Frank conversation comically revealing
Sasha Latypova recently published a leaked audio recording of an AstraZeneca internal executive meeting at the end of 2020.
I recommend reading her entire post about this recording. To me, two statements really stand out.
Speaker 2 [I believe that’s Mark Esser]: Excellent! So, thank you for the introduction, Mark, and it’s really a pleasure to share with all of you a little bit of the journey that the “long-acting antibody” team has taken in 2020, but actually our story begins back in 2017 in the basement of a Quality Inn in Tysons Corner VA at the Defense Department Industry Day [BARDA runs “industry days” on regular basis]. There, I met Col. Matt Hepburn, who is actually the architect of the Pandemic Prevention Program or P3, and the goal of P3 was going from the discovering a novel virus to producing drugs in less than 60 days – something that would normally take 6 years at best. To me that sounded more like science fiction than science, but we signed up in a small and committed team of virologists and molecular biologists and engineers and started working in 2018 on new technologies to discover and manufacture antibodies against viruses.
His statement reminds of something a mediocre prizefighter might say if a mafia boss tells him: “We’ve selected you to win the title from the reigning division champion?”
“Really, I can do that?” he would probably reply.
In this case, the capo (Col. Matt Hepburn) is a leading member of the DoD/HHS Countermeasure Racket that was erected following the passage of the PREP Act in 2005.
In fact, as Mark learned the hard way, his rapidly developed antibody product against SARS-CoV-2 did not work and was pulled from the market by the FDA in early 2023.
The second, highly notable statement was made by AstraZeneca’s CEO, Pascal Soriot:
Thank you, Mark, and congratulations again to you and the team. This long-acting antibodies are quite unique because this is the only combination that potentially will last more than 6 months, up to potentially 12 months and protect people for a long period of time. And for those of you who may not be totally familiar with antibodies, you know, you have to know a number of people cannot be vaccinated, like if you have an immune disease, lupus or some other immune condition… or multiple sclerosis, you cannot be vaccinated. So, there are millions of people in the world that will need the protection that cannot be coming from a vaccine, so the long-acting antibody has the enormous potential.
Soriot clearly understood that the so-called COVID-19 vaccines would, best case scenario, only provide some protection for six months. He also understood that these injections were NOT appropriate for all of humanity, and would pose a serious health risk to people with or at risk of developing auto-immune syndromes.
February 9, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Still relentlessly promoting covid ‘safe and effectives’
A concerned reader sent in this letter inviting him for more covid and flu injections, as he was considered a ‘priority’ case:
The fact that the NHS is wasting millions of taxpayer pounds continuing to promote and administer these ineffective and harmful products is symbolic of what the health service has become; another cog in the medical industrial machine, whirring to improve Pharma profits with little or no concern for end-user health. In a service allegedly crushed by lack of resources, why on earth are they still pushing these products on an unsuspecting public?
You will note in the full letter that:
- There is no mention that the injections stop infection;
- There is no mention that the injections stop transmission;
- They make the dubious claim that injections lead to “less severe illness” without backing up this statement.
- They use the misleading statement that ‘seasonal vaccines have proven safety records‘. This is certainly not the case for covid injections as they have not existed long enough and no-one has bothered to collect the data.
It seems that even the NHS has abandoned the mendacious claims originally attached to the ‘Safe and Effectives™’ probably because they know it would open them up to legal action. The propaganda job is complete. For those poor souls still unquestioningly worshipping at the alter of the quasi-religious NHS, a promise of real benefit is now surplus to requirements in the ad campaign. It has seamlessly transformed into an annual ritual to benefit drug companies whilst causing insidious harm to the collective health of the nation. What a clever spell they have cast to make entire populations believe that good health is only achievable by injecting unidentified substances into their body on a seasonal basis. And if they feel awful directly afterwards? It means its working!!
Evil genius.
If anyone can find the time and has received such a letter, the claim of “proven safety records” deserves a Freedom of Information request to “please supply all reports memos papers statistical analyses etc supporting the claim of “proven safety records”. We would love to see the response should one be forthcoming. We won’t hold our breath.
