The mRNA vaccines were released globally in early 2021 with the slogan ‘safe and effective.’ Unusually for a new class of medicine, they were soon recommended by public health authorities for pregnant women.
By late 2021, working-age women, including those who were pregnant, were being thrown out of employment for not agreeing to be injected. Those who took the mRNA vaccines did so based on trust in health authorities – the assumption being that they would not have been approved if the evidence was not absolutely clear. The role of regulatory agencies was to protect the public and, therefore, if they were approved, the “vaccines” were safe.
Recently, a lengthy vaccine evaluation report sponsored by Pfizer and submitted to the Australian regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) dated January 2021 was released under a Freedom of Information request.
The report contains significant new information that had been suppressed by the TGA and by Pfizer itself. Much of this relates directly to the issue of safety in pregnancy, and impacts on the fertility of women of child-bearing age. The whole report is important, but four key data points stand out;
The rapid decline in antibody and T cells in monkeys following second dose,
Biodistribution studies (previously released in 2021 through an FOI request in Japan)
Data on the impact of fertility outcomes for rats.
Data on fetal abnormalities in rats.
We focus on the last three items as, for the first point, it is enough to quote the report itself “Antibodies and T cells in monkeys declined quickly over 5 weeks after the second dose of BNT162b2 (V9), raising concerns over long term immunity…”.
This point indicates that the regulators should have anticipated the rapid decline in efficacy and must have known at the outset that the initial two-dose “course” was unlikely to confer lasting immunity and would, therefore, require multiple repeat doses. This expectation of failure was recently highlighted by Dr Anthony Fauci, former director at the US NIH.
The three remaining items should be a major cause for alarm with the pharmaceutical regulatory system. The first, as revealed in 2021, involved biodistribution studies of the lipid nanoparticle carrier in rats, using a luciferase enzyme to substitute for the mRNA vaccine.
The study demonstrated that the vaccine will travel throughout the body after injection, and is found not only at the injection site, but in all organs tested, with high concentration in the ovaries, liver, adrenal glands, and spleen. Authorities who assured vaccinated people in early 2021 that the vaccine stays in the arm were, as we have known for two years, lying.
Lipid concentration per gram, recalculated as percentage of injection site.
ORGAN
28 HOURS µg lipid equiv/g
TOTAL
CONC VS INJECTION SITE
ADRENAL
18.21
164.9
11.04%
MARROW
3.77
164.9
2.29%
SITE
164.9
164.9
100.00%
LIVER
24.29
164.9
14.73%
OVARIES
12.26
164.9
7.43%
SPLEEN
23.35
164.9
14.16%
In terms of the impact on fertility and fetal abnormalities, the report includes a study of 44 rats and describes two main metrics, the pre-implantation loss rate and the number of abnormalities per fetus (also expressed per litter). In both cases the metrics were significantly higher for vaccinated rats than for unvaccinated rats.
Roughly speaking, the pre-implantation loss ratio compares the estimated number of fertilised ova and the ova implanted in the uterus. The table below is taken from the report itself and clearly shows the loss rate for vaccinated (BNT162b2) is more than double the unvaccinated control group.
In a case control study, a doubling of pregnancy loss in the intervention group would represent a serious safety signal. Rather than take this seriously, the authors of the report then compared the outcomes to historical data on other rat populations; 27 studies of 568 rats, and ignored the outcome because other populations had recorded higher overall losses; this range is shown in the right hand column as 2.6 percent to 13.8 percent. This analysis is alarming as remaining below the highest previously recorded pregnancy loss levels in populations elsewhere is not a safe outcome when the intervention is also associated with double the harm of the control group.
A similar pattern is observed for fetal malformations with higher abnormality rate in each of the 12 categories studied. Of the 11 categories where Pfizer confirmed the data is correct, there are only 2 total abnormalities in the control group, versus 28 with the mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2). In the category which Pfizer labeled as unreliable (supernumerary lumbar ribs), there were 3 abnormalities in the control group and 12 in the vaccinated group.
As with the increased pregnancy losses, Pfizer simply ignored the trend and compared the results with historical data from other rat populations. This is very significant as it is seen across every malformation category. The case control nature of the study design is again ignored, in order to apparently hide the negative outcomes demonstrated.
These data indicate that there is NO basis for saying the vaccine is safe in pregnancy. Concentration of LNPs in ovaries, a doubled pregnancy loss rate, and raised fetal abnormality rate across all measured categories indicates that designating a safe-in-pregnancy label (B1 category in Australia) was contrary to available evidence. The data implies that not only was the Government’s “safe and effective” sloganeering not accurate, it was totally misleading with respect to the safety data available.
Known unknowns and missing data:
Despite the negative nature of these outcomes, the classification of this medicine as a vaccine appears to have precluded further animal trials. Historically, new medicines, especially in classes never used in humans before, would require a very rigorous assessment. Vaccines, however, have a lower burden of proof requirement than ordinary medicines. By classifying mRNA injections as “vaccines,” this ensured regulatory approval with significantly less stringent safety requirements, as the TGA itself notes.
In fact, mRNA gene therapies function more like medicines than vaccines in that they modify the internal functioning of cells, rather than stimulating an immune response to presence of an antigen. Labelling these gene therapy products as vaccines means that, as far as we are aware, even today no genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies have been carried out.
This report, which was only released after a FOI request, is extremely disturbing as it shows that authorities knew of major risks with mRNA Covid-19 vaccination while simultaneously assuring populations that it was safe. The fact that mainstream media has (as far as we are aware) completely ignored the newly released data should reinforce the need for caution when listening to the advice of public health messaging regarding Covid-19 vaccination.
Firstly, it is clear that regulators, drug companies and the government would have known that vaccine-induced immunity tails off very rapidly with this being observed in real world data with efficacy against infection falling to zero. Accordingly, the single point in time figures of 95 percent and 62 percent efficacy against cases quoted for Pfizer and ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca)respectively meant almost nothing since a rapid decline was to be expected.
Similarly, the concept of a two-dose “course” was inaccurate as endless boosters would likely have been required given the rapid decline in antibodies and T-cells observed in the monkeys.
Most importantly, the data does not in any way support the “safe” conclusion with respect to pregnancy; a conclusion of dangerous would be more accurate. The assurances of safety were, therefore, completely misleading given the data disclosures in the recent freedom of information release.
Regulatory authorities knew that animal studies showed major red flags regarding both pregnancy loss and fetal abnormalities, consistent with the systemic distribution of the mRNA they had been hiding from the public.
Even in March 2023, it is impossible to give these assurances, given the fact that important studies have not, to the best of our knowledge, been done.
Pfizer elected not to follow up the vast majority of pregnancies in the original human trials, despite high miscarriage rates in the minority they did follow. Given all of the problems with efficacy and safety, the administration of these products to women of childbearing age, and administration to healthy pregnant women is high-risk and not justified.
Assisting in co-authorship for this essay is Alex Kriel, a physicist and was one of the first people to highlight the flawed nature of the Imperial COVID model, and he is a founder of the Thinking Coalition which comprises a group of citizens who are concerned about Government overreach.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.
