The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday passed an amendment that would prohibit funding for transgenic edible vaccines — vaccines grown in genetically engineered plants for consumption by humans or animals.
The amendment, introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to the agricultural appropriations bill H.R. 4368, would bar the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from funding the vaccines for fiscal year 2024.
A vote on the full bill in the House is still pending as of this writing.
In an interview with The Defender, Massie said he introduced the amendment after learning about a recent project in California, funded by a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, that involves growing lettuce and trying to get the lettuce to produce mRNA vaccines that are intended to be consumed by humans who eat the lettuces.
Massie said he is concerned “that plants cross-pollinate and pollen from these modified plants, food-producing plants, could carry in the wind to other fields and contaminate them. And we could really contaminate a lot of our food supply with unknown doses of vaccines that would deliver unknown dosages.”
“Plants release pollen and it can go anywhere with the wind or with insects, and I just think it’s a bad idea,” he added.
“Rep. Massie is right to be concerned,” Claire Robinson, managing editor of GMWatch, told The Defender. “Genetically engineering a potent immunogen into food plants is irresponsible in the extreme.” She added:
“All the usual risks of GM [genetically modified] plants — the DNA-damaging effects of the GM transformation process leads to changes in gene expression and biochemistry of the plant, which can include the production of toxins or allergens — apply to these vaccine-producing plants, with additional risks on top.
“In the case of vaccine-producing plants, you are intentionally engineering a plant to elicit an immune reaction. This increases the level of risk exponentially.”
‘Either they don’t work, or they are not safe, or both’
According to a 2013 scientific paper, transgenic edible vaccines “are prepared by introducing selected desired genes into plants and inducing these genetically modified plants to manufacture the encoded proteins.”
Such vaccines offer “several potential advantages” to conventional vaccine production techniques according to the paper, including a potentially lower cost of production that would be suitable for developing countries.
Efforts to develop transgenic edible vaccines are not new — scientific literature on the topic dates back to at least 1999.
What is new with some current attempts to develop transgenic edible vaccines is that they would be geared to deliver mRNA vaccines orally.
“These are all genetically modified crops,” Massie said. “They’ve been injected with mRNA or spliced with DNA, with the intent of creating copies of that RNA or DNA. The plants are pretty effective at that.”
Robinson said this approach is not new. “Scientists have been trying to produce edible vaccines in plants for many years and some testing has occurred in animals and humans.”
However, she added, “Thus far, not one plant-produced vaccine has been approved anywhere, as far as I know. What does that tell us? Either they don’t work, or they are not safe, or both,” Robinson said.
California project is ‘utter madness’
The California lettuce project that drew Massie’s attention, conducted by scientists at University of California (UC), Riverside, is described as an effort to develop “The future of vaccines,” which “may look more like eating a salad than getting a shot in the arm” via turning “edible plants like lettuce into mRNA vaccine factories.”
“The project’s goals … are threefold,” according to UC Riverside. “Showing that DNA containing the mRNA vaccines can be successfully delivered into the part of plant cells where it will replicate, demonstrating the plants can produce enough mRNA to rival a traditional shot, and finally, determining the right dosage.”
This may help overcome challenges currently facing mRNA vaccine technology, namely, “that it must be kept cold to maintain stability during transport and storage.”
Plant-based mRNA vaccines “could overcome this challenge with the ability to be stored at room temperature,” university researchers said.
Juan Pablo Giraldo, Ph.D., an associate professor at UC Riverside’s Botany and Plant Sciences Department, is leading this research project alongside scientists from UC San Diego and Carnegie Mellon University. He said, “Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person.”
“We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens,” he added. “Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it.”
Robinson called such efforts “utter madness,” telling The Defender :
“Scientists are talking about people growing vaccine-containing plants in their gardens and farmers growing them in their fields. It is utter madness to propose to release such plants into uncontrolled conditions in this way.
“Vaccines are medicines, and their use and dosage must be carefully controlled. With any medicine, only the target patient should be treated, with their informed consent. How will these safeguards be in place if people are growing vaccines in food crops in their gardens and open fields?”
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert and professor of international law at the University of Illinois who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, said that such research may also violate international law and globally recognized ethical standards.
“The deployment of these transgenic edible vaccines would involve a gross violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation, and thus constitute a crime against humanity,” he said. “Their release into the environment would violate the Precautionary Principle of customary international environmental law. They would also be subject to the same human health objections to GMO foods that are too numerous for me to list.”
“What about cross-pollination and cross-contamination?” Robinson questioned. “People will ingest immunogens without their consent or knowledge.”
Risk of prion diseases, ‘dangerous immune reactions’
Robinson said there may also be several other unintended consequences for human health from the use of transgenic edible vaccines.
She said:
“Plant-produced vaccines will have what is known as post-translational modifications to the intended protein product. You will not end up with just the desired protein product as it exists in its native form in the pathogen. These post-translational modifications will be specific to the plant, and in humans or other animals they will produce dangerous immune reactions.
“Even the responses to the desired protein product — the ‘vaccine’ — will vary from person to person because people respond differently to different proteins. Also, you can end up with proteins that are toxic or that are not folded properly, with the latter property meaning that they could cause prion diseases.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, prion diseases “are progressive neurodegenerative disorders that affect both humans and animals,” and include Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease, fatal familial insomnia, kuru and, in animals, chronic wasting disease.
“In addition, it’s possible that the novel proteins will sensitize people to other things, such as foods,” Robinson said. “In an age where food allergies are increasing rapidly, do we really want to risk worsening that trend?”
Massie said there are other ways in which the human food supply could be contaminated by plant-based vaccines, noting that animals could eat plants and “that could eventually contaminate food that humans eat.”
“How do you control the dosage when you put it in food?” Massie asked. “I think it’s just a really bad idea. Even if you’re not against vaccines in general, I just think this is a really bad way to deliver vaccines to people or animals,” he said.
He added:
“I think we should have learned our lesson. If we believe that COVID-19 was a lab escape and the result of human experiments, which I do and most Americans do, then I think you should be concerned about these outdoor labs … Here we’re talking about greenhouses or open fields.”
Along similar lines, Boyle said, “We know that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have produced a massive number of deaths and adverse events that have been thoroughly documented in the professional literature.”
“These transgenic edible vaccines would likewise be more dangerous than useless, so I wholeheartedly support Massie’s amendment,” he added.
In drawing another parallel with COVID-19, Massie likened the UC Riverside study to “science fiction.”
“Unlike some of the other research that’s been done for vaccines for animals to be grown in plants, this project in California is intended to develop vaccines for humans … I have no idea what they’re doing with this stuff. It sounds like something out of a science fiction movie,” he said.
He added:
“I think we learned from the COVID virus that you’ve got to be careful with this stuff. When you start playing God and you start modifying genes and merging DNA that’s never been merged before, you can get some unintended results. And if those escape, you can have some really bad implications or consequences.”
Similar experiments went awry
According to Massie, similar experiments with transgenic edible vaccines were conducted in the past, sometimes with government funding and support — including a project to develop transgenic alfalfa plants for edible vaccine production.
That five-year project, launched in 2016 by Fort Valley State University in Georgia, sought to “develop transgenic alfalfa plants expressing the CTB gene, which can be used in plant-based edible vaccination systems.”
The project was supported by an unspecified level of funding from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and resulted in the publication of at least one scientific paper.
“And then there’s another instance where things went very bad,” Massie said. “About 20 years ago, they were trying to grow a vaccine to prevent diarrhea in pigs and they were using corn to grow this vaccine. The field the next year was used to grow soybeans, but the corn sprouted again.”