February 9, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, UK |
Leave a comment
Of the many remarkable characters we write about in our book The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Professor Didier Raoult may be the most fascinating and colorful. A May 12, 2020 feature in the New York Times introduced him to American readers as follows:
Raoult … has made a great career assailing orthodoxy, in both word and practice. “There’s nothing I like more than blowing up a theory that’s been so nicely established,” he once said. He has a reputation for bluster but also for a certain creativity. He looks where no one else cares to, with methods no one else is using, and finds things.14
A tireless researcher, he has published 2,300 papers and is the most cited microbiologist in Europe. He and his team have discovered 468 species of bacteria—about 1/5 of all those named and described. The bacteria genus Raoultella was named in his honor. He is probably best known as the discoverer of the so-called giant virus, so large it had previously been mistaken for an intracellular bacterium. He has won 13 major awards and is a Commander of the National Order of Merit.
Like Dr. McCullough, Professor Raoult strongly advocated early treatment of COVID-19, and he conducted multiple studies demonstrating the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, especially when administered early. In return for his efforts to save his patients, he has been relentlessly persecuted by France’s official medical establishment in Paris.
Now comes the news that Professor Raoult is calling for a moratorium on COVID-19 vaccines. The following is a translation from his recent, French language post on X:
Propaganda and knowledge. We’re the good guys, but we’re not ignorant! When vaccines were developed against Covid, 3 types of vaccines were proposed: – Traditional vaccines (as quickly available as the others) made in China with the entire inactivated virus. These vaccines have not been authorized in France for reasons that escape me. This type of vaccine, comparable to that against the flu, carries fewer unknown risks and does not fight against a single target of the virus: the Spike. I feared, and this happened, that the mutations of the virus and its respiratory specificity would not provide lasting immunity and that the vaccine would not have a very long duration of protection because I published the first known case of reinfection with covid. The disease being poorly immunizing, the vaccine would not do any better.
The second vaccine (the English one from Astra Zeneca, that from Johnson and Johnson, and the Russian Sputnik) is a vaccine based on a virus (Monkey Adenovirus for Astra Zeneca), transformed by integrating the Spike gene. It doesn’t integrate or replicate. I was the first in France to report an accident of cerebral venous thrombosis, this phenomenon is well described in particular in young women and England stopped its prescription for those under 50, followed by many countries and finally it is no longer used in France. There are millions of expired doses left.
The 3rd group of vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna) consists of the injection of RNA coding for the Spike whose elements have been modified so as not to be eliminated quickly. This vaccine is included in a lipid nanoparticle to be able to enter cells. This vaccine, in addition to the disadvantages common to the others, presented unforeseen side effects: extremely frequent menstrual disorders (now recognized by the CDC) of which no one can say whether they will be associated with consequences on fertility, myocarditis and sometimes fatal pericarditis in young people (mainly boys, now recognized by the CDC) and rare thromboses of the veins (recognized by all scientific authorities).
None of these vaccines had been evaluated for mild or asymptomatic forms and therefore for the prevention of contagion. They could not claim to eradicate a disease which, moreover, was circulating among animals. Vaccination was then only justified in those who were at risk of serious forms (subjects over 65 years of age and fragile subjects (obese, immunocompromised). Now we see that the quality controls on batches of Pfizer vaccines do not appear to meet required standards. There should be no DNA or minute doses due to the risk of introducing it into cells through nanoparticles, because DNA easily enters the nuclei and integrates into the chromosomes like a virus with consequences unknown because lymph node cancers can be the natural consequence (Epstein Barr virus, HTLV virus and Helicobacter pylori). The quantity of DNA in the vaccine doses is much higher than that announced in the samples tested. Each batch of Pfizer should be tested, it is easy in any laboratory to do a DNA PCR to check the quantity. Let those who don’t believe it do so!
Finally, we cannot inject a drug without knowing what it will produce in the body. A very unpleasant surprise published in Nature in December 2023 shows that modified RNAs can produce unknown proteins. This should be explored on a large scale because among the proteins that could be created in this way, one of them is an amyloid which would be released while it is in the natural Spike, coated in a protein and without danger. These free amyloids, which can be produced by vaccines through reading errors, can be the cause of amyloidosis plaques which cause various diseases, including neurological ones. All this is knowledge for the knowers, not opinions for scavengers. Given the demonstration of this phenomenon, the consequence of vaccination must be studied in humans, which has not been done.