Judicial Watch announced Wednesday it received 552 pages of records from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that include the initial grant application and annual reports to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from EcoHealth Alliance, describing the aim of its work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China to create mutant viruses “to better predict the capacity of our CoVs [coronaviruses] to infect people.”
Eco Health Alliance planned to sequence the spike protein from coronaviruses obtained from bats for the purpose of “creating mutants to identify how significantly each would need to evolve to use ACE2,” which is explained as “the receptor to gain entry to human cells.”
Judicial Watch obtained the records through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request it filed in December 2021 for:
“All reports submitted by EcoHealth Alliance to NIH or its sub-agencies related to NIH Grant No. 1R01A|110964 titled ‘Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” during the term of the grant.’”
In the initial “Application for Federal Assistance” submitted on June 5, 2013, by EcoHealth Alliance, a section is titled “Specific Aims,” which notes the intention to create mutant bat viruses and “predict the capacity of our CoVs [coronaviruses] to infect people”:
“To understand the risk of zoonotic CoV [coronavirus] emergence, we propose to examine 1) the transmission dynamics of bat-CoVs across the human-wildlife interface; and 2) how this process is affected by CoV evolutionary potential, and how it might force CoV evolution.
“We will assess the nature and frequency of contact among animals and people in two critical human-animal interfaces: live animal markets in China and people who are highly exposed to bats in rural China.”
“Specific Aim 3” discusses “Testing predictions of CoV inter-species transmission”:
“We will test our models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments in cell culture and humanized mice.
“With bat-CoVs that we’ve isolated or sequenced, and using live virus or pseudovirus infection in cells of different origin or expressing different receptor molecules, we will assess potential for each isolated virus and those with receptor binding site sequence to spill over.
“We will do this by sequencing the spike (or other receptor binding/fusion) protein genes from all our bat-CoVs, creating mutants to identify how significantly each would need to evolve to use ACE2, CD26/DPP4 (MERS-CoV receptor) or other potential CoV receptors.”
In the continuing discussion of the aims of the research, the report states:
“In vitro [outside the body] cell lines & Humanized mouse model: We have developed primary cell lines and transformed cell lines from 9 bat species using kidney, spleen, heart, brain and intestine. We have used these for virus isolation, infection assays and receptor molecule gene cloning.
“We also have a large number of cell lines from humans and animals that we will use for virus infectivity assays. We have obtained a letter of support from Dr. Ralph Baric, who is keen to collaborate with us initially to infect his humanized mouse model with our bat SL-CoV [SARS-Like Coronavirus] that uses ACE2, and subsequently to use other CoVs that we identify …
“The results will provide information whether bat-CoVs could use known bat and human ACE2, DPP4 or other known CoV receptors to enter cells, and allow us to determine critical receptor binding sites, viral host range, and to better predict the capacity of our CoVs to infect people.”
Three other Chinese sites follow: East China Normal University in Shanghai, Yunnan Institute of Endemic Disease Control and Prevention in Dali and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of Guangdong in Guangzhou.
On May 27, 2014, the NIH awarded EcoHealth Alliance $3,086,735 over five years for “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”
An EcoHealth Alliance grant application, received by the NIH on June 5, 2013, includes a list of “Senior/Key Personnel” including Shi Zhengli and Zhang Yun-Zhi of the WIV; Peter Daszak, CEO of EcoHealth Alliance; and other Chinese scientists, including Ke Changwen of the Chinese “CDC and Prevention of Guangdong Province.”
A section of the EcoHealth Alliance application titled “EcoHealth Alliance Budget Justification” describes some of the work to be conducted by EcoHealth scientists in China:
“A research scientist will be hired at 12 months time per year to provide direct assistance and oversight of field activities in China; maintain equipment and logistics; and coordinate animal and human sample shipment to the labs in China and in the US.
“Once we secure IRBs [Institutional Review Boards] for human sampling in Y1 [Year 1], we will hire three medical officers from China provincial CDCs [Centers for Disease Control] as consultants to work in Guangxi, Hunan, and Fujian during Y2-Y5. These medical officers will be responsible for IRB approved human sampling as well as maintaining cold chain for storage and shipping samples.
“Dr. Zhengli Shi, Senior Virologist. [Redacted] per year in Y1 -Y5. Dr. Shi will oversee the coronavirus screening for all samples collected in China. She will work with the PI [Principal Investigator], Co-Investigators, and Senior/Key Personnel to analyze data and write manuscripts. She will also coordinate data and material sharing with the co-investigators.”
In a budget calculation for the year 2014-15, the WIV as a sub-awardee of the grant was allocated to receive $128,718 in direct costs and $10,297 in indirect costs from NIH.
The salaries of Shi Zhengli and a WIV colleague Ge Xingyl are redacted from the budget. Over the five years of the grant, the Wuhan lab was to receive $749,976.
A section of the grant award titled “Wuhan Institute of Virology Budget Justification, Subaward” discusses “Other Direct Costs”:
RNA extractions
We will be running RNA extractions for 1,000 bats per year (three samples per bat: oral, anal and blood) in each year … Extracted RNA per animal will be pooled.
DNA Sequencing
In each year of the project, DNA sequencing will be performed on 3,200 samples at a cost of $2.91 per reaction. …
Laboratory Supplies
We request support for in vitro infection experiments using pseudoviruses carrying the spike proteins (wild type or mutants) or live viruses in cell lines of different origins, binding affinity assays between the spike proteins (wild types or mutants) and different cellular receptor molecules and humanized mouse experiments.
“Testing predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. The following experiments will be undertaken in Year 2:
Humanized mice with human ACE2 receptors will be infected with WIV1 and the two rescued chimeric SARS-like coronaviruses to determine the tissue tropism and pathogenicity of bat SL-CoV.
Isolation of novel bat coronaviruses. Live virus or pseudovirus will be used to infect cells of different origin or expressing different receptor molecules. Spillover potential for each isolated virus will be assessed.
An infectious clone of full-length MERS-CoV [Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus] will be constructed using reverse genetic method. Using the S [spike] sequence of different MERS-related viruses identified from Chinese bats, the chimeric viruses with S gene of bat MERS-related coronaviruses and backbone of the infectious clone of MERS-CoV will be constructed to study the receptor usage and infectivity of bat MERS-related coronaviruses.
“In Year 3, we successfully isolated Rs4874 from the single [bat] fecal sample. Using the reverse genetic system we previously developed, we constructed two chimeric viruses with the WIV1 backbone replaced with the S [spike] gene of Rs7327 and Rs4231, respectively.
“Vero E6 cells were respectively infected with Rs4874, WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1-Rs7327S, and efficient virus replication was detected by immunofluorescence assay in all infections.
“To assess the usage of human ACE2 by the three novel SL-CoVs, we conducted virus infectivity studies using HeLa cells with or without the expression of human ACE2. All viruses replicated efficiently in the human ACE2-expressing cells.”
In the Year 4 annual report, budget period June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2019, submitted to NIH by EcoHealth on Sept. 16, 2020, in answer to the question “How Have the Results Been Disseminated to Communities of Interest,” the report details that Peter Daszak and WIV lab director Shi Zhenglibriefed their findings to, among others, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Among the accomplishments listed in the Year 4 report is:
“In vivo [experimentation done in a whole organism] infection of SARSr-CoVs with variants of S [spike] protein in human ACE2 (hACE2) expressing mice.”
