How the Loss of One Career Fueled the Spectacular Rise of Another
2018 interview with Dr. Paul Marik
By Justus R. Hope | Repurposed Drugs: Powers & Possibilities | January 14, 2024
Someone once said that if you fail to adapt to a changing environment, you can quickly become extinct. However, if Dr. Paul Marik is anything, he is resourceful, and adapts quickly.
Dr. Paul E. Marik, the beloved Professor and Chairman of the Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Eastern Virginia University School of Medicine, courageously stood up for saving lives at the cost of his career.
Long a trailblazer in the use of repurposed drugs against life-threatening diseases like Sepsis, Dr. Marik published his studies on IV Vitamin C and its profound benefit in Sepsis patients.
Like Dr. Linus Pauling before him, Dr. Marik found that Vitamin C could be repurposed to great effect against a variety of diseases. Both scientists are known as out-of-the box and brilliant thinkers. Both changed the world. And both men stood strong for their beliefs despite existential career attacks.
Pauling’s book, The Nature of the Chemical Bond, is considered “chemistry’s most influential book of this century and its effective bible“.
In the three decades following its publication, it was cited more than 16,000 times and continues to be the foundational work on chemical bonds.
While a rising science star early in his career, he formed an association with Dr. Robert Oppenheimer on their joint research. This unfortunately ended abruptly after Oppenheimer made a pass at his wife Ava Helen Pauling, while Pauling was away. Oppenheimer invited her to join him on a tryst in Mexico. Ava declined and immediately reported this to Linus.
Dr. Linus Pauling is one of only five in history to win two Nobel Prizes, one for Chemistry in 1954 and the other as a Peace Prize in 1962 for his anti-war activism.
However, because of his activist passion to save lives, Dr. Pauling was ousted from his position at Caltech – The California Institute of Technology – for political reasons.
In 1958, the Caltech Board of Trustees asked him to resign his position as Chairman of the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Division. Some 30 years later they would reverse themselves and forever honor Pauling.
Dr. Paul Marik has enjoyed his reputation as the “most published and influential clinician/researcher in critical care medicine in the United States” and for good reason. Dr. Marik is a giant in the academic research world with an H-Index of 111, which placed him in the top percentile of the world’s elite published physicians.
His IV Vitamin C protocol known as HAT garnered massive attention with more than 1100 anecdotes from physicians around the world noting similar almost miraculous results in their septic shock patients.
“The mortality reduction Paul achieved in sepsis patients was an absolute risk reduction of 32% in his study, and then his hospital observed a 16% absolute risk reduction across the entire hospital (but his protocol was used in only one unit).”
After the Pandemic struck, Dr. Marik wrote to the WHO, Dr. Fauci, the head of the NIH, the head of New York City’s Department of Health, and the Health Minister in Lombardy, Italy about his new repurposed drug COVID protocol – pre-Ivermectin – involving Vitamin C, Quercetin, Zinc and Melatonin. He explained that lives could be saved by offering this to patients immediately. Marik wrote in his letter,
“Dr. Fauci and others are promoting the idea of performing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). I believe that it is unethical to do such trials. How can you offer patients a placebo when testing a drug that you believe may have clinical efficacy? Every patient needs to get the best treatment we can offer; we could expect no less for our loved ones. Furthermore, once these trials are eventually completed we will all be dead, or the pandemic will be over! This does not mean we should not be studying the impact of these interventions; detailed observational studies can provide useful information.”
Similar to Dr. Pauling’s cry for nuclear arms de-escalation, instead of persuading officials, all Dr. Marik’s letter did was paint a bright red bullseye on his forehead. They viewed him as an obstacle to their agenda which in both cases did not involve the good of humanity.
The powers that be had already decided upon deploying a vaccine under emergency use authorization. Allowing Dr. Marik to save his Eastern Virginia University Hospital ICU patients with Ivermectin would have spelled the end of that vaccine emergency use approval. So, in a politically and economically motivated assault, Dr. Marik was forced out of his position and career. To add further insult, he was pressured to resign his medical license.
As Dr. Pauling so keenly observed decades ago,
“There is, of course, always a threat to academic freedom – as there is to the other aspects of the freedom and rights of the individual, in the continued attacks which are made on this freedom, these rights, by the selfish, the overly ambitious, the misguided, the unscrupulous, who seek to oppress the great body of mankind in order that they themselves may profit – and we must always be on the alert against this threat, and must fight it with vigor when it becomes dangerous.”
A lesser man might have given up. But not Dr. Marik. Despite facing financial, personal and professional ruin, Dr. Marik focused not on himself, but on others. With laser-like intensity, Dr. Marik found his footing on what mattered most to him, saving the lives of others.
And with that fateful decision, the great Dr. Paul E. Marik made history by researching and publishing the solution for cancer, a riddle that has eluded almost all of even the greatest scientists who preceded him.
Dr. Paul Marik, who had been plunged into the deepest depths of despair, came roaring back with a purpose driven by divine inspiration. And now millions of lives are better for it.
We can all learn from the similarities to Dr. Pauling, and how his later life unfolded. Pauling’s genius led him to discover not only the secrets of ionic and covalent bonds between atoms, but the beneficial effects of various vitamins and amino acids on diseases like cancer.