According to Massie, “There were some leftover kernels … and the corn was mixed with the soybeans, and it contaminated 500 bushels of soybeans that were then mixed with 500,000 bushels. And so, they had to destroy all of those soybeans.”
The New York Times reported in December 2002 that ProdiGene, the biotechnology company that developed the corn crop, agreed to pay the U.S. government a $3 million fine “to settle charges that it did not take proper steps to prevent corn that was genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals from entering the food supply.”
While it is unclear whether this particular project was granted U.S. government funding, an archived version of the website from 2007 of Texas A&M University’s Food Protein R&D Center, which hosted the research, said the center “collaborate[d] contractually with … state and federal research laboratories” and was “partially funded by the Texas Food and Fibers Commission.”
In November 2000, ProdiGene received an unspecified grant amount from the National Institutes of Health for the development of a transgenic edible vaccine intended to “develop genetically enhanced corn that could serve as an oral delivery system for an AIDS vaccine.”
In October 2000, ProdiGene received a U.S. government patent (#6,136,320) for the development of pharmaceutical products in plants for human and animal consumption. The company appears to be defunct since the mid-2000s, not having issued press releases since 2004, while its website became inactive in February 2006.
More action needed to stop government funding
Massie told The Defender he’s not passing a law that would prevent private organizations from doing this research, “but I’m using the appropriations process this week to try to defund the use of taxpayer dollars to develop these things.”
He said the amendment is in the form of a limitation agreement. “It doesn’t institute a law,” he said. “It will only prohibit government funding from being spent on this. So even if it’s successful, it will only last for the term of the appropriations bill, which is one year.”
“If we’re successful in stopping this through the appropriations process, we would have to do this every year,” Massie said, adding that “this amendment … only constrain[s] the FDA and USDA from doing this research. It wouldn’t actually constrain the NSF.”
For that to happen, Massie said “We’ll have to have another amendment on a different appropriations bill to keep that agency from funding this research.”
Massie pledged to introduce similar amendments if this happens.
“If that appropriations bill comes to the floor, I will offer an amendment to limit the funding for this type of research on it as well,” he said. “If the appropriations bill that funds the NSF should make it to the floor, I’ll offer this identical amendment to keep them from funding it.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
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.
October 2, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | FDA, NIH, USDA |
2 Comments
We have been questioning the long Covid narrative on these pages since early in 2022. We have questioned its existence, its use to lever the next round of Covid vaccine rollout, the possibility that the syndrome is being confused with Covid vaccine side effects and we have called for some common sense.
It has taken some time for the medical establishment to catch up, but at last they seem to have done just that. A recent article in the queue for publication at the peer reviewed journal BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine has arrived at the same conclusion as we have.
The study, published under the ‘Analysis’ column of the journal with international authorship from the US, Denmark and London, makes some awkward reading for those who adhere to the long Covid narrative. All the points we have made in the past are there, including the very broad definition of long Covid which means that almost any symptom that anyone suffers following a bout of Covid is ascribed to long Covid. We have seen how the list, initially in double figures, was honed down to fewer than ten only to grow again into double figures. On that basis, if we put our minds to it, we could all have long Covid. The fact that there are also very different definitions of long Covid existing across organisations such as the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) is included.
A key point made in the article is the ‘striking absence of control groups’. Put simply, if someone who has had Covid claims that they have long Covid, they are believed without comparing the number of people who have never had Covid reporting the same symptoms. Where rigorous designs have been used, including properly matched controls, the results have been described as ‘reassuring’; in other words, reassuring in the sense that the extent of long Covid may well be exaggerated. Not included in the article is the report that half the people who report having long Covid have never had Covid, something we have referred to several times.
Of key importance is what the authors refer to as the ‘unintended consequences’ of exaggerating the issue of long Covid which include ‘increased societal anxiety and healthcare spending, a failure to diagnose other treatable conditions misdiagnosed as long Covid and diversion of funds and attention from those who truly suffer from chronic condition’. In the wake of Covid measures which led to the near-closure of the NHS, waiting lists which continue to grow and the increase in undiagnosed and untreated cancer and cardiovascular disease, the long Covid narrative is simply adding to our problems.
It becomes increasingly clear that long Covid exists because people want it to exist. The kind of people who fell for the Covid narrative hook, line and surgical face mask, simply cannot let go of their addiction to catastrophe (which is a real thing). The public health fascists who stock our university health faculties and the higher echelons of the NHS need some excuse to maintain the culture of fear. All of this plays into the pockets of Big Pharma who have warehouses full of vaccines to sell.
It is unlikely that the BMJ article will turn things around and get us off the long Covid bandwagon, but it does offer a glimpse of hope.
October 2, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
If you have a weak stomach don’t read this
We’ve written a lot about the systemic failings in government policy regarding care homes (see here, here and here).
However, a recent study on the transitions between hospitals and care homes caught our eye. The sort of study that bypasses the media: Two care home providers with 20 to 40 care homes each in the South West and the North East of England participated, and 70 participants were interviewed.
The study exemplifies the impact hospital discharge policies had: “… hospitals just wanted patients out, regardless of COVID status. To be brutally honest, they weren’t interested; they just wanted people out. In those early days, you know, it was very traumatic.”
And how hospitals desperately enacted a policy to clear the decks: “… we had a phone call from a nurse from the hospital to say that … this lady was lying beside somebody, less than two meters, who was COVID-positive.”
These instances highlight how thoughtless and reckless the government policies were. Driven by error-strewn modelling along with a chronic lack of capacity in the NHS, panic set in: hospitals would be quickly overwhelmed. Something had to be done to free up capacity – an easy target was found: the elderly and the most vulnerable and brutally the least able to stand up for themselves.
Hospital discharge service requirements were first published on 19 March,. On 2 April, the guidance said, “Some of these patients [admitted from a hospital or a home setting] may have COVID-19, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic. All of these patients can be safely cared for in a care home if this guidance is followed.
This policy, which saw discharges to care homes without testing, has been ruled unlawful by the High Court. In Gardner & Anor, R, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham found that government policy was “irrational” because it failed to consider the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from asymptomatic transmission.
It took until 15 April to recommend testing and 14 days of isolation for admissions to care homes. Before this, negative tests were not required prior to transfers/admissions into the care home.
The study interviews show that care homes became no-go zones: “GPs or other healthcare professionals or multidisciplinary, like, podiatrists, everyone has difficulty coming to see the residents as of high demand or they can’t come for whatever reason, so COVID-19. They used to come, now they are no longer able to.”
The study also emphasises the inhumane practice of isolating vulnerable people ‘Strong feeling that isolating care home residents went against usual practice and, for some, was very hard to endure, especially when they needed human contact and emotional support from family and friends following a period of hospitalisation.’
We’ve written about “Confinement Disease”, which is likely more harmful than covid in care homes. ‘Among long-term care residents in the Southern Ile-de-France region, more than 24 covid deaths among 140 residents occurred in 5 days. None were due to acute respiratory distress syndrome, and death was mainly due to hypovolemic shock as residents were confined to their rooms for several days without assistance with eating and drinking.’
Confinement leads to feelings of being in prison: “… rather than keeping them in hospital we would send them [to the COVID-19 unit], and then once they’re 14 days clear, I know it’s 10 now, but it was 14, then they would go back to their original care home. But it’s just been carnage, to say the least.”
The study interviews also showed how degrading and impersonal confinement practices were “… so they couldn’t have their belongings until it had been left in a certain place and washed at a certain heat and 72 hours before you can have them back. You go in your room, and you can’t see anybody, and when you do, they’ve got masks and visors, and you cannot hear them, and you’ve got all of that.”
Socially distancing and isolating the most vulnerable comes with costs. The practice of rapidly discharging patients is unlawful, yet is anyone interested at a government level in how to better look after those in care?
