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.”
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.
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.
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 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.”
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.”
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
“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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 BMJeditorial 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.
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.
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.
Some UK military personnel and their families have been turning to food banks because of the increasing pressures from the cost of living crisis, a British news network has reported.
The raging cost of living crisis that has had the UK in its stifling grasp is going to cause thousands of extra deaths this year, according to new research, as life expectancy across the UK will plummet by 6.5 percent this year.
The research suggests that untimely mortalities in the United Kingdom are expected to rise from 463 to 493 per 100,000 inhabitants.
The findings have shone a light on critical concern for the populace at large. The unrelenting cost-of-living crisis, combined with a prolonged period of soaring prices, is anticipated to result in a significant 6.5 percent drop in life expectancy throughout the nation this year.
Furthermore, the report highlights a stark disparity: the most economically disadvantaged households are projected to face a four times higher death toll than their wealthier neighbours. This discrepancy arises from the fact that the less affluent must allocate a more significant portion of their income to pay for energy, the cost of which has rocketed.
Recent statistics from the previous month indicate that the UK’s inflation rate stood at 6.7 percent. Despite this reduction from its peak of 11.1 percent, Britain continues to have the worst inflation of all G7 member states.
“The mortality effects of inflation and real-terms income reduction are likely to be large and negative, with marked inequalities in how these are experienced. Implemented public policy responses are not sufficient to protect health and prevent widening inequalities,” researchers noted.
These findings come on the heels of a recent alert from the UK-based consumer association ‘Which’ last month, when it pointed out that rising food prices had left low-income households in the country in dire straits and having to make painful decisions about whether to pay the utility bills or put food on the table.
After a long period studying CO2 effects, as a chemical engineer and technical problem solver – I leveraged the most credible experts and put together a simplified summary! And I stick ONLY to the FACTS!
During the 1950s, the inactivated polio vaccine created by Jonas Salk was made using rhesus monkeys that were infected with SV40, a monkey virus that was later linked to cancer in humans.
From 1955 to 1963, hundreds of millions of people worldwide — in North and South America, Canada, Europe, Asia and Africa — received the vaccines, which at the time were heralded as a medical breakthrough.
In the archived 1956 video below, you can see a propaganda piece from that era, showing just how the ill-fated vaccine was made.
“Few back then grasped that these vaccines might also be a huge, inadvertent, uncontrolled experiment in interspecies viral transmission,” a 2004 article in The Lancet noted.
1950s propaganda reveals how polio vaccine was made
While Salk’s polio vaccine was considered a medical triumph of its time, its manufacturing process leaves much to be desired.
“Welcome to modern vaccinology. A hilariously unscientific process predicated on insane barbarism, rife with fraud and immense hubris,” Inversionism wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
The investigative journalist detailed the polio vaccine’s manufacturing process outlined in the video as follows:
Put all the glassware inside a hot steam bath or sterilize it.
Import Macaca mulatta monkeys from India for the experiments.
Prepare a mixture called “medium 199” — containing 2% calf serum, 200 units/ml penicillin, 200 g/ml dihydrostreptomycin and 50 units/ml Mycostatin (nystatin Squibb); the pH of the medium was brought to 7.0 by the addition of a NaHCO3 solution.
Euthanize the monkeys, remove their kidneys, and then place the kidney into a tube and hand-mince it with scissors into small bits.
After the kidney tissue was weighed and decapsulated, they put the tissue in a centrifuge tube where they washed it in phosphate-buffered saline and placed it in a trypsinization flask. Trypsin enzymes break down the proteins, which were then centrifuged at 800-1000 RPM for 10 minutes to separate the tissue and cells.
The kidney cells are then mixed with the medium 199 and incubated (fermented, rotted essentially) at 37C for 6-8 days. By the end of the 6-8 day period, the bottles and tubes were covered with a “confluent sheet of cell growth.”
Once the medium 199 is exhausted, half is siphoned off to be replaced by fresh medium 199.
They then add the “polio virus” for the first time. 3 different strains supposedly, with no other details on the source, isolation process, or genome determination.
The bottles continue to rock for 4 days in the solution culturing, fermenting and decaying, and then it’s ready for harvesting.