Pauling, who was afflicted with Bright’s Disease – a kidney condition – at age 40, found an unorthodox but effective way to treat himself using 3 grams per day of Vitamin C. However, this use of repurposed vitamins threatened the status quo, and was vehemently denounced as “quackery.” Dr. Marik has found himself similarly attacked by various monied interests.
Dr. Pierre Kory writes colorfully about Marik’s experience in his book, The War on Ivermectin, which is required reading for anyone who cares about the truth. While Pauling found that Vitamin C was friendly to his diseased kidneys, Marik observed that far fewer IVC treated sepsis patients required dialysis because most recovered – to the great dismay of the hospital nephrologists whose income depended upon a steady stream supplying their dialysis clinics.
Pauling published two studies about a group of 100 terminally ill cancer patients where survival was increased by as much as four-fold compared to a similar group of controls.
Predictably, Pauling was heavily attacked. Yet in the end, with the help of his own 3 gram per day steady Vitamin C supplement use, he lived well and to the ripe old age of 93. His prolonged survival alone – in the face of Bright’s Disease -testifies as a monumental anecdote to the efficacy of his approach. Francis Crick hails Pauling as the “Father of Molecular Biology” while Nobel Laureate Peter Agre credits Pauling with inspiring him.
Caltech corrected their error in dismissing him by establishing a symposium and lectureship series in his name. The Pauling Lecture Series at Caltech began its first year in 1989 with a lecture by its namesake. Their chemistry department christened room 22 of Gates Hall as The Linus Pauling Lecture Hall.
Similarly, Dr. Marik has continued undeterred in his mission to save humanity. With unbridled passion, he researched the existing body of medical literature on cancer and repurposed drugs and published his masterpiece, Cancer Care, the most comprehensive book on the subject.
While reducing the mortality rate in sepsis by 32% is monumental, his Cancer Care work will likely reduce that disease’s mortality by even more. Cancer is now becoming the Number One cause of death in the United States, and with the recent acceleration of “Unexplained Deaths” and Turbo Cancers around the world, Marik’s work is even more vital.
His book has rapidly rose the ranks to Amazon Best Seller. And Dr. Marik is organizing a series of cancer-related medical conferences, the next in Arizona in February that attracts physicians and healthcare providers from a variety of backgrounds with the common denominator of a desire to save lives, not to be politically correct.
Dr. Paul Marik is now finding his voice and true calling in the second act of his life, just as Dr. Linus Pauling did after unlocking the secrets of the atom. Despite their obvious brilliance, both possess an even rarer commodity, that of an unswerving moral compass.
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | January 22, 2024
Having set up the big lie about storms, by naming every passing low pressure system and only reporting wind speeds at high altitude and clifftop sites, the Met Office have now doubled down with the lie that storms in the UK are more intense, and it is due to climate change:
Yet the Met Office’s own State of the Climate Report last year was absolutely clear that storms are now less intense than in the 1980s and 90s:
Claire Nasir then compounds her error by talking about rainfall.
Despite the heatwave in June, rainfall for the summer as a whole was above average, as was spring. So where she got this idea of a rainfall deficit is a mystery.
Meanwhile, although autumn was wetter than average, it was a long way from being unusually so. To call it a shift between extremes is the sort of palpable nonsense we are so used now to hearing from the Met Office.
It is time that the Met Office’s climate change work was defunded, and the organisation returned to its proud tradition as a Meteorological Office.
On Treatments
Lies are Unbekoming | January 20, 2024
I’ve written a lot about the sins of childhood vaccination and the reasons to avoid their unnecessary, unsafe, and ineffective dangers.
What I haven’t written about is what to do when that unvaccinated child falls ill. Yes, they do still fall ill, but far less than poisoned children.
This stack aims to address that gap.
If you have decided to raise an unvaccinated child, you need to do a few things.
You should find a trusted alternative doctor, that is comfortable with high dose Vitamin C. As Larry Cook outlines in Section 9 of his free online course.
Find An Alternative Doctor Now
If you do not yet have an alternative doctor on your team, especially one who can give vitamin C IVs, I would like to encourage you to actively search one out before the need arises. High dose vitamin C IVs are extremely effective for all infectious diseases and other ailments as well. Plus, alternative doctors are going to have more treatment methods than just antibiotics.
You need to work at increasing your knowledge.
Parents of unvaccinated children need to work harder to obtain and maintain the knowledge that will allow them to be self-sufficient and independent (as much as possible) of establishment Cartel Medicine.
To that end, you should increase your Vitamin C knowledge.
I would also recommend that both parents do Larry Cook’s free online course.
Made up of the following parts:
1. Natural Immunity Versus Vaccination
2. What Really Saved Us From Disease?
3. Vaccine Efficacy Failure
4. Vaccine Safety Fraud
5. Vaccine “Science,” Cover-Up and Manipulation
6. Vaccine Injury Is Everywhere
7. A Healthy Family Is Your Child’s Best Defense
8. Don’t Panic When Your Child Gets Sick
9. The “Vaccine Preventable Illnesses” Explained
10. Staying Vaccine Free In A Hostile World
11. Vaccine Injury Treatment and Recovery
12. Join The Fight To End Medical Tyranny
An unvaccinated child is unlikely to end up with many ear infections but in case they do, here is a free eBook from Larry Cook.