Patients were discharged from high-resourced hospital settings – where some had time to do Tik-Tok dances – to low-resourced care homes, which worsened as staff went off in their droves—the opposite of what you need, as less care equates to more deaths. Then you isolate vulnerable people who can’t care for themselves – again, the polar opposite of what these people need, preventing much-needed personal care that can be life-saving. Even worse, at the end of life, were the restrictions on who could share that moment, hold a person’s hand as they drew their last breath, and prevent compassionate care at one of the most important times.
The potential for harm is exceptionally high in care homes; with quarantining, physical and mental deterioration occurs rapidly, and renal failure occurs swiftly in the face of dehydration – the ultimate price to be paid is a lonely death.
October 2, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Human rights |
Leave a comment
In what seems like an inevitable development, scientists Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman have been awarded the 2023 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their role in developing the mRNA technology underlying the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which were rolled out in late 2020.
But in a paper published as recently as 2018 and which is extensively quoted in an article at MedPageToday, none other than Drew Weissman warned that prior clinical trials of mRNA vaccines had produced results which were “more modest in humans than was expected based on animal models… and the side effects were not trivial”, including “moderate and in rare cases severe injection site or systemic reactions”.
Further summarising the paper by Weissman and three colleagues in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, MedPageToday notes:
Their chief safety concerns, which they said should be closely watched in future trials, were about local and systemic inflammation, as well as keeping tabs on the “expressed immunogen” and on any auto-reactive antibodies.
“A possible concern could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms induce potent type I interferon responses, which have been associated not only with inflammation but also potentially with autoimmunity,” they wrote. “Thus, identification of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken.”
The authors also noted that extracellular RNA could contribute to edema, and cited a study that showed it “promoted blood coagulation and pathological thrombus formation.”
The MedPageToday article is titled ‘Want to Know More About mRNA Before Your Covid Jab?‘ How many readers actually went ahead and got it after they knew?
Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack and follow him on X.
October 2, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Oncologist and cancer researcher, Dr William Makis, is sounding the alarm on the sudden rise in “turbo cancers”, a recent term coined for the incredibly fast growing cancers found in COVID vaccinated individuals. Hear what the early data is showing in the causal relationship with the vaccine and the struggles doctors are having treating these patients.
October 2, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Canada, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
I am, admittedly, no expert in artificial intelligence, quantum entanglement, computer programming or computation.
In fact, my enemies would say I am no expert in anything, and they would be mostly right. My domain of self-proclaimed expertise resides in the world of fantasy, illusion and unfathomable mental processes, whose signature and traces I have spent a lifetime teasing out in the intense one-on-one work of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, and also in the creative work of poetry and theatre.
No doubt I may be deluding myself even with this allusion to personal talent, but to sum it all up I’d say that my professional training and career, my abiding creative interests, and my own art all meet at a common interface — that border between fantasy and reality, deception and truth, notwithstanding the inherent ambiguities.
Looking back over the Coronavirus Epoch, now in its fourth year, I am struck not only by the savage and slavish devotion of many to the pompous dictates of States, but also by the craven renunciation, by once-honored institutions of health and governance, of accepted foundational principles. Thus Medicine conveniently forgot about natural immunity, treatment and the dangers of new untested interventions, and Medical Institutions, global and national, embarked on a jihad against practitioners who remained faithful to such principles. In New Zealand, I am disheartened to say, the authorities are still harassing doctors who had the temerity to try to help patients by prescribing Ivermectin or suggesting Vitamin D, Zinc, and Vitamin C as promising protective and ameliorating agents.
Governments, empowered by the populations they purport to represent, conveniently seized upon drastic measures to control, while neglecting truly beneficent and sensible measures to mitigate fear and address a threat of illness.
Sacrosanct boundaries have been serially violated throughout, borders have been transgressed, and privacy has been desecrated — all, ostensibly, in the name of our good common cause of safety.
Under the shadow of fear we allowed ourselves to be masked, contained, and inoculated. At times we were prevented from visiting our elderly and sick and beloved, or paying respects to our loved ones’ mortal remains when they died. Coincidentally the line between genders began to be blurred, and the barriers between impulse and action taken down. All because of the putative emergency that ‘necessitated’ a suspension of ordinary safeguards and customs in favor of hastily adopted and inadequately debated dictates and untested procedures that engulfed most of our known world.
The monies we earned and banked, and banked upon — they too became prey to the grasping and lawlessly invasive arm of governmental entities. And those who dared to opine against the prevailing dogma on the ‘commons’ offered by social media found themselves disappeared.
We learned over these past years that our freedoms, our monies, our bodies and our souls were all now ‘fair game’ in this manufactured emergency. It was quite the trick to convince so many to go so fully along with these sacrifices. And the neatest part of this trick was for the Organizers and Rulers to have created a vast bureaucratic interface that not only did their bidding but also absorbed responsibility for anything that went awry — like sudden deaths and excess deaths and horrific adverse effects of the unnecessary Jabs.
And as for censorship, well, this too could be relegated to AI-mediated algorithms, as if the hand of Man had given way to this novel and peculiar Deity of impersonal computational complexity. It is a marvel of moral sanitizing.
Many of my friends and colleagues continue to be puzzled by these developments as aberrations of rationality, while others have long concluded that these actions have been purposefully deceptive and malevolent.
I believe we have entered a new phase, a phase facilitated by astonishing advances in physics and mathematics, a phase that has given birth to a transcendent technological web that is as vast as it is impersonal, as cold as it is efficient. It is, nonetheless, a tool that has been devised and is wielded by the relatively Few in their ceaseless war against the Many.
Perhaps some of the Few believe and worship at the altar of the False Idol they have created, while others are content simply to profit from their sleight of hand. But both camps are united, I suspect, by the thought that they are cheating Death. Whether it is a transhumanist future and/or the imaginary protection of boundless wealth and power, both parties are vying for an illusionary immortality.
Which brings us back full circle to the sad Achilles heel the propagandists knew to strike so well when they launched their Operation: the universal fear of death. How many of my neighbors accepted the destruction of their rights to save their skins? How many became ogres of apartheid and accused the unjabbed of reckless endangerment?
I’m tired of repeating myself, but repeat I must because the danger — the real one, not the feigned — hasn’t gone away. And it is this: the danger that we refuse to accept our deaths and cling to the wildly absurd quest for living our physical lives forever and ever.
In Plato’s Phaedo, the philosopher and gadfly Socrates, who has been condemned to death by the Athenian democracy, confronts his fate with equanimity. The demise of the physical self becomes the portal to the greater life of the Soul.
The Soul, in our times, resides in a Machine, a gigantic faceless and bureaucratically impartial one — or so would the overlords like us to believe. Perhaps that is why they are so frantically despotic in censoring, quashing, silencing, harassing and persecuting any shreds thereof.
But the harder they try the less they will succeed. They, in their smug sadistic ignorance, don’t truly know what they are really up against.
October 1, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Parents should be concerned that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this month granted full approval to Moderna’s “Spikevax” COVID-19 vaccine for children 12 years old and older — because now that the vaccine for school-age kids is no longer an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) product, states and schools may be more likely to mandate the shots, according to Dr. Meryl Nass.
Nass, an internal medicine physician and member of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) scientific advisory board, called the FDA’s decision “outrageous and illegitimate.”
“The ACIP [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] actually voted to add the COVID vaccines to the childhood schedule in October 2022, Nass said. “So states may begin adding them to their state’s vaccine schedule.”
“That could, in turn, result in public school vaccine mandates for this vaccine,” she added.
The FDA on Sept. 11 fully licensed the Spikevax vaccine for the younger age group. Previously, it was licensed only for ages 18 and up.
