’ — aka what we’ve always done before the collective psychosis.
Machine translated from Swedish.
Recommendations instead of mandatory laws, open schools and restaurants along with reminders to wash your hands and keep your distance.
The Swedish model during the pandemic has been called irresponsible and used as an example of horror by several world leaders – not least with reference to Sweden’s high death toll. On several occasions, Sweden has had the highest proportion of deaths per capita in the world.
But international virus experts state that Sweden is now getting a kind of revenge for its unique corona strategy, reports SvD.
– Today, all countries in Europe more or less follow the method from the Swedish model – but no one would admit it. That is not politically correct. Almost everyone has criticized the Swedish strategy and called it inhuman and a failure. You can not turn around now, says Antoine Flahault, professor of epidemiology at the University of Geneva and head of the Institute of Global Health.
While infection is currently declining in Sweden, the numbers are rising in countries that have opened up after strict lockdowns. And when the virus rushes upwards again through Europe , most countries choose not to reintroduce shutdowns.
Instead, in the Swedish way, the population is encouraged to use common sense and follow recommendations on hygiene and physical distance.
– The Swedish model is seen today as sensible or as a unique alternative to lockdown. There, they have managed to make citizens understand and participate in the fight against the virus without mandatory laws and regulations. Countries want to try something more mature, more responsible and inclusive, says Fauhalt.
David Nabarro, WHO envoy for covid-19, also praises Sweden.
– I advocate that this type of trust between authorities and people is used more generally in the world, he says to SvD.
However, all experts highlight Sweden’s accident when it comes to keeping the infection away from nursing homes.
And Marc Van Ranst, head of the Belgian Institute of Public Health, believes that Sweden is privileged with good healthcare and few and well-informed citizens. The Swedish model might not work as well in a densely populated larger country.
Nabarro, from WHO, points out that the results do not yet exist.
– The history books will give us the answers. Then the Swedish strategy can be compared with others, he tells SvD.
Source: Aftonbladet
===
By Henry Bodkin – 06. September 2020
Editor’s note: When it became clear that COVID-19 had a fatality rate in the ballpark of the common flu the cult changed goalposts and started claiming that if it won’t kill you, it will still drill holes in your lungs for life. So much about that. “Turns out” the human body has the ability to heal itself. Including, shockingly, after coronavirus infections which mammals have been dealing with for millions of years.
Lungs can repair themselves after a serious bout of coronavirus in just three months, a new study has revealed, raising hope patients will not be living with debilitating symptoms for years on end.
Doctors said trials showed nearly half of patients in trials showed no evidence of lung damage at 12 weeks.
Although they confirm longstanding fears that Covid patients can suffer serious effects weeks after recovering from the virus, the results are the first to show that these tend to heal over time.
Eighty-six patients from an outbreak hot-spot in the Tyrolean region of Austriawere hospitalised between April 29 and June 9, then followed up at six, 12 and 24 weeks after discharge. [All participants had been hospitalized, which is to say they had all been the unusual, severe cases.]
At the six-week visit, 88 per cent of patients showed evidence of lung damage, but this dropped to 56 per cent at the 12-week check-up.
The results from the 24-week visits are not yet ready to be published.Meanwhile 65 per cent of the cohort showed general symptoms of lung problems at the six-week visit, with breathlessness the most common symptom – 47 per cent – followed by coughing – 15 per cent.
By 12 weeks, breathlessness had improved and was present in 39 per cent of patients.
The proportion of patients coughing at this stage did not improve as markedly, however, only dropping to 13 per cent.
Dr Sabina Sahanic, who worked on the study at the University Clinic in Innsbruck, said: “The bad news is that people show lung impairment from Covid-19 weeks after discharge; the good news is that the impairment tends to ameliorate over time, which suggests the lungs have a mechanism for repairing themselves.”
The average age of the patients was 61, with 65 per cent male.
Nearly half were former smokers, and more than six in 10 were overweight or obese.
One in five had been admitted to an intensive care unit, and roughly the same proportion placed on a mechanical ventilator. The patients were followed up with lung function tests.
Only 23 per cent performed at 80 per cent less than normal at six weeks, but the proportion did not improve significantly over time.
CT scans showed that the score that defines the severity of overall lung damage decreased from eight points at six weeks to four points at 12 weeksPresented at the European Respiratory Society International Conference on Monday, the results follow months of warnings from medical experts that people who suffered badly with coronavirus can expect long-lasting effects.
In July the NHS announced plans to launch an online Covid rehabilitation service, including virtual access to physiotherapists, in recognition of the long-term needs.
Published alongside the Innsbruck research was another study which found that the sooner patients begin pulmonary rehabilitation after coming off a ventilator, the faster they recovered. Spending days on a ventilator can result in severe muscle loss, particularly in the muscles used for breathing.
Pulmonary rehabilitation, which involves physical exercises and advice on managing symptoms, including shortness of breath and post-traumatic stress disorder, is crucial for helping patients to recover fully, the researchers said.
Yara Al Chikhanie, from Grenoble Alps University, said: “The sooner rehabilitation started and the longer it lasted, the faster and better was the improvement in patients’ walking and breathing capacities and muscle gain.
“Patients who started rehabilitation in the week after coming off their ventilators progressed faster than those who were admitted after two weeks.”
===
First published at 11:42 UTC on August 24th, 2020. [In case your Browser makes problems click HERE ]
===
By SN – 05. Sptember 2020
Throat or nose swabs are necessary for coronavirus tests
The tests used to find out if someone is COVID positive could be finding traces of the virus that are no longer active, some scientists are saying.
A study by members of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM) and the University of the West of England found that there was a risk of “false positives” because of the way people are currently tested for coronavirus.
They looked at 25 studies on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test – the very sensitive test widely used to find out if someone has the virus in their system.
The test gives a positive or negative result, which the scientists say amounts to a simplistic “yes” – someone has the virus, or “no” – they don’t have the virus.
But they found the tests were able to detect traces of the virus’s genetic material for a much longer period than it remains infectious – meaning a person who tests positive may have the virus in their system, but won’t necessarily pass it on.
Other genetic material it detects might be fragments of dead virus – which have already been dealt with by a body’s immune system.
One of the study’s authors, the CEBM’s Professor Carl Heneghan, told The Spectator magazine there were also issues with the way the tests check for the virus and there was a risk that a surge in testing across the UK was increasing the risk of contamination.
He said it may be part of the reason why the number of cases in the UK is rising but the number of deaths from COVID-19 is remaining static.
Prof Heneghan wrote in the magazine: “Evidence is mounting that a good proportion of ‘new’ mild cases and people re-testing positives after quarantine or discharge from hospital are not infectious, but are simply clearing harmless virus particles which their immune system has efficiently dealt with.”
He said an “international effort” was needed to avoid “the dangers of isolating non-infectious people or whole communities”.
The authors wrote in their conclusion of the paper, which was published as a pre-print on the Medrxiv online journal and is yet to be peer-reviewed: “Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens are necessary for each country involved in the pandemic to establish the usefulness and reliability of (the) PCR (test) for COVID-19 and its relation to patients’ factors.
“Infectivity is related to the date of onset of symptoms and cycle threshold level.”
PCR tests work by taking a sample from a person and applying a process to increase the amount of DNA or genetic material in that sample, so that it can be examined.
The experts say there is a risk the tests can amplify COVID-19 genetic material which is not a whole virus, or material which is no longer capable of causing a full-blown infection.
===
Mr Draghi: Comparing Europe’s rebuilding from the pandemic to the aftermath of the second world war !!!
Mario Draghi
By FT – 18. August 2020
Rebuilding after pandemic will be akin to post-second world war reconstruction, says ex-ECB chief Former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi speaking in Rimini, Italy, on Tuesday
Europe will only fully recover from the economic impact of coronavirus if governments use their vastly increased debts to invest in young people, innovation and research, Mario Draghi has said in his first speech since leaving the European Central Bank last year.
Mr Draghi, who stepped down as ECB president last November, said debt levels would be high for a long time, but they would only be sustainable if “good debt” was “used for productive purposes” instead of “bad debt” being used for unproductive purposes.
“Low interest rates are not in themselves a guarantee of sustainability; the perception of the quality of the debt incurred is just as important,” he said. “The more that perception deteriorates, the more uncertain our framework of references will become, which would jeopardise employment, investment and consumption.”
Comparing Europe’s rebuilding from the pandemic to the aftermath of the second world war, Mr Draghi said the region had to rethink many of its rules while resisting challenges from other countries to its core values of multilateralism, solidarity and the rule of law.
“We should take inspiration from those who were involved in rebuilding the world, Europe and Italy after World War II,” he said in a speech at an event in Rimini, on Italy’s eastern coast.
As ECB president, Mr Draghi repeatedly called for the EU to issue much more common debt and to establish its own budget. He said on Tuesday that the €750bn recovery fund agreed last month by EU leaders to support countries hit hardest by the pandemic “enriches the European policy arsenal”.
The debt created by the pandemic is unprecedented and will have to be repaid mainly by those who are young today Mario Draghi
“Europe can emerge strengthened from this crisis,” he said. “The recognition of the role that a European budget can play in stabilising our economies, and the precedent of issuing common debt, are important and can form the basis of the design of a common Treasury ministry.”
Investors have been concerned about the impact of the pandemic on already elevated debt levels in southern European countries, particularly Italy, where debt is expected to rise above 160 per cent of gross domestic product this year.
Mr Draghi said European governments faced “a moral imperative” to invest in educating young people. “The debt created by the pandemic is unprecedented and will have to be repaid mainly by those who are young today,” he said.
“It is therefore our duty to equip them with the means to service that debt, and to do so while living in improved societies,” he said, adding: “For years, a form of collective selfishness has led governments to divert attention and resources towards initiatives that generated guaranteed and immediate political returns. This is no longer acceptable today.”
Younger workers have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic’s impact on labour markets because many of them have temporary or part-time roles that have been cut, while widespread hiring freezes at companies are hampering the career prospects of graduates.
Since leaving the ECB, where he was widely credited with saving the euro from the region’s sovereign debt crisis in 2012, Mr Draghi has been appointed to a Vatican think-tank advising Pope Francis on social and economic affairs.
===
First published on BITCHUTE August 6th, 2020. [In case your Browser makes problems click HERE ]
===
First published on BITCHUTE May 27th, 2020.
—
First published on BITCHUTE May 30th, 2020.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://freepress.ie/2020/10/four-reasons-why-nphet-want-level-5-lockdown/
· 16 October 2020
Updated October 16th –
Sunday night, the 4th of October. The Knights of NPHET characteristically dropped another bombshell on an unsuspecting Irish public. NPHET are to Ireland, what SAGE are to the UK. Deep state Pharma operatives essentially, running a vaccine racket. We explained the hard Irish economic numbers that back this assertion here. Let us explain.
NPHET are supposed to be Ireland’s National Public Health Emergency Team, set up in response to the Coronavirus scare as a subsidiary of Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE). They have now recommended that the country go to level 5 full lockdowns from the current level three.
Very few people are sick anymore, or dying, by their own figures. The pcr tests are publicly acknowledged to be deeply unreliable.
NPHET and the small cabal of government ministers who have outsourced the management of our country to them, want to ramp up their trampling of our constitutional and human rights to a full tyrannical & unscientific lockdown.
Why is this is happening:
1. More people are now questioning the narrative, so NPHET cannot wait for flu season to execute their endgame
2. NPHET have been wrong from the start and need to cover up their previous mistakes/lies because individuals can be held personally liable for deaths under Irish law
3. Pharma makes up 60%+ of Ireland’s exports, which buys influence – the pharma industry needs vaccine programs to stave off bankruptcies
4. NPHET operatives have been promised more pharma research money, and/or continuing fame in the media spotlight. NPHET’s bunker-dwellers do not want to go back to windowless-labs, and relative obscurity.
(Article continues below)
Go deeper
As you can see, there are many conflicts of interest in the Irish government on this issue.
If masks work, why are cases going up? Doesn’t make sense does it? And why are hospitals not now full of non mask wearers? Think. Engage.
We published official science from the CDC that shows masks are next to useless against viruses. Please read it, it is the truth – and long established science.
So why are we locking down the country and still destroying our economy based on pcr-test cases when no one is sick? Now you know why
We all have viruses in our bodies, all kinds. They mostly do not make us sick – we live with them every day. For example, 95% of the population have the Herpes 1 virus in their bodies (cold sores). Most of us have Staph bacteria on us, or will test positive for influenza even if we don’t show symptoms. They have paralysed a nation with fear, using lies. With fear, control comes easier.
Please, share this and help stop these compromised pharma operatives from causing more missed cancer diagnoses, suicides etc. by keeping our healthcare system shut. Stop them from destroying what is left of our economy and our mental health. Let us demand accountability for the nursing home deaths. Please get vocal, help other people to speak. So many of us are afraid to talk. Be brave.