At this stage of knowledge, it is reasonable to follow Denmark into a moratorium on Covid vaccination. Indeed, the effectiveness is doubtful because new variants appear which make current vaccines ineffective (millions of doses have been thrown away) and the manufacturing of new vaccines based on current variants will be outdated when they are available because new variants will circulate. Other countries are reaching these conclusions, the “surgeon general” of Florida has called for a total stoppage of the Pfizer vaccine, the attorney general of Texas (Mr. Paxton) has just attacked Pfizer for disinformation and censorship (what a reversal!). American and English parliamentarians question administrative and political leaders about their decisions, where we are surprised to see Fauci, the head of covid management in the USA, saying that social measures (masks, confinement, curfew) do not serve to nothing and B. Johnson apologize for his management in England! Humans are not stupid, covid vaccination rates and Pfizer shares are plummeting. It is time to take up the problem, de-dramatize it and treat the patients, re-evaluating it by competent people. At least ten molecules have shown effectiveness on the disease and do not cost much. This must stop being an opportunity for the industry and become a problem for doctors again!
February 5, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, France |
Leave a comment
I have previously reported on my concern about the rise in stable cancer relapses that I have witnessed in my melanoma clinic.
None of these patients of mine presented with the classic prodrome of relapse that I had always noticed previously, such as severe depression due to bereavement, divorce or bankruptcy. Indeed the only thing I found they had in common was to have had a recent booster mRNA covid vaccine. I phoned around my colleagues not only in the UK but also in Australia to check their experience. In no case did they deny such a link. Indeed, they were equally alarmed at the association between booster vaccines and relapse that they too were witnessing, as well an increase in new cancers, particularly in those below 50 years old. In addition to melanoma these colleagues were also very concerned about a sudden big increase in young patients with colorectal cancer.
Rather than instigating a proper inquiry to investigate this when we raised these concerns, the medical authorities told us all that what we were witnessing was a coincidence, that we had to prove it and above all, not to upset our patients.
Recently the American Cancer Society (ACS) has warned of a surge in new cancer cases in the US this lastyear of over 2million, with many of these cases occurring in younger patients. Indeed, the chief scientific officer of the ACS, William Dahat, announced in addition that cancers were presenting with more aggressive disease and larger tumours at the time of diagnosis, especially in younger patients. Of further interest it noted a difference in the microbiome (the community of micro-organisms such as fungi, bacteria and viruses that exist in a different environment) between patients under 50 compared with those over 50.
This surge mirrors a report from Phinance Technologies of late last year which analysed in detail data from the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) which showed that disability and deaths in 2021 and 2022 had increased dramatically in all age groups, but especially in the 15-44 age group.
The Lancet also published an article before Christmas reporting excess deaths post covid pandemic to be up by 11-15 per cent over than expected for under-25s and for between 25-49 year olds. This is in fact the pattern found in many countries that have looked at the data. Germany for example has reported excess deaths rising from 7 per cent in 2020 to 24 per cent in 2023.
What makes this all the more surprising is that negative deaths should be the norm after a pandemic as you cannot die twice!
The link between covid vaccines and myocarditis and early death particularly in the young, highlighted by Peter McCullough and colleagues as well as by Aseem Malhotra here in the UK, is incontestable. Now we have a confirmatory report from the CDC in the US, data that the authorities here have refused to act on so as not to alarm vaccinated patients!
Although it is obvious that these excess deaths are real and are continuing to rise, all we get from our Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, are risible attempts to explain away the increase, such as that it is a result of patients not getting their statins in lockdown (hey, patients under 55 do not get statins routinely!) The situation is no better in the US where Harvard researchers have put the blame on sleep disturbance!
The first obvious candidate is lockdown itself when the National Health Service became the National Covid Service and all screening was cancelled or delayed, resulting in an increase in cancer detection and late presentation. Many negative lifestyle factors almost certainly increased as a result of lockdown, such as a lack of exercise and too much food, especially takeaways.
What very few of these reviews consider is that this rise in excess deaths could be a result of the booster vaccine programme, even it clearly follows the vaccine rollout programme starting in 2021 and increasing in 2022 and 2023.
With regards to the link to cancer, there are numerous reports in the literature of cancers arising within days of the vaccines being administered, especially in the case of lymphomas and leukaemias. There are several reports of PET scan mapped tumours exploding at the site and draining area of covid injections with the advice to inject covid vaccines away from known cancers! Outside my clinical observations, several friends have developed cancer after a totally unnecessary covid booster taken only to facilitate travel.