Scientists then visually look at the vials under a microscope to do a “titration test” to discern how much live virus is in the solution, hand counting particles that could be ANYTHING. (very scientific …)
Next is filtration, the most egregious part. They filter the solution first through porcelain filters (heavy metal risk), and then through MULTIPLE SHEETS OF ASBESTOS to drain out any kidney tissue or stray bacteria.
(This part of the process is not disclosed in the video but is detailed in the original paper on the polio vaccine process. They made multiple trivalent vaccine pools, with some having additional additives like sodium bisulfite, along with parabens, a known carcinogen and endocrine disruptor).
Now rabbits, monkeys, guinea pigs, and chickens are injected with the “live virus” vaccine solutions … to ensure it’s free of other pathogens.
Now the “climax” of the process as they call it, inactivation. This is where they mix the vaccine solution with formaldehyde, and then let it sit together for 66-68 hours. The narrator then hilariously says “then what remains can only do good, can provide humans with protection of paralytic polio.” “The enemy of man can now become his servant.”
Then the process of mass distribution. They get these massive tanks and mix in all the solutions, adjuvants, chemicals, and ingredients for mass production and “preservation.”
Before mass administration, they do a couple of experiments on mice and monkeys to ensure the vaccine is creating enough “polio-fighting antibodies” in humans.
The remainder of the process details the various “tests” they do as the vaccine lots are distributed, before really turning up the propaganda and showing President Eisenhower’s son receiving the polio vaccine.”
Paralyzed children, deaths reported following vaccination
By 1954, a large-scale study of Salk’s polio vaccine, which included 1 million children, took place. On April 12, 1955, Salk declared the shots to be safe and effective. In addition to being given widely throughout the U.S., by 1959, 90 countries were using it.
But there were signs of problems from the start.
After mass vaccination began, some subjects became paralyzed in the limb where the vaccine was given. Recalls of 250 cases of the shots from two laboratories ensued following the reports of parasitic illness.
“There were also reports of paralysis and death in several children,” Singapore Medical Journal reported. “Investigations showed that improperly inactivated vaccine had released live virus into more than 100,000 doses of the vaccine.”
“When Salk developed his vaccine, instead of using human tissues, as did the scientists who won a Nobel Prize for first growing poliovirus in tissue culture, he used minced-up rhesus macaque monkey kidneys, which were remarkably efficient poliovirus factories.
“Those who sought to supplant Salk’s formaldehyde-inactivated vaccine with live, attenuated oral vaccine also used monkey kidney cultures. Despite a manufacturing problem that, at best, left six children who received the vaccine paralyzed in the arm, and despite concerns about wild simian viruses, Salk’s shots were declared safe and effective after 1954 field trials.
“The next year, after grudging approval by skeptical government regulators, free Salk shots were made available throughout the USA. By 1960, scientists and vaccine manufacturers knew that monkey kidneys were sewers of simian viruses.”
Americans kept in the dark about monkey virus in polio shots
It was 1959 when the late Bernice Eddy, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, conducted a study, injecting hamsters with the rhesus monkey kidney substrate used to make the polio vaccines. The majority of them developed tumors.
“Eddy’s superiors tried to keep the discovery quiet, but Eddy presented her data at a cancer conference in New York. She was eventually demoted, and lost her laboratory,” The Atlantic reported, but soon after researchers with Merck pharmaceutical company identified the cancer-causing virus in rhesus monkey kidney cells, naming it SV40 because it was the 40th monkey virus discovered.
According to Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, in a presentation before the U.S. House of Representatives in 2003:
“Sadly, the American people were not told the truth about this in 1960. The SV40 contaminated stocks of Salk polio vaccine were never withdrawn from the market but continued to be given to American children until early 1963 with full knowledge of federal health agencies.
“Between 1955 and early 1963, nearly 100 million American children had been given polio vaccine contaminated with the monkey virus, SV40.”
Did SV40 in vaccines cause cancer?
While there wasn’t an “epidemic” of cancers that followed the widespread administration of polio vaccines contaminated with SV40, which suggests the virus alone may not be causing the cancers, researchers noted, “it seems possible that SV40 may act as a cofactor in the pathogenesis of some tumors.”