The Corona Scandal:
“The Greatest Crime Against Humanity Ever Committed”
Dr. Reiner Füllmich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr04gHbP5MQ
3 October 2020
(49 minutes)
PDF ATTACHED TO THIS EMAIL
The findings of the German Investigative Committee are entirely in line with the findings of the French Army Reserve Officers’ Investigative Report on the Covid-19 pandemic and its relationship to SARS-COV-2 and Other Factors:
French: RAPPORT D’ENQUETE D’UN GROUPE D’OFFICIERS DE RESERVE SUR LA PANDEMIE DE COVID-19 – mise à jour le 13 mai 2020: http://ageoftruth.tv/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/RAPPORT-DENQUETE-DUN-GROUPE-DOFFICIERS-DE-RESERVE-SUR-LA-PANDEMIE-DE-COVID-19-mise-A%CC%83-jour-le-13-mai-2020.pdf
Livestream on the translation of the French report: http://ageoftruth.tv/what-on-earth-is-going-on-claire-edwards-presentation-live/
Summary
The German Corona Investigative Committee has taken testimony from a large number of international scientists and experts since July 10, 2020. Their conclusions are the following:
o The biggest tort case ever
o The greatest crime against humanity ever committed
o Criminally prosecuted for crimes against humanity
o Sued for civil damages
o There is no excess mortality in any country
o Corona virus mortality equals seasonal flu
o 94% of deaths in Bergamo were caused by transferring sick patients to nursing homes where they infected old people with weak immune systems
o Doctors and hospitals worldwide were paid to declare deceased victims of Covid-19
o Autopsies showed:
o Sweden (no lockdown) and Britain (strict lockdown) have comparable disease and mortality statistics
o US states with and without lockdowns have comparable disease and mortality statistics
o Hospitals remain empty and some face bankruptcy
o Populations have T-cell immunity from previous influenza waves
o Herd immunity needs only 15-25% population infection and is already achieved
o Only when a person has symptoms can an infection be contagious
o Many scientists call this a PCR-test pandemic, not a corona pandemic
o Very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive
o Likelihood of false-positives is 89-94% or near certainty
o Prof. Drosten developed his PCR test from an old SARS virus without ever having seen the real Wuhan virus from China
o The PCR test is not based on scientific facts with respect to infections
o PCR tests are useless for the detection of infections
o A positive PCR test does not mean an infection is present or that an intact virus has been found
o Amplification of samples over 35 cycles is unreliable but WHO recommended 45 cycles
o The German government locked down, imposed social-distancing/ mask-wearing on the basis of a single opinion
o The lockdown was imposed when the virus was already retreating
o The lockdowns were based on non-existent infections
o Former president of the German federal constitutional court doubted the constitutionality of the corona measures
o Former UK supreme court judge Lord Sumption concluded there was no factual basis for panic and no legal basis for corona measures
o German RKI (CDC equivalent) recommended no autopsies be performed
o Corona measures have no sufficient factual or legal basis, are unconstitutional and must be repealed immediately
o No serious scientist gives any validity to the infamous Neil Ferguson’s false computer models warning of millions of deaths
o Mainstream media completely failed to report the true facts of the so-called pandemic
o Democracy is in danger of being replaced by fascist totalitarian models
o Drosten (of PCR test), Tedros of WHO, and others have committed crimes against humanity as defined in the International Criminal Code
o Politicians can avoid going down with the charlatans and criminals by starting the long overdue public scientific discussion
o Politicians and mainstream media deliberately drove populations to panic
o Children were calculatedly made to feel responsible “for the painful tortured death of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow Corona rules”
o The hopeless PCR test is used to create fear and not to diagnose
o There can be no talk of a second wave
o Evidence of gigantic health and economic damage to populations
o Anti-corona measures have:
o Children are being taken away from their parents
o Children are traumatized en masse
o Bankruptcies are expected in small- and medium-sized businesses
o A class action lawsuit must be filed in the USA or Canada, with all affected parties worldwide having the opportunity to join
o Companies and self-employed people must be compensated for damages
Transcript
Hello. I am Reiner Fuellmich and I have been admitted to the Bar in Germany and in California for 26 years. I have been practicing law primarily as a trial lawyer against fraudulent corporations such as Deutsche Bank, formerly one of the world’s largest and most respected banks, today one of the most toxic criminal organizations in the world; VW, one of the world’s largest and most respected car manufacturers, today notorious for its giant diesel fraud; and Kuehne and Nagel, the world’s largest shipping company. We’re suing them in a multi-million-dollar bribery case.
I’m also one of four members of the German Corona Investigative Committee. Since July 10, 2020, this Committee has been listening to a large number of international scientists’ and experts’ testimony to find answers to questions about the corona crisis, which more and more people worldwide are asking. All the above-mentioned cases of corruption and fraud committed by the German corporations pale in comparison in view of the extent of the damage that the corona crisis has caused and continues to cause.
This corona crisis, according to all we know today, must be renamed a “Corona Scandal” and those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages. On a political level, everything must be done to make sure that no one will ever again be in a position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity or to attempt to manipulate us with their corrupt agendas. And for this reason I will now explain to you how and where an international network of lawyers will argue this biggest tort case ever, the corona fraud scandal, which has meanwhile unfolded into probably the greatest crime against humanity ever committed.
Crimes against humanity were first defined in connection with the Nuremberg trials after World War II, that is, when they dealt with the main war criminals of the Third Reich. Crimes against humanity are today regulated in section 7 of the International Criminal Code. The three major questions to be answered in the context of a judicial approach to the corona scandal are:
Answers to these three questions are urgently needed because the allegedly new and highly dangerous coronavirus has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world, and certainly not here in Germany. But the anti-corona measures, whose only basis are the PCR-test results, which are in turn all based on the German Drosten test, have, in the meantime, caused the loss of innumerable human lives and have destroyed the economic existence of countless companies and individuals worldwide. In Australia, for example, people are thrown into prison if they do not wear a mask or do not wear it properly, as deemed by the authorities. In the Philippines, people who do not wear a mask or do not wear it properly, in this sense, are getting shot in the head.
Let me first give you a summary of the facts as they present themselves today. The most important thing in a lawsuit is to establish the facts – that is, to find out what actually happened. That is because the application of the law always depends on the facts at issue. If I want to prosecute someone for fraud, I cannot do that by presenting the facts of a car accident. So what happened here regarding the alleged corona pandemic?
The facts laid out below are, to a large extent, the result of the work of the Corona Investigative Committee. This Committee was founded on July 10, 2020 by four lawyers in order to determine, through hearing expert testimony of international scientists and other experts:
Let me start with a little bit of background information. What happened in May 2019 and then in early 2020? And what happened 12 years earlier with the swine flu, which many of you may have forgotten about? In May 2019, the stronger of the two parties which govern Germany in a grand coalition, the CDU, held a Congress on Global Health, apparently at the instigation of important players from the pharmaceutical industry and the tech industry. At this Congress, the usual suspects, you might say, gave their speeches. Angela Merkel was there, and the German Secretary of Health, Jens Spahn. But, some other people, whom one would not necessarily expect to be present at such a gathering, were also there: Professor Drosten, virologist from the Charite hospital in Berlin; Professor Wieler, veterinarian and Head of the RKI, the German equivalent of the CDC; as well as Mr. Tedros, philosopher and Head of the World Health Organization (WHO). They all gave speeches there. Also present and giving speeches were the chief lobbyists of the world’s two largest health funds, namely the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. Less than a year later, these very people called the shots in the proclamation of the worldwide corona pandemic, made sure that mass PCR tests were used to prove mass infections with Covid-19 all over the world, and are now pushing for vaccines to be invented and sold worldwide.
These infections, or rather the positive test results that the PCR tests delivered, in turn became the justification for worldwide lockdowns, social distancing and mandatory face masks. It is important to note at this point that the definition of a pandemic was changed 12 years earlier. Until then, a pandemic was considered to be a disease that spread worldwide and which led to many serious illnesses and deaths. Suddenly, and for reasons never explained, it was supposed to be a worldwide disease only. Many serious illnesses and many deaths were not required any more to announce a pandemic. Due to this change, the WHO, which is closely intertwined with the global pharmaceutical industry, was able to declare the swine flu pandemic in 2009, with the result that vaccines were produced and sold worldwide on the basis of contracts that have been kept secret until today.
These vaccines proved to be completely unnecessary because the swine flu eventually turned out to be a mild flu, and never became the horrific plague that the pharmaceutical industry and its affiliated universities kept announcing it would turn into, with millions of deaths certain to happen if people didn’t get vaccinated. These vaccines also led to serious health problems. About 700 children in Europe fell incurably ill with narcolepsy and are now forever severely disabled. The vaccines bought with millions of taxpayers’ money had to be destroyed with even more taxpayers’ money. Already then, during the swine flu, the German virologist Drosten was one of those who stirred up panic in the population, repeating over and over again that the swine flu would claim many hundreds of thousands, even millions of deaths all over the world. In the end, it was mainly thanks to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and his efforts as a member of the German Bundestag, and also a member of the Council of Europe, that this hoax was brought to an end before it would lead to even more serious consequences.
Fast forward to March of 2020, when the German Bundestag announced an Epidemic Situation of National Importance, which is the German equivalent of a pandemic in March of 2020 and, based on this, the lockdown with the suspension of all essential constitutional rights for an unforeseeable time, there was only one single opinion on which the Federal Government in Germany based its decision. In an outrageous violation of the universally accepted principle “audiatur et altera pars”, which means that one must also hear the other side, the only person they listened to was Mr. Drosten.
That is the very person whose horrific, panic-inducing prognoses had proved to be catastrophically false 12 years earlier. We know this because a whistleblower named David Sieber, a member of the Green Party, told us about it. He did so first on August 29, 2020 in Berlin, in the context of an event at which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. also took part, and at which both men gave speeches. And he did so afterwards in one of the sessions of our Corona Committee.
The reason he did this is that he had become increasingly sceptical about the official narrative propagated by politicians and the mainstream media. He had therefore undertaken an effort to find out about other scientists’ opinions and had found them on the Internet. There, he realized that there were a number of highly renowned scientists who held a completely different opinion, which contradicted the horrific prognoses of Mr. Drosten. They assumed – and still do assume – that there was no disease that went beyond the gravity of the seasonal flu, that the population had already acquired cross- or T-cell immunity against this allegedly new virus, and that there was therefore no reason for any special measures, and certainly not for vaccinations.
These scientists include Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California, a specialist in statistics and epidemiology, as well as public health, and at the same time the most quoted scientist in the world; Professor Michael Levitt, Nobel prize-winner for chemistry and also a biophysicist at Stanford University; the German professors Kary Mölling, Sucharit Bhakti, Klud Wittkowski, as well as Stefan Homburg; and now many, many more scientists and doctors worldwide, including Dr. Mike Yeadon. Dr. Mike Yeadon is the former Vice-President and Scientific Director of Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. I will talk some more about him a little later.
At the end of March, beginning of April of 2020, Mr. Sieber turned to the leadership of his Green Party with the knowledge he had accumulated, and suggested that they present these other scientific opinions to the public and explain that, contrary to Mr. Drosten’s doomsday prophecies, there was no reason for the public to panic. Incidentally, Lord Sumption, who served as a judge at the British supreme court from 2012 to 2018, had done the very same thing at the very same time and had come to the very same conclusion: that there was no factual basis for panic and no legal basis for the corona measures. Likewise, the former President of the German federal constitutional court expressed – albeit more cautiously –serious doubts that the corona measures were constitutional. But instead of taking note of these other opinions and discussing them with David Sieber, the Green Party leadership declared that Mr. Drosten’s panic messages were good enough for the Green Party. Remember, they’re not a member of the ruling coalition; they’re the opposition. Still, that was enough for them, just as it had been good enough for the Federal Government as a basis for its lockdown decision, they said. They subsequently, the Green Party leadership called David Sieber a conspiracy theorist, without ever having considered the content of his information, and then stripped him of his mandates.
Now let’s take a look at the current actual situation regarding the virus’s danger, the complete uselessness of PCR tests for the detection of infections, and the lockdowns based on non-existent infections. In the meantime, we know that the health care systems were never in danger of becoming overwhelmed by Covid-19. On the contrary, many hospitals remain empty to this day and some are now facing bankruptcy. The hospital ship Comfort, which anchored in New York at the time, and could have accommodated a thousand patients, never accommodated more than some 20 patients. Nowhere was there any excess mortality. Studies carried out by Professor Ioannidis and others have shown that the mortality of corona is equivalent to that of the seasonal flu. Even the pictures from Bergamo and New York that were used to demonstrate to the world that panic was in order proved to be deliberately misleading.
Then, the so-called “Panic Paper” was leaked, which was written by the German Department of the Interior. Its classified content shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that, in fact, the population was deliberately driven to panic by politicians and mainstream media. The accompanying irresponsible statements of the Head of the RKI – remember the [German] CDC – Mr. Wieler, who repeatedly and excitedly announced that the corona measures must be followed unconditionally by the population without them asking any question, shows that that he followed the script verbatim. In his public statements, he kept announcing that the situation was very grave and threatening, although the figures compiled by his own Institute proved the exact opposite.
Among other things, the “Panic Paper” calls for children to be made to feel responsible – and I quote – “for the painful tortured death of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow the corona rules”, that is, if they do not wash their hands constantly and don’t stay away from their grandparents. A word of clarification: in Bergamo, the vast majority of deaths, 94% to be exact, turned out to be the result not of Covid-19, but rather the consequence of the government deciding to transfer sick patients, sick with probably the cold or seasonal flu, from hospitals to nursing homes in order to make room at the hospitals for all the Covid patients, who ultimately never arrived. There, at the nursing homes, they then infected old people with a severely weakened immune system, usually as a result of pre-existing medical conditions. In addition, a flu vaccination, which had previously been administered, had further weakened the immune systems of the people in the nursing homes. In New York, only some, but by far not all hospitals were overwhelmed. Many people, most of whom were again elderly and had serious pre-existing medical conditions, and most of whom, had it not been for the panic-mongering, would have just stayed at home to recover, raced to the hospitals. There, many of them fell victim to healthcare-associated infections (or nosocomial infections) on the one hand, and incidents of malpractice on the other hand, for example, by being put on a respirator rather than receiving oxygen through an oxygen mask. Again, to clarify: Covid-19, this is the current state of affairs, is a dangerous disease, just like the seasonal flu is a dangerous disease. And of course, Covid-19, just like the seasonal flu, may sometimes take take a severe clinical course and will sometimes kill patients.
However, as autopsies have shown, which were carried out in Germany in particular, by the forensic scientist Professor Klaus Püschel in Hamburg, the fatalities he examined had almost all been caused by serious pre-existing conditions, and almost all of the people who had died had died at the very at a very old age, just like in Italy, meaning they had lived beyond their average life expectancy.
In this context, the following should also be mentioned: the German RKI – that is, again the equivalent of the CDC – had initially, strangely enough, recommended that no autopsies be performed. And there are numerous credible reports that doctors and hospitals worldwide had been paid money for declaring a deceased person a victim of Covid-19 rather than writing down the true cause of death on the death certificate, for example a heart attack or a gunshot wound. Without the autopsies, we would never know that the overwhelming majority of the alleged Covid-19 victims had died of completely different diseases, but not of Covid-19. The assertion that the lockdown was necessary because there were so many different infections with SARS-COV-2, and because the healthcare systems would be overwhelmed is wrong for three reasons, as we have learned from the hearings we conducted with the Corona Committee, and from other data that has become available in the meantime:
At the beginning of January of 2020, based on this very basic knowledge, Mr. Drosten developed his PCR test, which supposedly detects an infection with SARS-COV-2, without ever having seen the real Wuhan virus from China, only having learned from social media reports that there was something going on in Wuhan, he started tinkering on his computer with what would become his corona PCR test. For this, he used an old SARS virus, hoping it would be sufficiently similar to the allegedly new strain of the coronavirus found in Wuhan. Then, he sent the result of his computer tinkering to China to determine whether the victims of the alleged new coronavirus tested positive. They did.
And that was enough for the World Health Organization to sound the pandemic alarm and to recommend the worldwide use of the Drosten PCR test for the detection of infections with the virus now called SARS-COV-2. Drosten’s opinion and advice was – this must be emphasized once again – the only source for the German government when it announced the lockdown as well as the rules for social distancing and the mandatory wearing of masks. And – this must also be emphasized once again – Germany apparently became the center of especially massive lobbying by the pharmaceutical and tech industry because the world, with reference to the allegedly disciplined Germans, should do as the Germans do in order to survive the pandemic.
