IPCC scientists outline a harrowing summary of climate impacts already hurting people and species. The Guardian says it is clear that not enough is being done to head off a climate disaster. Up to 14% of species on land face extinction if the temperature rises another 0.3°C. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres describes the abdication of leadership by world powers as “criminal”.
Welcome to the latest IPCC report, painting its usual grim picture of future ecological and societal disaster, and claiming to provide “scientific evidence” for all its key findings. In its summary for policymakers, it notes that “human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people, beyond natural climate variability”. Furthermore, the report says with “high confidence” that if the temperature rises more than 0.35°C, it would cause “unavoidable increases in multiple climate hazards and present multiple risks to ecosystems and humans”. In fact, since about 1800 the global temperature has risen about 1.1°C, seemingly without catastrophic consequences.
So back in the real world, it is ‘Spot the Scientist’ among the 330 listed authors of the latest IPCC report. The Daily Sceptic took a sample consisting of all the British authors listed down to number 120. This is what we found.
The first to appear is Mike Morecroft who runs ‘climate change’ at the Government body, Natural England. Professor Camille Parmesan holds the National Aquarium Chair in Understanding Oceans and Human Health at Plymouth University. Jeff Price works at the University of East Anglia, and holds a PhD in animal psychology. Marie-Fanny Racault has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of East Anglia. According to her web page, she is a Biological Oceanographer whose PhD was in Environmental Science. She returned to UEA in November last year, “to take the lead on the next stage of developments on the ecosystem component of the PlankTOM model series”.
The Head of Climate Impacts Research at the Met Office, Professor Richard Betts, does actually have a degree in physics. Nevertheless, in January his organisation promoted a climate impacts report that warned of future societal collapse and armed gangs roaming a U.K. ravaged by climate change. Philip Thornton works for CGIAR, a non-profit food researcher and has a BA in agriculture. James Morison is described as a “senior climate change scientist” at the Forestry Commission. Mark Pelling is a Geography Professor at King’s College, while Richard Dawson is a Professor of Earth Systems Engineering at Newcastle University. Vanessa Castan Broto is a Professor of Climate Urbanism, having joined Sheffield University in 2017 following her appointment as a Professorial Fellow in the Faculty of Social Sciences.
Dr. Helen Adams is a senior lecturer at King’s College in Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. Her PhD concentrated on the “role of the environment in migration decision-making in rural Peru”. It was the BBC that said the IPCC scientists had outlined a “harrowing” summary of climate impact. It quoted Dr. Adams saying it was “really, really clear” that things are bad, “but actually the future depends on us, not the climate”.
The final two scientists/authors are Emily Boyd, a Professor of Sustainability at Lund University in Sweden, where she is also described as a “leading social scientist”, and Lindsay Stringer, another Geography Professor, this time at York.
The definition of science is obviously somewhat elastic these days and geography departments have been successful in reinventing themselves under names such as Earth Sciences. Nevertheless, the lack of involvement from ‘pure’ scientists – people who study chemistry and physics – is noteworthy. Ultimately all the speculative disaster prose arises from the hypothesis that humans are causing the climate to change by burning fossil fuel and creating extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The effect of CO2 is hotly disputed in atmospheric science circles, although much of the debate is ignored under the ‘settled’ science agenda. In fact, there is not yet one single, peer-reviewed science paper that proves conclusively that humans cause all or most global warming. Nobody knows how much the atmosphere warms if CO2 levels are doubled. Climate model guesses range from 1-6°C.
Meanwhile, much of the disaster prose that is endlessly recycled has been debunked. Coral reefs are not doomed – it seems the Great Barrier Reef has rarely been in better health; Pacific islands are increasing in size; the oceans are not turning into an acid bath. Declaring a climate emergency and basing all the warnings on something called global warming is starting to wear thin. Global temperature rises started running out of steam two decades ago. In fact, according to accurate satellite data, they haven’t budged for the last 88 months. No plausible link between temperature and CO2 has been established in the current, historical or geological record.
Professor Roger Pielke from the University of Colorado has been a long time critic of the politicisation of science. His initial view is that the latest UN report “is more heavily weighted to implausible scenarios than any previous IPCC assessment”. In particular, he notes that RCP8.5 accounts for 57% of scenario mentions. According to Pielke, this alone accounts for the apocalyptic tone and conclusions throughout the report.
RCP stands for Representative Concentration Pathways. There are four pathways and the worst case RCP8.5 assumes an improbable rise in global temperature of 5°C in less than 80 years. “Remarkably, RCP8.5 is characterised in the report as a ‘business as usual future’,” said Pielke. “In reality, RCP4.5 [quoted in only 17.5% of scenario mentions] is currently thought of as an upper bound trajectory under current or stated policies, and RCP8.5 is implausible,” he added.
The climate writer Paul Homewood has spent years debunking many of the disaster tall tales. In characteristic blunt fashion, he notes that the IPCC, “relies heavily on studies written by grant-funded activist scientists. Many of these are easily debunked and they are usually based on very dodgy computer models”.
Finally comes news of a possible climate research strike. According to a recent paper from Bruce Glavovic: “Given the urgency and criticality of climate change, we argue the time has come for scientists to agree to a moratorium on climate change research as a means to first expose, then renegotiate, the broken science-society contract.” Glavovic is a Professor at the School of People, Environment and Planning at Massey University in New Zealand. Sometimes, a job title does not require any further comment.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic‘s Environment Editor.