For a possible association between a booster vaccine and the appearance of cancer we need a plausible scientific causal explanation. Unfortunately for those who still insist that these cases are mere coincidences, there are several compelling ones to choose from:
Firstly, it has been reported that T cell responses are suppressed after the boosters (not the first two injections) and that this is especially marked in some cancer patients.
Secondly, the antibody repertoire switches after the first booster from a protective IgG1 and IgG3 dominant B cell response to a tolerising IgG4 one, made worse by further boosters, as reported in a recent Science Immunology paper. As many cancers are controlled by effective T cell led immunity, the sudden perturbation of this control would clearly explain the development of B cell leukaemia and lymphomas, melanoma renal cell cancers and colorectal ones, all tumours which can respond to immunotherapy.
Another report by Loacker et al in Clin Chem Lab Med shows that mRNA vaccines increase PD-L1 on granulocytes and monocytes, which means they effect the very opposite of what the immunotherapy agents do against these tumours, and whichin turn explains why many of these tumours appear to be resistant to this otherwise effective therapy. Taken together, the effect on the immune response of these boosters can easily explain the relapses and so-called turbo-charged cancers appearing.
Other reports document the presence of DNA plasmids and SV 40 (a known cancer-inducing gene) sequences, as well as the ability of mRNA to bind to important suppressor genes. Although this is controversial and has been challenged, it has led to the realisation of significant batch-to-batch variation that could enhance the cancer process yet probably not manifest itself for a few years. The very possibility that we could be sitting on a vaccine-inducing cancer time bomb means that we must never again get involved into a mass vaccine programme for another possible Disease X.
But unless the government wakes up to this now, we will be at the mercy of the World Health Organization doing the very same thing when they decide to release the Disease X virus in order to take back control and destroy our lives all over again.
February 3, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, UK |
Leave a comment
The globalist lawyers who drafted the pandemic treaty definitely anticipated injuries from the 100 day vaccines. So what did they do? They made sure that all the nations signing up to the Treaty “shall shall shall” i.e., MUST give the WHO, its lawyers, the nations, the manufacturers, the doctors and anyone else involved a bullet-proof liability shield.
Just in case someone did not understand, they said it 3 times, 3 different ways, in 3 paragraphs. I screenshot what they said so there would be no confusion.
If you don’t want the mandated experimental vaccines for which nobody is liable, join us to fight against this nonsense. DoorToFreedom.org
February 3, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
Leave a comment
During COVID, the public was fed fearful numbers showing exaggerated death rates in unvaccinated populations. Where did they get this data and how accurate was it?
February 2, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
I am thinking of a certain industry. See if you can guess what it is.
This industry is huge, constituting a large portion of the nation’s GDP. Millions of people earn their living through it, directly or indirectly. The people at the top of this industry (who operate mostly behind the scenes, of course) are among the super-rich. This industry’s corporations lobby the nation’s government relentlessly, to the tune of billions of dollars per year, both to secure lucrative contracts and to influence national policy in their favor. This investment pays off richly, sometimes reaching trillions of dollars.
The corporations supplying this industry with its materiel conduct advanced, highly technical research that is far beyond the understanding of the average citizen. The citizens fund this research, however, through tax dollars. Unbeknownst to them, many of the profits gained from the products developed using tax dollars are kept by the corporations’ executives and investors.
This industry addresses fundamental, life-or-death issues facing the nation. As such, it relentlessly promotes itself as a global force for good, claiming to protect and save countless lives. However, it kills a lot of people too, and the balance is not always a favorable one.
The operational side of this industry is emphatically top-down in its structure and function. Those who work at the ground level must undergo rigorous training that standardizes their attitudes and behavior. They must follow strict codes of practice, and they are subject to harsh professional discipline if they deviate from accepted policies and procedures, or even if they publicly question them.
Finally, these ground-level personnel are handled in a peculiar manner. Publicly, they are frequently lauded as heroes, particularly under declared periods of crisis. Privately, they are kept completely in the dark regarding high-level industry decisions, and they are often lied to outright by those at higher levels of command. The “grunts” even significantly forfeit some fundamental civil liberties for the privilege of working in the industry.
What industry am I describing?
If you answered, “the military,” of course you would be correct. However, if you answered “the medical industry,” you would be every bit as right.
In President Eisenhower’s farewell speech of January 17, 1961, he stated that “…in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Sixty-three years on, many Americans understand what he was referring to.