The report also includes information about the construction of viruses of “varying pathogenicity” and testing them on humanized mice:
“Using the reverse genetic methods we previously developed, infectious clones with the WIV1 [bat SARS-like coronavirus] backbone and the spike protein of SHC014, W IV16 and Rs4231, respectively, were constructed and recombinant viruses were successfully rescued.
“In Year 4, we performed preliminary in vivo infection of SARSr-CoVs on transgenic mice that express hACE2. Mice were infected with 105 pfu of full-length recombinant virus of W IV1 (rWIV1) and the three chimeric viruses with different spikes.
“Pathogenesis of the 4 SARSr-CoVs was then determined in a 2-week course. Mice challenged with rWIV1-SHC014S have experienced about 20% body weight loss by the 6th day post infection, while rWIV1 and rWIV-4231 S produced less body weight loss.
“In the mice infected with rWIV1 -WIV16S, no body weight loss was observed (Fig. 35a). 2 and 4 days post infection, the viral load in lung tissues of mice challenged with rWIV1-SHC014S, rWIV1-WIV16S and rWIV1-Rs4231 S reached more than 106 genome copies/g and were significantly higher than that in rWIV1-infected mice (Fig. 35b). These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice.”
In a revised award dated July 13, 2020, the NIH granted additional funds, including $77,750 to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, $76,301 to the WIV and $75,600 to the Institute of Pathogen Biology of China.
The 2020 renewal application to extend funding for the Wuhan bat research projects states that EcoHealth would not be working with “select agents” (severe threats), such as SARS-CoV, but rather with a SARSr-CoV molecular clone designated WIV1 which, while a “BSL3” (biosafety level 3) pathogen, was not considered a select agent.
The select agent research was to be conducted at Baric’s lab at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
A section titled “P3CO Research” notes:
“Importantly, we are not proposing to genetically manipulate SARS-CoV over the course of this proposal. … However, we are proposing to genetically manipulate the full length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone during the course of this proposal, which is not a select agent, has not been shown to cause human infections, and has not been shown to be transmissible between humans.”
“This project is a multi-institutional collaboration led by EcoHealth Alliance, New York (Daszak, PI), which will subcontract funds to three institutions: the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Dr. Shi), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Dr. Baric), and the Institute of Pathogen Biology (Dr. Ren).”
“A review of these and other documents strongly suggest that U.S. funding in China and elsewhere for mutant virus, gain-of-function research may have been responsible for the emergence of the COVID pandemic in Wuhan,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“This gain-of-function scandal should be the subject of criminal investigations.”
Through FOIA, Judicial Watch has uncovered a substantial amount of information about COVID-19 issues:
HHS records included emails of then-Director of the NIH Francis Collins showing a British physicians’ group recommended the use of Ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19.
Heavily redacted HHS records showed that just two days prior to FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine a discussion was held between U.S. and U.K. health regulators regarding the COVID-19 shot and “anaphylaxis,” with the regulators emphasizing their “mutual confidentiality agreement.”
Judicial Watch obtained HHS records regarding data Moderna submitted to the FDA on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, which indicated a “statistically significant” number of rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were injected with the vaccine. The documents also revealed Moderna elected not to conduct a number of standard pharmacological studies on the laboratory test animals.
Heavily redacted records from the FDA regarding the COVID-19 booster vaccine detailed pressure on COVID-19 booster use and approval.
HHS records detailed internal discussions about myocarditis and the COVID-19 vaccine. Other documents detail adverse “events for which a contributory effect of the vaccine could not be excluded.”
Judicial Watch uncovered HHS records detailing the extensive media plans for a Biden administration propaganda campaign to push the COVID-19 vaccine.
HHS records revealed previously redacted locations of COVID-19 vaccine testing facilities in Shanghai, China. The FDA had claimed the name and location of the testing facilities were protected by the confidential commercial information exemption of the FOIA.
NIH records showed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the WIV. The records also show NIAID officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s WIV in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’s lack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.
Texas Public Information Act (PIA) records showed the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch, Dr. James W. Le Duc, warned Chinese researchers at the WIV of potential investigations into the COVID-19 issue by Congress.
HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines showed how a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles, were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.
Records obtained from HHS through a FOIA lawsuit related to hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 revealed that a grant to EcoHealth Alliance was canceled because of press reports that a portion of the grant was given to the WIV.
HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the WIV for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.
NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for the decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.
HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci ” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high level commitment from China.”
HHS records included a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that appears to describe “gain-of-function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone.
HHS records showed the State Department and NIAID knew immediately in January 2020 that China was withholding COVID-19 data, which was hindering risk assessment and response by public health officials.
HHS records show that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.
Fauci emails include his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.
Judicial Watch, Inc. is a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.
U.S. health officials opposed a diplomatic letter requesting international scientists tour Wuhan’s coronavirus labs in the spring of 2020, according to emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
On May 15, 2020, the Department of State requested the Department of Health and Human Services cosign a letter “requesting that the PRC authorize and facilitate a visit of international scientists and public health experts to Wuhan,” the emails show.
The purpose: “To exchange information with counterparts who have conducted research on coronaviruses (including the origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2), examine all relevant data, and visit laboratory facilities where such research has been conducted, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention labs,” the request reads.
Secretary of State Michael Pompeo addressed the letter to Han Zheng, vice premier of the People’s Republic of China, and Yang Jiechi, the director of the Office of Foreign Affairs of the Communist Party of China. The letter’s contents are fully redacted, but are described in the request from the State Department to HHS.
HHS Secretary Alex Azar declined to cosign the letter and even recommended that the State Department reconsider sending it.
“After careful consideration, HHS respectfully declines to join the letter,” reads the reply.
The HHS media office did not respond to a request for comment.
Eight agencies and offices within HHS authorized the negative reply, including the National Institutes of Health — which funded high risk virology in Wuhan — as well as two senior aides to Azar, according to interagency communications. The communications indicate that the “authoring agency” was the HHS Office of Global Affairs.
The new emails further illustrate how fledgling efforts to gain a window into the coronavirus virology at the pandemic’s center have been obstructed from within the U.S. government.
Health officials and the U.S. intelligence community opposed publishing information related to the Wuhan lab in early 2021 in part because it “called out actions that we ourselves are doing” and “demanded access that we ourselves would never provide,” U.S. Right to Knowpreviously reported.
The NIH, which is a part of HHS, supported the discovery of new coronaviruses and experiments that enhanced their transmissibility and pathogenicity in the lab in Wuhan, according to federal records and grant reports.
Francis Collins, then the director of the NIH, and Anthony Fauci, director of its infectious diseases institute, helped conceive a 2020 scientific article that suppressed speculation about the possibility of a research related origin of the novel virus, according to other emails revealed through FOIA.
HHS outlined four reasons they opposed the diplomatic letter.
“We have sent our own letter to Mr. Azar’s counterpart at the National Health Commission, Minister Ma Xiaowei, regarding sample sharing,” the reply read. “We would like to ensure that line of inquiry remains open, and as such do not wish to confuse issues by joining this letter.”