As I continue to see all of the crazy proclamations of how human-caused climate change is disrupting lives around the world (e.g., the Feb. 28 release of the IPCC report from Working Group 2, [Pielke Jr. analysis here]), I can’t help but return to the main reason why human causation for recent warming has not been convincingly established. I have discussed this before, but it is worth repeating.
As a preface, I will admit, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I still provisionally side with the view that warming has been mostly human-caused (and this says nothing about whether the level of human-caused warming is in any way alarming).
But here’s why human causation is mostly a statement of faith…
ALL temperature change in any system is due to an imbalance between the rates of energy gain and energy lost. In the case of the climate system, it is believed the Earth each year absorbs a global average of about 240 Watts per sq. meter of solar energy, and emits about the same amount of infrared energy back to outer space.
If we are to believe the last ~15 years of Argo float measurements of the ocean (to 2000 m depth), there has been a slight warming equivalent to an imbalance of 1 Watt per sq. meter, suggesting a very slight imbalance in those energy flows.
One watt per sq. meter.
That tiny imbalance can be compared to the 5 to 10 Watt per sq. meter uncertainty in the ~240 Watt per sq. meter average flows in and out of the climate system. We do not know those flows that accurately. Our satellite measurement systems do not have that level of absolute accuracy.
Global energy balance diagrams you have seen have the numbers massaged based upon the assumption all of the imbalance is due to humans.
I repeat: NONE of the natural, global-average energy flows in the climate system are known to better than about 5-10 Watts per sq. meter…compared to the ocean warming-based imbalance of 1 Watt per sq. meter.
What this means is that recent warming could be mostly natural… and we would never know it.
But, climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans. This is a pervasive, quasi-religious assumption of the Earth science community for as long as I can remember.
But this position is largely an anthropocentric statement of faith.
That doesn’t make it wrong. It’s just… uncertain.
Unfortunately, that uncertainty is never conveyed to the public or to policymakers.
There are a lot of words that could characterize “Public Health” in 2022.
Some that come to mind:
-Not credible
-Misleading
-Wrong-focused
-Myopic
The one word that sums up “Public Health” in 2022?
“Untrustworthy”
“Public Health” has suffered from increasing and now severe vaccine myopia since the “prevention” program rose to power in the CDC.
Their one-sided thinking was fairly restricted to pediatrics but now has infected allopathic medicine.
Why are they untrustworthy?
For me, it’s because they willfully ignore evidence that challenges their policy positions. Worse, they work to destroy it (targeting papers for retraction, and peoples’ reputations).
They lie to themselves.
Their disdain for evidence that runs counter to their narrative places them outside of the demarcation zone of Science.
Here’s an example:
In the UK, the triple vaccinated now account for the majority of Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations & deaths (See DailyExpose.uk ).
And they want us to accept school mandates in places like Washington State.
The public trusted public health with their lives and their livelihoods. There are still people in “Public Health” defending lock-downs.
And they want us to trust them and support them in their quest for a “Universal COVID Vaccine” – one that targets “all variants” – an impossible task given the rate of evolution of RNA and how widespread SARS-CoV-2 is across the globe (See: Washington Post).
They are untrustworthy because have turned a blind eye to the full balance of the data.
Here are some synonymous that might help you in your communications today
Dishonest, deceitful, not to be trusted, double-dealing, treacherous, traitorous, two-faced, janus-faced, unfaithful, duplicitous, dishonorable, unprincipled, unscrupulous, corrupt, shady, shifty, underhanded.
See how many of the following characteristics apply to “Public Health” from an article on five characteristics of untrustworthy people from Inc.com(5 Ways to Tell if Someone Is Untrustworthy):
1. They lie to themselves
2. They project behaviors on you that are clearly not ones you are exhibiting
3. They breach confidentiality
4. They show a lack of empathy
5. Their emotional state is volatile, and they have a pattern of inconsistency and fickleness in their decisions
The byline of the Inc.com article reads “Trust is the superglue of relationships, but if you spot these behaviors, it’s time to find a new partner to do business with.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2021 granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to two COVID-19 early treatment oral drugs: Pfizer’s Paxlovid and Merck’s molnupiravir.
This was a major milestone, as until then, there were no FDA-endorsed pharmaceutical pill options for people diagnosed with COVID-19.
The standard medical therapy for a newly diagnosed person was: Go home, rest, drink water and go to the hospital if things get dire.
Now, after almost two years, people diagnosed with early stages of COVID-19 can be prescribed a pill!
As background, there are three stipulations a drug must meet in order to obtain EUA from the FDA:
There must be an emergency.
The treatment in consideration must be safe and offer 50% efficacy.
There must not be an alternative available treatment that is safe and effective.
Pfizer and Merck oversaw clinical trials that attempted to prove their products were safe and effective. In the letters of authorization issued to Pfizer and Merck, the FDA outlined what tests were done, what the results were, what some of the limitations and concerns are, etc.
The FDA then generated more detailed advisories to healthcare providers (doctors) for Paxlovid and molnupiravir. These documents give more specifics about use restrictions (e.g., not to children), potentially adverse effects of each drug (e.g., not to be used by pregnant women, etc.), potential conflicts with other drugs (quite a few), etc.