They see the endless cycle of undeclared wars and decades-long foreign occupations that are undertaken on nebulous or even outright false pretenses. They see the ever-hungry mega-industry that produces super-expensive, high-tech killing devices of every imaginable form, as well as the steady stream of traumatized soldiers that it spits out. War (or, if you prefer its Orwellian nickname, “defense”) is big business. And as Eisenhower warned, as long as those profiting from it drive the policy and the money stream, it will not only continue, it will continue to grow.
Other mega-industries – the medical industry in particular – have generally fared better in public perception than the military-industrial complex. Then came Covid.
Among its many harsh lessons, Covid has taught us this: if you substitute Pfizer and Moderna for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, and swap the NIH and CDC for the Pentagon, you get the same result. The “medical-industrial complex” is every bit as real as its military-industrial counterpart, and it is every bit as real a problem.
As a physician, I am embarrassed to admit that until Covid, I possessed only an inkling that this was so – or more accurately, I knew it, but didn’t realize how bad it was, and I didn’t worry about it too much. Sure (I thought), Pharma engaged in dishonest practices, but we’d known that for decades, and after all, they do make some effective drugs. Yes, physicians were increasingly becoming employees, and protocols were dictating care more and more, but the profession still seemed manageable. True, healthcare was far too expensive (gobbling up a reported 18.3 percent of the US GDP in 2021), but healthcare is inherently expensive. And after all, we’re saving lives.
Until we weren’t.
By early-to-mid 2020, it became obvious to those paying attention that the Covid “response,” while promoted as a medical initiative, was in fact a military operation. Martial law had effectively been declared approximately on the Ides of March 2020, after President Trump was mysteriously convinced to cede the Covid response (and practically speaking, control of the nation) to the National Security Council. Civil liberties – freedom of assembly, worship, the right to travel, to earn one’s living, to pursue one’s education, to obtain legal relief – were rendered null and void.
Top-down diktats on how to manage Covid patients were handed down to physicians from high above, and these were enforced with a militaristic rigidity unseen in doctors’ professional lifetimes. The mandated protocols made no sense. They ignored fundamental tenets of both sound medical practice and medical ethics. They shamelessly lied about well-known, tried-and-true medicines that were known to be safe and appeared to work. The protocols killed people.
Those physicians and other professionals who spoke out were effectively court-martialed. State medical boards, specialty certification boards, and large healthcare system employers virtually tripped over each other in the rush to delicense, decertify, and fire dissenters. Genuine, courageous physicians who actually treat patients, such as Peter McCullough, Mary Talley Bowden, Scott Jensen, Simone Gold, and others, were persecuted, while non-practicing bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci were hailed with false titles like “America’s Top Doctor.” The propaganda was as nauseating as it was blatant. And then came the jabs.
How did this happen to medicine?
It all seemed so sudden, but in fact it has been in the works for years.
Covid taught us (by the way, Covid has been such a harsh tutor, but haven’t we learned so much from her!) that the medical-industrial complex and military-industrial complex are deeply connected. They are not just twins, or even identical twins. They are conjoined twins, and so-called “Public Health” is the tissue shared between them.
The SARS CoV-2 virus, after all, is a bioweapon, developed over a period of years, funded by US tax dollars in a joint effort between Fauci’s NIH and the Department of Defense to genetically manipulate the transmissibility and virulence of coronaviruses (all done in the name of “Public Health,” of course).
Once the bioweapon was out of the lab and into the population, the race was on within the medical-industrial complex to develop and market the supremely profitable antidote to the bioweapon. Cue the full-on military takeover of medicine: the martial law lockdowns, the suppression of cheap and effective treatments, the persecution of dissidents, the ceaseless propaganda and anti-science, and the unabashed whoring of most hospital systems for CARES Act money.
We know the rest. The ill-conceived, toxic, gene-therapy antidote, falsely billed as a “vaccine,” was foisted upon the population by blackmail (“the vaccine is how we end the pandemic”), the effective bribery of medical authorities and politicians, as well as other Deep-State directed psyops designed to divide the population and scapegoat dissenters (“pandemic of the unvaccinated”).
The end result even sounds like the aftermath of a gigantic military operation. Millions are dead, many millions more are psychologically traumatized, economies are in tatters, and a few warmongers are fantastically rich. Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel (who, incidentally, oversaw the construction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology years ago) is a freshly minted billionaire. And not one of those who caused all the mischief are in prison.