You should also buy and read:
The Unvaccinated Child is an unparalleled naturopathic treatment guide for common childhood illnesses. Its style is reader friendly for parents without a medical background or for practitioners looking for treatment options to offer their patients. As children can contract many of the childhood illnesses regardless of vaccination status, this is a practical must-have book for any parent whether their child has or has not been vaccinated.
The Unvaccinated Child reviews the history of germs and how a child’s terrain is a better indicator of health or disease. The naturopathic foundations of health familiarize parents with the necessary steps to create long term health. The authors go through each childhood illness children are commonly vaccinated for and offer naturopathic treatments such as herbs, supplements, essential oils, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, nutrition, and physical medicine as tools to work through each illness. The book includes a compendium of naturopathic protocols with a complete how-to section, resources and references to arm readers with the means to effectively nurture children back to health.
Contact: vitalhealthpub@gmail.com
5.0 out of 5 stars Holy grail of knowledge!
This book is a must! If you don’t vaccinate, partially vaccinate or fully vaccinate this book can and will benefit you. There are treatments for diseases, when to seek help and what to look out for. There is a lot of great info in this book that I have added to my arsenal of homeopathic remedies! I feel more prepared and confident in treating something if it arises. – DHowell
They dedicate a chapter to each of the following childhood illnesses.
Chapter 8: Chickenpox (Varicella)
Chapter 9: Diphtheria
Chapter 10: Flu (Influenza)
Chapter 11: Hepatitis A
Chapter 12: Hepatitis B
Chapter 13: HiB (Haemophilus Influenzae type B)
Chapter 14: HPV (Human Papillomavirus)
Chapter 15: Measles
Chapter 16: Meningitis
Chapter 17: Mumps
Chapter 18: Pertussis
Chapter 19: Pneumonia (Pneumococcal)
Chapter 20: Polio
Chapter 21: Rota
Chapter 22: Rubella
Chapter 23: Tetanus
Finally, here is a summary of a range of the treatment modalities described in the book and some excerpts.
This book provides guidance on using natural remedies and treatments to support children’s health during times of illness. The remedies cover rest, diet, supplements, physical treatments, and environmental adjustments.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 18, 2024
As the WHO and media attempt to keep the public in fear with the threat of an unknown disease, we breakdown what ‘disease X’ really symbolizes. Meanwhile, gain-of-function experiments continue to put humanity in great peril.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 18, 2024
Del takes a deep dive on the newly approved RSV vaccine’s side effects on pregnant women. Using data straight from ABRYSVO’s own box insert for data, he highlights the increased risk of preterm birth and buffer ingredients such as polysorbate 80 and residual DNA from host cell proteins from Chinese hamster cell lines. Does this sound safe to you?
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 18, 2024
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has no plans to further study the effects of cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) on human health — even though the program’s own $30 million study that took about 10 years to complete in 2018 reported evidence of cancer and DNA damage.
The NTP said in an updated January 2024 fact sheet that it was abandoning further investigation because “the research was technically challenging and more resource-intensive than expected.”
For decades, the NTP has been the premier governmental testing program for pharmaceuticals, chemicals and radiation, according to Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist who served on the board of scientific counselors for the NTP when it was launched in the 1980s.
Commenting on the news, Davis said, “It is the ultimate arrogance and folly to stop doing research on this major growing environmental pollutant, precisely when we have ample evidence of harm.”
Davis has authored more than 200 peer-reviewed publications in books and journals, ranging from The Lancet to the Journal of the American Medical Association.
In February 2023, she and her colleagues published a review of more than 200 studies that linked wireless radiation to negative biological effects including oxidative stress and DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, memory damage and other neurological effects.
They will soon publish a “major new article” in Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development journal about “new science” on RFR and call for precaution, she said.
Davis — who also is the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences and the founder and president of Environmental Health Trust — called out the U.S. government for failing to ensure that wireless radiation is safe:
“The government’s decision to stop funding research on cellphone radiation is consistent with the Chinese proverb ‘If you don’t want to know, don’t ask.’
“The US government has a variation of that in the policy of, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ If you don’t want to know whether cell tower radiation is having a biological impact, stop doing the research!”
Miriam Eckenfels-Garcia, director of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) and Wireless program, told The Defender :
“Discontinuing government-funded research because it is ‘technically challenging’ and ‘resource-intensive’ is not what we expect from government agencies that are supposed to protect people from the harms of big industry.
“This research is important so that people can make informed decisions when it comes to the use of technology.”
W. Scott McCollough, lead litigator for CHD’s EMR cases, agreed. “I am concerned that the absence of evidence will be contorted into a claim of evidence of absence.”
As of early last year, the NTP was still conducting RFR research. A February 2023 fact sheet said scientists had “overcome several technical issues” and developed a better system for exposing animals to RFR for their studies.
NTP said researchers were “now making progress” on four research goals:
In its January 2024 fact sheet, the NTP reported the researchers had “tested the new exposure system using in vivo rodent studies” and that their research was “complete.”
The NTP did not say whether the researchers had achieved those four research goals and, if so, what the results were. It did, however, make clear that its previous studies — which used 2G and 3G cellphones — “do not apply” to 4G or 5G technologies.
The Defender reached out to NTP’s press office for clarification about why the new fact sheet appears to contradict the NTP website (updated Jan. 8, 2024) on cellphone radiation research which says NTP still has “current research efforts,” however NTP did not respond by our publication deadline.