Even the United States CDC, even this institution agrees with this, and I quote directly from page 38 of one of its publications on the coronavirus and the PCR tests, dated July 13, 2020. First bullet point says: “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019 nCOV [novel coronavirus] is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.” Second bullet point says: “The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019 nCOV infection.” Third bullet point says: “This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
It is still not clear whether there has ever been a scientifically correct isolation of the Wuhan virus, so that nobody knows exactly what we’re looking for when we test, especially since this virus, just like the flu viruses, mutates quickly. The PCR swabs take one or two sequences of a molecule that are invisible to the human eye and therefore need to be amplified in many cycles to make it visible. Everything over 35 cycles is – as reported by the New York Times and others – considered completely unreliable and scientifically unjustifiable. However, the Drosten test, as well as the WHO-recommended tests that followed his example, are set to 45 cycles. Can that be because of the desire to produce as many positive results as possible and thereby provide the basis for the false assumption that a large number of infections have been detected?
The test cannot distinguish inactive and reproductive matter. That means that a positive result may happen because the test detects, for example, a piece of debris, a fragment of a molecule, which may signal nothing else than that the immune system of the person tested won a battle with a common cold in the past. Even Drosten himself declared in an interview with a German business magazine in 2014, at that time concerning the alleged detection of an infection with the MERS virus, allegedly with the help of the PCR test, thatthese PCR tests are so highly sensitive that even very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive. At that time, he also became very much aware of the powerful role of a panic and fear-mongering media, as you’ll see at the end of the following quote. He said then, in this interview: “If, for example, such a pathogen scurries over the nasal mucosa of a nurse for a day or so without her getting sick or noticing anything, then she’s suddenly a MERS case. This could also explain the explosion of case numbers in Saudi Arabia. In addition, the media there have made this into an incredible sensation.”
Has he forgotten this? Or is he deliberately concealing this in the corona context because corona is a very lucrative business opportunity for the pharmaceutical industry as a whole? And for Mr. Alford Lund, his co-author in many studies and also a PCR-test producer. In my view, it is completely implausible that he forgot in 2020 what he knew about the PCR tests and told the business magazine in 2014.
In short, this test cannot detect any infection, contrary to all false claims stating that it can. An infection, a so-called “hot” infection, requires that the virus, or rather a fragment of a molecule which may be a virus, is not just found somewhere, for example, in the throat of a person without causing any damage – that would be a “cold” infection. Rather, a “hot” infection requires that the virus penetrates into the cells, replicates there and causes symptoms such as headaches or a sore throat. Only then is a person really infected in the sense of a “hot” infection, because only then is a person contagious, that is, able to infect others. Until then, it is completely harmless for both the host and all other people that the host comes into contact with.
Once again, this means that positive test results, contrary to all other claims by Drosten, Wieler, or the WHO, mean nothing with respect to infections, as even the CDC knows, as quoted above.
Meanwhile, a number of highly respected scientists worldwide assume that there has never been a corona pandemic, but only a PCR-test pandemic. This is the conclusion reached by many German scientists, such as professors Bhakti, Reiss, Mölling, Hockertz, Walach and many others, including the above-mentioned Professor John Ioannidis, and the Nobel laureate, Professor Michael Levitt from Stanford University.
The most recent such opinion is that of the aforementioned Dr. Mike Yeadon, a former Vice-President and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer, who held this position for 16 years. He and his co-authors, all well-known scientists, published a scientific paper in September of 2020 and he wrote a corresponding magazine article on September 20, 2020. Among other things, he and they state – and I quote:
“We’re basing our government policy, our economic policy, and the policy of restricting fundamental rights, presumably on completely wrong data and assumptions about the coronavirus. If it weren’t for the test results that are constantly reported in the media, the pandemic would be over because nothing really happened. Of course, there are some serious individual cases of illness, but there are also some in every flu epidemic. There was a real wave of disease in March and April, but since then, everything has gone back to normal. Only the positive results rise and sink wildly again and again, depending on how many tests are carried out. But the real cases of illnesses are over. There can be no talk of a second wave. The allegedly new strain of the coronavirus is …”
– Dr. Yeadon continues –
“… only new in that it is a new type of the long-known corona virus. There are at least four coronaviruses that are endemic and cause some of the common colds we experience, especially in winter. They all have a striking sequence similarity to the coronavirus, and because the human immune system recognizes the similarity to the virus that has now allegedly been newly discovered, a T-cell immunity has long existed in this respect. 30 per cent of the population had this before the allegedly new virus even appeared. Therefore, it is sufficient for the so-called herd immunity that 15 to 25 per cent of the population are infected with the allegedly new coronavirus to stop the further spread of the virus. And this has long been the case.”
Regarding the all-important PCR tests, Yeadon writes, in a piece called “Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics: The Deadly Danger of False Positives”, dated September 20, 2020, and I quote “The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89 to 94 per cent, or near certainty.” Dr. Yeadon, in agreement with the professors of immunology Kamera from Germany, Kappel from the Netherlands, and Cahill from Ireland, as well as the microbiologist Dr. Arve from Austria, all of whom testified before the German Corona Committee, explicitly points out that a positive test does not mean that an intact virus has been found.
The authors explain that what the PCR test actually measures is – and I quote: “Simply the presence of partial RNA sequences present in the intact virus, which could be a piece of dead virus, which cannot make the subject sick, and cannot be transmitted, and cannot make anyone else sick.” Because of the complete unsuitability of the test for the detection of infectious diseases – tested positive in goats, sheep, papayas and even chicken wings – Oxford Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, writes that the Covid virus would never disappear if this test practice were to be continued, but would always be falsely detected in much of what is tested. Lockdowns, as Yeadon and his colleagues found out, do not work. Sweden, with its laissez-faire approach, and Great Britain, with its strict lockdown, for example, have completely comparable disease and mortality statistics. The same was found by US scientists concerning the different US states. It makes no difference to the incidence of disease whether a state implements a lockdown or not.
With regard to the now infamous Imperial College of London’s Professor Neil Ferguson and his completely false computer models warning of millions of deaths, he says that – and I quote: “No serious scientist gives any validity to Ferguson’s model.” He points out with thinly veiled contempt – again I quote: “It’s important that you know, most scientists don’t accept that it …” – that is, Ferguson’s model – “was even faintly right. But the government is still wedded to the model.” Ferguson predicted 40 thousand corona deaths in Sweden by May and 100 thousand by June, but it remained at 5,800 which, according to the Swedish authorities, is equivalent to a mild flu. If the PCR tests had not been used as a diagnostic tool for corona infections, there would not be a pandemic and there would be no lockdowns, but everything would have been perceived as just a medium or light wave of influenza, these scientists conclude. Dr. Yeadon in his piece, “Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics: The Deadly Danger of False Positives, writes: “This test is fatally flawed and must immediately be withdrawn and never used again in this setting, unless shown to be fixed.” And, towards the end of that article, “I have explained how a hopelessly performing diagnostic test has been, and continues to be used, not for diagnosis of disease, but it seems solely to create fear”.
Now let’s take a look at the current actual situation regarding the severe damage caused by the lockdowns and other measures. Another detailed paper, written by a German official in the Department of the Interior, who is responsible for risk assessment and the protection of the population against risks, was leaked recently. It is now called the “False Alarm” paper. This paper comes to the conclusion that there was that there was and is no sufficient evidence for serious health risks for the population as claimed by Drosten, Wieler and the WHO, but – the author says – there’s very much evidence of the corona measures causing gigantic health and economic damage to the population, which he then describes in detail in this paper. This, he concludes, will lead to very high claims for damages, which the government will be held responsible for. This has now become reality, but the paper’s author was suspended.
More and more scientists, but also lawyers, recognize that, as a result of the deliberate panic-mongering, and the corona measures enabled by this panic, democracy is in great danger of being replaced by fascist totalitarian models. As I already mentioned above, in Australia, people who do not wear the masks, which more and more studies show, are hazardous to health, or who allegedly do not wear them correctly, are arrested, handcuffed and thrown into jail. In the Philippines, they run the risk of getting shot, but even in Germany and in other previously civilized countries, children are taken away from their parents if they do not comply with quarantine regulations, distance regulations, and mask-wearing regulations. According to psychologists and psychotherapists who testified before the Corona Committee, children are traumatized en masse, with the worst psychological consequences yet to be expected in the medium- and long-term. In Germany alone, to bankruptcies are expected in the fall to strike small- and medium-sized businesses, which form the backbone of the economy. This will result in incalculable tax losses and incalculably high and long-term social security money transfers for – among other things – unemployment benefits.
Since, in the meantime, pretty much everybody is beginning to understand the full devastating impact of the completely unfounded corona measures, I will refrain from detailing this any further.
Let me now give you a summary of the legal consequences. The most difficult part of a lawyer’s work is always to establish the true facts, not the application of the legal rules to these facts. Unfortunately, a German lawyer does not learn this at law school but his Anglo-American counterparts do get the necessary training for this at their law schools. And probably for this reason, but also because of the much more pronounced independence of the Anglo-American judiciary, the Anglo-American law of evidence is much more effective in practice than the German one. A court of law can only decide a legal dispute correctly if it has previously determined the facts correctly, which is not possible without looking at all the evidence. And that’s why the law of evidence is so important. On the basis of the facts summarized above, in particular those established with the help of the work of the German Corona Committee, the legal evaluation is actually simple. It is simple for all civilized legal systems, regardless of whether these legal systems are based on civil law, which follows the Roman law more closely, or whether they are based on Anglo-American common law, which is only loosely connected to Roman law.
Let’s first take a look at the unconstitutionality of the measures. A number of German law professors, including professors Kingreen, Morswig, Jungbluth and Vosgerau have stated, either in written expert opinions or in interviews, in line with the serious doubts expressed by the former president of the federal constitutional court with respect to the constitutionality of the corona measures, that these measures – the corona measures – are without a sufficient factual basis, and also without a sufficient legal basis, and are thereforeunconstitutional and must be repealed immediately. Very recently, a judge, Thorsten Schleif is his name, declared publicly that the German judiciary, just like the general public, has been so panic-stricken that it was no longer able to administer justice properly. He says that the courts of law – and I quote – “have all too quickly waved through coercive measures which, for millions of people all over Germany, represent massive suspensions of their constitutional rights. He points out that German citizens – again I quote – “are currently experiencing the most serious encroachment on their constitutional rights since the founding of the federal republic of Germany in 1949”. In order to contain the corona pandemic, federal and state governments have intervened, he says, massively, and in part threatening the very existence of the country as it is guaranteed by the constitutional rights of the people.
What about fraud, intentional infliction of damage and crimes against humanity? Based on the rules of criminal law, asserting false facts concerning the PCR tests or intentional misrepresentation, as it was committed by Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and WHO, as well as the WHO, can only be assessed as fraud. Based on the rules of civil tort law, this translates into intentional infliction of damage. The German professor of civil law, Martin Schwab, supports this finding in public interviews. In a comprehensive legal opinion of around 180 pages, he has familiarized himself with the subject matter like no other legal scholar has done thus far and, in particular, has provided a detailed account of the complete failure of the mainstream media to report on the true facts of this so-called pandemic. Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and Tedros of the WHO all knew, based on their own expertise or the expertise of their institutions, that the PCR tests cannot provide any information about infections, but asserted over and over again to the general public that they can, with their counterparts all over the world repeating this. And they all knew and accepted that, on the basis of their recommendations, the governments of the world would decide on lockdowns, the rules for social distancing, and mandatory wearing of masks, the latter representing a very serious health hazard, as more and more independent studies and expert statements show. Under the rules of civil tort law, all those who have been harmed by these PCR-test-induced lockdowns are entitled to receive full compensation for their losses. In particular, there is a duty to compensate – that is, a duty to pay damages for the loss of profits suffered by companies and self-employed employed persons as a result of the lockdown and other measures.
In the meantime, however, the anti-corona measures have caused, and continue to cause, such devastating damage to the world population’s health and economy that the crimes committed by Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and the WHO must be legally qualified as actual crimes against humanity, as defined in section 7 of the International Criminal Code.
How can we do something? What can we do? Well, the class action is the best route to compensatory damages and to political consequences. The so-called class action lawsuit is based on English law and exists today in the USA and in Canada. It enables a court of law to allow a complaint for damages to be tried as a class action lawsuit at the request of a plaintiff if:
Phrased differently, a judge can allow a class-action lawsuit to go forward if common questions of law and fact make up the vital component of the lawsuit. Here, the common questions of law and fact revolve around the worldwide PCR-test-based lockdowns and its consequences. Just like the VW diesel passenger cars were functioning products, but they were defective due to a so-called defeat device because they didn’t comply with the emissions standards, so too the PCR tests – which are perfectly good products in other settings – are defective products when it comes to the diagnosis of infections. Now, if an American or Canadian company or an American or Canadian individual decides to sue these persons in the United States or Canada for damages, then the court called upon to resolve this dispute may, upon request, allow this complaint to be tried as a class action lawsuit.
If this happens, all affected parties worldwide will be informed about this through publications in the mainstream media and will thus have the opportunity to join this class action within a certain period of time, to be determined by the court. It should be emphasized that nobody must join the class action, but every injured party can join the class.
The advantage of the class action is that only one trial is needed, namely to try the complaint of a representative plaintiff who is affected in a manner typical of everyone else in the class. This is, firstly, cheaper, and secondly, faster than hundreds of thousands or more individual lawsuits. And thirdly, it imposes less of a burden on the courts. Fourthly, as a rule it allows a much more precise examination of the accusations than would be possible in the context of hundreds of thousands, or more likely in this corona setting, even millions of individual lawsuits.
In particular, the well-established and proven Anglo-American law of evidence, with its pre-trial discovery, is applicable. This requires that all evidence relevant for the determination of the lawsuit is put on the table. In contrast to the typical situation in German lawsuits with structural imbalance, that is, lawsuits involving on the one hand a consumer, and on the other hand a powerful corporation, the withholding or even destruction of evidence is not without consequence; rather the party withholding or even destroying evidence loses the case under these evidence rules.
Here in Germany, a group of tort lawyers have banded together to help their clients with recovery of damages. They have provided all relevant information and forms for German plaintiffs to both estimate how much damage they have suffered and join the group or class of plaintiffs who will later join the class action when it goes forward either in Canada or the US. Initially, this group of lawyers had considered to also collect and manage the claims for damages of other, non-German plaintiffs, but this proved to be unmanageable.
However, through an international lawyers’ network, which is growing larger by the day, the German group of attorneys provides to all of their colleagues in all other countries, free of charge, all relevant information, including expert opinions and testimonies of experts showing that the PCR tests cannot detect infections. And they also provide them with all relevant information as to how they can prepare and bundle the claims for damages of their clients so that, they too, can assert their clients’ claims for damages, either in their home country’s courts of law, or within the framework of the class action, as explained above.