The FDA also on Sept. 11 also amended the EUA for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine to include its updated monovalent formula, for infants and children ages 6 months through 11 years, that targets the Omicron variant XBB.1.5
Moderna’s updated EUA shot is a monovalent vaccine that targets the Omnicron XBB.1.5 variant.
New shots ‘risk injuring millions of Americans’
Nass and other doctors, including Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Kory, told The Defender the newly licensed “Spikevax” vaccine for kids as young as 12 and the updated shot for infants risk injuring millions of Americans, including children.
“It is reprehensible that the CDC recommends this booster for 12-year-olds when the FDA has no data on how these children might be affected,” Kory said.
“The government’s recommendation on the COVID-19 vaccine goes against everything we are trained to do as physicians and, thus, can only be rationally understood as being crafted in the service of the pharmaceutical industry and its interests rather than in the best health interests of U.S. citizens.”
McCullough said he does not recommend the new boosters, including Moderna’s shots, in his clinical practices.
“The Omicron variant XBB.1.5 that Moderna’s booster is designed for is “long gone,” he said, and the outbreak of the most recent circulating COVID-19 strains, EG.5 and FL.1.5, is “very mild in Americans, most of whom have natural immunity.”
Kory said the dangers of the mRNA shots — for people of all ages — are well-documented. “In my practice alone, we have over 900 patients, most disabled from the mRNA vaccines.”
He added:
“Although not an exhaustive list, the most important physiologic dysfunctions I see in clinical practice are increased autoantibodies to numerous tissues, macrophage activation, immune suppression, antigen tolerance to Covid variants via IgG4 production, micro-clotting leading to sluggish micro-circulatory flow and tissue hypoxia, mast cell activation, decreased nitric oxide synthesis, and impaired energy production from mitochondrial dysfunction.”
Dr. Fred Wagshul, an Ohio pulmonologist and a founder of the FLCCC, said the entire list of catastrophic diseases and conditions aggravated by the mRNA spike protein applies to children as well.
Wagshul said he was alarmed by recent research, presented in testimony to the South Carolina legislature by a molecular biologist and cancer geneticist Phillip Buckhaults, Ph.D., that the Pfizer vaccine contains DNA fragments that would “disrupt the genomic stability” of the human race and wreak havoc on children.
Kory said he has lost faith in U.S. health authorities’ willingness “to consider the scientific evidence objectively, rationally and independently” when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines and therapies.
He said:
“As much as there is no medical justification for the vaccine, there is absolutely no need for any mandates for anything related to COVID-19. The government’s true motivation appears to be to continue pushing a vaccine the public doesn’t want or need in an attempt to not admit that the vaccine campaign has failed in every respect regarding safety and efficacy.”
‘Myocarditis is overwhelmingly found in children’
McCullough, a board-certified internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist with more than 1000 publications and over 685 citations, has written extensively on the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination.
He cited recent research showing that six months after being vaccinated, 80% of teens who were diagnosed with vaccine-induced myocarditis still had not recovered.
McCullough said there have been “record rates of injury, disability and death after vaccination with the government-provided COVID-19 genetic products. He said he particularly has concerns about Spikevax:
“The safety profile reported by Moderna on Spikevax, which is known to load the body with the long-lasting, disease-promoting SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein, appears to be the same or worse than the original mRNA vaccines.
“Injection site pain, headache, fatigue, myalgia and chills, are consistent with previous formulations of Spikevax which led to 7.7% of recipients making emergency trips to hospitals as reported in the CDC V-safe data.”
Nass, too, called out the FDA for putting U.S. children and teens at risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis by approving Moderna’s shots. She said:
“The precautionary principle and common sense clearly indicate that no further shots should be given to anyone until the rates of myocarditis, both subclinical, and clinical, and the rates of all other side effects have been established.”
The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has historically been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
According to data retrieved Sept. 27 from VAERS, there have been roughly 473,769 injuries and more than 9,500 deaths reported following vaccination with a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.
Kory noted, “In 2022, with many fewer vaccines administered compared to 2021, the rate of myocarditis reports to VAERS is averaging 245% higher than last year — [and] the myocarditis is overwhelmingly found in children.”
Kory said the latest research on COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis is “horrifying.”
The authors, including McCullough, analyzed VAERS data which showed that myocarditis reports since 2021 are 223 times higher than the average of all vaccines in the past 30 years, Kory said.
FDA ‘silent’ on data showing increased death following COVID-19 vaccination
Commenting on the FDA’s recent decision, Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, said, “No child should be given these newly updated vaccines until there is compelling data on clinical efficacy and all-cause mortality. There is neither.”
Kirsch said, “All world governments are keeping the record-level public health data on these vaccines a secret. If they work so well, why the secrecy?”
He continued:
“From U.S. nursing home data released by the CDC, we now know that the COVID vaccines have increased risk of death from COVID for the very population they were designed to protect.
“The FDA is silent on this data. If the vaccines really saved lives, it would show up in this dataset. It doesn’t.”
Kirsch added that he has publicly challenged any qualified scientist to an open debate on this data. “No takers. That should tell you everything you need to know,” he said.
Nass said that with “approximately 800 million vaccinations in the U.S. over the past three years, there is no excuse to withhold or fail to obtain this information.”
Nass added:
“Federal agencies have not seen fit to provide the public with this information, nor have they done or directed that careful, active surveillance be performed, which involves checking troponin levels, pre-and post-vaccination.
“Until we have this information, no risk-benefit calculation for different age groups and risk groups can be calculated. Without this information normally you cannot roll out any public health program.”
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
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.
October 1, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
1 Comment
UK’s medicines regulator comes clean
On December 8th, 2020, June Raine, the Head of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), publicly declared that “no corners have been cut” during the temporary authorisation of the Pfizer Covid vaccine. However, thanks to the persistence of former Ministry of Defence employee, Nick Hunt, recent findings prove Raine’s statement was not true.
For context, it’s common in development trials across various sectors to first use products made in small-scale facilities or laboratories. Investing in mass production usually comes later, once there’s sufficient confidence in the product’s design. Scaling up, naturally, introduces new risks.
With pharmaceuticals, regulations are in place to manage this process. This is to ensure the final product remains consistent and effective.
Concerns first arose in 2022 regarding the Pfizer Covid vaccine. There were suspicions that the vaccine MHRA approved in December 2020, manufactured using “Process 2”, differs from the version tested in Pfizer’s clinical trials, manufactured using “Process 1”. Josh Guetzkow, an Israeli academic, brought the difference to light, referencing Freedom of Information requests from various countries and Pfizer documents released by U.S. courts.
In May 2023, he published this rapid response in the British Medical Journal alongside Professor Retsef Levi, airing his concerns.
Guetzkow highlighted two things. First, there is a lack of publicly available reports comparing vaccines produced by both processes. Second, there is significant variability in the rate of serious adverse events across different vaccine lots, underscoring the need to better understand variability in the production process.
In October 2020, Pfizer had committed to comparing safety and immunogenicity results between vaccines produced by both processes. Yet, when Hunt submitted his initial FOI request concerning the latter to MHRA in July, their initial response directed him to the European Medicine Agency’s archive without specific guidance.
Here’s the bombshell.
Nick then requested an internal review. In their response, MHRA admit their replies “were not compliant with the (FOI) Act and did not provide or address the specific information (Nick) asked for”.
They then confess they do not possess the “Process 2” report.
The document goes on to state the “Process 2 drug… was shown to be comparable through side-by-side comparability studies and heightened characterisation testing”. In short, trust us, we’ve seen the data but we can’t show it to you and we don’t have it.