Here are four key points to consider regarding the Paxlovid and molnupiravir data:
The tests were conducted by the pharmaceutical companies themselves (not an unbiased entity).
No long-term testing was done on either of these drugs (the trials lasted a few months).
The effects on patients with many other diseases (e.g., Parkinson’s) were not evaluated and remain unknown.
The reported effectiveness of each drug (hospitalization or death: 88% and 30%) are relative not absolute. (See this explanation about this important point.)
OK, kudos to the FDA for giving consumers some early treatment options for dealing with COVID-19. It’s especially good that they are non-hospital, take-at-home therapies.
However, the question remains: How do these FDA-endorsed drugs compare to other over-the-counter (OTC) and non-patented drugs — especially ivermectin (IVM) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — that are reported to have some early treatment effectiveness against COVID-19?
As a scientist (physicist) I try to be careful in analyzing data, to not only be accurate but to present it objectively and understandably.
In that light, see this table where I juxtapose Paxlovid and molnupiravir to IVM, HCQ and three OTC drugs: curcumin, Vitamin D and zinc. The comparisons made are based on about 20 COVID-19 factors (effectiveness, safety, cost, etc.).
Comparison of Major COVID-19 Early Treatment Oral Pharmaceuticals
Click here to increase the size of the chart and access the hyperlinks.
6 takeaways from comparison of Paxlovid and molnupiravir to IVM, HCQ, and OTCs
Pfizer’s Paxlovid is reported to have very high effectiveness.
HCQ and the curcumin have effectiveness comparable to Paxlovid.
Merck’s molnupiravir has very low effectiveness.
IVM, Vitamin D and Zinc have effectiveness far superior to molnupiravir.
Paxlovid and molnupiravir have more serious side effects than the others.
Paxlovid and molnupiravir cost considerably more than the non-patented options.
Are Pfizer and Merck oral treatment EUAs legal?
Remember, federal law stipulates that an EUA can not be granted unless: “There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.”
The data in this analysis indicate there are “adequate and available alternatives for treating” COVID-19. If the data are accurate, then these EUAs have questionable legality.
Adequate and available alternatives for treating COVID-19 do, in fact, exist — the FDA has no scientific justification for ignoring IVM, HCQ, Vitamin D and zinc.
Further, if these FDA-issued EUAs for Paxlovid and molnupiravir violate federal statutes, a closer examination of the FDA’s COVID-19 vaccine EUAs seems warranted.
If the Pfizer and Merck EUAs are legal, then why haven’t HCQ and IVM also been given EUAs?
Considering the six takeaways listed above — plus the fact, as noted in the above table, that there have been successful HCQ and IVM studies much larger (~10x) than those done for Paxlovid and molnupiravir — exactly why has the FDA not issued EUAs for IVM and HCQ?
The comparative in Table 1 adequately demonstrates there is no justification for the FDA’s refusal to grant EUAs to IVM and HCQ.
If the FDA had granted EUAs for HCQ and IVM a year ago, hundreds of thousands of COVID-19 deaths would have been prevented.
What FDA policy, procedure or precedent took priority over preventing hundreds of thousands of American deaths?
What about monoclonal antibody therapies?
Let us now expand our comparisons to include current monoclonal antibody therapies:
Comparison of Major COVID-19 Early Treatment Pharmaceuticals
Click here to increase the size of the chart and access the hyperlinks.
Note that the four key points identified above, regarding the Paxlovid and molnupiravir data, all apply here.
Some of the main takeaways from this comparison are:
Sotrovimab has the highest effectiveness — but the least amount of data.
HCQ and curcumin have effectiveness comparable to the bamlanivimab+ and casirivimab+ combinations.
The first FDA EUA given to bamlanivimab turned out to be a mistake (as health issues were discovered).
All the monoclonals have more serious side effects than the non-EUA options.
All the monoclonals cost considerably more than the non-EUA options.
All the monoclonals have much less safety data than the non-EUA options.
Again, this comparison shows that IVM, HCQ, curcumin, vitamin D and zinc compare very favorably to all of the early treatments that received EUA from the FDA.
John Droz, Jr. is an independent North Carolina physicist.
This is amazing. BMJ Editor Fiona Godlee knew in August 2020, when the phase 3 vaccine trials were just getting started, that the vaccines:
a) would not be very effective
b) would likely just decrease severity of illness and not prevent infection
c) might become a suboptimal, chronic treatment, and
d) might change the definition of what we consider a vaccine to be
How did she know this? I imagine she knew it from a whistleblower or two or ten. The public certainly didn’t know it. If she knew it Fauci knew it, along with his Corona Task Force of useful idiots.
By Fiona Godlee, editor in chief, BMJ | August 20, 2020
“Few can doubt that we need a vaccine for covid-19 as soon as possible, and great strides are being made, including in our understanding of the immunology of SARS-CoV-2.1 But what damage may result from the race to create one? The World Health Organization has produced guidance on minimum characteristics for a vaccine, including 50% efficacy, temperature stability, potential for rapid scale-up, and proper evaluation against comparators. But, writes Els Torreele, these basic requirements are being rapidly eroded by the prevailing view that anything is better than nothing.2 So instead we are heading for vaccines that reduce severity of illness rather than protect against infection, provide only short lived immunity, and will at best have been trialled by the manufacturer against placebo. As well as damaging public confidence and wasting global resources by distributing a poorly effective vaccine, this could change what we understand a vaccine to be. Instead of long term, effective disease prevention it could become a suboptimal chronic treatment. This would be good for business but bad for global public health.”