The HHS response continues: “We recently ended funding to the institute that this letter is requesting access to. … A request for a visit could be construed as opening the possibility for that funding to again be available, something we do not wish to be suggested.”
The NIH had temporarily suspended a grant to EcoHealth Alliance, the infectious diseases group that served as an intermediary between NIH and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
“HHS recommends that the State Department reconsider sending the letter as it could be used to curtail access to Chinese vaccine and therapeutic development — something that we also do not wish to do as it could impede other Presidential health initiatives, such as Operation Warp Speed,” the response also states.
The U.S. and China would ultimately undertake separate tracks in vaccine development.
Two top Food and Drug Administration officials — director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Peter Marks, who coined the term “Operation Warp Speed,” and longtime FDA official Janet Woodcock, who led COVID-19 therapeutic development — were not involved in drafting the reply, the emails suggest.
The HHS response concludes that the desire for an inspection of the Wuhan labs by international scientists had already been “overtaken” by a resolution at the World Health Assembly in May 2020.
“Finally, the letter is now overtaken by the resolution agreed to at the 73rd World Health Assembly … to undertake an investigation into the origins of COVID-19,” the reply reads.
In fact, the World Health Assembly resolution called for an investigation to “identify the zoonotic source of the virus.” In other words, the resolution implicitly omitted a possible laboratory source.
Chinese authorities had final approval of the experts tapped to participate in the investigation. They included EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak. The investigation concluded that a lab origin was “extremely unlikely,” a conclusion immediately rejected by World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
Emails used in this story can be reviewed here. All of the documents obtained in the course of our investigation can be reviewed here.
This week, CDC director Rochelle Walensky provided witness testimony to the House Committee on Appropriations responsible for overseeing the funding of various federal programs related to labour, health, education, and other related agencies.
But serious questions have been raised about the veracity of Walensky’s testimony.
Congressman Andrew Clyde (R-Ga) asked Walensky if her March 2021 public statement on MSNBC, in which she unequivocally said that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus, they do not get sick” was accurate.
“At the time it was [accurate]” Walensky replied confidently.
She then proceeded to explain, “We’ve had an evolution of the science and an evolution of the virus” and that “all the data at the time suggested that vaccinated people, even if they got sick, could not transmit the virus.”
However, there was no such evidence at the time and it prompted criticism from scientists who said there weren’t enough data to claim that vaccinated people were completely protected or that they could not transmit the virus to others.
One of those critics was Jay Bhattacharya, professor of health policy at Stanford University School of Medicine.
“Back then, Walensky didn’t know if it was true. It was just an irresponsible use of a bully pulpit as a CDC director to say something that she did not know for certain to be true at the time,” said Bhattacharya.
“Unfortunately, people used that information to discriminate against unvaccinated individuals and would certainly have been used as fuel for very destructive policies like vaccine mandates,” he added.
Notably, only days after Walensky made that statement to MSNBC, a spokesperson from her own agency had to walk back the comments saying, “Dr Walensky spoke broadly in this interview” adding that it was possible for fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19.
Walensky missed the memo
Walensky should have known that when mRNA vaccines were first authorised in 2020, the FDA listed critical ‘gaps’ in the knowledge base. One of them was the vaccine’s unknown effectiveness against viral transmission.
Also, in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s original pivotal trials, there were 8 and 11 people respectively, who developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the vaccine group, proving the vaccines never had absolute effectiveness, like Walensky had claimed.
Several months later, the FDA’s evaluation stayed the same. In a clinical review, the FDA wrote, “remaining uncertainties regarding the clinical benefits of BNT162b2 in individuals 16 years and older, include its level of protection against asymptomatic infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, including for the delta variant.”
Even today, the FDA remains clear that efficacy against transmission is unproven. The FDA’s website states, “While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if Comirnaty will reduce such transmission.”
Walensky says Cochrane summary ‘retracted’
Another astonishing falsehood made by Walensky was her response to Congressman Clyde’s question about the Cochrane review which found that wearing face masks in the community “probably makes little to no difference” in preventing viral transmission.
Walensky enthusiastically stated, “I think its notable, that the Editor-in-Chief of Cochrane, actually said that the summary of that review was…[stumble]..she retracted the summary of that review and said that it was inaccurate.”
However, the summary of the review was not retracted, nor have the authors of the review changed the language in the summary.
Misleading statements by New York Times columnist Zeynep Tufekci has likely led to this falsehood being repeated (which I cover in a previous article).
In response to Walensky’s comments, Tom Jefferson, lead author of the Cochrane study said, “Walensky is plain wrong. There has been no retraction of anything.”
“It’s worth reiterating that we are the copyright holders of the review, so we decide what goes in or out of the review and we will not change our review on the basis of what the media wants or what Walensky says,” remarked Jefferson.
Bhattacharya was also stunned by Walensky’s comments. “It’s irresponsible for her to claim that the Cochrane review [summary] was retracted when it was not. It damages her credibility and harms the scientific process, which requires public officials to be honest about scientific results,” he said.
Did Walensky lie to Congress or is she poorly informed?
Witnesses at these hearings are expected to provide truthful and accurate information to the committee and may be subject to legal penalties if they provide false information or knowingly make false statements.
But will Walensky be held accountable for misleading Congress? Unlikely.
In our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Dr. McCullough and I give numerous examples of how anyone—even eminently qualified scientists and researchers—who questions the prevailing orthodoxy about a range of public policy issues will likely be labelled a “conspiracy theorist.” Since the JFK assassination, “conspiracy theorist” has become a pejorative, accusatory label like “racist” or “sexist.” Through common usage, the label has become charged with the power to smear and dismiss someone outright without supporting evidence.
The greatest trick that powerful interest groups ever pulled was convincing the world that everyone who detects and reports their activities is a conspiracy theorist. Only the naivest consumer of mainstream news reporting would fail to recognize that powerful interest groups in the military, financial, and bio-pharmaceutical industries work in concert to further their interests. Their activities cross the line into conspiracy when they commit fraud or other crimes to advance their interests. The term “conspiracy theory” suggests the feverish imaginings of a crackpot mind. This ignores the fact that the United States government prosecutes the crime of conspiracy all the time. As one prominent defense attorney describes this reality:
Any time the government believes that it can allege that two or more individuals were a part of a common agreement to commit the same crime, they will include a charge of conspiracy in the indictment. There is no requirement that all of the members of the conspiracy even know about each other, or even know each other personally.
A person may be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime even if he doesn’t know all of the details of the crime. History is full of well-documented conspiracies. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, there were three major conspiracies to murder her and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots. All were detected and foiled. The final “Babington Plot” was discovered by Elizabeth’s secretary, Sir Francis Walsingham (an astute intelligence gatherer) and this led to Mary’s execution for treason.
Are we really to believe that there are no longer power-hungry men who conspire to acquire greater power and wealth?
As far as “theory” goes, every prosecutor develops a theory of a crime and presents it to the jury. If you are a concerned citizen and you perceive that your government officials and media are not telling the truth about a vitally important matter, you have no choice but to formulate a theory of what is going on. Developing a theory to explain a pattern of ascertainable facts is a rational attempt to detect and expose criminal conduct. To be sure, some theories are more plausible than others. Some are logical and coherent; others are wild and contradictory.