The NTP’s discontinuation of its RFR research suggests the U.S. government has no intention of studying the possible biological effects of 5G.
Meanwhile, researchers such as Davis continue to say there is reason for concern. Davis pointed out that infertility clinics ask men about their wireless devices and cellphone habits:
“They tell them to take these phones off their bodies and out of their pockets because there is evidence … where the greater the exposure, the lower the sperm count, and the poorer the sperm quality.
“This has been repeatedly shown in studies with human sperm done under controlled conditions, as well as cross-sectional studies.”
“In fact,” she added, “whether the government stops doing the research or not, there is a massive study underway because we have billions of people being exposed to ever-increasing levels of wireless radiation throughout the world. Millions of American children are exposed every day in classrooms.”
“The only problem is there is no control group anymore, which will make it difficult, but not impossible, to discern the impacts of wireless radiation,” Davis said.
What NTP’s 2018 study found
As The Defender previously reported, NTP researchers in 2018 concluded there was “clear evidence” that male rats exposed to high levels of RF similar to those emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones developed cancerous heart tumors, and “some evidence” of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats.
Davis said NTP’s conclusions were consistent with and corroborated dozens of other studies. “It wasn’t like it [the NTP study] was a one-off study,” she said.
Once the word got out that the findings of the NTP study were positive — meaning the government researchers had found an association between cellphone radiation and the growth of cancerous tumors — the telecommunication industry “started its tactics” to suppress the findings, Davis said.
Davis has been researching those tactics for more than a decade. She is the author of “Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.”
Instead of the NTP study report being released in 2016, when it was first ready, she said, the telecom industry exerted pressure to subject the study’s conclusions to an unprecedented level of scrutiny.
“When the first drafts began to circulate internally, it was elevated for a peer review unlike any that has ever been conducted in the history of the entire program — and I can say that with great certainty. No other compound or substance [studied by the NTP] has ever been subject to this level of peer review,” Davis said.
A panel of external scientific experts convened for a three-day review of the study and its conclusions in March 2018.
However, rather than downplaying the study’s conclusions, the experts concluded that the scientific evidence in the study was so strong they recommended the NTP reclassify some of its conclusions from “some evidence” to “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity.
To date, more than 250 scientists — who together have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by wireless devices, including cellphones — signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
The College is trying to punish Dr. Charles Hoffe for numerous 100% scientifically accurate statements on multiple aspects of Covid science.
Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings | January 18, 2024
Canadian community doctor Dr. Charles Hoffe was one of the first to notice something was “wrong” with the vaccines in April 2021 after he witnessed terrible injuries (strokes etc.) and even a death in the patients he was vaccinating. He then wrote an open letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia with his observations and concerns, suggesting that perhaps the jabs should be put on pause until their safety could be more assured. One paragraph from the letter said:
“In our small community of Lytton, BC, we have one person dead, and three people who look as though they will be permanently disabled, following their first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The age of those affected ranges from 38 to 82 years of age,” he wrote.
Hoffe was then banned from working in the local emergency ward and other provincial hospitals. He later submitted more than a dozen claims of vaccine injuries on behalf of his patients, but all were denied validity.
*For more background, click tweet below by Dr. Mark Trozzi, another persecuted Canadian doctor for a summary of what is happening to Hoffe (and includes a powerful speech by Dr. Hoffe).
Through FOIA obtained emails, Hoffe and his lawyer discovered that the College’s first and only internal response was to find someone to report Dr. Hoffe for writing the letter. There is no evidence of any concern for the patients nor a request or investigation into Hoffe’s patient records. They instead simply told him each report was a “coincidence” and that it was best if he stop talking about this issue in the hospital. Both shocking and unsurprising I know.
He instead rightly began speaking out publicly and the three mainstream media outlets in Canada (there are only 3) have in turn, viciously and repeatedly done hit jobs on him, making him appear as the least credible doctor in the country (which my readers know well is a censoring tactic, i.e. make truth tellers appear as un-credible as possible so no-one will listen to or believe them).
More recently the College began an investigation into Dr. Hoffe for numerous public comments he has made since his letter. This is a summary of the supposedly inaccurate statements made by Dr. Hoffe:
6.1. Patient Safety and Experimental Nature ………………………………………………………………… 23
6.2. Potential Harms to Fertility in Women …………………………………………………………………… 27
6.3. Myocarditis in Children ………………………………………………………………………………………. 30
6.4. Ivermectin for Treatment and Prophylaxis ……………………………………………………………… 33
6.5. Ivermectin Access ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 36
6.6. Harms to Pregnant Women …………………………………………………………………………………. 39
6.7. Microscopic Clotting ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42
6.8. Adverse Events Following Immunization ………………………………………………………………… 46
6.9. Harms to Children ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 50
6.10. Vaccine Shedding ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 53
6.11. Statement (1). April 4, 2021, email to Dr. Carol Fenton from Dr. Charles Hoffe………………. 56
6.12. Statement (2). April 5, 2021, open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry from Dr. Charles Hoffe ……… 60
6.13. Statement (3). April 21, 2021, email to Dr. Carol Fenton from Dr. Charles Hoffe …………….. 64
The College then hired an “expert” named Dr. Trevor Corniel who submitted a 151 page report with a whopping 191 references. In that report he argues that each and every public statement made by Dr. Hoffe on the above topics was “incorrect,” “misleading,” “inflammatory” and violated both the College “Prudence Standard” and “Harm Reduction Standard.” Know that these “standards” are ethical codes of conduct that members of the College must abide by (remember ethics?). In my expert opinion, I argue that Corneil (knowingly or unknowingly) amassed data from fraudulent peer-reviewed literature and captured public health agency recommendations to support his conclusions that Hoffe is in violation of practice standards.