The facts surrounding SARS-CoV-2’s origin just keep getting stranger and more disturbing as time goes on. From the start, most of the evidence seemed to point to the virus being a lab creation that somehow escaped the confines of the laboratory. We really don’t have much of anything to suggest otherwise.
Now, a study1,2 published February 21, 2022, in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mmRNA) sequence patented3 by Moderna — in 2016.
Some believe this is a smoking gun, proving gain of function research is at the heart of this mystery. Of course, more research is needed to verify the findings, but if proven correct, it could be rather incriminating.
What Did Moderna Patent?
The genetic sequence patented4 by Moderna — and now found to be part of the SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein that gives the virus access into human cells — is a 19-nucleotide sequence of a human gene called MSH3, which is a DNA repair gene.5
Nucleotides code for specific amino acids. The MSH3 gene works with the part of your immune system responsible for combating cancer by repairing damaged cells. This pathway has been identified as a potential target for new cancer treatments.
As noted in the patent application, the gene sequence has been modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research. The first name listed on the patent is Stéphane Bancel, a Frenchman who has been Moderna’s chief executive officer since 2011.
What’s so curious here is that the scientists of the Frontiers in Virology paper searched all viral and bacterial databases looking for matches to the furin cleavage site patented by Moderna, and SARS-CoV-2 is the only pathogen that has this sequence. It’s an absolute match — 100% identical.
What are the chances of a naturally-occurring virus having a rarely encountered furin cleavage site that is genetically identical to an engineered and patented one? As noted by the authors:6
“The absence of CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG from any eukaryotic or viral genome in the BLAST database makes recombination in an intermediate host an unlikely explanation for its presence in SARS-CoV-2.”
In other words, the sequence being a natural zoonosis is extremely unlikely. According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.7 They also noted that “Recombination in an intermediate host is an unlikely explanation.” What’s more, it’s known that inserting a furin cleavage site on the spike protein of a virus will make it more infectious.
Moderna CEO Suggests Lab Leak Responsible for COVID-19
One hypothesis raised in the paper is that the matching code might have been introduced into the SARS-CoV-2 genome through infected human cells that express the MSH3 gene. The question, then, is how and when did that happen?
Interestingly, in a February 24, 2022, interview, Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo questioned Bancel about the finding. He responded saying their scientists are looking into the claim, adding:
“That it came from a lab is possible. Humans make mistakes. It’s possible that the Wuhan lab in China was working on virus enhancement or gene modification and then there was an accident where somebody was infected in the lab, which affected family and friends. It is possible. On the claim you just mentioned, scientists will look to know if it’s real or not.”
Why This Code?
Now, if SARS-CoV-2 was man-made, why would they use this particular code? As noted in the Frontiers of Virology paper, the MSH3 sequence in question has been shown to cause mismatch repair in DNA, and faulty repair of genetic damage can lead to a number of diseases, including cancer. But overexpression of MSH3 also plays a role in virology:
“Overexpression of MSH3 is known to interfere with mismatch repair … which holds virologic importance. Induction of DNA mismatch repair deficiency results in permissiveness of influenza A virus (IAV) infection of human respiratory cells and increased pathogenicity. Mismatch repair deficiency may extend shedding of SARS-CoV-2 …
A human-codon-optimized mRNA encoding a protein 100% homologous to human MSH3 could, during the course of viral research, inadvertently or intentionally induce mismatch repair deficiency in a human cell line, which would increase susceptibility to SARS-like viral infection.”
It’s interesting to note that Moderna did not have a single successful mRNA product brought to market before the COVID-19 pandemic allowed them to bypass normal regulatory requirements.
Now, all of a sudden, we’re to believe they managed to throw together a safe and effective mRNA injection against SARS-CoV-2, a virus that just so happens to contain one of its own patented components. What are the odds?
Did Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading promoter of mRNA technology as a replacement for traditional vaccines, have anything to do with Moderna’s sudden “success”? It certainly looks that way. After all, the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an arm of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), both funded and co-developed Moderna’s COVID-19 jab.
As explained by the NIH,8 the injection “combines Moderna’s mRNA delivery platform with the stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike immunogen (S-2P)9 developed by NIAID scientists.” In mid-November 2021, Moderna granted co-ownership of its COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” patent to the NIH to resolve a dispute involving the naming of the inventors.10
Can the COVID Jab Trigger Cancer?
Incidentally, since the release of the mRNA COVID jab, some doctors have raised concerns about the possibility of the injections to trigger cancer, largely due to its detrimental impact on your immune function.
For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein.11
So far, the link to cancer post-jab seems to be related to the downregulation of toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), which is involved in both infections and cancer. In an October 2021 article, Dr. Nicole Delépine, a French pediatric oncologist,12 discussed reports of exploding cancer cases post-jab:13
“Several months ago, we expressed at least “theoretical reservations” about vaccinating cancer patients or former patients who had been cured, because of the underlying mechanism of the gene injection on immunity.