When President Eisenhower left office in 1961, he expressly warned about what he called the Military-Industrial Complex acquiring “unwarranted influence” that could “endanger our liberties and democratic processes.” When COVID-19 arrived, the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex vigorously and exclusively pursued the vaccine solution instead of the early treatment solution. In order to realize their ambition, multiple actors simultaneously waged a propaganda campaign against hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other repurposed drugs.
It’s likely that only a relatively small number of these actors knew they were making fraudulent claims about the generic, repurposed drugs, and knew they were taking action to impede access to these drugs based on fraudulent claims. These actors were the conspirators. Countless others unwittingly played roles in the conspiracy because they themselves believed the propaganda.
COVID-19 vaccines must be suspended owing to the level of reported injuries and deaths across all age groups and a full inquiry launched into the MHRA, the regulator which approved them, a group of experts has said.
In a groundbreaking new report sent to every member of Parliament, the Perseus group – a team of experts from the fields of medicine, pharmaceutical regulation and safety management – has set out in detail the numerous concerns raised by experts globally about the vaccines and the specific concerns about the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) responsible for giving them the green light.
“MHRA announced that it has morphed from ‘watchdog’ to ‘enabler’. Would anyone be concerned if that was said by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Civil Aviation Authority or the Defence Safety Regulator,” Perseus group spokesman Nick Hunt said.
The evident lack of interest in post-rollout issues with the COVID-19 vaccines was highlighted as particularly shocking.
Before the rollout in December 2020 the MHRA promised a rigorous “four-strand proactive vigilance” of Covid vaccine safety. But freedom of information requests have revealed that very little of this work is being done. The single report supplied from the “Targeted Active Monitoring” strand was 15 months old, from August 2021, the report says.
The group slams the MHRA for failing to act on problems with the AstraZeneca vaccine for months after many other national regulators suspended and withdrew it for certain age groups. The MHRA also continued to ignore “ever increasing evidence of Covid vaccine risks, notably blood clotting, heart inflammation, neurological conditions, immune downgrading and menstrual disorders”, the report states.
The secrecy around Covid vaccines in particular is blasted, with key documents on risks versus benefits that are routinely published for other medicines being absent for Covid vaccines. “This compromised informed consent,” notes the group.
Other problems include that the MHRA authorised the mRNA products as vaccines, which have lower regulatory requirements, rather than properly classifying them as novel genetic products, and that it failed to identify and address problems with manufacturing and quality control, leading to batch quality problems.
More general criticisms of the agency include that it assesses the safety of a medicine relative to its benefit rather than in absolute terms, which the report likens to the Nuclear Regulator saying, “Our nuclear power station is safe because it has fewer contaminated water leaks than other stations.”
The regulator also nowhere defines the tolerable rate of fatal and serious side-effects of new medicines, which the report blames for its slowness to act when problems emerge.
Freedom of information requests also reveal, alarmingly, that the MHRA has no process for investigating Yellow Card reports of adverse events potentially linked to the COVID-19 vaccines or other medicines. This, the report highlights, is just one facet of a broader lack of the kind of robust safety management systems and processes that are standard in other safety critical sectors such as aviation, defence, nuclear, oil and gas and rail. Similarly, freedom of information requests reveal that there has never been a safety audit of MHRA.
The reports findings are damning and expose a regulator not fit for purpose and clearly failing in its basic aim of keeping the public safe from harmful medical products.
Concerns about the MHRA are nothing new. The 2020 Cumberlege report listed basic safety and governance issues that the Commons Health Select Committee in December 2022 noted with concern were slow in being addressed. But the new Perseus group report lays out in devastating detail for the first time how the MHRA’s longstanding failings have directly impacted on the disastrous rollout of the Covid vaccines.
The Perseus group suggests that anyone who shares its concerns could write to his or her MP to ask if they have read the report and what they intend to do. Other suggested actions include signing the petition to “Launch a Public Inquiry into the approval process for COVID-19 vaccines” and signing the open letter to the Health Secretary organised by the Together Declaration.
Only two years ago numerous alternative media sources including Zero Hedge were accused of spreading “conspiracy theories” and false information relating to the origins of the Covid-19 virus. Specifically, anyone who dared to suggest that the Level 4 virology lab in Wuhan, China (right across town from covid ground zero) might be the source of the outbreak, faced outright censorship on social media. The question many people should have been asking is: “Why?” – Why was the censorship so aggressive over clearly reasonable investigations into Wuhan lab operations?
Not only that, but why were the denials and spin from officials like Anthony Fauci so swift? Why not simply examine the evidence instead of dismissing it out of hand?
The real reason for the campaign to silence discussion on the Wuhan lab becomes evident as the connections between Fauci, the NIH and the lab are revealed. Elements of the US government including Fauci were in fact bankrolling gain of function research on coronaviruses at Wuhan, and shielding it from government oversight. It is undeniable. If one accepts that the most likely source for the covid pandemic was the Wuhan laboratory then one must also accept that Fauci and his associates helped to create the pandemic.
Fauci lied about these connections incessantly under oath. Here is Anthony Fauci defending his initial lie to Congress using further lies during questioning by Sen. Rand Paul:
Evidence of the research includes documents from the Department of Defense (obtained by Project Veritas ) which confirm that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in 2018 about gain of function research on bat borne coronaviruses under a proposal called Project Defuse. DARPA rejected the proposal on the grounds that it did not outline the risks of such experimentation and violated a moratorium on gain on function research. EcoHealth then went to Fauci and the NIH for funding, and Fauci was quick to support it using the labs in Wuhan.
Documents from the NIH itself also show that the group engaged in gain of function research at Wuhan focusing on developing coronaviruses that could be transferred from animals to humans. Fauci was aware of this research by at least 2021 (and was likely involved from the very beginning) and yet continued to lie about NIH involvement.
Meanwhile, the National Pulse– which has done multiple deep-dive investigations on the topic, uncovered in May of 2001 that the WIV scrubbed all mention of its partnership with the NIH from their website.
Scrutiny over Fauci’s disinformation campaign may be too little too late, and we have to wonder if the man will ever face consequences for his actions. However, the exposure of Fauci and the NIH is so overwhelming that the former Director of National Intelligence now admits that Fauci misled Congress and the American public.
The former Director of National Intelligence agrees with the former CDC Director that Dr. Anthony Fauci lied to Congress under oath about funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab:
"Some of Dr. Fauci's testimony is inconsistent with some of the intelligence that we have… pic.twitter.com/raoVCBQdyR
Hopefully, this revelation will help to discourage people from blindly following the claims of government bureaucrats during the next manufactured global crisis.
Thirty years ago, Waco radicalized a teenage grocery clerk in Austin, Texas. Scott Horton was horrified both by the televised carnage of the FBI assault and by the mindless support for the feds he heard voiced by suburban housewives. Unlike the national media, Scott understood what it meant when the feds used toxic gas on American citizens and sent in tanks to collapse their home on top of them. After the fiery conflagration, Scott was vaccinated for life from being a starry-eyed idealist.