These scandalous corona facts, gathered mostly by the Corona Committee and summarized above, are the very same facts that will soon be proven to be true either in one court of law, or in many courts of law all over the world. These are the facts that will pull the masks off the faces of all those responsible for these crimes. To the politicians who believe those corrupt people, these facts are hereby offered as a lifeline that can help you readjust your course of action, and start the long overdue public scientific discussion, and not go down with those charlatans and criminals.
Thank you.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As argued previously by Dr Andrew Kaufmann, the CDC now admit that covid 19 has never been isolated and is not available:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AW8zjzPhS-s/
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Doctors’ letter calls for new strategy to ‘co-exist’ with Covid-19
Former FF minister among doctors who say Ireland is ‘lurching from crisis to crisis’
Mon, Oct 19, 2020, 12:06 Updated: Mon, Oct 19, 2020, 14:07
Paul Cullen Health Editor
Shoppers walk past Covid signs in Celbridge, Co Kildare. Photograph: Colin Keegan/ Collins Dublin
A former Fianna Fáil minister is among a group of Irish doctors calling on the Government its change its pandemic strategy to “co-existing” with Covid-19.
GP and ex-Donegal TD Jim McDaid is one of 15 signatories to a letter to Government that proposes a “proportionate de-escalation of the current exclusive focus on Covid-19 to the exclusion of all other health and wellbeing needs of our Irish society”.
Lockdown measures have little impact on the disease, according to the letter, sent to the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Health.
The frontline doctors in the group say they feel more confident about managing the disease now and believe “we can effectively co-exist with the virus”. They say current “unilaterally enforced national strategy” has not evolved in step with improve scientific understanding since the spring.
“We are in effect managing this as a ‘crisis’, from day to day, level to level – as though it were March 2020 when the actual crisis was present,” according to the letter.
Other signatories include surgeon Martin Feeley, who resigned as clinical director of the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group last month after criticising the country’s approach to tackling the virus; one-time contraception campaigner Dr Andrew Rynne, who spoke at an anti-lockdown and anti-mask march in Dublin earlier this month; and retired GP and Aontú councillor in Derry, Dr Anne McCloskey, who has compared using masks to stop the spread of the virus to “using a sheep fence to keep out mosquitoes”.
According to the letter, engagement from all sectors of society last spring allowed us to “flatten the curve and buy time” but understanding of Covid-19 has “evolved greatly” since then.
Today, the situation is “completely different” as there is evidence for a “significant degree of established community immunity” to the virus, the authors state.
According to the signatories, multiple published papers show “lockdown measures have little impact on the morbidity and mortality impact of Covid-19”. However, they say, current strategy in Ireland seems “oblivious” to the enormous burden of cancer and other diseases and the fact that those disproportionately affected are the most vulnerable in society.
In criticising the “questionable accuracy” of testing methods, the letter claims only a “fraction” of daily reported cases are “clinically significant in terms of transmissibility or impact”.
Citing a recent paper by Prof John Ioannidis of Stanford University, the letter claims the infection fatality rate of Covid-19 is approximately 0.23-0.27 per cent, and only 0.05 per cent in people aged under 70 years.
“Given this massive body of new evidence, we as doctors most strongly request that this discussion is opened up to a wider range of medical and scientific expert opinions.”
The authors say Ireland should be “leveraging our unique Irish societal characteristics, to enable a more focused and intensive protection strategy for those who need it most”.
“As a matter of urgency, we need to have this discussion for Ireland – openly and transparently. We desperately need to stop lurching from crisis to crisis, with every daily report of new PCR [polymerise chain reaction] positive ‘cases.’”
A separate letter has been sent by 10 doctors to Government ministers calling for an urgent review of the National Public Health Emergency Team and the introduction of a policy of “focused protection” or “targeting resources towards the vulnerable, as opposed to dissipating resources upon the entire population”. Four of these doctors also signed the first letter.
The signatories to this letter say “the development of some degree of herd or ‘natural’ immunity amongst members of the population, is an inevitability”.
The head of the World Health Organisation, Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus, last week described the idea of deliberately allowing Covid-19 to spread in the hope of achieving herd immunity as unethical and problematic.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.sott.net/article/443103-Only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-SARS-CoV-2-virus
Dr.Tom Cowan
Dr.Tom Cowan.com
Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:36 UTC
© Canberra Times Australia
This week, my colleague and friend Sally Fallon Morell brought to my attention an amazing article put out by the CDC. The link to the article is here, and it was published in June 2020. The purpose of the article was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.
First, in the section titled “Whole Genome Sequencing,” we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs.
To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.
The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by “consensus,” sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary “unicorn,” so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn.
The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that I had to read it many times before I could believe what I was reading. Let me quote the passage intact:
Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells. … Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection.
What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible “hosts” or models on which they can test. The first is humans. Exposure to humans is generally not done for ethical reasons and has never been done with SARS-CoV-2 or any coronavirus. The second possible host is animals. Forgetting for a moment that they never actually use purified virus when exposing animals, they do use solutions that they claim contain the virus. Exposure to animals has been done once with SARS-CoV-2, in an experiment that used mice. The researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the illness called Covid 19.
The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they most rely on — is inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As I have pointed out many times, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.
The shocking thing about the above quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this “new coronavirus” is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.
My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is harmless to human beings. That is the only possible conclusion, but, unfortunately, this result is not even mentioned in their conclusion. They simply say they can provide virus stocks cultured only on monkey Vero cells, thanks for coming.
If people really understood how this “science” was done, I would hope they would storm the gates and demand honesty, transparency and truth.
We are posting my interview with the brilliant MIT researcher Dr. Stephanie Seneff today. In this interview, we cover many subjects having to do with circulation, Covid, glyphosate and the role of vitamin D in health and illness. Stephanie knows the medical literature on these subjects in a way that few others do. Some of her conclusions will surprise and challenge you. For example, she makes a compelling case that vitamin D supplementation is not a good idea.
Please join us for this interview, send us your comments and feedback, and please distribute Sally’s and my book The Contagion Myth far and wide. We need its findings to get out there in the world.With thanks,
Tom
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Global Research, October 17, 2021
Global Research 5 November 2020
Theme: Science and Medicine
First published by Global Research on November 5, 2020
Introduction: using a technique to lock down society
All current propaganda on the COVID-19 pandemic is based on an assumption that is considered obvious, true and no longer questioned:
Positive RT-PCR test means being sick with COVID. This assumption is misleading.
Very few people, including doctors, understand how a PCR test works.
RT-PCR means Real Time-Polymerase Chain Reaction.
In French, it means: Réaction de Polymérisation en Chaîne en Temps Réel.
In medicine, we use this tool mainly to diagnose a viral infection.
Starting from a clinical situation with the presence or absence of particular symptoms in a patient, we consider different diagnoses based on tests.
In the case of certain infections, particularly viral infections, we use the RT-PCR technique to confirm a diagnostic hypothesis suggested by a clinical picture.
We do not routinely perform RT-PCR on any patient who is overheated, coughing or has an inflammatory syndrome!
It is a laboratory, molecular biology technique of gene amplification because it looks for gene traces (DNA or RNA) by amplifying them.
In addition to medicine, other fields of application are genetics, research, industry and forensics.
The technique is carried out in a specialized laboratory, it cannot be done in any laboratory, even a hospital. This entails a certain cost, and a delay sometimes of several days between the sample and the result.
Today, since the emergence of the new disease called COVID-19 (COrona VIrus Disease-2019), the RT-PCR diagnostic technique is used to define positive cases, confirmed as SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus responsible for the new acute respiratory distress syndrome called COVID-19).
These positive cases are assimilated to COVID-19 cases, some of whom are hospitalized or even admitted to intensive care units.
Official postulate of our managers: positive RT-PCR cases = COVID-19 patients. [1]
This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, color codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools [2].
This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.
Technical aspects: to better understand and not be manipulated
The PCR technique was developed by chemist Kary B. Mullis in 1986. Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993.
Although this is disputed [3], Kary Mullis himself is said to have criticized the interest of PCR as a diagnostic tool for an infection, especially a viral one.
He stated that if PCR was a good tool for research, it was a very bad tool in medicine, in the clinic [4].
Mullis was referring to the AIDS virus (HIV retrovirus or HIV) [5], before the COVID-19 pandemic, but this opinion on the limitation of the technique in viral infections [6], by its creator, cannot be dismissed out of hand; it must be taken into account!
PCR was perfected in 1992.
As the analysis can be performed in real time, continuously, it becomes RT (Real-Time) – PCR, even more efficient.
It can be done from any molecule, including those of the living, the nucleic acids that make up the genes:
Viruses are not considered as “living” beings, they are packets of information (DNA or RNA) forming a genome.
It is by an amplification technique (multiplication) that the molecule sought is highlighted and this point is very important.
RT-PCR is an amplification technique [7].
If there is DNA or RNA of the desired element in a sample, it is not identifiable as such.
This DNA or RNA must be amplified (multiplied) a certain number of times, sometimes a very large number of times, before it can be detected. From a minute trace, up to billions of copies of a specific sample can be obtained, but this does not mean that there is all that amount in the organism being tested.
In the case of COVID-19, the element sought by RT-PCR is SARS-CoV-2, an RNA virus [8].
There are DNA viruses such as Herpes and Varicella viruses.
The most well known RNA viruses, in addition to coronaviruses, are Influenza, Measles, EBOLA, ZIKA viruses.
In the case of SARS-CoV-2, RNA virus, an additional specific step is required, a transcription of RNA into DNA by means of an enzyme, Reverse Transcriptase.
This step precedes the amplification phase.
It is not the whole virus that is identified, but sequences of its viral genome.
This does not mean that this gene sequence, a fragment of the virus, is not specific to the virus being sought, but it is an important nuance nonetheless:
RT-PCR does not reveal any virus, but only parts, specific gene sequences of the virus.
At the beginning of the year, the SARS-CoV-2 genome was sequenced.
It consists of about 30,000 base pairs. The nucleic acid (DNA-RNA), the component of the genes, is a sequence of bases. In comparison, the human genome has more than 3 billion base pairs.
Teams are continuously monitoring the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome as it evolves [9-10-11], through the mutations it undergoes. Today, there are many variants [12].
By taking a few specific genes from the SARS-CoV-2 genome, it is possible to initiate RT-PCR on a sample from the respiratory tract.
For COVID-19 disease, which has a nasopharyngeal (nose) and oropharyngeal (mouth) entry point, the sample should be taken from the upper respiratory tract as deeply as possible in order to avoid contamination by saliva in particular.
A
ll the people tested said that it is very painful [13].
The Gold Standard (preferred site for sampling) is the nasopharyngeal (nasal) approach, the most painful route.
If there is a contraindication to the nasal approach, or preferably to the individual being tested, depending on the official organs, the oropharyngeal approach (through the mouth) is also acceptable. The test may trigger a nausea/vomiting reflex in the individual being tested.
Normally, for the result of an RT-PCR test to be considered reliable, amplification from 3 different genes (primers) of the virus under investigation is required.
“The primers are single-stranded DNA sequences specific to the virus. They guarantee the specificity of the amplification reaction. » [14]
“The first test developed at La Charité in Berlin by Dr. Victor Corman and his associates in January 2020 allows to highlight the RNA sequences present in 3 genes of the virus called E, RdRp and N. To know if the sequences of these genes are present in the RNA samples collected, it is necessary to amplify the sequences of these 3 genes in order to obtain a signal sufficient for their detection and quantification. »[15].
The essential notion of Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold or Ct positivity threshold [16].
An RT-PCR test is negative (no traces of the desired element) or positive (presence of traces of the desired element).
However, even if the desired element is present in a minute, negligible quantity, the principle of RT-PCR is to be able to finally highlight it by continuing the amplification cycles as much as necessary.
RT-PCR can push up to 60 amplification cycles, or even more!
Here is how it works:
Cycle 1: target x 2 (2 copies)
Cycle 2: target x 4 (4 copies)
Cycle 3: target x 8 (8 copies)
Cycle 4: target x 16 (16 copies)
Cycle 5; target x 32 (32 copies)
Etc exponentially up to 40 to 60 cycles!
When we say that the Ct (Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold or RT-PCR positivity threshold) is equal to 40, it means that the laboratory has used 40 amplification cycles, i.e. obtained 240 copies.
This is what underlies the sensitivity of the RT-PCR assay.
While it is true that in medicine we like to have high specificity and sensitivity of the tests to avoid false positives and false negatives, in the case of COVID-19 disease, this hypersensitivity of the RT-PCR test caused by the number of amplification cycles used has backfired.
This over-sensitivity of the RT-PCR test is deleterious and misleading!
It detaches us from the medical reality which must remain based on the real clinical state of the person: is the person ill, does he or she have symptoms?
That is the most important thing!
As I said at the beginning of the article, in medicine we always start from the person: we examine him/her, we collect his/her symptoms (complaints-anamnesis) and objective clinical signs (examination) and on the basis of a clinical reflection in which scientific knowledge and experience intervene, we make diagnostic hypotheses.
Only then do we prescribe the most appropriate tests, based on this clinical reflection.
We constantly compare the test results with the patient’s clinical condition (symptoms and signs), which takes precedence over everything else when it comes to our decisions and treatments.
Today, our governments, supported by their scientific safety advice, are making us do the opposite and put the test first, followed by a clinical reflection necessarily influenced by this prior test, whose weaknesses we have just seen, particularly its hypersensitivity.
None of my clinical colleagues can contradict me.
Apart from very special cases such as genetic screening for certain categories of populations (age groups, sex) and certain cancers or family genetic diseases, we always work in this direction: from the person (symptoms, signs) to the appropriate tests, never the other way around.
This is the conclusion of an article in the Swiss Medical Journal (RMS) published in 2007, written by doctors Katia Jaton and Gilbert Greub microbiologists from the University of Lausanne :
PCR in microbiology: from DNA amplification to result interpretation:
“To interpret the result of a PCR, it is essential that clinicians and microbiologists share their experiences, so that the analytical and clinical levels of interpretation can be combined.”
It would be indefensible to give everyone an electrocardiogram to screen everyone who might have a heart attack one day.
On the other hand, in certain clinical contexts or on the basis of specific evocative symptoms, there, yes, an electrocardiogram can be beneficial.
Back to RT-PCR and Ct (Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold).
In the case of an infectious disease, especially a viral one, the notion of contagiousness is another important element.
Since some scientific circles consider that an asymptomatic person can transmit the virus, they believe it is important to test for the presence of virus, even if the person is asymptomatic, thus extending the indication of RT-PCR to everyone.
Are RT-PCR tests good tests for contagiousness? [17]
This question brings us back to the notion of viral load and therefore Ct.
The relationship between contagiousness and viral load is disputed by some people [18] and no formal proof, to date, allows us to make a decision.
However, common sense gives obvious credence to the notion that the more virus a person has inside him or her, especially in the upper airways (oropharynx and nasopharynx), with symptoms such as coughing and sneezing, the higher the risk of contagiousness, proportional to the viral load and the importance of the person’s symptoms.