If Dr. Hoffe were to be found guilty as argued by Dr. Corniel, he is at risk of losing his livelihood (license) and could be fined up to $100,000. So they want to end his career and then take his money. I wonder how many future doctors will speak up against the next Big Pharma-Government fraud in Canada once Hoffe’s fate becomes well-publicized? As far as I can tell, Canada only had less than a handful of publicly outspoken doctors and scientists in Canada during Covid (Charles Hoffe, Byram Bridle, Mark Trozzi, Paul Alexander, and William Makis – if I am leaving anyone out, I apologize). However, good luck hearing advice from un-conflicted doctors in the next pandemic.
**Since first posting this, subscribers have sent me other names of outspoken and/or persecuted Canadian docs so the list is larger than I thought: Rochagne Killian, Patrick Phillips, Chris Shoemaker, Daniel Nagase, Rodger Hodkinson, Patrick Phillips, Chris Milburn, Laura Braden, Michael Palmer, Crystal Luchkiw..
Anyway, Hoffe’s lawyer, Lee Turner of Doak Shirreff Lawyers LLP in Kelowna, B.C. engaged me to defend a number of Hoffe’s statements regarding ivermectin and shedding. I was proud to learn I was joining an All-Star team of medical dissident experts defending him such as Jessica Rose, Peter McCullough, Kevin McKernan etc. I plan to ask them to also post their expert reports on Substack, and I will create a central post linked to all for those interested.
Of note, Lee has been practicing trial law in British Columbia for 30 years and is experienced in administrative, public health, and personal injury law. He has been very busy in Covid as he has represented numerous nurses, physicians and other health care providers and individuals who were negatively impacted by Canadian Covid-19 public health measures and mandates (which as you know were far more draconian than here in the U.S).
I elected to do the case pro-bono and began by reading Corneils “expert” report which viciously and repeatedly attacked Hoffe for his many accurate statements. I was so infuriated after reading it, I said to myself “Game on (expletive)” and immediately launched into a writing and researching frenzy over the last 5 days and I would say I put over 20 hours of work into my report. It is 47 single spaced pages with who knows how many hyperlinked references.
I hope I am not being too full of myself but I want to share what Lee Turner wrote to me after he read it:
“Pierre, I don’t even know how to express how incredible the information in your report is. It is one of the most thorough and well written expert reports I have read in my 30 year career. And I have read a lot of expert reports. I made a few minor corrections to spelling, and adding in punctuation (periods, commas or colons) and that was it. I think it is very well written and contains powerful evidence.”
Lets go through Count #1 against Dr. Hoffe shall we? … continue
New research has experts angered by the “complete and utter regulatory failure” to ensure patient safety
BY MARYANNE DEMASI, PHD | JANUARY 16, 2024
After three years on the market and billions of doses later, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines continue to throw up surprises.
A landmark study, published last December in Nature, has reignited concerns over the safety of the vaccines.
The study, by highly credentialled UK researchers, found that in addition to spike protein, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine can instruct cells to produce other ‘off-target’ proteins, which are foreign to the immune system.
How does it happen?
The researchers say that ribosomes, which are responsible for decoding the mRNA in cells, can slip and misread the coded instructions about 8% of the time – known as “ribosomal frameshifting.”
They say the ‘glitch’ has to do with how the mRNA in the vaccine has been genetically modified.
Unlike naturally-occurring mRNA, the mRNA that exists in the vaccines has had a ‘uridine’ base replaced with a ‘N1-methyl pseudouridine’ (to stabilise it) and unfortunately, has made it prone to reading errors.
But are these ‘off-target’ proteins harmful?
At a press briefing, the study researchers insisted there were no safety concerns, and that their findings did not indicate the mRNA vaccines were unsafe.
The BBC characterised the glitch as a “harmless tiny slip” in mRNA gene translation.
Science said there was “nothing alarming” about the study, and interviewed experts who reiterated the absence of adverse events associated with these off-target proteins.
However, David Wiseman, a research scientist involved in medical product development, is not so convinced. He, and his co-authors, published their comments in Nature.
I spoke with Dr Wiseman about his concerns and what this research might mean for patient safety.
DEMASI: Thanks for speaking with me Dr Wiseman. How concerned are you about these latest findings?
WISEMAN: I’m very concerned. This raises more questions about the long-term safety of the mRNA vaccines.
DEMASI: Before we discuss what they found, can you explain the purpose of the study?
WISEMAN: Well, these researchers asked a simple question – are the instructions contained within the mRNA of the vaccines being faithfully carried out. Or put another way, does the body make the spike protein it’s supposed to make, as instructed by the mRNA’s code.
It’s like saying here’s a recipe with instructions on how to make a cake – it’s grandma’s cake recipe. These researchers wanted to know if the mRNA could accurately give instructions on how to make Grandma’s cake or whether it would produce a corrupted version of grandma’s cake.