Worse yet, MHRA also revealed they failed to chase Pfizer on the promised report that the company should have published comparing the products. This was because of the “extensive usage of vaccines manufactured via Process 2”.
September 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, UK |
Leave a comment
Former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove’s long-standing role as anti-China provocateur and Zelensky-handler gives us the opportunity to look into the mind of empire and see how our society is being played to acquiesce to an agenda that will ultimately lead to the Third World War.
By adding his voice to those Anglo-American fanatics blaming China for creating Covid–19 in a lab and intentionally spreading it around the world, Sir Richard has demonstrated a classic case of “gang/counter-gang operations” practiced by the British Empire for centuries.
The Modern Origins of Gang/Counter-gang Operations
British Army officer Frank Kitson (now a nonagenarian, retired at the rank of General) produced an insidious little handbook in 1960 called Gangs and Counter-gangs, based on his work coordinating special operations against the 1955 Mau Mau uprising in Kenya that threatened to break this valuable African country free of British colonialism. Kitson’s handbook was a modern adaption of a centuries-old practice according to the needs of putting down independence and civil rights movements that threatened to undo the age of empires.
During his work in Kenya, Kitson recognized that when outnumbered and faced with organized independence movements, it is just not very effective for thinly spread colonialists to try to put them down by force directly and much wiser to change the rules of the game by sleight of hand. The formula for changing the game is to cultivate one or more opposition groups to whatever force is posing a threat to the empire, and then to cultivate a counter-gang to that opposition group to create a new set of conflicts within your target population (hence the terminology of “gang/counter-gang”).
While the target society becomes polarized by the two warring (yet ultimately controlled) opposition movements, the genuine independence movement simply gets diffused and lost in the chaos.
Describing his insight which would later be put to use in the FBI’s COINTEL program within America soon thereafter, Kitson wrote:
As a result of our informers and pseudo gangs we were getting to know a bit about the future movements of the gangs which was much better than merely analysing past events. We had a long way to go before we could say that we were producing the information that would enable the Security Forces to destroy the Mau Mau in our area […] I began to feel that at last I was on the road which led to the desired goal. [p. 90]
Covid–19’s Anomalous Origins
In late January 2020, with the publication of a report from the Kuzuma School of Biological Sciences, the theory of Covid–19’s natural evolution was first put into serious doubt.
Increasingly doctors working on the front lines in New York such as Dr. Kyle-Sidell began reporting the anomalous behaviour of Covid–19 symptoms as unlike any pneumonia he had ever seen and observed that Covid–19 acted more like some form of high altitude sickness, with ventilators not only useless but resulting in deaths in 9 out of 10 patients (meaning deaths were being artificially provoked by the medical protocols enforced by national governments around the world).
With these growing anomalies, thinking citizens became increasingly concerned by the disturbing matter of the vast Pentagon-controlled bioweapons infrastructure scattered throughout the globe. Bulgarian researcher Dilyana Gaytandzhieva reported on the Pentagon’s global bioweapons labs—all of which were conducting billions of dollars of secretive research on new and more virulent forms of viruses, with over $50 billion spent on the practice officially ever since Dick Cheney’s Bioshield Act of 2004 was signed into law.
Since the earliest days of the pandemic, China’s foreign Ministry has raised the possibility that the virus came to China via the American team who participated in the Wuhan Military Games in October 2019—an event at which several athletes were hospitalized for Covid-like symptoms. And since Victoria Nuland admitted to America’s operation of more than 40 biolabs in Ukraine alone during her congressional testimony in 2022, both the Russians and Chinese have tried on dozens of occasions to introduce the evidence of these biowarfare facilities to the United Nations Security Council, but to no avail.
On 13 May 2020, the Russian Government directly put into question America’s bioweapons laboratories in Georgia, Ukraine and South Korea, with Sergei Lavrov saying:
These [U.S.] laboratories are densely formed along the perimeter of the borders of the Russian Federation, and, accordingly, next to the borders of the People’s Republic of China.
By referring to the biolaboratories “next to the borders of the People’s Republic of China”, Lavrov was undoubtedly referring to the Jupitr and Centaur biolaboratories in South Korea, built up under the Obama administration in 2013. These have inspired vast public protests by Koreans over the last decade, who are unhappy that weaponized pathogens, and anthrax, have been cooked up in their nation without any national oversight.
A 14 May 2020 editorial in China’s Global Times stated:
The U.S. can’t just claim all reasonable inquiries to its bio-labs as “conspiracy theories,” and when U.S. politicians keep accusing China’s lab in Wuhan as the origin of Covid–19 without providing any evidence, they should respond to the questions on U.S. bio-labs, including the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick.
It is tough to dismiss this sort of matter as “conspiracy theory” when North Carolina’s Chapel Hill bioweapons labs went so far as to create a novel coronavirus called SHCO14 designed to jump from bats to humans with USAID/CIA grant money in 2015 and events sponsored by both the Rockefeller Foundation, the CIA and Bill Gates have been using novel coronaviruses in their pandemic scenarios for over a decade [see footnote].
The China Counter-Gang Narrative
When it became evident that the story of the laboratory origins of Covid–19 wasn’t going to disappear on its own, a new counter-narrative was spun which involved embracing the evidence of the laboratory origins while shifting the blame from the hands of Anglo-American intelligence to … China.
Emerging out of the bowels of Oxford’s Henry Jackson Society, the story was concocted early on that the culprit behind this virus’ origins was none other than China, whose BSL–4 laboratory in Wuhan had been conducting research on novel coronaviruses and had received a $3.7 million grant from the U.S. National Institute of Health from 2014-2019. Is this proof that China caused Covid–19?
Is this even proof that Covid–19 was the murderous killer virus that the Pfizer-funded media let on? Dr Denis Rancourt proved irrefutably that zero all-cause mortality increased until the vaccine was rolled out, with all deaths having been caused either by statistical manipulation or government enforced policies targeting the weakest, and oldest members of society.
Here, the story subdivided itself further, as one group—represented by the likes of Professor Neil Ferguson and Steve Bannon—maintains that the international spread of the virus was done deliberately, with China apparently going so far as to intentionally pack planes full of sick people to contaminate the world (a lie entirely annihilated by Daniel A. Bell on 21 April 2020), and another group—including some well-intentioned like Francis Boyle or the late Dr. Luc Montagnier—which maintain that Covid–19 leaked out of said Wuhan lab … by accident.
No matter what form this sleight of hand has taken, it has been just that: a misdirection designed to ensure that the discussion of the Pentagon’s more than 300 international bioweapons labs would be lost in the chaos. This false debate also helped defuse the danger of any serious investigation into the Pentagon’s program for ethnically targetted pathogens, as outlined in the September 2000 Project for a New American Century report, Rebuilding America’s Defenses.
The neocon authors of that report — which shaped the entire Bioshield Act of 2004 and strategy behind the Anthrax Attack inside job launched from September-December 2001—wrote (emphasis added):
Combat will likely take place in new dimensions: In space, cyber-space and perhaps the world of microbes […] advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
Britain
Now, we should not be surprised to find MI6’s very own former director Sir Richard Dearlove to be a loud voice in this anti-China clamor.
This is the same Dearlove who allegedly covered up Princess Diana’s death while director of MI6’s Special Operations from 1994 to 1999, and who oversaw the Yellowcake Dodgy Dossier while director of MI6 in 2002, which justified the launching of the war in Iraq and the conversion of the USA into a Five Eyes-managed surveillance state. This was also the same Sir Richard who later vetted another dodgy dossier created by his former employee Christopher Steele in 2016, designed to overthrow President Trump and usher in a war with Russia.