This is called common sense, and although modern medicine has benefited greatly from the contribution of science through statistics and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), it is still based primarily on common sense, experience and empiricism.
Medicine is the art of healing.
No test measures the amount of virus in the sample!
RT-PCR is qualitative: positive (presence of the virus) or negative (absence of the virus).
This notion of quantity, therefore of viral load, can be estimated indirectly by the number of amplification cycles (Ct) used to highlight the virus sought.
The lower the Ct used to detect the virus fragment, the higher the viral load is considered to be (high).
The higher the Ct used to detect the virus fragment, the lower the viral load is considered to be (low).
Thus, the French National Reference Centre (CNR), in the acute phase of the pandemic, estimated that the peak of viral shedding occurred at the onset of symptoms, with an amount of virus corresponding to approximately 108 (100 million) copies of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA on average (French COVID-19 cohort data) with a variable duration of shedding in the upper airways (from 5 days to more than 5 weeks) [19].
This number of 108 (100 million) copies/μl corresponds to a very low Ct.
A Ct of 32 corresponds to 10-15 copies/μl.
A Ct of 35 corresponds to about 1 copy/μl.
Above Ct 35, it becomes impossible to isolate a complete virus sequence and culture it!
In France and in most countries, Ct levels above 35, even 40, are still used even today!
The French Society of Microbiology (SFM) issued an opinion on September 25, 2020 in which it does not recommend quantitative results, and it recommends to make positive up to a Ct of 37 for a single gene [20]!
With 1 copy/μl of a sample (Ct 35), without cough, without symptoms, one can understand why all these doctors and scientists say that a positive RT-PCR test means nothing, nothing at all in terms of medicine and clinic!
Positive RT-PCR tests, without any mention of Ct or its relation to the presence or absence of symptoms, are used as is by our governments as the exclusive argument to apply and justify their policy of severity, austerity, isolation and aggression of our freedoms, with the impossibility to travel, to meet, to live normally!
There is no medical justification for these decisions, for these governmental choices!
In an article published on the website of the New York Times (NYT) on Saturday, August 29, American experts from Harvard University are surprised that RT-PCR tests as practiced can serve as tests of contagiousness, even more so as evidence of pandemic progression in the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection [21].
According to them, the threshold (Ct) considered results in positive diagnoses in people who do not represent any risk of transmitting the virus!
The binary “yes/no” answer is not enough, according to this epidemiologist from the Harvard University School of Public Health.
“It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the course of action for each patient tested. »
The amount of virus (viral load); but also and above all the clinical state, symptomatic or not of the person!
This calls into question the use of the binary result of this RT-PCR test to determine whether a person is contagious and must follow strict isolation measures.
These questions are being raised by many physicians around the world, not only in the United States but also in France, Belgium (Belgium Health Experts Demand Investigation Of WHO For Faking Coronavirus Pandemic), France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States and the United Kingdom. in Germany, Spain…
According to them: “We are going to put tens of thousands of people in confinement, in isolation, for nothing. » [22]. 22] And inflict suffering, anguish, economic and psychological dramas by the thousands!
Most RT-PCR tests set the Ct at 40, according to the NYT. Some set it at 37.
“Tests with such high thresholds (Ct) may not only detect live virus but also gene fragments, remnants of an old infection that do not represent any particular danger,” the experts said.
A virologist at the University of California admits that an RT-PCR test with a Ct greater than 35 is too sensitive. “A more reasonable threshold would be between 30 and 35,” she adds.
Almost no laboratory specifies the Ct (number of amplification cycles performed) or the number of copies of viral RNA per sample μl.
Here is an example of a laboratory result (approved by Sciensano, the Belgian national reference center) in an RT-PCR negative patient:
No mention of Ct.
In the NYT, experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that mention them.
Conclusion?
“Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus. »
The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40.
“With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT.
“And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “
In Massachusetts, between 85 and 90% of people who tested positive in July with a Ct of 40 would have been considered negative with a Ct of 30, adds the NYT. And yet, all these people had to isolate themselves, with all the dramatic psychological and economic consequences, while they were not sick and probably not contagious at all.
In France, the Centre National de Référence (CNR), the French Society of Microbiology (SFM) continue to push Ct to 37 and recommend to laboratories to use only one gene of the virus as a primer.
I remind you that from Ct 32 onwards, it becomes very difficult to culture the virus or to extract a complete sequence, which shows the completely artificial nature of this positivity of the test, with such high Ct levels, above 30.
Similar results were reported by researchers from the UK Public Health Agency in an article published on August 13 in Eurosurveillance: “The probability of culturing the virus drops to 8% in samples with Ct levels above 35.” [23]
In addition, currently, the National Reference Center in France only evaluates the sensitivity of commercially available reagent kits, not their specificity: serious doubts persist about the possibility of cross-reactivity with viruses other than SARS-CoV-2, such as other benign cold coronaviruses. [20]
It is potentially the same situation in other countries, including Belgium.
Similarly, mutations in the virus may have invalidated certain primers (genes) used to detect SARS-CoV-2: the manufacturers give no guarantees on this, and if the AFP fast-checking journalists tell you otherwise, test their good faith by asking for these guarantees, these proofs.
If they have nothing to hide and if what I say is false, this guarantee will be provided to you and will prove their good faith.
Until there is a better rationale for PCR screening, with a known and appropriate Ct threshold, an asymptomatic person should not be tested in any way.
Even a symptomatic person should not automatically be tested, as long as they can place themselves in isolation for 7 days.
Let’s stop this debauchery of RT-PCR testing at too high Ct levels and return to clinical, quality medicine.
Once we understand how RT-PCR testing works, it becomes impossible to let the current government routine screening strategy, inexplicably supported by the virologists in the safety councils, continue.
My hope is that, finally, properly informed, more and more people will demand that this strategy be stopped, because it is all of us, enlightened, guided by real benevolence and common sense, who must decide our collective and individual destinies.
No one else should do it for us, especially when we realize that those who decide are no longer reasonable or rational.
Summary of important points :
Overall Conclusion
Is the obstinacy of governments to use the current disastrous strategy, systematic screening by RT-PCR, due to ignorance?
Is it due to stupidity?
To a kind of cognitive trap trapping their ego?
In any case, we should be able to question them, and if among the readers of this article there are still honest journalists, or naive politicians, or people who have the possibility to question our rulers, then do so, using these clear and scientific arguments.
It is all the more incomprehensible that our rulers have surrounded themselves with some of the most experienced specialists in these matters.
If I have been able to gather this information myself, shared, I remind you, by competent people above all suspicion of conspiracy, such as Hélène Banoun, Pierre Sonigo, Jean-François Toussaint, Christophe De Brouwer, whose intelligence, intellectual honesty and legitimacy cannot be questioned, then the Belgian, French and Quebec scientific advisors, etc., know all this as well.
So?
What’s going on?
Why continue in this distorted direction, obstinately making mistakes?
It is not insignificant to reimpose confinements, curfews, quarantines, reduced social bubbles, to shake up again our shaky economies, to plunge entire families into precariousness, to sow so much fear and anxiety generating a real state of post-traumatic stress worldwide, to reduce access to care for other pathologies that nevertheless reduce life expectancy much more than COVID-19! [24]
Is there intent to harm?
Is there an intention to use the alibi of a pandemic to move humanity towards an outcome it would otherwise never have accepted? In any case, not like that!
Would this hypothesis, which modern censors will hasten to label “conspiracy”, be the most valid explanation for all this?
Indeed, if we draw a straight line from the present events, if they are maintained, we could find ourselves once again confined with hundreds, thousands of human beings forced to remain inactive, which, for the professions of catering, entertainment, sales, fairgrounds, itinerants, canvassers, risks being catastrophic with bankruptcies, unemployment, depression, suicides by the hundreds of thousands. [25-26-27-28]
The impact on education, on our children, on teaching, on medicine with long planned care, operations, treatments to be cancelled, postponed, will be profound and destructive.
“We risk a looming food crisis if action is not taken quickly.” [29].
It is time for everyone to come out of this negative trance, this collective hysteria, because famine, poverty, massive unemployment will kill, mow down many more people than SARS-CoV-2!
Does all this make sense in the face of a disease that is declining, over-diagnosed and misinterpreted by this misuse of overly sensitively calibrated PCR tests?
For many, the continuous wearing of the mask seems to have become a new norm.
Even if it is constantly downplayed by some health professionals and fact-checking journalists, other doctors warn of the harmful consequences, both medical and psychological, of this hygienic obsession which, maintained permanently, is in fact an abnormality!
What a hindrance to social relations, which are the true foundation of a physically and psychologically healthy humanity!
Some dare to find all this normal, or a lesser price to pay in the face of the pandemic of positive PCR tests.
Isolation, distancing, masking of the face, impoverishment of emotional communication, fear of touching and kissing even within families, communities, between relatives…
Spontaneous gestures of daily life hindered and replaced by mechanical and controlled gestures …
Terrified children, kept in permanent fear and guilt…
All this will have a deep, lasting and negative impact on human organisms, in their physical, mental, emotional and representation of the world and society.
This is not normal!
We cannot let our rulers, for whatever reason, organize our collective suicide any longer.
Translated from French by Global Research. Original source: Mondialisation.ca
Dr Pascal Sacré is a physician specialized in critical care, author and renowned public health analyst, Charleroi, Belgium. He is a Research Associate of the entre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
****
Professionals whose references and comments are the basis of this article in its scientific aspect (especially and mainly on RT-PCR):
1) Hélène Banoun
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helene_Banoun
PhD, Pharmacist biologist
Former INSERM Research Officer
Former intern at the Paris Hospitals
2) Pierre Sonigo
Virologist
Research Director INSERM, worked at the Pasteur Institute
Heads the Virus Genetics Laboratory in Cochin, Paris.
Participated in 1985 in the sequencing of the AIDS virus.
3) Christophe De Brouwer
PhD in Public Health Science
Honorary Professor at the School of Public Health at ULB, Belgium
4) Jean-François Toussaint
Doctor, Professor of Physiology at the University of Paris-Descartes
Director of IRMES, Institute for BioMedical Research and Sports Epidemiology
Former member of the High Council of Public Health
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-11-19-portugal-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-unlawful-covid19.html
Thursday, November 19, 2020 by: Ethan Huff
Tags: badhealth, badmedicine, badscience, coronavirus, court, covid-19, false positives, infections, lockdown, outbreak, pandemic, PCR, PCR tests, Portugal, Positive, quarantine, testing, unlawful, unreliable
Bypass censorship by sharing this link:
Copy URL
23KViews
(Natural News) Quarantining people based solely on a “positive” PCR test is no longer lawful in Portugal, thanks to a court decision ruling the test to be inherently unreliable, and thus fraudulent for policy-making purposes.
Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court determined that the PCR test produces varying results depending on an individual’s viral load, as well as on the number of cycles used. In its conclusion, the court wrote that:
“… if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the U.S.), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”
In other words, people who get tested with a PCR test will more than likely receive an inaccurate result, usually a false positive. This would suggest that the official Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) numbers are majorly skewed, making the plandemic seem worse than it actually is.
Amazingly, nobody seems to know which cycle threshold for the PCR test was being used in Portugal up until this point. Consequently, there is no way to know how many people who tested “positive” actually had the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).
In India where the standard cycle threshold is between 37 and 40, the reliability of the PCR test there is similarly less than three percent, with a false positive rate as high as 97 percent.
You will find more of the latest news about the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) at Pandemic.news.
The case in Portugal came about after four people were forcibly quarantined by the Regional Health Authority (RHA). One of these individuals received a PCR test, while the other three were deemed to have undergone “a high risk of exposure.”
The RHA decided that all of them were “infectious” based on the circumstances, mandating that they go into forced isolation for the prescribed two-week period that most governments seem to be utilizing.
These individuals sued for fraudulent science and won, setting a precedent for the PCR test to hopefully be discarded as pseudoscientific quackery, which is exactly what it is.
Even The New York Times told the truth by revealing that most people who test “positive” using a PCR test are actually negative and healthy.
Testing data collected from Massachusetts, New York, Nevada and elsewhere show that upwards of 90 percent of people who test “positive” with a PCR test are perfectly normal and disease-free.
“Given how much scientific doubt exists – as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter – about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it,” the Portuguese court corroborated about the faulty nature of the PCR test.
It is important to keep in mind that the PCR was never intended to be used as a method of trying to copy genetic material, which is how it is being used in Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) testing.
“It was never intended to be a diagnostic tool,” Great Game India reports.
In essence, if a PCR test is conducted on an immune person and turns up “positive,” what it is actually pulling up is perhaps a “shattered part of the viral genome.”
“Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected],” Great Game India further notes.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Moderna: A Company “In Need of a Hail Mary”
Analysis by Whitney Webb
Before COVID-19, Moderna was in danger of hemorrhaging investors, as persistent safety concerns and other doubts about its mRNA delivery system threatened its entire product pipeline. Fear caused by the pandemic crisis made those concerns largely evaporate, even though there is no proof that they were ever resolved.
Those analyzing the COVID-19 crisis and its effects have mostly focused on how its disruptive nature has led to major shifts and recalibrations throughout society and the economy. Such disruption has also lent itself to a variety of agendas that had required an event of “reset” potential in order to be realized.
In the case of the vaccine industry, COVID-19 has led to dramatic changes in how federal agencies manage the approval of medical countermeasures during a declared crisis, how trials for vaccine candidates are conducted, how the public perceives vaccination, and even how the term “vaccine” is defined.
Such shifts, though obvious, have provoked praise from some and sharp criticism from others, with the latter category being largely censored from public discourse on television, in print, and online. However, in objectively analyzing such seismic changes, it’s clear that most of these shifts in vaccine development and vaccine policy dramatically favor speed and the implementation of new and experimental technology at the expense of safety and thorough study.
In the case of vaccines, it can be argued that no one benefitted more from these changes than the developers of the COVID-19 vaccines themselves, particularly the pharmaceutical and biotechnology company Moderna.
Not only did the COVID-19 crisis obliterate hurdles that had previously prevented Moderna from taking a single product to market, it also dramatically reversed the company’s fortunes. Indeed, from 2016 right up until the emergence of COVID-19, Moderna could barely hold it together, as it was shedding key executives, top talent, and major investors at an alarming rate.
Essentially, Moderna’s promise of “revolutionizing” medicine and the remarkable salesmanship and fund-raising capabilities of the company’s top executive, Stéphane Bancel, were the main forces keeping it afloat.
In the years leading up to the COVID-19 crisis, Moderna’s promises — despite Bancel’s efforts — rang increasingly hollow, as the company’s long-standing penchant for extreme secrecy meant that — despite nearly a decade in business — it had never been able to definitively prove that it could deliver the “revolution” it had continually assured investors was right around the corner.