These researchers obviously knew from the literature that modifying some of the bases in the vaccine’s RNA – as was the case for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines – that it might cause misreads of different kinds. It’s known as ‘frameshifting.’
DEMASI: And what exactly did they find?
WISEMAN: They found the Pfizer vaccine can cause your cells to make proteins that they are not supposed to make – you end up with what I call “Pfrankenstein proteins.”
DEMASI: Because sometimes there are errors in the way the mRNA is read?
WISEMAN: Yes. Imagine the following three-letter English words ABE DAN TEA TON ERA TWO – the letters are like the code on the mRNA. Now instead of starting to read the sentence at the letter “A” of the first word, you frameshift to the next letter – the letter “B.”
That means that all the other letters are shifted to the left and it will give you a new sentence with three-letter words BED ANT EAT ONE RAT etcetera.
So, the new words have a completely different meaning from the original words. This is what happened in the body of some people vaccinated with Pfizer’s product.
New unwanted “off-target” proteins were produced, that actually led to an “off-target” immune response.
DEMASI: So, were these off-target proteins detected in the blood of people who’d been vaccinated?
No, they did not measure these proteins in the blood of people who’d been vaccinated.
These researchers did something similar to what I did with the six English words – they “predicted” what some of these off-target proteins would look like, had there been a problem with frameshifting.
They made these frameshift proteins in the lab – about 30 or 40 of them – pooled them together in a test tube and then exposed them to blood lymphocytes (white blood cells that mount the immune response) taken from people who’d been vaccinated.
What they found in about 25 to 33% of people who’d received Pfizer’s product, was that their lymphocytes, responded immunologically when exposed to these frameshift proteins in a test tube.
It means their lymphocytes had seen the proteins before – their immune system had already been primed from a prior exposure, presumably after that person had received the mRNA vaccine.
DEMASI: They also tested samples from people who’d received the AstraZeneca vaccine and saw no immune reaction – can you explain why?
WISEMAN: The AstraZeneca vaccine is a different technology. It is a DNA vaccine and does not have the uridine modification that is causing the frameshifting in the mRNA vaccine.
So, it’s not surprising that the lymphocytes from people given the AstraZeneca vaccine did not react to these frameshift proteins, because they’d never seen them before.
DEMASI: They didn’t study people vaccinated with Moderna, but would you say the problem is likely to happen with Moderna’s vaccine too?
WISEMAN: Yes, I would because it’s also an mRNA vaccine and contains the same sort of uridine modification as the Pfizer vaccine.
DEMASI: OK, so making proteins you’re not supposed to make sounds bad, but the media coverage seemed to suggest there wasn’t a problem….
WISEMAN: What you have to realise is that your body is being hijacked, not just to produce spike protein, but also to produce other, what I call, “Pfrankenstein” proteins that are completely uncharacterised.
We don’t know what they are, what they do, for how long they’re made or how long they last in the body, and we have no idea what their toxicity is. From the Nature paper however, we do know that these unwanted proteins elicit immune reactions in the body.
DEMASI: What could these immune reactions lead to? You were concerned about autoimmune conditions?
WISEMAN: Yes. These researchers showed that frameshifting could create chimeric proteins. Basically, as the ribosome reads the code for the spike protein, it may slip in the middle of reading the code. So, the first half is spike protein, and the second half is a Pfrankenstein protein.
Now, just imagine one half can still attach to the ACE2 receptor on cells but on the other end, you’ve got this Pfrankenstein protein dangling outside of the cells. Your immune system is going to destroy the cell because it looks foreign, and now you’ve got something that looks like an autoimmune condition.
Or you could have a protein that turns out to be not necessarily identical, but sufficiently similar to another protein in our body like a hormone and it ends up mimicking the hormone’s activity and disturbing your endocrine system.
DEMASI: But the study authors said there were “no adverse events” associated with these frameshift proteins.
WISEMAN: The authors wrote, “…there is no evidence that frameshifted products in humans generated from BNT162b2 vaccination are associated with adverse outcomes.”
But they only looked at 21 people who received Pfizer’s vaccine, so you cannot call that a serious safety study by any stretch of the imagination.
And how did they select these people? The volunteers were part of another government funded study and had not reported undue effects from vaccination. Since they did not study subjects who had reported adverse vaccine effects, the selection of participants was probably biased.
DEMASI: The authors of the study said that with some tweaks they could identify potential slips and reduce reading errors…..
WISEMAN: Right, and this work should’ve been done by the vaccine manufacturers and by the regulators before the product was authorised and given to billions of people. They’ve asked people to take a vaccine, and put it into children and they have no clue what is happening inside the body.
What they’re trying to say now is that there have been no problems identified in 21 people, but in the future there may be problems, so we should just keep studying it.
Are you kidding me? What they’re saying is that ‘we will inject you first and ask safety questions later.’ It’s not good enough.
It’s just like the retired Pfizer executive admitted in a Nature article, “We flew the aeroplane while we were still building it.”
DEMASI: Shouldn’t the drug regulators be all over this?
WISEMAN: This has been a complete and utter regulatory failure. The 2021 WHO guidelines say that for mRNA vaccines the manufacturers have to disclose all the sequences and unexpected reading frames. They were required to have done this work already… The FDA should have been looking at it.