Since 1999, Scott has done superb interviews with the top experts on Waco, keeping a story alive that officialdom sought to bury. Those conversations have helped legions of Americans understand how the federal assault occurred and why the precedents it created continue to endanger our rights and liberties. Here’s a round-up of some of Scott’s greatest Waco hits:
In one of the only surviving recordings from Scott’s first radio show, Say It Ain’t So, on Free Radio Austin 97.1 FM, here is his long-lost first interview, with surviving Branch Davidian David Thibodeau from 1999. Thibodeau talks of his experience during the FBI final assault.
On the tenth anniversary of the final FBI assault, Scott interviewed Dick J. Reavis, a reporter for the San Antonio Express Newsabout his book The Ashes of Waco: An Investigation. Reavis was far more skeptical of the federal story line than most of the reporters for the national papers. His gracefully-written book humanized the Davidians, in sharp contrast to their demonization in much of the media. (Scott conducted this interview using his Philip Dru pseudonym, a legacy of his time in the Witness Protection Program.)
Scott interviewed Mike McNulty, producer of Waco: The Rules of Engagement, Waco: A New Revelation and The FLIR Project, which asserted that the U.S. Army Delta Force was sent by Bill Clinton to Waco. McNulty debunked some early conspiracy theories on Waco, paving the way for more credible criticism. McNulty also fed great information to journalists, hounding them to dig deeper. Mike was a dogged researcher who would never quit. In 1999, he discovered the used pyrotechnic rounds the FBI fired in the final 1993 assault in a Texas Rangers evidence storehouse. That discovery exposed the FBI coverup, causing a national uproar and helping Janet Reno get the tainted legacy she deserved.
David T. Hardy, author of This Is Not an Assault: Penetrating the Web of Official Lies Regarding the Waco Incident, discusses how ATF ‘undercover’ agents — just nine days before the assault began — were granted access to the Branch Davidian compound and test-fired weapons with David Koresh. Hardy’s Freedom of Information Act requests shattered the ATF story line about not being able to easily nab Koresh before their violent assault. Hardy, a former federal lawyer, established himself as one of the most credible critics of federal outrages at Waco and other debacles.
Scott interviewed Carol Moore, the feisty author of The Davidian Massacre – the first fact-filled, critical book to come out on the federal assault at Waco (published by the Gun Owners of America). Carol and Scott discussed evidence that several Delta Force members were “pulling triggers” at Waco; Independent counsel John Danforth’s investigation and coverup; the FLIR cameras that captured FBI automatic weapons being fired to prevent the Davidians from surrendering; and how the current NDAA makes future Waco-type massacres and coverups even easier for the government.
In a wide-ranging interview, Will Grigg, author of Liberty in Eclipse, discussed how Waco became the template for law enforcement operations. Grigg joined the Libertarian Institute at its founding in 2016. His courage and devotion to fighting and exposing oppression created a legacy that survives his untimely death in 2017. His writings on Waco and plenty of other atrocities can be found in No Quarter: The Ravings of William Norman Grigg, published by the Libertarian Institute.
Scott had multiple interviews with Dan Gifford, the Emmy-winning, Oscar-nominated producer of Waco: The Rules of Engagement and a former investigative reporter for CNN. Dan reveals the role that gun control and religion played in the standoff negotiations and raid and the subsequent destruction and corruption of evidence in the aftermath. Gifford describes the setting of the final day of the standoff as well as the setting of the fire—and then the cover ups that followed. In this 2021 interview, Gifford shares his decades of experience looking into this topic, including all the times the government tried to shut him up.
Scott interviews surviving Branch Davidian David Thibodeau on the 25 year anniversary of the Waco Massacre to discuss Thibodeau’s book, “A Place Called Waco.” Thibodeau gives his personal history of how he joined the Branch Davidians, and explains how David Koresh attracted people from all over the world with his biblical teachings. Thibodeau describes the day of the raid and how the crucial pieces of evidence that corroborate the Davidians’ stories were “lost.” Scott then prompts Thibodeau: “Tell me about the fire.” Thibodeau concludes with what he’s learned from his experience, reflections, and review of the evidence that’s been uncovered in the years since the tragedy.
Scott interviews Barbara Grant about her new documentary which gives an expert’s perspective on the infrared footage captured on the final day of the Waco siege. The footage shows flashes that appeared to be gunfire; the Government dismissed them as solar reflections. Grant, who has studied and worked with infrared technology, decided to use her expertise to reveal the truth.
Politicians and their media lapdogs may have moved on from Waco but Scott Horton will never forget. Luckily for America, Scott Horton remains hot on the Waco trail. He is interviewing key Waco critics for a new project that should be out soon.
The pandemic has been an extended three-year “teachable moment” for many of us who previously had been content to go along with the public health messages from our nearly universally trusted medical experts, drug regulators and public health institutions.
Safety Signals
In a peer-reviewed recent article, David Bell and colleagues concluded that “based on costs, disease burden and intervention effectiveness,” mass Covid-19 vaccination campaigns did “not meet standard public health requirements for clear expected benefit.” Several eminent experts warned about the likelihood of such a conclusion from the start and opinion has gradually been shifting towards this view, as I tried to summarize earlier.
In this article I want to look specifically at the concept of “safety signals” because I don’t believe the significance of this concept in medical science and public health interventions is widely understood in the general public.
I first became interested in this after watching Dr Peter McCullough in a TV interview with France Soir in June 2021. He pointed out that the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) normally records about 25 deaths per year from all vaccines. During the Covid pandemic, by 11 June 2021 it had verified 5,993 deaths, 20,737 hospitalizations, 47,837 urgent care visits, 1,538 anaphylaxis cases, and 1,868 cases of Bell’s palsy.
Because VAERS is a passive-surveillance system, he said, the general consensus is that the numbers are vastly underreported. He warned that this is “a major safety signal … that has exceeded all boundaries of acceptability.” Quizzed on the causal link to vaccines, he answered: “it’s biologically plausible, temporally associated, internally consistent month by month” and also “externally consistent” with data from the US, Europe and England. “The vaccine is in the causal pathway to death … The majority of these 6,000 Americans, they were healthy enough to walk into a vaccine center and within 2-4 days they’re dead.”
Information on a new or known adverse event that is potentially caused by a medicine and that warrants further investigation. Signals are generated from several sources such as spontaneous reports, clinical studies and the scientific literature.
a safety signal refers to information on a new or known side effect that may be caused by a medicine and is typically generated from more than a single report of a suspected side effect.
A safety signal does not in and of itself establish a direct causal relationship between a medicine and any side effect. But it does generate “a hypothesis that, together with data and arguments, justifies the need” for an evaluation of “what is called causality assessment.”
To complete the trilogy of authoritative pronouncements on the meaning, role and critical importance of safety signals, Australia’s drugs regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, directs medicine sponsors that:
You should establish and manage a pharmacovigilance system to help you meet your pharmacovigilance responsibilities…
In terms of monitoring and collecting safety information, your pharmacovigilance system should allow you to:
identify and collect all information related to the safety of your medicine from all possible sources, including
spontaneous reports of adverse reactions (including consumer reports to you, or to people who work for you or have a contractual relationship with you)
internet and social media reports
reports from non-medical sources
solicited reports, such as from post-registration studies or post-market initiatives
reports in international and local literature
individual adverse drug reaction reports in the TGA’s Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN)…
If you verify a signal that may change the benefit–risk balance of a medicine, you MUST report it to us as a significant safety issue together with any actions you propose to take, or justification for no further action.