This was compounded by major issues with patents held by a hostile competitor that threatened Moderna’s ability to turn a profit on anything it might manage to take to market, as well as major issues with its mRNA delivery system that led them to abandon any treatment that would require more than one dose because of toxicity concerns.
The latter issue, though largely forgotten and/or ignored by media today, should be a major topic in the COVID-19 booster debate, given that there is still no evidence that Moderna ever resolved the toxicity issue that arose in multi-dose products.
In this first installment of a two-part series, the dire situation in which Moderna found itself immediately prior to the emergence of COVID-19 is discussed in detail, revealing that Moderna — very much like the now disgraced company Theranos — had long been a house of cards with sky-high valuations completely disconnected from reality.
Part 2 will explore how that reality would have come crashing down sometime in 2020 or 2021 were it not for the advent of the COVID-19 crisis and Moderna’s subsequent partnership with the US government and the highly unusual processes involving its vaccine’s development and approval.
Despite the emergence of real-world data challenging the claims that Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective, Moderna’s booster is being rushed through by some governments, while others have recently banned the vaccine’s use in young adults and teens due to safety concerns.
As this two-part series will show, safety concerns about Moderna were known well before the COVID crisis, yet they have been ignored by health authorities and the media during the crisis itself. In addition, in order to stave off collapse, Moderna must keep selling its COVID-19 vaccine for years to come. In other words, without the approval of its booster, which has caused great controversy even among the country’s top vaccine officials, Moderna faces a massive financial reckoning.
While the COVID-19 crisis threw the company a lifeboat, the administration of its COVID-19 vaccine, in which the US government has now invested nearly $6 billion, must continue into the foreseeable future for the bailout to be truly successful. Otherwise, a company now worth $126.7 billion, with major investments from the US government, US military, and ties to the world’s wealthiest individuals, will crumble in short order.
A New Theranos?
In September 2016, Damian Garde, the national biotech reporter for the medical media company STAT, wrote a lengthy exposé of the “ego, ambition, and turmoil” plaguing “one of biotech’s most secretive startups.” The article focused on the company Moderna, which had been founded in 2010 to commercialize the research of Boston Children’s Hospital cell biologist Derrick Rossi.
The effort to turn a profit by creating Moderna, which intimately involved controversial scientist and close Bill Gates associate Bob Langer as well as Cambridge, Massachusetts–based Flagship Ventures (now Flagship Pioneering), began soon after Rossi published a report on the ability of modified RNA to turn skin cells into different types of tissue.
Between the time of Moderna’s founding and Garde’s 2016 investigation, the buzz around Rossi’s research and its potential to create medical breakthroughs had waned, as had the buzz around its potential to make its investors very wealthy.
Despite teaming up with pharmaceutical giants like AstraZeneca and raising record amounts of funding, Moderna still had no product on the market six years after its founding, and, as STAT revealed, the “company’s caustic work environment” had led to a persistent hemorrhaging of top talent, though little of its internal conflicts was publicly known due to “its obsession with secrecy.”
Most troubling for the company that year, however, was that Moderna appeared to have “run into roadblocks with its most ambitious projects.”
Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel
Aside from the scientific obstacles that Moderna had encountered, one major “roadblock” for the company, per Garde, was none other than Stéphane Bancel, Moderna’s top executive, who still heads the company. According to Garde, Bancel was squarely at the center of many of the company’s controversies due, in part, to his “unwavering belief that Moderna’s science will work — and that employees who don’t ‘live the mission’ have no place in the company.”
Between 2012 and 2016, Bancel was allegedly a key factor in the resignation of at least a dozen “highly placed executives,” including those who directed Moderna’s product pipeline as well as its vaccine projects.
Bancel, prior to joining Moderna, had spent much of his career in sales and operations, not science, making a name for himself at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly before heading a French diagnostics firm called bioMérieux. His performance there, as well as his ambition, caught the attention of Flagship Ventures, a Moderna cofounder and top investor, which then connected him with the company he would go on to lead.
Although lacking a background in mRNA and the science behind its use as a therapeutic, Bancel has made up for it by becoming Moderna’s salesman par excellence. Under his leadership, Moderna became “loath to publish its work in Science or Nature, but enthusiastic to herald its potential on CNBC and CNN.”
In other words, under Bancel, the company came to promote its science through media publicity and public relations rather than by publishing actual data or scientific evidence. When two of its vaccine candidates entered phase 1 human trials in 2016 (trials that ultimately went nowhere), the company declined to list them on the public federal registry ClinicalTrials.gov.
The decision not to list, which deviates from common practice by Moderna’s competitors and other more traditional vaccine companies, meant that the information on the safety of these vaccine candidates would likely never be publicly available after the trial’s conclusion. Moderna also refused to publicly comment on what diseases these vaccines were meant to target.
Such secrecy became commonplace at Moderna after Bancel took the helm, with the company having published no data “supporting its vaunted technology” by the time STAT’s 2016 exposé was published. Insiders as well as investors that had committed millions to the company were only granted “a peek” at the company’s data.
According to former Moderna scientists who spoke to STAT, the company was “a case of the emperor’s new clothes.” Former employees further charged that Bancel was actually “running an investment firm” and “then hop[ing] it also develops a drug that’s successful.”
Perhaps this is why Bancel was deemed the best executive to steer Moderna. As an ambitious salesman running a highly overvalued company, he would prioritize the company’s image and its finances regardless of any issues with the science underpinning it all. Perhaps it was for that reason that Bancel, per former employees, “made it clear [from the beginning] that Moderna’s science simply had to work. And that anyone who couldn’t make it work didn’t belong.”
As STAT noted in 2016, the people who were tasked with making “the science work” were those who most frequently resigned, which led to Moderna losing two heads of chemistry within a single year, followed shortly by losing its chief scientific officer and its head of manufacturing. Many top executives, including the heads of its cancer research and rare disease research branches, ended up lasting fewer than eighteen months in their respective positions.
The abrupt resignations weren’t exclusive to Moderna’s science-focused executive positions either, as the chief information officer and top financial executive role were also affected. Bancel ultimately sought advice from the human resources departments of Facebook, Google, and Netflix on employee retention.
Particularly telling was the abrupt and mysterious resignation of Moderna’s head of research and development, Joseph Bolen, after about two years at the company. A company insider at the time told STAT that the only reason Bolen would have resigned was if “there was something wrong with the science or the personnel.”
In other words, Bolen either left because the science underpinning Moderna’s massive valuation did not live up to the hype or Bancel had forced him out, with the additional possibility that both were key in Bolen’s resignation.
Speculation at the time pointed the finger at Bancel, though it’s not clear why the rift between the two men emerged. Bancel asserted that he tried to convince Bolen to stay, though there were contrasting assertions from anonymous employees, and that Bolen had “voted himself off the island.”
Whatever the exact cause of the resignation of the head of R & D, it only added to the mystique around Moderna’s inner workings and its ability to deliver on its promise to “revolutionize” medicine. It also reveals more than a few similarities between Moderna and the now-disgraced company Theranos.
Theranos, whose former top executive, Elizabeth Holmes, is now on trial for fraud, was known for its extreme culture of secrecy that kept investors and business partners in the dark, forced nondisclosure agreements on everyone who came in contact with the company, and kept employees “siloed” through an extremely strict need-to-know policy.
Like Moderna, Theranos had been praised as revolutionary and poised to “change the medical industry forever.” Similarly, its top executive had no professional health-care or science experience, yet both fired or forced the resignations of employees who disagreed with their perspective or were unable to provide “positive” results.
Both companies also failed to publish any evidence in peer-reviewed journals that the science behind their multibillion-dollar valued companies was more than just fantasy and a well-devised sales pitch.
Arguably, the most critical difference between Moderna and Theranos is that Moderna, whose numerous issues and challenges only came to light after the collapse of Theranos had begun, has never faced the same degree of scrutiny from the US government or mainstream investigative journalists.
There are many possible reasons for this, including Moderna’s close relationship with the US Department of Defense through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), or concern that its exposure post-Theranos would bring scrutiny to any company existing at the intersection of Silicon Valley and the health-care industry.
However, such a reckoning would likely have been inevitable for Moderna had it not been for the COVID-19 crisis, which could not have come at a more convenient time for the company.
Moderna’s “Software” Encounters Bugs
Many of the problems with Moderna that Garde identified in 2016 continued to plague the company right up until the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. Chief among these was Moderna’s struggle to prove that its technology worked and that it was safe.
Concerns about the safety and efficacy of the company’s products, which were publicly reported beginning in 2017, evaporated in the wave of panic surrounding COVID-19 and the simultaneous “Warp Speed” race for a vaccine that would “end the pandemic.”
Yet, there is little, if any, evidence that these once-well-recognized concerns were addressed prior to the US government’s emergency use authorization of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine and its now widespread use in many countries around the world. To the contrary, there is evidence that these concerns were covered up both prior to and during the development of its vaccine.
Moderna’s office in Cambridge, Massachusetts
The reports that emerged in January 2017 noted that Moderna had “run into troubling safety problems with its most ambitious therapy” and that the company was “now banking on a mysterious new technology to keep afloat.”
The “ambitious therapy” in question was meant to treat Crigler-Najjar syndrome and “was to be the first therapy using audacious new technology that Bancel promised would yield dozens of drugs in the coming decade.” Bancel had specifically used the Crigler-Najjar therapy as a major selling point to investors, particularly in 2016 when he touted it at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference.
Yet, employees of Alexion, the company co-developing the drug with Moderna, blew the whistle on the project in 2017, revealing that it “never proved safe enough to test in humans” and that the failure of this therapy and the technology platform it sought to use had been responsible for prompting Moderna to abandon the class of drug therapies that, for years, had justified its sky-high valuation and attracted hundreds of millions in investor cash.
As a result of the problem with the Crigler-Najjar drug, media outlets asserted that Moderna was now “in need of a Hail Mary” that would keep its valuation from imploding and its investors from fleeing. The persistence of problems first noted in the 2016 STAT investigation, such as Moderna’s failure to publish meaningful data supporting its mRNA technology, were only exacerbating the company’s increasingly precarious position.
Indeed, not long before the indefinite delay of the Crigler-Najjar therapy, Bancel had dismissed questions about Moderna’s promise by painting mRNA as an easy way to quickly develop novel treatments for a variety of diseases. He stated that “mRNA is like software: You can just turn the crank and get a lot of products going into development.”
If that were the case, why did the company have no products on the market after nearly seven years, and why had its most touted project experienced such obstacles? Clearly, in keeping with Bancel’s “software” metaphor, Moderna’s technology had encountered bugs, bugs that were potentially ineradicable.
It turns out that the Crigler-Najjar drug therapy that Moderna had bet on so heavily had failed because of the lipid nanoparticle delivery system it used to transport mRNA into cells. Crigler-Najjar had been chosen as a target condition because Moderna scientists deemed it to be “the lowest-hanging fruit.”
First, the syndrome is caused by one specific genetic defect; second, the affected organ, the liver, is among the easiest to target with nanoparticles; and third and most important for the company, treating the disease with mRNA would require frequent doses, ensuring a steady stream of income for the company.
Thus, given the first two motives behind the company’s focus on Crigler-Najjar, if Moderna couldn’t develop a therapy for that condition, it meant they wouldn’t be able to develop a therapy for other conditions that, for example, were caused by multiple genetic defects or affected multiple organs or those more resistant to nanoparticle-based treatments.
In other words, that “Moderna could not make its therapy [for Crigler-Najjar] work” meant that it was unlikely to make therapies of that entire class work either.
Indeed, media reports on the indefinite delay of this particular therapy noted that “the indefinite delay on the [Moderna] Crigler-Najjar project signals persistent and troubling safety concerns for any mRNA treatment that needs to be delivered in multiple doses.”
This issue would soon lead Moderna to only pursue treatments that could be delivered as a single dose — that is, until the emergence of COVID-19 and the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine booster debate. It is also worth mentioning that, due to the extreme rarity of Crigler-Najjar syndrome, even if the therapy had been successfully taken to market by Moderna, it would have been unlikely to bring in enough money to sustain the company.
The specific problem Moderna encountered with the Crigler-Najjar treatment was related to the lipid nanoparticle delivery system it was using. According to former Moderna employees and their collaborators at Alexion, “The safe dose was too weak, and repeat injections of a dose strong enough to be effective had troubling effects on the liver [the target organ of this particular therapy] in animal studies.”
This was an issue Moderna had apparently run into with its nanoparticle delivery system in other cases too, according to reports published at the time. Per STAT, the delivery system employed by Moderna had consistently “created a daunting challenge: Dose too little, and you don’t get enough enzyme to affect the disease; dose too much, and the drug is too toxic for patients.”
Moderna attempted to offset the bad press over having to delay the Crigler-Najjar drug with claims that they had developed a new nanoparticle delivery system called V1GL that “will more safely deliver mRNA.” The claims came a month after Bancel had touted another delivery system called N1GL to Forbes.
In that interview, Bancel told Forbes that the delivery system they had been using, licensed to them by Acuitas, “was not very good” and that Moderna had “stopped using Acuitas tech for new drugs.” However, as will be explored in detail in this report as well as Part II of this series, it appears that Moderna continued to rely on the Acuitas-licensed technology in subsequent vaccines and other projects, including its COVID-19 vaccine.
Former Moderna employees and those close to their product development were doubtful at the time that these new and supposedly safer nanoparticle delivery systems were of any consequence. According to three former employees and collaborators close to the process who spoke anonymously to STAT, Moderna had long been “toiling away on new delivery technologies in hopes of hitting on something safer than what it had.”
All of those interviewed believed that “N1GL and V1GL are either very recent discoveries, just in the earliest stages of testing — or else new names slapped on technologies Moderna has owned for years.” All spoke anonymously due to having signed nondisclosure agreements with the company, agreements that are aggressively enforced.
One former employee, commenting on the alleged promise of N1GL and V1GL, stated that these platforms “would have to be a miraculous, Hail Mary sort of save for them to get to where they need to be on their timelines … Either [Bancel] is extremely confident that it’s going to work, or he’s getting kind of jittery that, with a lack of progress, he needs to put something out there.”
Stephen Hoge, Moderna’s president, and Melissa Moore, Moderna’s CSO for Platform Research Source: Moderna
It seems that those former employees who believed that N1GL and V1GL were new names put on existing technology and that Bancel was overselling their promise were correct, as Moderna appears to have returned to the troubled lipid nanoparticle delivery system it had licensed from Acuitas for subsequent therapies, including its COVID-19 vaccine.
As will be explored in this report and Part II of this series, there is no evidence that Moderna ever got their “Hail Mary” save when it came to acquiring the rights for or developing a safe mRNA delivery system.