The mRNA vaccines are causing our bodies to produce uncharacterised proteins, with unknown toxicology, that produce an immune response of unknown clinical significance. The dereliction of duty by regulators shows how they’ve sunken to an all-time low.
By Iain Davis | OffGuardian | January 14, 2024
According to the UK Met Office, 2023 was the second hottest year in the UK since 1884.
Quite obviously, this is complete nonsense. Unless they are troglodytes that never venture out in daylight, why would anyone in the UK believe such absurd drivel?
The Met Office states:
2023 is provisionally the second warmest year for the UK according to mean temperature. [. . .] 2023’s provisional mean temperature of 9.97°C puts it just behind 2022’s figure of 10.03°C and ahead of 2014’s 9.88°C.
Right, it’s “provisional” drivel.
The UK summer of 2023—where I live—was a thoroughly miserable affair. We had a few weeks of decent sunshine in the spring and a couple of hot weeks of Indian summer. That was it!
The rest of it was cold, wet and comprehensively devoid of anything we might traditionally call “summer.” The winter preceding and following it wasn’t particularly cold, but nor was it unusually warm.
I’m knocking on a bit and can remember about 50 years of my life. I know, for a fact, that I have lived through many warmer years. Sure, this is anecdotal, but I haven’t completely taken leave of my senses and I still have a functioning memory. No way am I unquestioningly buying the Met Office’s silly claim.
Neither do I believe any of the legacy media reports trying to convince me that the Met Office’s preposterous assertion is evidence of an alleged climate crisis. It simply isn’t true, so it is not “evidence” of anything at all. Although it does suggest deception.
The Met Office—obviously unreliably—tells us “UK mean temperatures have been shifting over the decades as a result of human-induced climate change. [. . .] 2023’s provisional mean temperature of 9.97°C puts it just behind 2022’s figure of 10.03°C.”
For a start, “human induced climate change,” or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), is a questionable and unproven scientific theory, not scientific fact. This too is just another claim from the Met Office which it wrongly asserts as fact.
The Met Office also tells us that “sunshine was near-average for much of the UK.” If we have got this right, the Met Office is claiming that, with average hours of UK sunshine in 2023—which also seems pretty dubious to me—somehow, since 1884, the only year that has been “hotter” was 2022. Which doesn’t ring true either.
What’s going on?
What does the Met Office mean—pardon the pun—by “mean temperature”? It reports that its 2023 alleged “provisional mean temperature of 9.97°C” had been obtained via the HadUK-Grid data set. The Met Office also cites its 2023 rapid attribution study. It is from this that we can—eventually—glean how the “UK mean temperature” is calculated by the Met Office.
In its rapid attribution study, the Met Office states:
Observed values of the UK annual mean temperature are obtained from the HadUK-Grid dataset v1.2.0.0. The time series spans 1884 – 2023, with the 2023 values being provisional as of 2nd January 2024.
“Observed,” that’s what we want to hear. So what observations are reported in the HadUK-Grid dataset? The Met Office claims:
HadUK-Grid is a collection of gridded climate variables derived from the network of UK land surface observations.
If we look at the HadUK-Grid methodology, the Met Office adds:
The gridded data sets are based on the archive of UK weather observations held at the Met Office.
So far so good. The HadUK-Grid reportedly records real data, such as sunshine hours, rainfall and even temperature. We live in hope. Unfortunately, there are some caveats. The Met Office continues:
The methods used to generate the daily grids are described in more detail in [this] report.
OK. So beyond just recording real-world data, what are the “methods” outlined in said report?
[. . .] the Met Office climate data archive [. . .] contains a simplified version of the raw observations generated according to well-defined rules. [. . .] Mean temperature [. . .] is the average of the maximum and minimum temperatures.
At last we have a definition of the “mean temperature” the Met Office claims to be the second highest since 1884. Apparently, it is “generated according to well-defined rules.”
In Met Office speak “mean temperature” isn’t the actual arithmetic mean of daily temperatures but rather the “average” of minimum and maximum temperatures recorded between 09:00 and 21:00 on any given day. Begging the question how are the minimum and maximum UK temperatures “observed”?
Although the data ha[s] undergone some quality checking, the extent and effectiveness of this has changed through time since the 1960’s. [. . .] NCIC climate data analysis software was again used to create the gridded data. [. . .] The station data were normalised with respect to the monthly 1km x 1km gridded 1961-1990 climate normals described by Perry and Hollis (2005a).
So the minimum and maximum allegedly “observed” 2023 “mean UK temperature” wasn’t actually observed at all. It was calculated from normalised data using computers running software based upon the “climate normals” defined in Perry and Hollis (2005).
The related paper considered how to calculate long term averages (LTAs) and suggested a methodology by which “mean” temperatures could be calculated:
For air temperature, 1490 stations reported at some point between 1961 and 2000 but only an average of 560 of these were open at any one time. This gives an array which is 38% complete. [. . .] [T]he solution is to fill in the gaps using an appropriate estimation technique. [. . .] Once the gaps in the array have been filled, long term averages for the periods 1961-1990, 1971-2000 and 1991-2000 can be calculated for each station from the complete array. [. . .] The regression model parameters provide an estimation of [. . .] the UK climate, explaining between 29% and 94% of the variance in the data depending on the climate variable.