Several geneticists had also expressed their concerns about the possible interference between active or dormant cancer cells and the activity of gene therapy on lymphocytes in particular. Months have passed, and the vaccine madness has amplified … [C]learly there seems to be three situations:
•The appearance of a cancer rapidly after the injection (two weeks to a few months) and very progressive, in a person who was previously free of known carcinological pathologies.
•The resumption of cancer in a patient who has been in complete remission for several months or years.
•The rapid, even explosive, evolution of a cancer that is not yet controlled.
Beyond the testimonies that are pouring in from relatives and friends and on social networks, a Swiss newspaper has finally addressed the subject in a broader way. Here are some excerpts from their article and their references:
‘Can COVID vaccines cause cancer? In some cases, the answer seems to be yes … [It] has been shown that in up to 50% of vaccinees, COVID vaccines can induce temporary immunosuppression or immune dysregulation (lymphocytopenia) that can last for about a week or possibly longer.
Furthermore, COVID mRNA vaccines have shown to ‘reprogram’… adaptive and innate immune responses and, in particular, to downregulate the so-called TLR4 pathway, which is known to play an important role in the immune response to infections and cancer cells.
Thus, if there is already a tumor somewhere — known or unknown — or if there is a predisposition to a certain type of cancer, such a state of vaccine-induced immune suppression or immune dysregulation could potentially trigger sudden tumor growth and cancer within weeks of vaccination …’”
Dr. Ryan Cole, in August 2021, also reported14,15 seeing a significant increase in certain types of cancer, especially endometrial and uterine cancers, since the start of the mass injection campaign. Cole runs a large pathology laboratory in Idaho.
Other Key Components of SARS-CoV-2 Have Also Been Patented
Time will tell where this all leads, but clearly, SARS-CoV-2 does not appear to be the result of natural evolution. The evidence for it being man-made is simply overwhelming. So far, few in mainstream media have been willing to touch this story, for obvious reasons.
Finding a key gene sequence of the virus in a patent of one of the primary vaccine makers is inconvenient to say the least — and this is in addition to all the other patents relating to the virus.
As previously detailed16 by David Martin, Ph.D., SARS-CoV-2 appears to have been engineered in the 1990s, perfected in 1999 and patented in 2002. Evidence also shows that plans for mandatory vaccinations were hatched in 2015. That year, during an Academies of Science meeting, Dr. Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance stated:
“… until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCM’s [medical countermeasures] such as pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine.
A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of [the] process.”
According to Martin, “That’s admission of a felony, and the felony is domestic terrorism.” In a November 2021 Red Pill Expo speech,17 Martin reviewed the timeline of the COVID-19 jab, which began in 1990 with the first coronavirus vaccine patent for canines (dogs) filed by Pfizer.
That vaccine was an S-1 spike protein vaccine — just like the current Pfizer COVID shot, and according to Martin, that S-1 spike protein is a bioweapon, not a pathogen. Nine years later, in 1999, Fauci, as director of the NIAID, tasked the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill with the creation of “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifically targeted for human lung epithelium.
The patent for that replication-defective coronavirus that attacks human lung cells, filed April 19, 2002, (Patent No. 7279327), details the gene sequencing of the resulting virus, and how the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain and the S-1 spike protein were engineered and could be synthetically modified in the lab using readily available gene sequencing technologies.
Basically, computer code is turned into a manmade pathogen, or an intermediate pathogen. This technology was initially funded in order to harness the coronavirus as a vector for an HIV vaccine, but it clearly didn’t end there.
CDC Holds Patents on SARS Coronavirus
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also holds key patents, including an illegally obtained patent for the entire gene sequence for the SARS coronavirus (Patent No. 7220852), which Martin says is 99% identical to the sequence now identified as SARS-CoV-2.
That CDC patent also had several derivative patents associated with it, including U.S. patent 46592703P and U.S. patent 7776521, which cover the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus and the means for detecting it using RT PCR testing. With these two patents, the CDC has complete scientific control, as it owns the provenance of both the virus and its detection.
According to Martin, there’s also evidence of a criminal conspiracy involving the CDC and Sequoia Pharmaceuticals. April 28, 2003 — three days after the CDC filed its patent for the SARS coronavirus — Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed a patent on an antiviral agent for the treatment and control of infectious coronavirus (Patent No. 7151163).
So, the CDC filed a patent on SARS coronavirus, and three days later there’s a treatment? This strongly suggests there was a working relationship behind the scenes. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, founded in 2002, develops antiviral therapeutics with a special focus on drug-resistant viruses.18 Its lead investors include the Wellcome Trust.
But there’s yet another problem with Sequoia’s 2003 filing for an antiviral agent. It was actually issued and published before the CDC patent on SARS coronavirus had been granted, which didn’t happen until 2007, and the CDC had paid to keep the application private.
So, there is zero possibility for anyone but an insider to have that information. This is clear evidence of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion, Martin notes. You cannot develop a treatment for something that you do not know exists.
Sanofi also owns a series of patents detailing what we’ve been told are novel features of SARS-CoV-2, namely the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein and the ACE2 receptor binding domain. The first of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 9193780, was issued November 24, 2015.
Between 2008 and 2017, a series of patents were also filed by a long list of players, including Crucell, Rubeus Therapeutics, Children’s Medical Corporation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong and the Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai.