On top of the much-touted promises of N1GL and V1GL as safer treatments, Moderna additionally vowed to create “new and better formulations” for the Crigler-Najjar therapy that could potentially make it to human trials at a later time. This helped to stave off more bad press, but only for a few weeks.
One month after the troubles with the Crigler-Najjar therapy were publicly reported, the head of Moderna’s oncology division, Stephen Kesley, left the company. This was just as Moderna was moving toward its first human trials for its cancer treatment, which forced “a senior leadership team with little experience in developing drugs to sort out the company’s future in the field.”
Just weeks before Kesley’s departure, Bancel had boldly claimed in a bid to woo new investors at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference, held in January 2017 in San Francisco, that oncology was Moderna’s “next big opportunity after vaccines.”
The same month as Kesley’s departure, Moderna was able to draw media attention elsewhere, as for the very first time they published data in a peer-reviewed journal. In Cell, its scientists published data on an animal trial for its Zika vaccine candidate that positively demonstrated both efficacy and safety in mice.
While animal trial results do not necessarily translate into equivalent results in humans, the results were deemed to “bode well” for Moderna’s planned clinical trial of that vaccine candidate in humans. In addition, the results were like the animal trial results published by Moderna competitor BioNTech for their mRNA vaccine candidate for Zika a month earlier.
However, for Moderna, the positive news was muted by a negative ruling on a legal dispute that threatened Moderna’s ability to ever turn a profit on the Zika vaccine or any other mRNA vaccine it developed, a threat that Moderna’s competitors, such as BioNTech, didn’t have to contend with.
That ruling, discussed in greater detail later in this report, greatly restricted Moderna’s use of the lipid nanoparticle delivery system licensed to it through Acuitas and directly threatened the company’s ability to create a for-profit product using intellectual property tied to the relevant patents.
It would also kick off a years-long legal dispute that has suggested at various times that the promises of V1GL and N1GL were either completely invented or greatly exaggerated, as former Moderna employees and collaborators had stated.
Not long afterward, in July 2017, Moderna was hit with yet another wave of bad press as their partner in the Crigler-Najjar venture, Alexion, cut ties with the company completely. Moderna downplayed Alexion’s decision and claimed it had acquired “extensive knowledge” that would allow it to continue to develop the troubled therapy on its own.
Nonetheless, Alexion’s decision came at an inopportune time for the company, as one of Moderna’s top investors had just two weeks earlier slashed its valuation of the company by almost $2 billion, allegedly because Moderna had “struggled to live up to its own hype.” Reports began to circulate claiming that “Moderna’s investors might be losing faith in the company’s future.”
Indeed, the Crigler-Najjar syndrome drug was not the only one that, at that point, had proven “too weak or too dangerous to test in clinical trials,” according to former employees and partners.
The persistent issue, which again lay with the nanoparticle delivery system Moderna had licensed from Acuitas, had forced the company, beginning with the delay of the Crigler-Najjar therapy, to “prioritize vaccines, which can be dosed just once and thus avoid the safety problems that have plagued more ambitious projects.”
Yet, these single-dose “vaccines” or therapies were considered not as lucrative as the drug therapies Moderna had long promised and that underpinned its multibillion-dollar valuation, thereby forcing the company to “bet big on a loss-leader.” Also problematic was that Moderna lagged behind its mRNA vaccine competitors and that the supposed promise of its technology to produce viable vaccines was only “proven” at that point by a single, small trial.
That trial, as noted by the Boston Business Journal, was an “early-stage human trial that was primarily meant to assess the safety of an avian flu vaccine.” Moderna had claimed, despite the trial being designed to assess safety, that it had “provided evidence that the vaccine is effective, with no major side effects” as well.
Furthermore, as will be discussed in a later section of this report, the legal dispute over the Acuitas-licensed lipid nanoparticle system threatened Moderna’s ability to ever turn on a profit on any mRNA vaccine it managed to get through trials and the federal approval process, making the company’s future appear quite grim.
Despite Positive Press, Lingering Questions Remained
In September 2017, at a closed-door investor event meant to prevent more major investors from devaluing the company or jumping ship, Moderna provided more insight into a recently published press release on the trial results of a therapy meant to regrow heart tissue by boosting production of a protein known as VEGF.
The press release, which generated positive media headlines, noted that the therapy had been proven safe in a study with a sample size of 44 patients. However, neither the press release nor the data Moderna disclosed to investors at the closed-door meeting revealed how much protein the therapy caused patients to produce, leaving its efficacy a mystery.
Indeed, media reports on the investor meeting noted that “since Moderna did not release that crucial data point, outsiders can’t judge how much therapeutic potential there may be.”
The results, though they seemed to mitigate the concerns over the safety of Moderna’s technology, failed to inspire confidence in many attendees. Several attendees later told reporters that they “were not overly impressed” with Moderna’s presentation, which only “underlined lingering questions about whether it can live up to its own hype.”
One of the issues here, yet again, is that Moderna’s valuation was and is underpinned by its promise to produce products for rare diseases that require repeated injections over a patient’s lifetime. The VEGF therapy promoted by Moderna at this meeting was meant to be a one-time-only injection, and, thus, evidence of its safety did not resolve the problem of none of Moderna’s multi-dose products having proven safe enough to test on humans.
The closed-door investor event made it clear that Moderna was aiming to avoid that persistent problem by prioritizing single-dose vaccines. As STAT noted at the time:
“The presentation to investors also made clear that Moderna is prioritizing vaccines. They are easier to develop from mRNA because patients need just one dose, which eliminates some of the safety issues that have plagued more ambitious projects such as therapies for rare diseases.”
The pivot to vaccines remained a sore point with many investors, however, as vaccines are viewed as “low-margin product[s] that can’t generate anywhere near the profits seen in more lucrative fields like rare diseases and oncology.” These, as previously mentioned, are the very fields on which Moderna’s massive valuation had been based but for which it had been unable to produce safe and effective therapies.
Moderna was clearly aware of these concerns among its current and potential investor base and attempted to speak promisingly of its oncology-related efforts at this same event. However, it was silent on trial timing and other key data points, maintaining the company’s long-standing reputation for secrecy towards both insiders and the general public.
It is certainly telling that Moderna remained so secretive about key data at an event not only closed to the public and the press, but meant to reassure existing investors and to entice new ones. If Moderna declined to show important data to investors at a time when it was desperately seeking to keep them onboard, it implies that the company either had something to hide or nothing to show.
Moderna’s increasingly troubled internal situation, despite its consistently rosy PR, escalated a month later when reports emerged of the abrupt resignations of its head of chemistry, the leader of its cardiovascular division, and the head of its rare diseases division. These resignations, which occurred toward the end of 2017, followed the high-profile resignations the company suffered that were mentioned in the 2016 STAT exposé by Damian Garde.
A few months later, in March 2018, the chief scientific officer of Moderna’s vaccine business, Giuseppe Ciaramella, also left.
This resignation signaled further internal troubles at the company, even more because Moderna had recently and very publicly pivoted to vaccines; and Ciaramella, in addition to leading vaccine development at this critical juncture, had been the first Moderna executive to suggest that the company’s technology could be useful in developing vaccines, a suggestion that the company was now betting everything on.
One can’t help but wonder if Bancel’s tendency to force out employees and executives who “couldn’t make the science work” was a factor in any of these high-profile resignations, including that of Ciaramella.
A Years-Long Legal Snafu
Thus far, this report has largely focused on how Moderna’s extreme secrecy appears to have been used to obfuscate and mitigate major issues with its technology and product pipeline and how those issues were reaching a climax following the company’s IPO and immediately prior to the COVID crisis.
However, the challenge of creating products that work and can be proven to work in clinical settings is but one of at least two major issues facing Moderna as a company. Indeed, during the same timetable explored above, Moderna was embroiled in aggressive disputes related to intellectual property and patents.
Notably, these same legal issues deal with the lipid nanoparticle system that was also reportedly at the root of Moderna’s safety and product-pipeline issues.
As mentioned earlier, the lipid nanoparticle delivery system used in many Moderna therapies was licensed to them by Acuitas. Acuitas, however, had licensed that system from a separate company, Arbutus, which sued in 2016 claiming that Acuitas’s sublicense to Moderna was illegal. Arbutus won the case, which lead to a temporary injunction in 2017 that stopped Acuitas from further sublicensing the lipid nanoparticle technology.
A settlement reached between Acuitas and Arbutus in 2018 terminated Acuitas’s license and restricted Moderna’s use of the technology to four vaccine candidates that targeted already identified viruses.
Moderna’s Bancel told Forbes in 2017 that the Acuitas/Arbutus system was barely mediocre and that Moderna was developing its own improved delivery system that would not infringe on Arbutus’s intellectual property (the aforementioned N1GL and V1GL systems).
However, soon after Bancel made those claims, Arbutus’s leadership challenged them, stating that the company had reviewed all of Moderna’s patents, publications, and presentations regarding these “new” delivery systems and had found nothing that didn’t involve their own intellectual property.
Even former Moderna employees, as mentioned previously, were very doubtful that N1GL and V1GL were any different than the Acuitas/Arbutus system, meaning that — despite Bancel’s claims — Moderna had unresolved legal woes related to these nanoparticles that, along with the toxicity issues, was stalling Moderna product candidates.
It is important to note at this point that, while only Moderna has been locked in a legal battle with Acuitas/Arbutus for years over LNP intellectual property, the other main producers of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, Pfizer/BioNTech and CureVac, also use major aspects of the same Arbutus-derived technology. However, BioNTech licensed the LNPs in such a way as to avoid the issues that have entangled Moderna for years.
Moderna’s legal dispute, in addition to the already discussed safety issues, greatly threatened Moderna’s ability to survive as a company. Having already been forced to settle on the vaccines market and reject the more lucrative and “revolutionary” mRNA therapies it had long promised, Moderna was steadily moving toward a position where it had “no right to sell” vaccine products that depended on the Arbutus-patented and Acuitas-sublicensed technology.
This situation has placed pressure on Moderna to negotiate a new license with Arbutus directly, negotiations in which the company would have very little leverage.
Since the first legal case in 2016, Moderna and Arbutus have remained locked in disputes about the nanoparticles and who owns them. Moderna challenged three Arbutus patents with the US Patent and Trademark Office, with mixed results.
Yet, simultaneously, Moderna also claimed that its tech was “not covered by the Arbutus patents,” which prompted numerous observers and reporters to ask questions such as — “In that case, why did [Moderna] initiate the legal action against Arbutus to begin with?”
Moderna answered that query by claiming that it targeted Arbutus only because of Arbutus’s past “aggression” against them. However, despite such claims, the effort and cost inherent in the legal challenge reveals that, at the very least, Moderna takes the threat of Arbutus’s intellectual property claims very seriously.
The actual answer seems to lie in Moderna being willing to publicly claim that their LNP technology is different enough from the Arbutus-derived system covered by the patents but unwilling to release any proof — whether in court, to its own investors, or to the public — that it is in fact different. The more recent twists and turns of this protracted legal battle, including a pivotal 2020 decision that was very unfavorable for Moderna, are discussed in Part II of this series.
Anything to Aid a Slumping Stock Price
Nasdaq building on the day of Moderna’s 2018 IPO. Source: Nasdaq
Just previous to Ciaramella’s resignation, Moderna had claimed to have “solved the scientific issues that made its earlier mRNA treatments too toxic for clinical trials,” according to media reports. Those reports also claimed that, as a result, “Moderna believes it has steered back on course,” though the company did not provide evidence to support that claim.
Nevertheless, the promise allowed the company to complete a new round of financing, during which it raised an additional $500 million from “an investor syndicate uncommon in biotech” that included the governments of Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.
Some observers were puzzled as to how Moderna had managed to raise so much money despite the outstanding questions about the science underpinning its high valuation.
The answer came with the publication of Moderna’s confidential investor slide deck by STAT’s Damian Garde, which showed that the company had predicted that drugs that they had only been tested in mice would soon be worth billions and that its vaccine revenue would amount to $15 billion annually.
The slide deck, deemed “pretty absurd” and “geared at hopeful generalists that can dream big” per one skeptical investor, made it clear why the company’s last funding round had appealed to “unconventional” biotech investors rather than veteran investors focused on the industry.
A veteran biotech investor, who spoke anonymously due to the slide deck’s confidentiality, stated that “it’s a deck designed to tell the ‘we’re going to be huge’ story to a group of rather unsophisticated investors — and it does that beautifully … Just enough science and platform stuff to convey the ‘We know what we’re doing’ sentiment, but not enough to engender technical questions.”
Per those who sat through Moderna’s pitch, the company was “very generous on the market-size assumptions for their programs,” with one former Moderna collaborator placing the real-world value of a treatment the company had claimed was worth billions annually at closer to “$100 million to 250 million.”
Of course, that revenue estimate comes with the caveat that the treatment, tested thus far only in mice, would someday prove to work in humans. A former Moderna employee in its rare diseases division stated at the time that Moderna “continue[s] to rush forward and over-promise the potential for broad use of mRNA prior to any evidence beyond vaccines or very early experiments in mice.”
Despite Moderna’s ability to convince “unsophisticated” and/or “unconventional” investors to back its early 2018 funding round, it appears that one of its most important promises used to attract investors — that it had solved the nanolipid particle toxicity issue — was not true.
In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission dated November 2018, months after Moderna had claimed to have fixed the issues with its lipid nanoparticle delivery system, the company made several claims that appear to contradict its purported development of a new, safer nanoparticle technology. For example, the filing states on page 33:
Most of our investigational medicines are formulated and administered in an LNP [lipid nanoparticle] which may lead to systemic side effects related to the components of the LNP which may not have ever been tested in humans. While we have continued to optimize our LNPs, there can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects.
Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions, infusion reactions, complement reactions, opsonation [sic] reactions, antibody reactions including IgA, IgM, IgE or IgG or some combination thereof, or reactions to the PEG from some lipids or PEG otherwise associated with the LNP.
Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials. Many of these types of side effects have been seen for legacy LNPs.
There may be resulting uncertainty as to the underlying cause of any such adverse event, which would make it difficult to accurately predict side effects in future clinical trials and would result in significant delays in our programs. (emphasis added)
Based on these statements, Moderna appeared to be uncertain as to whether its current lipid nanoparticle delivery system was any safer than that which led to the indefinite delay of its Crigler-Najjar therapy. In addition, the reference to “adverse reactions within liver pathways,” one of the main issues that triggered the specific delay of the Crigler-Najjar therapy, suggests a continued reliance on technology sublicensed from Acuitas.
As will be noted in Part II, the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine also appears to use the controversial Acuitas technology that had prompted significant safety, legal, and financial concerns for Moderna for years.
The November 2018 SEC filing makes other statements regarding its supposedly fixed lipid nanoparticle delivery system that are worth noting:
If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting trial participants to any of our clinical trials, trial participants may withdraw from trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of one or more development candidates or investigational medicines altogether …
Even if the side effects do not preclude the drug from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, unfavorable benefit risk ratio may inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to its tolerability versus other therapies. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition, and prospects.