That seems pretty clear and comprehensive. If only it had been followed with respect to the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.
The Three Wise Monkeys
In recent times I have been ruminating over the intersection of the failure-cum-refusal of the public health officials to heed the safety signals in light of the cultural symbolism of the three monkeys. The origins of “The Three Wise Monkeys” are commonly attributed to Japan, although the proverb might have been brought there by Buddhist monks from India via China. Mizaru sees no evil by covering his eyes, Kikazaru hears no evil by covering his ears, and Iwazaru speaks no evil by covering his mouth.
The moral of the proverb is how to remain steadfast and morally upright even in the midst of evil. Instead, operating in the shadow perhaps of the militarized biosecurity state, the health authorities have seemed to have been operating under the injunction to “See No Harm, Hear No Harm, Speak No Harm,” thereby inverting both their own professional obligation to “First, Do No Harm” (Primum Non Nocere) and the wisdom of the three monkeys.
See No Harm
Without reprising ground that has been extensively covered in the dissenting literature already and is now reaching a broader and more receptive audience, let us recall the following. The original trial data of the manufacturers has been extensively analyzed to point to shortcomings, failures, refusal to publish the full raw data for independent cross-verification, allegations of fraudulent practices, and the deployment of the vaccine-sympathetic number of relative risk reduction while ignoring and downplaying the more vaccine-skeptical numbers of absolute risk reduction and the number needed to vaccinate in order to prevent one hospitalization, ICU admission and death.
Regulators and authorities have proven to be just as determined to ignore the massive surge in the number of serious adverse events being reported as critics have been persistent in pointing to this as a critical safety signal that warrants further investigation and follow-up action. The phenomenon of fit and apparently healthy young athletes collapsing with alarming suddenness and frequency has provided visually powerful evidence of the possible harms from the vaccines.
In the beginning, as vaccines began to be administered, some GPs and specialists, for example Dr Luke McLindon who has his own fertility clinic in Brisbane as well as Dr McCullough already referenced above, started speaking out about the alarming rate of serious adverse events and vaccine-related injuries they were noticing.
They quickly discovered that the drug regulators and their own medical licensing boards were deaf to all such reports. Their old fashioned fidelity to Primum Non Nocere was quaint but failed to charm the regulators.
Speak No Harm
Instead the regulators threatened them with professional disciplinary action and the threat was indeed carried out in a few instances. The modest numbers of doctors who lost their licenses does not invalidate the tactic. Authorities had adopted Sun Tzu’s advice to “Kill one, terrify a thousand.” We must appreciate how seriously worried these doctors of conscience must have been and the depth of courage they demonstrated in their duty of care to their patients that they risked their jobs and livelihoods in order to speak their truth to the powers that be. Bravo!
The understandings of the distribution of diseases in the population have a technical precision that they lack in general usage. We might think that in ordinary usage, five percent is rare. A disease is defined as “rare” if it affects about 1 in 2,000 people or about 0.05 percent, although it can range between 0.01–0.1 percent. “Very rare” is less than 0.01 percent; “uncommon,” 0.1–1.0 percent; “common,” 1–10 percent; and “very common,” ten percent upwards.
I have come to believe with the benefit of hindsight that the authorities intentionally conflated the common public understanding with the technical precision of the medical specialists in insisting that serious side effects have been very rare.
This was facilitated with the pandemic of media malfeasance. The Censorship-Industrial Complex was weaponized into a powerful tool of state power in an evolving system of governance that is a threat to the very survival of free society.
More Questions for the Public Health Clerisy
This raises some important questions. Was the mantra of “See No Harm, Hear No Harm, Speak No Harm” the result of:
Regulatory capture by Big Pharma?
Callous apathy, indifference and negligence by the regulators, public health institutions and medical establishments?
Staggeringly gross incompetence?
All of the above?
Most importantly, which ones of the above do not cross the threshold of criminality? What should be done about the reality that in refusing to be responsive to safety signals, the guardians and watchdogs of public health failed to discharge the solemn responsibility that had been entrusted to them?
On 28 March WHO experts published a revised road map on vaccine strategies. In a sign they may be awakening to the risk of cross-vaccine hesitancy because of disillusionment with Covid vaccines, the guidance acknowledges: “The public health impact of vaccinating healthy children and adolescents is comparatively much lower than the established benefits of traditional essential vaccines for children.”
My final question is to the public health clerisy. If you become transparent on efficacy, investigate safety signals urgently and fully and publish the findings honestly: In the long run, will your credibility worsen, or will you begin to regain public trust and confidence?
Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
Germany’s Die Welt daily “hit rock bottom” in its anti-Russian zeal last week, the Russian ambassador to Berlin, Sergey Nechaev, said on Monday, in response to an interview with American columnist Fred Kaplan in which he said the “easiest way” to end the Ukraine conflict is for someone to “kill Putin.”
Die Welt has left “this de facto call for murder” unredacted and uncommented on and even used it as a headline, Nechaev wrote in a damning post published on the embassy’s Telegram account. The envoy was apparently referring to Die Welt’s Twitter account, which used the “killing” quote to draw attention to the interview with Kaplan on its social media.
“It is unfortunate that some German media keep crossing all the lines and hitting rock bottom,” the ambassador said, adding that “although this is outrageous, it is no longer surprising.”
Kaplan made the statement in response to Die Welt’s question about the “most plausible scenarios” of ending the military conflict between Moscow and Kiev, which has now been ongoing for morethan a year.
“The easiest way for this to end is for someone to kill Putin,” Kaplan stated, adding that a “new leader” could then come to power, who would declare Russia’s military operation in Ukraine “a folly” and gain the support of the Russian elites to end the conflict. The American journalist and political scientist said he does not believe that Moscow will prevail, adding that otherwise the conflict could last “for years” and potentially end with an agreement that would involve the US and China as “guarantors.”
The US columnist also admitted that Kiev is fully dependent on US aid and that a halt to this assistance might force the Ukrainian government to “strike a deal” with Moscow. “Without the US assistance, it [Ukraine] would not last long,” he said.
Die Welt’schoice of a quote has also been met with criticism on social media. One person accused the outlet of being “no longer above … an incitement to murder.” “Is it a call for murder?” another person asked, warning that killing the Russian president could also bring “hardliners” to power in Russia, potentially putting the world on the brink of a nuclear war.
The German media outlet has not commented on the criticism so far. Neither the text of the interview nor the Twitter post has been altered in any way as of the time of this writing.
This is the second of our two-part series on the role played by ventilators in the pandemic phenomenon. In Part 1 published yesterday, which you can read here, we considered the dubious clinical rationale and adverse outcomes of the widespread use of ventilators, and today we explore the psychological purpose.
VENTILATORS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL TOOL
‘LOOK her in the eyes and tell her you never break the rules’, exclaimed a billboard posted around the country in spring 2020, each version depicting a petrified patient with a breathing tube or mask. This was the State of Fear documented by Laura Dodsworth (2020) in the aftermath of the first lockdown, imposed purportedly to limit the spread of a deadly new coronavirus. To achieve compliance with an unprecedented deprivation of liberties, the government pushed propaganda at every opportunity, inducing fear of the disease and loathing of anyone daring to stray from pandemic discipline.