According to Martin, there are 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, that describe the very elements that are said to be unique to SARS-CoV-2. It’s unclear whether Moderna’s 2016 patent filing is part of that list.
In February 2021, the U.K. Medical Freedom Alliance wrote our first of several Open Letters to the JCVI and MHRA, raising serious ethical concerns over any future use of COVID-19 vaccines in healthy children. I will highlight these ethical issues over the next few minutes.
When we are considering any medical intervention for an individual, it must be proportionate, necessary, and given under strict ethical principles. There is important wisdom in the Hippocratic Oath, upheld by doctors around the world for over two millennia, which states: “First, do no harm.” As all medical interventions carry a risk of harm, we have a professional duty to act with care and proportionality.
In addition, a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is a dangerous and unethical way to practise medicine. At the heart of the practice of safe and ethical medicine is the doctor-patient relationship, where the patient’s unique medical history, his or her individual risk-profile and personal philosophy/wishes should always be the prime concern of the doctor administering a treatment.
When it comes to children, it is clear that the risk/benefit calculation does not support administering Covid vaccines to healthy children, who are at no risk (statistically) from COVID-19 and who have, in any case, mostly acquired robust and durable natural immunity by now. It is important to remember that these vaccines are not traditional vaccines but use a completely novel, gene-based technology and are still in Phase 3 trials.
Without long-term safety data (on either the mRNA technology or the specific COVID-19 vaccines) we cannot know yet what, if any, long-term effects on health or fertility may become apparent over the next five to 10 years. The vaccines have not been inside any adult for more than 21 months, and for even less time in children. We also now have emerging safety signals and acknowledged side-effects, some serious, like myocarditis, clotting/bleeding disorders and neurological conditions, many of which appear to affect younger people disproportionately.
The possibility of detrimental health effects coming to light after a few years was raised by a spokesperson for AstraZeneca in August 2020, when the company was granted full immunity from liability for harms because: “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in… four years the vaccine is showing side-effects.” If this risk is considered too high for the manufacturers economically, surely, we cannot allow our children to take the same level of risk with their long-term health, especially for a disease that is of negligible risk to them.
Medical history is littered with drugs and vaccines that were once considered safe and effective, that were subsequently withdrawn from the market, months or years after their use was started as unforeseen harms were identified. For example, the Swine Flu vaccine Pandemrix, rushed to market in the 2009 pandemic, was withdrawn two years later, after millions of doses had been given, when over a thousand children suffered the serious brain injury narcolepsy, not picked up in the trials. An essential part of the safe practice of medicine involves adapting and adjusting to new data and safety signals.
It is unprecedented that a pharmaceutical product still in the clinical trial phase is being recommended and administered to children on such a mass scale. That this is being done without full transparency and disclosure of the known and unknown risks to children and young people, and with aggressive marketing, seriously undermines the ability of parents and teenagers to give full, voluntary, and informed consent – a legal and ethical requirement for all medical treatments under U.K. and International Law and professional guidelines.
It is vital that we maintain the ethical principles that underpin any civilised society and that we put the safety of children as our top priority. There is no scientific or ethical justification to support any further rollout of COVID-19 vaccines to children. Therefore, we must urgently pause the programme.
The Russian state energy giant Gazprom said on Monday that European gas prices could rise even higher after they hit a record $3,892 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. The reasons for such hikes “are not on Gazprom’s end,” the company has added.
Gazprom “fills the orders on gas purchases from its foreign customers to the fullest,” the company said in a statement, adding that it will further honor all its commitments under the long-term gas contracts. It has also confirmed that it still uses “100 percent” of Ukraine’s gas transit route despite the ongoing conflict in the country.
Some 109.5 million cubic meters of gas flow through Ukraine’s territory per day, according to data cited by TASS. Earlier, Gazprom’s spokesman, Sergey Kupriyanov, confirmed that the transit proceeds “as normal.”
Gas prices in Europe fell to $2,700 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas later Monday, after German Chancellor Olaf Scholz admitted that his country would not cut off Russian supplies as of now. Energy supply for Germany “cannot be secured in any other way” at the moment, he has said. The chancellor also opposed sanctioning “essential” Russian oil and gas industries.
Earlier, some media reported that the US has been discussing a ban on Russian oil supplies to Europe with the EU.
Gas prices also rose after Washington and its allies slapped Moscow with unprecedented sanctions targeting its financial sector and its ability to engage in foreign trade. One such measure involved cutting off seven Russian banks from SWIFT. The measures came in response to Russia’s military action in Ukraine launched on February 24, which Moscow said was aimed at “demilitarizing” its neighbor, while Kiev blasted it as “unprovoked.”
In late February the international news cycle moved between two very important focuses. One addressed controversies in Canada. The other continues to highlight events unfolding primarily in Russia, Ukraine, and the USA. While different in many ways, both stories have many-faceted worldwide implications.
Both involve configurations of power and intrigue that overlap in crucial ways. Both involve conflicts with profound life-and-death implications. Both conflicts highlight that humanity and our civilizational inheritances are at a crossroads.
At this parting of the ways, the most well-travelled autobahn looming up ahead points towards tyrannies far more extreme than anything we have known in history so far.