These statements are significant in that they openly suggest at least one reason for Moderna’s long-standing tendency toward secrecy in publishing data about its treatments, as public knowledge of its technology’s persistent challenges would threaten its ability to attract trial participants, investors, and, later, consumers.
About a month after these troubling admissions were made in fine print, Moderna succeeded in pulling off a record-setting initial public offering (IPO) in December 2018. For that IPO, Moderna had retained the services of eleven investment banks, which is reportedly around “twice the number normally seen in biotech offerings.”
However, its stock value tumbled just hours afterward, “a sign the company and its underwriters might have over-estimated demand for the richly valued company.”
A month after the IPO, Moderna’s stock continued its downward slide, “doing exactly the opposite of what private investors look for in an IPO.” Those who had predicted this post-IPO outcome before Moderna went public had also warned that this downward trend would likely continue through early 2020 if not longer.
Skeptics such as STAT’s Damian Garde had warned right before Moderna’s IPO that that the company’s sliding stock value would likely continue throughout 2019 due to “a seeming lack of impending news,” given that “momentum in biotech, positive or negative, is driven by catalysts” and “Moderna is in for a fairly quiet 2019.”
Meanwhile, media reports warned, as they had for years, that Moderna “is still in the early days of proving [their] technology’s potential,” despite being a nine-year-old company. Such reports also noted that Moderna’s inability to prove its technology’s worth after nearly a decade in business was hampered by its “struggl[e] in its initial efforts to turn mRNA into drugs that can be repeatedly dosed, leading it to pivot to vaccines, which can be administered just once or twice.”
Investors at the 2019 JP Morgan health-care conference spoke of concerns that “Moderna [has] yet to rule out the lingering risks tied to mRNA, and, even at its depressed valuation, the company is simply too expensive.” Others confided in reporters that they would be “sitting on the sidelines until Moderna either changes the narrative with promising human data or gets substantially cheaper.”
A few weeks later, Moderna’s Bancel attended the World Economic Forum’s 2019 annual meeting alongside Johnson & Johnson executive Paul Stoffels and other pharmaceutical and biotech leaders in order to “rub elbows with world leaders and one-percenters — and talk about the future of healthcare.”
Other health-care figures in attendance included head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and “global health philanthropist” Bill Gates, whose foundation entered into “a global health project framework” with Moderna in 2016 to “advance mRNA-based development projects for various infectious diseases.”
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the only foundation listed as a “strategic collaborator” on the Moderna website. Other “strategic collaborators” include the US government’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the US military’s DARPA, and pharmaceutical giants AstraZeneca and Merck.
Moderna first teamed up with the WEF just a few years after its founding back in 2013, when it was named to the Forum’s community of Global Growth Companies (GGC). That year, Moderna was one of just three North American health companies to receive the honor and was additionally recognized by the Forum as “an industry leader in innovative mRNA therapeutics.”
“We are honored to be recognized for our efforts to advance our platform and ensure its potential is realized on a global scale, and we look forward to being a member of the World Economic Forum community,” Bancel said at the time.
Stéphane Bancel at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, January 2020. Source: WEF
As a WEF Global Growth Company, Moderna has closely and regularly engaged with the Forum since 2013 at both the Chinese-hosted Annual Meeting of the New Champions and the WEF’s regional meetings, while also having access to the WEF’s exclusive networking platform that provides the company privileged access to the world’s most powerful business and government leaders.
Additionally, such carefully selected companies are given opportunities by the Forum “to shape global, regional and industry agendas and engage in meaningful exchanges about ways to continue on a sustainable and responsible path of growth.”
Essentially, the roster of such companies constitutes a consortium of corporations that are promoted and guided by the Forum because of their commitment to “improving the state of the world,” that is, their commitment to supporting the Forum’s long-term agendas for the global economy and for global governance.
In April 2019, Moderna published some information on modifications to its lipid nanoparticles (discussed in more detail in Part II). A month later, in May 2019, Moderna published positive results in the journal Vaccine for phase 1 data on mRNA vaccine candidates for “two potential pandemic influenza strains” administered as two doses three weeks apart.
The company’s press release on the study stated that “future development of Moderna’s pandemic influenza program is contingent on government or other grant funding,” suggesting that it would use the trial results to lobby the government for funds for a continuation of this particular program.
Notably, at the same time as these results were published, the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, then filled by Robert Kadlec, was in the midst of conducting Crimson Contagion, a multimonth simulation of a global pandemic involving an influenza strain that originates in China and spreads globally through air travel.
The strain at the center of the simulation, called H7N9, is one of the very strains used in the Moderna study.
Moderna published those results on May 10, just four days before the Crimson Contagion simulation hosted its federal interagency seminar. BARDA, which the ASPR office oversees, is a major strategic ally of Moderna and was co-developing these “potential pandemic influenza” vaccines that are mentioned in this timely press release, that is, for H10N8 and H7N9 influenza infections.
Crimson Contagion is notable for several reasons, most significantly for Kadlec’s own history with the Dark Winter simulations that preceded and eerily predicted the 2001 anthrax attacks. As has been discussed in detail in a previous TLAV – Unlimited Hangout investigation, the 2001 anthrax attacks conveniently rescued anthrax vaccine manufacturer BioPort, now Emergent Biosolutions, from certain ruin, much like the way the COVID crisis did for Moderna.
A month later, in June 2019, Moderna again managed to generate positive headlines on making its debut at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, where it sought to promote its ability to produce the personalized cancer treatments that had been key to wooing investors both before and after its record-setting IPO.
It was the first time the company had publicly presented data on a cancer treatment, and this particular treatment was being co-developed with Merck. The data showed positive results in preventing relapses in cancer patients whose solid tumors had been removed via surgery, but the trial failed to show any definitive effect in cancer patients whose tumors had not been removed.
Thus, the early data seemed to indicate that Moderna’s treatment would only help cancer patients stay in remission after other medical interventions had been performed. Though the news allowed Moderna to bask in some much-needed positive press and to promote its oncology products in development, some reports rightly noted that it was “still too early for any definitive judgment” on the cancer treatment’s clinical benefit.
Despite this apparent advance, by September 2019, Moderna’s stock price continued to decline, leading to a loss of about $2 billion in market value from the company’s $7.5 billion valuation at the time of its record-setting IPO.
The main factors for this were the same persistent problems the company had been facing for years — lack of progress, including lack of products on the market; persistent safety problems with its mRNA technology; and the lack of data showing that advances were being made to make that technology commercially feasible.
In mid-September 2019, Moderna gathered investors together to showcase scientific evidence it claimed would finally prove that its mRNA technology could “turn the body’s own cells into medicine-making factories” and hopefully “turn skeptical investors into believers.” This data, which was derived from a very preliminary study that involved only four healthy participants, had complications.
Three of the four participants had side effects that prompted Moderna to state at the meeting that they would need to reformulate the mRNA treatment to include steroids, while one of the participants suffered heart-related side effects, including a rapid heart rate and an irregular heartbeat.
Moderna, which asserted that none of the heart-related side effects was serious, could not “definitively pinpoint the cause of the heart symptoms.” Yet, as previously mentioned, it was likely related to the safety issues that had been plaguing its experimental products for years.
The company’s preliminary data, which was promoted in yet another bid to keep investors from leaving, also included the caveat that Moderna had decided to pause trials for this particular product, which was a single-injection mRNA treatment for the chikungunya virus. That treatment was being developed in partnership with the Pentagon’s DARPA.
Other more positive data from a preliminary trial were also released at this meeting. That trial, however, was for an mRNA treatment for cytomegalovirus, “a common virus that is usually kept in check by the body’s immune system and rarely causes problems in healthy people,” meaning its mRNA vaccine for that condition was unlikely to ever be lucrative.
Not long after this lackluster investors meeting, on September 26, 2019, the once highly secretive Moderna announced it would collaborate with researchers at Harvard University “in hopes that the research will spur new drugs,” as its product pipeline appeared to have stalled.
Moderna president Stephen Hoge described the collaboration as select Harvard researchers receiving “a package of stuff that we put our blood, sweat, and tears in, and then someone’s going to do something with it. We’ll find out afterward how that went.” For a company long known for its extreme secrecy in an already secretive industry, Moderna’s arrangement with Harvard, which it admitted was “unusual,” came across as somewhat desperate.
A month later, at the 2019 Milken Institute Future of Health Summit, there was a panel discussion on universal flu vaccines and how a “disruptive” event would be needed to upset the long-existing bureaucratic vaccine-approval process to facilitate wider adoption of “nontraditional” vaccines, such as those produced by Moderna.
Panel speakers including former FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg, a veteran of the 2001 Dark Winter exercise and scientific advisor to the Gates foundation, as well as Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Rick Bright of BARDA, who previously worked for the Gates-funded PATH.
The panel discussion notably took place shortly after the controversial coronavirus pandemic simulation called Event 201, whose moderators and sponsors had been intimately involved in 2001’s Dark Winter.
Screengrab from the 2019 Milken Institute Universal Flu Vaccine panel. Full video available here.
During the panel, the moderator — Michael Specter of the New Yorker — asked the question: “Why don’t we blow the system up? Obviously, we just can’t turn off the spigot on the system we have and then say ‘Hey! everyone in the world should get this new vaccine we haven’t given to anyone yet,’ but there must be some way.”
Specter then mentioned how vaccine production is antiquated and asked how sufficient “disruption” could occur to prompt the modernization of the existing vaccination development and approval process. Hamburg responded first, saying that as a society we are behind where we need to be when it comes to moving toward a new, more technological approach and that it is now “time to act” to make that a reality.
Several minutes later, Anthony Fauci stated that the superior method of vaccine production involves “not growing the virus at all, but getting sequences, getting the appropriate protein and it sticking in on self-assembling nanoparticles,” essentially referring to mRNA vaccines.
Fauci then stated: “The critical challenge … is that in order to make the transition from getting out of the tried and true egg-growing [method] … to something that has to be much better, you have to prove that this works and then you have got to go through all of the critical trials — phase 1, phase 2, phase 3 — and show that this particular product is going to be good over a period of years. That alone, if it works perfectly, is going to take a decade.”
Fauci later stated that there is a need to alter the public’s perception that the flu is not a serious disease in order to increase urgency and that it would be “difficult” to alter that perception along with the existing vaccine development and approval process unless the existing system takes the posture that “I don’t care what your perception is, we’re going to address the problem in a disruptive way and an iterative way.”
During the panel, Bright stated that “we need to move as quickly as possible and urgently as possible to get these technologies that address speed and effectiveness of the vaccine” before discussing how the White House Council of Economic Advisers had just issued a report emphasizing that prioritizing “fast” vaccines was paramount.
Bright then added that a “mediocre and fast” vaccine was better than a “mediocre and slow” vaccine. He then said that we can make “better vaccines and make them faster” and that urgency and disruption were necessary to produce the targeted and accelerated development of one such vaccine.
Later in the panel, Bright said the best way to “disrupt” the vaccine field in favor of “faster” vaccines would be the emergence of “an entity of excitement out there that’s completely disruptive, that’s not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes.” He later very directly said that by “faster” vaccines he meant mRNA vaccines.
The Bright-led BARDA and the Fauci-led NIAID in just a few months’ time became the biggest backers of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, investing billions and co-developing the vaccine with the company, respectively.
As will be explained in Part II of this series, the partnership between Moderna and the NIH to co-develop what would soon become Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine was being forged as early as January 7, 2020, long before the official declaration of the COVID-19 crisis as a pandemic and before a vaccine was proclaimed as necessary by officials and other individuals.
Not only did the COVID-19 vaccine quickly become the answer to nearly all Moderna’s woes but it also provided the disruptive scenario necessary to alter the public’s perceptions of what a vaccine is and eliminate existing safeguards and bureaucracy in vaccine approval. (Watch the 2019 Universal Flu Vaccine event here.)
As Part II of this series will show, it was an alleged mix of “serendipity and foresight” from Moderna’s Stéphane Bancel and the NIH’s Barney Graham that propelled Moderna to the front of the “Warp Speed” race for a COVID-19 vaccine.
That partnership, along with the disruptive effect of the COVID-19 crisis, created the very “Hail Mary” for which Moderna had been desperately waiting since at least 2017 while also turning most of Moderna’s executive team into billionaires and multi-millionaires in a matter of months.
However, Moderna’s “Hail Mary” won’t last – that is, unless the mass administration of its COVID-19 vaccine becomes an annual affair for millions of people worldwide. Even though real-world data since its administration began challenges the need for as well as the safety and efficacy of its vaccine, Moderna – and its stakeholders – cannot afford to let this opportunity slip through fingers. To do so would mean the end of Moderna’s carefully constructed house of cards.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Published Papers and Data on Lockdown Weak Efficacy – and Lockdown Huge Harms
Here collated are the papers of shame – the lockdown ideology is destroying our societal health, selling the lie of saving lives. Lockdowns cost net suffering and lives – by a huge margin. Here we gather together the evidence.
TWENTY+ LOCKDOWN LACK OF EFFICACY PAPERS & ANALYSES:
LOCKDOWN HUGE HARMS PAPERS & ANALYSES:
Note: also go to https://collateralglobal.org/
Oct 2019 WHO Pandemic Guidelines – no Lockdown Allowed:
WHO Oct 2019 Pandemic Guidelines
Excellent Paper on Dr. Hope Simpson’s “The Transmission of Influenza” masterclass book:
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-5-29
Great Summary of Population Immunity Reality
Jan 16th Riposte to Quillete Snowdon Junk-Journalism:
Quillette Snowdon Junk-Journalism Riposte
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
The UK Government’s reporting system for COVID vaccine adverse reactions from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency released their latest report today, March 4, 2021.
The report covers data collected from December 9, 2020, through February 21, 2021, for the two experimental COVID vaccines currently in use in the U.K. from Pfizer and AstraZeneca.
They report a total of 460 deaths and 243,612 injuries.
For the COVID-19 mRNA Pfizer- BioNTech vaccine analysis they report:
Total reactions for the COVID-19 mRNA Pfizer- BioNTech vaccine: 212 deaths and 85,179 injuries
For the COVID-19 vaccine Oxford University/AstraZeneca analysis they report:
Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine Oxford University/AstraZenec vaccine: 244 deaths and 157,637 injuries
For the COVID-19 vaccine brand unspecified analysis they report:
Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine brand unspecified vaccines: 4 deaths and 796 injuries
The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency concludes:
The overall safety experience with both vaccines is so far as expected from the clinical trials.
Based on current experience, the expected benefits of both COVID-19 vaccines in preventing COVID-19 and its serious complications far outweigh any known side effects.
Full details found on the UK Government website.
See Also:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
© 2020 All rights reserved