On 4 June 2020, Dearlove was among the earliest voices to launch the “China-created-Covid-as-a-Bioweapon” narrative, when he opined:
If China ever admits responsibility, will it pay for repairs? I think this will make every country in the world rethink how it sets up its relations with China and how the international community will behave towards Chinese leadership […] Of course, the Chinese must have thought “If we are to suffer a pandemic, perhaps we should not try too hard to warn our competitors, so to speak, that they will suffer from the same disadvantages that we have.
Sir Richard’s comments were timed to coincide with a new University of London peer-reviewed paper entitled A Reconstruction of Historical Etiology of the SARS–CoV–2 Epidemic, which stated that virus sequencing indicated “intentional manipulation”. Where it was relatively foreseeable that most minds would look to the over 300 international biolabs managed by the Pentagon and contractors tied to the Biden syndicate, the British researchers stated that the virus “was probably designed through a Wuhan laboratory experiment to develop ‘high potency chimeric viruses”.
With NATO’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine facing a threatened end with Xi Jinping’s first official call to the stressed Vladimir Zelensky on 25 April 2023, Dearlove wasted no time jumping on a jet and met with the Ukrainian president in order to keep Zelensky in the game plan. After this meeting, Dearlove delivered a speech to the British National Conservative Convention, saying:
The reality is that today we remain confronted with two autocratic polities still focused on the eventual destruction of our value system. The sheer brutality of Putin’s regime leads me to the conclusion that Russia’s DNA is so corrupted that only another revolutionary change may rebalance it.
Dearlove went further in his speech to bring in Chinese villainy and to rally his audience around the British imperial narrative that Zelensky is the greatest freedom fighter of our age, saying:
I am worried when I witness eminent members of our own elite doing the work of our ‘almost enemies’ for them [applause]. Whether it is advocating for Huawei [or] whether it is refusing to publish any serious scientific study that questions the Chinese narrative on the origins of the SARS-COV-2 virus [applause] … or promoting a settlement in the war in war between Russia and Ukraine that ignores the peace conditions laid down by President Zelensky.
Amidst the turmoil and confusion caused by these gang/counter-gang operations radiating noise and polarization across the political and scientific landscape, the reality of the financial collapse looms overhead, as one system sits upon the precipice of collapse and a battle wages over who will control the emergence of the new system.
Will this inevitable new system be based on win-win cooperation, space exploration (as opposed to militarization), new discoveries and long-term infrastructure benefiting all nations and cultures, or will it be an order defined by a 21st-century Anglo-American oligarchy sitting atop an ivory tower as a divided world of chaos and depopulation suffers below?
Note
Philanthrocapitalism, past and present: The Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the setting(s) of the international/global health agenda by Anne-Emanuelle Birn, University of Toronto, 2014, is one useful resource, as is the September 2019 Global Vaccination Summit and October 2019 Event 201.
September 29, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | China, CIA, Covid-19, FBI, Korea, MI6, UK, United States |
Leave a comment
What if the world learned that the Omicron strain was manufactured?
An emotionally alarming video has just been posted. A man in a suit stands alone on a busy Japanese street trying to get the attention of people passing by. He is Japanese professor Takayuki Miyazawa from Kyoto University. A top virologist and associate professor at the university’s Institute for Life and Medical Sciences. The Japanese language clip of Professor Miyazaawa’s warning has over 8 million views on X at the time of this writing.
“We often appear on TV but there are many things that cannot be said on TV. There are many things that cannot be said on YouTube. There are many things that cannot be said on Twitter.”
“Only researchers know what is true. Researchers can directly obtain data and analyze it. And when they analyze it, they can learn a lot of things. We can’t communicate that. So I’m not sure what Japan is doing.”
“By examining the amino acid sequences you can immediately understand what is being done. If you analyze it, it’s obvious.”
[Watch the full video here and turn on closed caption translations]
Professor Miyazawa has published over 250 academic papers and studies in the areas of virology, disease, veterinary medicine, and microbial ecology. Yet his most recent paper has the world talking and deeply moved him into action to alert others to what he has found. Even if it means losing his longstanding position at the very highly regarded Kyoto University.
Researchers and virologists around the world were baffled at the evolution and rapid dominance of the Omicron variant of SARAS-CoV-2 after being first identified in November of 2021.
An outlier with no explanation for its wildly divorced trajectory from the rest of the lineages. Just an unnatural, red rocket line perched above the rest of the natural virus evolution. What happened?
Japanese professors Miyazawa and Tanaka set out on a year of research to find out.
The evidence presented in their paper titled Unnatural evolutionary processes of SARS-CoV-2 variants and possibility of deliberate natural selection, published in September of 2023, was potentially earth-shattering. Using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) program, the pair of researchers looked at nearly 400 Omicron-related variants to identify regions of similarity between protein or nucleotide sequences to understand the order of mutations leading to their formation.
What they found led them to conclude that the formation of a part of Omicron isolates BA.1, BA.1.1, and BA.2 was not the product of genome evolution. They conclude by writing:
“This study aims to point out that SARS-CoV-2 has undergone unthinkable mutations based on conventional coronavirus mutation mechanisms, and we hope that the possibility of artificial creation is included in serious discussions on the formation of SARS-CoV-2 variants.”
The variants, when displayed in graphical form, displayed an incremental and methodically stepped-down ordering. Something nature doesn’t do. Natural mutations are random, and once they mutate, they don’t revert back. However, what professors Miyazawa and Tanaka found was that the Omicron mutations were switched off, and then back on step by step down the evolutionary ladder.
A separate article analyzing their findings stated:
“Perfect reversion of mutations like this, on such a scale, is completely implausible by any natural process. The variants found by Tanaka and Miyazawa can best be described as a “panel” of reversion mutations. This kind of panel is exactly what a researcher would create to systematically test the contribution of different elements of a virus to its activity.”
Viruses undergo only two types of mutations. Synonymous, functionally silent, and evolutionarily neutral mutations accrue in the background whereas non-synonymous mutations are the prime movers that can change the function and abilities of a virus. In natural evolution, the ratio of synonymous (silent) mutations is always higher than the rarer non-synonymous mutations.
Yet when it came to the spike protein, the business end of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the researchers write:
“Concerning the genetic variation in the S protein of these variants, most of the mutations were non-synonymous (Fig. 1). There were no synonymous mutations in the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Mu variants, but only one each in the Lambda and Omicron variants.”
The paper has yet to be peer-reviewed, however, this isn’t because of the merits of the research. Speaking exclusively to The HighWire, one of the authors shared the correspondence they received from a journal upon submitting their research for publication.
“During our initial checks, some issues were identified regarding potential inflammatory language in the manuscript. The authors have not amended this in line with the suggestions to make the text more objective. This prevents the manuscript from proceeding further into review.”
Whether the data discovered and the passionate pleas by one of the paper’s authors will be further investigated, understood, or disseminated remains to be seen. In a world where many in the medical, health, and research communities are still in the dark about the virus’ origins such striking evolutionary data presented by the Japanese researcher should at least spark more investigation and serious debate about what appears to be the real possibility of a lab-created variant.
September 29, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
Pathophysiologic Support for the Observation of “Turbo Cancer” after Vaccination
As an internist and specialist, it is hard for me to believe that a novel biologic product could cause heart, neurologic, thrombotic, and immunologic disease but to make matters even worse, could also play a role in the initiation and acceleration of oncogenesis. In Western countries before the pandemic, the leading causes of death were heart disease 40%, cancer 40%, and death from other known causes (homicide, suicide, accidents, etc). The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines if proven to promote cancer, would then be implicated in rises in all-cause mortality being observed world wide.