As further reported in Oncogene, at least three independent scientific panels agreed that “there is compelling evidence that SV40 is present in some human cancers and that SV40 could contribute to the pathogenesis of some of them.”
For instance, research published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1992 revealed that half the choroid plexus tumors and most of the ependymomas studied contained a segment of the T-antigen gene related to SV40.
“These results suggest that SV40 or a closely related virus may have an etiologic role in the development of these neoplasms during childhood,” the researchers wrote.
In 2002, meanwhile, The Lancet published evidence showing SV40 is significantly associated with some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma after detecting it in 42% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas tested.
And in a 2004 review of the then-available evidence, it’s noted:
“Persuasive evidence now indicates that SV40 is causing infections in humans today and represents an emerging pathogen.
“A meta-analysis of molecular, pathological, and clinical data from 1,793 cancer patients indicates that there is a significant excess risk of SV40 associated with human primary brain cancers, primary bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”
What else is lurking in vaccines?
While the SV40 polio vaccine contamination occurred decades ago, the controversy continues, as does the potential for present-day vaccines to be contaminated.
Research by cellular and molecular biologist Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., showed that many of our vaccines are contaminated with gammaretroviruses.
How did this happen?
In short, vaccine viruses were replicated and grown in animal cell cultures that were already contaminated with retroviruses. In other words, the root of the problem stems from the use of contaminated cell culture lines, similar to the problems with the original polio vaccine.
Meanwhile, microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project — assessed the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 shots.
“DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDA’s 10ng/dose requirements” was found.
In addition to the spike protein and mRNA in COVID-19 shots, McKernan’s team discovered SV40 promotors.
McKernan explains that in many cases, when tumors are sequenced they’re found to contain sequences from SV40 and other viruses, which can integrate into your genome, causing disruptions and instability that can trigger the cell line to grow out of control.
In the case of COVID-19 shots, he says:
“The concern is if this DNA integrates the genome, one portion of the SV40 sequence is an SV40 promoter, a very strong promoter, which means it drives transcription wherever it lands in the genome.
“If this happens to drop itself in front of a proto-oncogene [a gene that has the potential to cause cancer] and drives a lot of expression off of a gene that’s known, if you hyper-express it and turn the cell cancerous, then we have a concern that DNA is in fact doing that.”
McKernan and colleagues have tried to spread the word about SV40 promotors and components in COVID-19 shots, but the media continue to try to discredit their findings,
much like what occurred with SV40 in the original polio vaccines.
Further, as for why the SV40 promoter and enhancer are in COVID-19 shots in the first place, it’s again related to the plasmid growth medium, which in this case is E. coli.
Since many types of cells continue to be used as growth mediums during vaccine production, including animal cell strains from chickens, dogs, monkeys, hamsters and insects, as well as cells from bacteria or yeast, and vaccines continue to be fast-tracked to market, it’s more important than ever for scientists and manufacturers to ensure that the treatment or preventative isn’t causing more harm than good.
The drug-induced nipple secretions of trans women are as good as mothers’ breast milk for babies, the University of Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust claimed in a letter to campaigners made public in a report by British think tank the Policy Exchange on Sunday.
The healthcare trust’s medical director, Rachel James, argued that the off-label prescription drug cocktail men transitioning to female take in order to produce milk was “similar to the natural hormones which encourage lactation to develop when the baby is newly born.”
“The evidence which is available demonstrates that the milk is comparable to that produced following the birth of a baby,” James wrote in the letter, sent to Children of Transitioners last August.
Biological men who wish to lactate must first take hormones to grow milk glands and then take high doses of either domperidone or metoclopramide to stimulate milk production. Neither drug is approved for this use, though they are occasionally prescribed off-label to biological women who have trouble lactating.
However, domperidone’s own manufacturer, Janssen, warns patients the drug “may cause unwanted side effects affecting the heart in a breastfed baby” and “should be used during breastfeeding only if your physician considers this clearly necessary.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Some UK military personnel and their families have been turning to food banks because of the increasing pressures from the cost of living crisis, a British news network has reported.
Aletho News
Aletho News 