Whatever highway we follow, it seems there is no escaping the onslaught of new forms of aggressive warfare that are fast pushing humanity into a jagged collision with high-tech weaponry capable of unprecedented destruction. To say we are living in dangerous times is a gross understatement.
Will humanity be subjected to even greater extremes of outright militarization? Will we continue to be assaulted by a novel array of overt and covert tactics aimed at radically re-engineering society as well as the very genetic attributes of the human genome? Will human beings continue to be reconfigured to advance the conditions of our decline into submissive enslavement? Will we continue to be subject to litanies of media lies, strategies of behavior modification, and unregulated medical experiments aimed at merging our biological persons with aspects of digital technology?
Some common themes wind through the convoluted array of unregulated assaults that menace humanity’s very survival in anything like the God-given form we inherited from nature. Powerful enemy forces are exploiting for their own self-interested advantage, our credulousness, naivety, and susceptibility to programs of mind control. The goal of the master class, it seems, is to modify our behavior so we can be better integrated into a world of pervasive robotization.
Enslavement With the Help of Digital IDs Combined with Cashless Transactions
Right now in the Western countries’ onslaughts of psychological warfare are integral to the military showdown initiated in Eurasia.
While experts in “perception management” are using the media to lure the public into single-minded condemnation of Russia, our attention is being drawn away from stunning revelations coming to light in our midst.
The disclosures underway illuminate the role of COVID Officialdom in forcing on us through mandates and other coercive techniques, highly lethal and injurious medical procedures. These procedures have been purposely designed to induce pathogenic outcomes and depopulation agendas. Throughout Europe and North America, dramatic increases in all-cause rates of death are being reported especially by life insurance companies and funeral homes.
One result is that Pfizer and Moderna investors are “running for the exit.” Former BlackRock investment advisor, Edward Dowd, has sounded the alarm on Moderna and Pfizer “as sinking ships that investors need to abandon.”
The bad news for the vaccine companies and their notoriously negligent regulators is compounded by the fact that their indemnification is threatened.
The companies and their regulators can be sued if it can be demonstrated that they have lied about their products. Indeed, they have lied on an epic scale and continue to do so. The evidence is clear that the inadequately-tested medical injections advertised as “safe and effective” are no such thing. Now there are headlines proclaiming, “Pfizer and Moderna are modern versions of Enron.”
As blanket coverage of the Ukrainian conflict dominates the media, the next stage in the insidious COVID con is being executed with blitzkrieg speed. The objective is to rush humanity into a privatized system of universalized and standardized Digital ID before most people have an opportunity to get informed on the fuller implications.
The growing contingent of people devoted to principled non-compliance to the myriad COVID frauds must resist allowing the COVID hucksters to advance their diabolical agenda. The COVID con men and women must be forced to back away from their attempt at making sweeping appropriations and instrumentalizations of yet more elements of our private information. We need to hold the line against slick kleptocrats seeking total control of everything through digital invasion and theft of the little that remains of our personal realms.
Included in the Digital ID con job is the creation of a new type of One World digital currency presently being rushed into existence by the private central banks holding membership in the Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements (BIS). This process is being pushed ahead in partnership with the dystopian World Economic Forum (WEF).
Recently Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s founder, bragged that more than one-half of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Canadian cabinet is infiltrated with WEF insiders. Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, is one of them.
In fact Freeland is currently a prominent member of the WEF’s governing body of trustees. As shall become clear, Freeland is emblematic of the abundant conflicts-of-interest and round-the-clock lies that have come to characterize the Liberal Party during the time of Trudeau’s denigration of public office in Canada.
A pervasive system of social credit scoring is taking shape with the rush to entrench in many jurisdictions a transnational system of Digital IDs. The other necessary element is our willingness to go along with the creation of a single digital currency. The new system requires the consolidation of a One World megabank that is meant as a key element in the so-called Great Reset.
The advancement of a system of total surveillance and total control requires the termination of all cash transactions. Hence our insistence on continuing the conduct of business through the circulation of cash must be an expression of our principled non-compliance.
The merger of Digital ID together with the replacement of cash transactions would give central authorities the ability to cut off our “freedoms,” including, for instance, even our capacity to buy food. The entrapment of people in digital enclosures would put the vast majority of humans in a virtual penitentiary of unmitigated top-down authority.
The creation of a social credit dystopia is being pushed rapidly forward under the cover of wall-to-wall coverage devoted to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian troops are intervening with the goal of “demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine.”
It is also thought that Putin intends to dismantle about fifteen US biological warfare labs. The Pentagon sponsors of these “research facilities” for mass murder would have us believe they are engaged in a “Biologic Threat Reduction Program.”
In his memorable speech of 24 Feb., Putin claims that the Russian mission in Ukraine, “is not a plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory.” The Russian government asserts that its actions in Ukraine are necessary for the protection of the Russian Mother Country. Over many years Putin has been stressing the themes that the Russian Armed Forces are now acting upon.
The explanation of this military operation as an act of self-defense depends on a historical analysis highlighting the decades-long campaign to strangle Russia in a boa constrictor’s grip of NATO’s aggressive militarism. The core agreements enabling the end of the Cold War have been violated by the patterns of NATO’s expansion since 1991.
NATO has been ingesting former Soviet republics into a US-backed militarized zone of organized anti-Russia zealotry. As Putin warned again and again over recent years, the US goal of transforming Ukraine into yet another militarized enemy of Moscow established a “red line,” a “matter of life or death” for Russia.