In 1984, Sutherland and Bailer proposed the “Multi-Hit Hypothesis of Carcinogenesis:”
“A new multihit model of carcinogenesis is developed for use in evaluating age-specific cancer incidence rates in human populations. The model allows for some heterogeneity in both risk (perhaps genetic) and pathway (number of hits).”
They essentially said it takes multiple different hits or insults to cells and their genetic machinery to cause a normal cell to become cancerous. Forty years later, Sutherland and Bailer could not have dreamed about the application of their hypothesis to global mass genetic vaccination given every six months to a broad population, some with high risks for, or even with incipient cancer.
Angues and Bustos just released a paper on the Authorea preprint server that assemblies the evidence to date that both mRNA and the Spike protein work within human cells to cause changes that result in oncogenesis. The figure shown is consistent with a multi-hit hypothesis of oncogenesis after injection with Pfizer or Moderna.
Raquel Valdes Angues, Yolanda Perea Bustos. Navigating Uncharted Waters: Could COVID-19 and/or Certain COVID-19 Vaccines Promote Malignancy?. Authorea. September 21, 2023.
Many questions remain including cumulative dose effect, predisposition (e.g. loss of function mutations in BRCA1/2 P53), additional exposures such as UV radiation, smoking, alcohol, and finally catabolism of mRNA and Spike. Undoubtedly decades of research will be needed to fully understand COVID-19 vaccination and cancer. As we point out in our book Courage to Face COVID-19, it took over 40 years from when Sir Austin Bradford Hill causally associated smoking with lung cancer until there was capitulation by the medical orthodoxy. Let’s hope the world wide exposure of mRNA and alacrity of modern research can shorten this timeframe.
Here are some reasonable first steps:
- Remove all COVID-19 vaccines from human use to reduce any additional exposure
- CDC should link vaccine administration data with all government cancer registries
- The National Cancer Institute should urgently fund mRNA COVID-19 vaccine cancer research
- Vaccinated with prior histories of cancer should make a specific post-vaccination oncology clinic visit to consider reassessment or restaging
- Vaccinated with no prior history of malignancy should check to see they are up to date on routine cancer screening (prostate, lung, breast, ovary, uterus, colon).
- All vaccinated patients and their doctors should be alert to any change in health status and have a low threshold for clinical investigation
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
President, McCullough Foundation
www.mcculloughfnd.org
Raquel Valdes Angues, Yolanda Perea Bustos. Navigating Uncharted Waters: Could COVID-19 and/or Certain COVID-19 Vaccines Promote Malignancy?. Authorea. September 21, 2023.
Sutherland JV, Bailar JC 3rd. The multihit model of carcinogenesis: etiologic implications for colon cancer. J Chronic Dis. 1984;37(6):465-80. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(84)90030-4. PMID: 6725500.
September 29, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Highly acclaimed experts presented evidence-based facts on Covid-19 early in 2020, but were ignored and censored by authorities
The official narrative in the Covid crisis tried to persuade the public that various mandates and coercions, limiting people’s individual freedoms, were all based on science. The myth of this has visibly eroded, as it has been revealed how much of the strategies, influencing the lives of millions, was based on fear, pressure from media and political tactics. Reference to science was often enough used as a disguise.
Five evidence-based facts known already in 2020, but ignored by the authorities:
- The virus had spread much more widely and was far less dangerous than initially claimed by the authorities.
- The risk from Covid-19 differed by a factor of 1,000 for different age groups, and the risk was much higher for people with comorbidities (e.g. obesity, diabetes, anxiety disorders, etc.) and nutrition deficiencies.
- Those who had recovered from the disease had developed strong natural immunity, but this evidence-based fact was systematically ignored or downplayed by the authorities.
- Covid-19 vaccines received marketing authorisation without having been tested in clinical trials for virus transmission or infection.
- Covid-19 vaccines have considerable side effects that were already known during the clinical trials of the vaccines.
The closure of parks and playgrounds was part of lockdown policies, carried out with reference to science.
Already in 2020, there were a number of important and evidence-based facts about both Covid-19 and the response to the Covid crisis that were highlighted by many scientists and doctors. Consideration of these facts would have prevented the introduction of ill-considered and ineffective Covid measures and reduced the resulting harms.
The virus had spread much more widely and was much less dangerous than claimed
The SARS-Cov-2 virus was already much more widespread globally in early 2020 than official sources (including the World Health Organization, or WHO) claimed. Prof. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Eran Bendavid wrote on March 24, 2020, that fears of Covid-19 were based primarily on a miscalculated death toll reported by the WHO, which was vastly exaggerated as it did not take into account the actual rate of infection. This meant, in particular, that the mortality rate among those infected was much lower than initially claimed and the risk posed by Covid-19 to the vast majority of people, particularly those under 70, was many times lower.
A team led by professor John P. Ioannidis of Stanford University scientifically showed in a study published already in May 2020 that the risk of dying from Covid-19 for people under the age of 65, even in pandemic epicentres, was very low, and deaths amongst people under the age of 65 with no comorbidities were remarkably uncommon. They proposed that strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should have been considered in managing the pandemic.
On October 14, 2020, the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation published a study by prof J. P. Ioannidis, according to which the median rate of deaths among people infected with Covid-19 in autumn 2020 was 0.23-0.27%, with a rate of 0.05% among people under 70 years of age, which was tens of times lower than official (including the WHO’s) estimates in March and April 2020.
Even though such evidence-based data were known early on, the authorities in many countries and the WHO continued to scare the public about the particular danger of a novel viral disease, and imposed restrictions on millions of healthy people. Among other things, many countries restricted people from exercising, staying outdoors and playing sports, thereby compromising people’s overall health and increasing the risk of developing all the diseases (including Covid-19) more severely.
Thousand-fold difference in the risk from Covid-19
Harvard University Professor Martin Kulldorff had already stated in April 2020 that it was clear from the data from Wuhan early on in the crisis that there was a thousand-fold difference in the risk from Covid-19 across different age groups, and that failing to account for this difference was one of the major flaws in the public response to the Covid crisis.
Prof Martin Kulldorff was quick to point out the thousand-fold difference in risk from Covid-19 (Thérèse Soukar, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
Among people exposed to Covid-19, people in their 70s had roughly twice the mortality of those in their 60s, 10 times the mortality of those in their 50s, 40 times that of those in their 40s, 100 times that of those in their 30s, 300 times that of those in their 20s, and a mortality that was more than 3000 times higher than it was for children. According to Kulldorff, public authorities should have taken this wide variation between age groups into account when designing Covid interventions. Counter measures specifically targeting the elderly, the highest risk group, would have not only protected them but other groups as well. Age-specific measures had to be part of the strategy, otherwise unnecessary mortality, hospital burden and economic losses followed.
Professor Mark Woolhouse of the University of Edinburgh also estimated early on that the elderly were 10,000 times more at risk from Covid-19 than those under 15. But it goes e ven further. It’s not just the elderly, it’s the elderly who are infirm, have comorbidities or are frail. These were the people who were particularly at risk, and the main target group that should have been addressed. In his view, this was also the most important and obvious reason why there were alternatives to social closures and other coercive state measures.
In addition, it was clear from quite early on that it were the people with serious comorbidities that would fall seriously ill. In one of Europe’s epicentres of the early outbreak, Italy, a report found as early as in March 20, 2020, that the median age of the 3200 deaths testing positive for Covid-19 was 78.5 years, and more than 95% of them had one or more comorbidities. A large-scale study in the US confirmed that over 95% of hospitalised adults were persons with at least one comorbidity condition and the main risks were obesity, anxiety and fear disorders and diabetes. However, it was also clear, for example, that the proportion of overweight people varied widely between countries, even within the same age groups. For example, obesity already affects 42% of the US population, but in Vietnam the same number is only 2%, in India 4% and <10% in most of the African countries.