For the regime to work, the people needed to be sufficiently scared. The virus was portrayed as universally life-threatening, with an exaggerated fatality rate in the early weeks derived from a relatively low number of cases. The reported rate of about 5 per cent declined after mass testing, which reduced the IFR to nearer that of influenza (this inversion was useful in demonstrating the effectiveness of lockdown and social distancing), but the initial message was highly effective.
Alongside the seriousness of the contagion was an absence of cure. For a patient who developed severe symptoms, typically drowning in pneumonia, the only chance of survival was to be intubated and to rely on a ventilator in the hope of microbial mercy.
Nothing invokes public dread more than scenes of multiple patients on ventilators; even better if those working around them are covered in maximally protective clothing and face masks. Rows of patients in ordinary hospital beds would not have had the same effect; indeed, in some televised recordings politicians visiting wards were met by stoical Brits, inconveniently chatty or smiling. NHS hospitals became a tightly scripted stage show, as illustrated by nurses doing choreographed TikTok dances (often imploring people to ‘stay at home’), and activist Debbie Hicks arrested (and later fined almost £1,000) for filming in her local hospital corridors.
‘Ventilator’ became le mot du jour in conversations with friends and family. This was all part of the theatre: overwhelmed doctors and nurses, beds in the corridors, hurriedly built Nightingale hospitals (which never fully opened), and a treatment apparatus that filled minds with fear. Being put on a ventilator may be traumatising, one Covid-19 patient reflecting on it as the ‘worst experience of her life’. The blunt message was that if you wanted to avoid such drastic intervention you must follow all guidelines and mandates. Through their daily projection in mainstream media, ventilators were a useful tool for compliance with social distancing, lockdown, regular testing and mask-wearing.
Indeed, we suggest that the deployment of ventilators was primarily for psychological rather than clinical reasons. For many watching the news on television, this machine was as terrifying as the disease. Furthermore, it contributed to the government-desired yearning for a promised vaccine. Mainstream media, controlled by the authorities throughout the pseudo-pandemic, contributed to the fear by reporting that one’s chances of survival on a ventilator were at best 50:50. As discussed in Part One, the real odds were only about one in four.
Although ventilators aroused fear, their scarcity was also instrumental. As the outbreak reached the UK, people had seen images of chaotic hospitals in Italy, and wanted to believe that the wonderful NHS would be better prepared. Instead, they were told by news bulletins that only a fraction of the necessary machines were available. Reckless rule-breakers, perceived as tantamount to murderers running amok, were deemed undeserving of such resources.
On March 15 2020 prime minister Boris Johnson called on British manufacturing firms to adapt their production lines to making ventilators, with the Department of Health issuing specifications to companies that expressed interest. Yet despite the appearance of the government going on a war footing, there was no requisitioning, which you would expect if the need was so dire. Dyson designed a new machine, CoVent, but decided not to proceed with mass production after Covid-19 cases had passed a peak. Similarly in the US, the federal government announced a budget of a billion dollars for ventilator production, having lined up companies such as General Motors, but only a small fraction of the order was fulfilled.
Having failed to achieve its initial target of 18,000 mechanical ventilators by the end of April, the UK government was reportedly making substantial progress towards the later target of 30,000 by the end of June. Although incidence was falling, the authorities were preparing the public for a predicted second wave of the pandemic. Despite the disastrous results, and knowing that ultimately supply would vastly outstrip demand, ventilators remained centre-stage.
Like testing kits and other Covid-19 paraphernalia, ventilator provision was mired in allegations of ministers’ conflict of interest and corruption. As reported by Private Eye in Profits of Doom, thousands of these ventilators went into storage in Ministry of Defence warehouses. Nevertheless, the money for their purchase is stored in the bank accounts of the people who, subject to little scrutiny, supplied them.
Ventilators were elevated to a first-line treatment when they should have been a last resort. Their use as an instrument of fear is abhorrent, but worse is the suspicion that such equipment caused death. At the very least we can say that physicians continued to put Covid-19 patients on ventilators in the knowledge that this would most likely hasten their demise. This is quite a charge, but have we not seen enough crimes against humanity over the last three years to think the unthinkable?
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair ordered the 1998 bombing of Iraq despite repeated warnings that such a move was unlawful, according to documents published by Declassified UK on Monday. Blair would follow the same template – insisting that illegal military action was legal – when the UK invaded Iraq in 2003.
The US and UK launched a four-day bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998, after then-US President Bill Clinton accused Saddam Hussein of breaching commitments to the UN and developing weapons of mass destruction. As many as 1,400 Iraqi soldiers were killed in strikes on around 100 military facilities.
In the runup to the bombings, Blair was repeatedly told by his advisers that using force against Iraq would be illegal without a resolution from the UN Security Council, according to documents from the National Archives cited by Declassified UK, an investigative outlet that focuses on Britain’s military and intelligence agencies.
Attorney General John Morris reportedly told Blair in November 1997 that obtaining a statement from the Security Council would be “an essential precondition” to military action, while Blair’s private secretary, John Holmes, told the prime minister that British law officers and Foreign Secretary Robin Cook had a “serious problem about using force unless the Security Council declares that Iraq is in ‘material breach’ of previous resolutions.”
When the law officers refused to authorize the military to draw up targeting plans, Blair reportedly wrote to Holmes, stating that he found their argument “unconvincing.”
Blair continuously received warnings throughout 1998, the report alleged, with Cook’s private secretary writing to Holmes that February to warn that “the negative implications for international support if we resort to military action without a new resolution would be serious.”
When Blair announced military action to Parliament in November, he declared: “I have no doubt that we have the proper legal authority, as it is contained in successive Security Council resolution documents.” British officials claimed that a 1990 resolution authorizing UN members to force Hussein’s army out of Kuwait gave them permission to intervene again in Iraq, an argument that only the US, Japan, and Portugal supported.
According to the documents, Blair saw bombing Iraq as essential to maintaining his close relationship with Clinton. In a meeting with advisers in November, he supposedly said that failing to intervene would cause “extreme damage” to US-UK relations. That same day, even as his own aides maintained that intervention was illegal, Blair told Clinton that the US “could count on our support.”
Five years later, Blair would find himself in the same situation, when he falsely claimed that Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction and invoked earlier Security Council resolutions to justify invading Iraq. Again, Blair was warned by his attorney general that military action would defy international law, and again he pressed ahead regardless.
More than a decade later, a public inquiry found that the legal case for the invasion was “far from satisfactory,” while then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan maintained from the outset that the war was “illegal.”
New research suggests that four billion people globally will be overweight in 2050. This trend can be traced back to the ‘low-fat, high-carb’ guidelines first issued in the 70s, and should prompt a major U-turn on dietary advice.
A recent report from the Potsdam Institute predicts that by 2050 there will be four billion overweight people in the world, with one-and-a-half billion of them obese. This is not entirely surprising. The world has been getting fatter for years, and things do not seem to be slowing down.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 