Potentially, up to 62% of the data forming the Met Office’s “Mean UK temperature” is “generated” by “fill[ing] in the gaps.” This is based upon an “estimation technique” which supposedly explains between “29% and 94% of the variance in the data depending on the climate variable.” This doesn’t mean that the estimated fill-ins are inaccurate but they cannot be called “observations” either.
We seem to be moving further away from empirical science. Surely the Met Office isn’t claiming that it knows what the average UK “provisional” mean temperature was in 2023 based upon such limited observations? With regard to how it interprets the HadUK-Grid dataset the Met Office states:
The HadUK-Grid dataset is produced on a 1km x 1km grid resolution on the Ordnance Survey’s National Grid. To facilitate comparison of the observational dataset with the UKCP18 climate projections [. . .]. All the gridded datasets use the same grid projection. The re-gridding is conducted through averaging of all 1km grid points that fall within each of the coarser resolution grid cells.
Whoa there! We already know that the “observational dataset” is created by “fill[ing] in the gaps”—around a 60% gap apparently—with computer modelled estimates. Now we are told some sort of “re-gridding” is necessary to “facilitate comparison” with UKCP18 climate projections. Why is that necessary?
The UK Met Office adds:
Area averages are also produced based on averaging the 1km grid [data] across a set of geographical regions to provide spatial statistics for country, administrative regions and river basins. The details of these areas can be found in the UKCP18 guidance notes.
Now we’ve got “spacial statistics,” instead of empirical measurements, based upon “area averages” that facilitate, for some unknown reason, comparison with “UKCP18 climate projections.” OK, so how are the “area averages” constructed in accordance with the UKCP18 guidance notes:
Before using [UKCP18 guidance notes], it is important to understand the assumptions made, the caveats and limitations and the appropriate use of the results.
Assumptions made, caveats and limitations! What bloody assumptions, caveats and limitations? Just measure the temperature and calculate some sort of meaningful average for crying out loud!
Let’s look at the caveats and limitations:
Our understanding and ability to simulate the climate is advancing all the time but our climate models are not able to represent all of the features seen in the present day real climate and there are still limitations in our ability to project 21st century weather and climate.
Why are the Met Office “generating” temperature datasets to “facilitate comparison” with climate models if those models “are not able to represent all of the features seen in the present day real climate.” Surely the models should be based upon the empirically observed and measured features of the “real climate,” as opposed to creating “area averages” containing “spacial statistics” to fit in with the models?
Almost unbelievably, this is evidently what the UK Met Office is doing:
The relative probabilities indicate how strongly the evidence from models and observations, taken together in our methodology, support alternative future climate outcomes. [. . .] The probabilities are conditioned on methodological choices and expert judgement. The results may change if a different methodology is used.
In essence, the Met Office uses a tortuous and unnecessarily convoluted methodology to make up the bulk of its UK “temperature” data. While the Met Office claims that the provisional UK mean temperature was for 2023 was 9.97°C it also states that its results might change “if a different methodology” was used.
What’s more, the data it uses is normalised, based upon a wide gamut of climate assumptions, in order to fit in with its own climate models. Again, it admits its so-called observations, of things like mean temperature, are “taken together in [its] methodology” expressly in order to “simulate the climate.”
Most of these modelling shenanigans are utterly superfluous if your objective is to calculate the arithmetic mean annual UK temperature. Of course anomalies, such as heat islands, need to be normalised in the data but the rest of the Met Office’s “methodology,” which doesn’t even attempt to calculate an arithmetic mean temperature anyway, is about as far removed from empirical science as it is possible to venture.
Inevitably, it produces completely meaningless pap. The problem with such allegedly “scientific” rubbish is that, rather than being laughed off, it is then taken seriously by millions—thanks the unquestioning propaganda reports of the legacy media—and used to advance policy agendas, such as Net Zero.
Apart from the fact that it is blatantly obvious, to anyone who has lived in the UK from more that a couple of decades, that 2023 was not a warm year, there are other notable reasons not to automatically trust the Met Office’s makey-uppy “climate science.” Its entire claim is reliant upon the HadUK-Grid dataset which is a project funded by the UK government. As is the Met Office itself.
Apparently, the UK government is irreversibly committed to UN Sustainable Development and the associated UK Net Zero policies. The Met Office’s alleged scientific “observations” suffer from an enormous financial conflict of interest. Providing any evidence that contradicts the notion of “unprecedented global warming” couldn’t be further removed from the Met Office’s and the UK government’s own declared interests.
There is absolutely no reason to believe any of it. As “science” goes, it’s complete junk. I’ve read comics with more credibility that the Met Office’s claim that 2023 was the second warmest year in the UK since 1884.
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • NOVEMBER 13, 2021
By a strange paradox, most Kennedy researchers who believe that Oswald was “just a patsy” spend an awful lot of time exploring his biography. This is about as useful as investigating Osama bin Laden for solving 9/11. Any serious quest for the real assassins of JFK should start by investigating the man who shot Oswald at pointblank in the stomach at 11:21 a.m. on September 24, 1963 in the Dallas Police station, thereby sealing the possibility that a judicial inquiry would draw attention to the inconsistencies of the charge against him, and perhaps expose the real perpetrators. One would normally expect the Dallas strip-club owner Jack Ruby to be the most investigated character by Kennedy truthers. But that is not the case. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 