The association of nutritional deficiencies with severe morbidity was also known before the Covid crisis. Vitamin D, for example, plays an important role in the immune system. Already in the first half and second half of 2020, studies showed a clear correlation between the low levels of vitamin D and the risk of severe Covid-19 disease. For that reason, many doctors and researchers stressed the need for adequate vitamin D intake in the autumn of 2020, ahead of the second wave, especially for older people at risk.
Although these facts were known early on, authoroties continued to scare the public by claiming, among other things, that the virus did not discriminate between infected people and could be fatal to anyone. Health authorities also failed to advise people to take important steps to support their general health, such as getting enough fresh air and sunshine, eating a healthy diet, controlling blood pressure and diabetes, losing weight, etc. On the contrary, authorities directed people indoors, in many countries penalised them for going outdoors, and just promoted vaccinations instead of various treatments and lifestyles.
In the UK, scary posters were used in large-scale campaigns to get people to follow the “rules”
Ignoring natural immunity
The importance of natural immunity was systematically downplayed by the health authorities, major vaccine manufacturers and the World Health Organisation (WHO). In some countries (such as the USA), it was not even taken into account in the implementation of Covid measures, while the authorities only reiterated the need to vaccinate as many people as possible.
At the same time, studies carried out before the vaccination campaigns started, i.e. by the end of 2020, clearly showed that recovery from the disease provides strong immunity for at least 8 months and most likely longer. By October 2021, at least 81 studies had already been published confirming immunity to Covid-19 conferred by recovery.
In addition, a number of studies at the beginning of the Covid crisis showed that a significant proportion of the population may have already had immunity to Covid-19, as SARS-Cov-2 was only one of several coronaviruses. Nearly half of the unaffected individuals had the corresponding T-cells, indicating the body’s previous exposure to coronaviruses and ability to cope with them.
Many doctors and scientists, including Dr. Robert W. Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Marty Makary, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Dr. Richard Urso, Dr. Paul E. Alexander, Prof Norman Fenton, Prof Martin Neil and others found it puzzling that health officials chose to ignore the scientific fact that infection provided long-lasting and strong protection to millions of people who had recovered from Covid-19. Prof. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Prof. Martin Kulldorff have stressed that while natural infection may not have provided permanent infection-blocking immunity, it offered, in high likelihood, permanent anti-disease immunity against severe disease and death. However, scientists who during the Covid crisis stressed the importance of natural immunity and asked to take into account when divising public policies, were not only ignored but censored and cancelled.
Ignoring natural immunity has had serious consequences, including avoidable vaccine complications and harms, loss of lives, financial and other collateral damage, and loss of credibility of the public health authorities.
Vaccines were not tested for reduction of virus transmission or infection
Covid-19 vaccines, which were introduced at warp speed, were not tested in clinical trials to see if they reduced infection or transmission. Shortly before their vaccine was granted emergency marketing authorisation in the US (on 3 December 2020), this fact was admitted by the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, and later by a Pfizer official during an official hearing at the European Parliament, although the vaccine manufacturers gave the public an impression that the vaccines protected against infection and transmission.
To the experts who looked closely at the design and results of the Covid-19 vaccine clinical trials, the fact that the vaccines were not tested for reduction of virus transmission or infection was evident already in late 2020. For example, the editor of British Medical Journal (BMJ) Dr. Peter Doshi stated on October 21, 2020, that none of the vaccine clinical trials had been designed to detect the efficacy of these vaccines on reducing any serious outcomes such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Neither did they examine the efficacy of vaccines for their ability to interrupt transmission of the virus.
Dr Peter Doshi considers it wrong that primary data from clinical trials are not available (screenshot from Youtube)
Prof. William A. Haseltine drew attention to the serious shortcomings of these clinical trials on 23 September 2020, after Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson had published their vaccine trial protocols. According to him, the trials seemed to be designed to prove that their vaccines worked, even if the measured effects were minimal, as they mainly investigated only how well could the vaccines prevent mild Covid-19 symptoms. Haseltine pointed out that a closer look at the protocols made it clear that these trials did not provide confidence in vaccine efficacy in protecting against serious illness or in preventing an infection of Covid-19. It also appeared that these trials were intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success. Haseltine concluded that these vaccines were not the “silver bullet” that would end the Covid crisis.
Yet tens of millions of people around the world were subjected to compulsory vaccination, and many lost their jobs because of non-compliance, severely restricting their individual freedoms and fundamental rights.
Ignoring the side effects of the vaccines
Data on the side effects of the vaccines were already available in documents published by the vaccine manufacturers on their clinical trails in late 2020, although few were able to or considered it important to look at them in depth. This was made considerably more difficult by the fact that vaccine manufacturers refused to publish the raw data needed for an objective assessment. Raw data from clinical trials have still not been fully disclosed.
For example, the Pfizer vaccine trial was designed, conducted, analysed and compiled by Pfizer staff and all the raw data belong to the company. The BMJ editorial board believes that refusing to disclose the original data is morally unacceptable for any clinical trials, but especially those involving major public health interventions. The BMJ has been calling on vaccine manufacturers for years to disclose the original data from clinical trials, since clinical trial data must be available for independent scrutiny.
Nevertheless, experts pointed out many inconsistencies and questionable findings in the Covid-19 vaccine trial reports already in early 2021, such as the facts that:
- higher-risk target groups (elderly and immuno-compromised individuals) were clearly under-represented in the trials,
- a number of subjects were withdrawn for unknown reasons,
- even the officially reported rate of adverse reactions was several times higher than it was, for example, for flu vaccines.
In addition, it has come to light that the vaccine manufacturer Pfizer was aware of several serious side effects amongst the vaccine participants in clinical trials in early 2021, but chose to conceal them, such as the case of 12-year-old Maddie De Garay, who became disabled in the trial and is now partially paralysed, requiring a wheelchair and feeding tube. None of her 35 adverse reactions were mentioned in the New England Journal of Medicine article reporting on the vaccine trial.
Regardless of all that, since the beginning of 2021, mass vaccination campaigns were launched in many countries of the world, which in a short period of time transformed from an attempt of vaccinating the vulnerable target groups (the elderly) into an increasingly massive effort to vaccinate as many people as possible, even up to with children and infants, providing no rational argument or evidence base to do so.
A new expert analysis of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trial papers published in 2022 clearly found that participants in these clinical trials were more likely to experience a serious adverse reaction to vaccination than to be hospitalized for Covid-19.
Summary
As shown above, there is ample reason to argue that the evidence base for the decisions made in the greatest global health crisis of recent decades was severely deficient. Covid measures were determined not on the basis of evidence nor reasonable assumptions, but rather on the basis of emotional reactions and political tactics, fuelled by fear and media pressure. Societies were under constant pressure from global organisations (WHO, European Commission, etc.), authorities and the mass media – which included the increasingly loud rhetoric of maximizing lockdown, maximizing masking, maximizing vaccination etc.
However, there were also those in power who relied on knowledgeable experts (e.g. in the US, states such as South Dakota, Florida, Texas, etc.), as did some who were in charge of public health institutions (for example in Sweden), succeeding to resist irrational and unscientific pressures while enduring media bashing, vilification and unpopularity. At said places, the decision-makers generally avoided locking down the society and did not impose coercive state measures (compulsory mask mandates, compulsory vaccination, etc.). Thanks to their non-conformist and common sense approach, we now know much about which measures worked and which didn’t, the mistakes every society should avoid in future health crises, and how the slogan of ‘follow the science’ was often used as propaganda to subjugate societies to the dictates of a line of authority.
September 29, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 