The Ukrainian authorities have been urgently destroying pathogens studied at its laboratories linked to the US Department of Defense, the Russian military claimed on Monday, adding that such activities hint at the military purposes of these studies.
As many as 30 biological laboratories have been established in Ukraine that are actively cooperating with the US military, the commander of the Russian radiological, chemical and biological defense force, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, said at a news briefing on Monday.
The list of these laboratories’ partners includes the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) – the largest biomedical research facility administered by the US military; the general added.
Many of these laboratories have been active since the 2014 coup d’état in Ukraine and their emergence in the country has coincided with a spike in infectious diseases in the region, including German measles, diphtheria and tuberculosis, the Russian military said.
After the Russian forces launched a military operation in Ukraine on February 24, these laboratories started hastily destroying the materials they had been working on, including the highly pathogenic bacterial and viral agents, Kirillov has said, adding that Moscow has obtained documents related to that process.
Analysis of the documents shows that the laboratories had been working with dangerous infections such as anthrax and the plague. “Assortment and the excessive quantity of the biological agents suggest that the work done in these laboratories had been part of some military biological programs,” the general has said, adding that just one such laboratory in the western Ukrainian city of Lvov had destroyed as many as 320 containers with pathogens causing plague, swamp fever and Malta fever among others.
“If these collections fall into the hands of the Russian experts, they will highly likely prove Ukraine and the US have been in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention,” Kirillov has said, adding that “this is the only reason that can explain the hasty destruction” of those materials.
The general has also expressed his concerns that all the biological materials needed for the alleged military biological program to continue had been already transported to the US.
Kiev has denied developing bioweapons, and Washington has not commented on the Russian military statements so far.
Moscow has been raising alarm about the activities of the US-financed biological laboratories located in the former Soviet states for quite some time. Earlier, it pointed to the Lugar Research Center – a US-funded laboratory in Georgia – as a place where some dangerous experiments are being conducted.
The Pentagon brushed off such accusations as a “Russian disinformation campaign” at that time.
It is being reported this lunchtime that the Russian government is ready to end it’s invasion of Ukraine if Kyiv agrees to its terms. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Reuters news agency that Russia is ready to halt its military action “in a moment” if Kyiv meets its conditions.
According to The Telegraph this lunchtime:
The demands include:
Ceasing all military action
A change to the constitution to enshrine neutrality
Acknowledgement of Crimea as Russian territory
Recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent
It is the most explicit Russian statement so far of the terms it wants to impose on Ukraine to halt what it calls its “special military operation.”
This morning, Ukraine said Russia is “manipulating” the West by claiming it will observe ceasefires to allow civilians to evacuate.
The Russian military has said it has opened six humanitarian corridors for civilians to leave major cities for Belarus and Russia, the Russian Defence Ministry claimed.
As yet, there has been no official response from the Ukrainian government to Russia’s demands.
However, it’s unlikely that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government will agree to drop plans for the country to join NATO, or give up Luhansk and Donetsk.
Russian companies wishing to work with firms from countries which oppose Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine will have to receive government permission for the deals, the press service of Russia’s Ministry of Finance said on Monday. Permission will be granted by the Government Commission for the Control of Foreign Investments. It includes representatives from Russia’s Central Bank (Bank of Russia) and the presidential administration.
According to the resolution establishing the procedure, which was signed by Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, a Russian resident company or foreign company from an “unfriendly state” must apply for permission for any business deal.
“[The application] should contain comprehensive information about the applicant, including information on the beneficial owners of the company. Based on the analysis of the documents received and the nature of the future agreement, a decision will be made to approve or refuse to implement it,” the press service said, stressing that “the main goal of this work is to ensure the country’s financial stability in the face of external sanctions pressure.”
The government on Monday also unveiled an updated list of countries which have been deemed “unfriendly states” for their positions on the Ukraine conflict. It includes the United States and Canada, the countries of the EU bloc, the UK (including Jersey, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, and Gibraltar), Ukraine, Montenegro, Switzerland, Albania, Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, San Marino, North Macedonia, and also Japan, South Korea, Australia, Micronesia, New Zealand, Singapore, and China’s self-ruled territory of Taiwan.
The countries and territories were added to the list after they imposed or joined the sanctions against Russia in connection with the ongoing military operation of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine.
According to the government decree, Russian citizens and companies, the state itself and its regions and municipalities will now also have to pay for obligations to foreign creditors from countries on the list in rubles. The new temporary procedure applies to payments exceeding 10 million rubles per month, or a corresponding amount in foreign currency.
The measures have been introduced by Moscow to support the Russian economy after Western states placed Russia under heavy sanctions over the past 10 days. A number of Russia’s largest banks have been cut off from SWIFT and had their foreign assets frozen, restrictions were placed on certain Russian exports and imports, and a growing number of companies from all sectors have been shutting down operations in the country.
By Thomas S. Harrington | CounterPunch | August 19, 2016
… What will almost never be talked about are the many very good reasons a person from the vast region stretching from Morrocco in the west, to Pakistan in the east, have to be very angry at, and to feel highly vengeful toward, the US, its strategic puppeteer Israel, and their slavishly loyal European compadres like France, Germany and Great Britain. … Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 