At this writing, virtually all the major healthcare systems, specialty regulatory boards, specialty associations, and medical schools are standing at attention, still in lockstep with the received – and by now, clearly false – narrative. Their funding, after all, be it from Pharma or the Government, depends upon their obedience. Barring dramatic change, they will respond in the same fashion when orders come down from above in the future. Medicine has been fully militarized.
In his farewell address, Eisenhower said something else that I believe is most prescient here. He described that a military-industrial complex fostered “a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.”
Enter Disease X.
C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.
January 31, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
Governments should endorse a global moratorium on mRNA vaccines until all questions about their safety have been thoroughly investigated, according to the authors of a new, peer-reviewed article on the COVID-19 vaccine trials and the global vaccination campaign published last week in Cureus, Journal of Medical Science.
Cureus is a web-based peer-reviewed open-access general medical journal using prepublication peer review.
The authors surveyed published research on the pharmaceutical companies’ vaccine trials and related adverse events. They also called for the COVID-19 vaccines to be removed immediately from the childhood immunization schedule.
After the first reports from vaccine trials claimed they were 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, serious problems with method, execution and reporting in the trials became public, which the paper reviewed in detail.
Evidence also shows the products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing, and since the vaccine rollout, researchers have identified a significant number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).
Authors M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D., Jessica Rose, Ph.D., Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D., Steve Kirsch and Dr. Peter McCullough detailed the vaccines’ potential serious harms to humans, vaccine control and processing issues, the mechanisms behind AEs, the immunological reasons for vaccine inefficacy and the mortality data from the registrational trials.
They concluded, “Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA injectable products on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.”
They also called for the vaccines to be immediately removed from the childhood immunization schedule and for the suspension of the boosters.
“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 (IFR, 0.0003%) but a well-established 2.2% risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” they wrote.
Finally, the authors called for a full investigation into misconduct by the pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory agencies.
It is the first peer-reviewed study to call for a moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA products, Rose told The Defender.
“Once a proper assessment of the safety and efficacy claims was made herein — upon which the emergency use authorization (EUA)’s and ultimate final authorizations were granted — it was found that the COVID-19 injectable products were neither safe nor effective,” she added.
According to McCollough, “mRNA should never have been authorized for human use.”
Lead author Mead told The Defender, “Our view is that any risk-benefit analysis must consider how much the presumed benefit in terms of reduced COVID-19 related mortality is offset by the potential increase in vaccine-induced mortality.”
Here are six takeaways from the review:
1. The COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are reclassified gene therapies that were rushed through the regulatory process in a historically unprecedented manner
Before the seven-month authorization process for the mRNA vaccines, no vaccine had ever gone to market without undergoing testing of at least four years, with typical timelines averaging 10 years.
To speed the process, the companies skipped preclinical studies of potential toxicity from multiple doses and cut the typical 6-12 month observation period for identifying longer-term adverse effects and the established 10-15-year period for monitoring for long-term effects such as cancer and autoimmune disorders, the authors wrote.
The trials prioritized documenting effective symptom reduction over SAE and mortality. This was particularly concerning, the authors argued, because mRNA products are gene therapy products reclassified as vaccines and then given EUA for the first time ever for use against a viral disease.
However, the gene therapies’ components have not been thoroughly evaluated for safety for use as vaccines.
There is an uninvestigated and major concern that the mRNA could transform body cells into viral protein factories — with no off-switch — that produce the spike protein for a prolonged period causing chronic systemic inflammation and immune dysfunction.
The spike protein in the vaccine, the authors said, is associated with more severe immunopathology and other AEs than the spike protein in the virus itself.
The authors suggested that massive government investment in mRNA technology, including hundreds of millions before the pandemic and tens of billions once it began, meant, “U.S. federal agencies were strongly biased toward successful outcomes for the registrational trials.”
The financial incentives along with political pressures to deliver a rapid solution likely influenced a series of flawed decisions that compromised the integrity of the trials and downplayed serious scientific concerns about risks with the technology, they added.
2. Steps were taken in trials to overestimate vaccine efficacy
Because the trials were designed to assess whether the mRNA vaccine reduced symptoms, they did not measure whether the vaccines prevented severe disease and death. Yet the vaccine makers repeatedly claimed that they do.
“No large randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials have ever demonstrated reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, hospitalization, or death,” the authors wrote.
Additionally, the number of people who contracted clinical COVID-19 in both the placebo and intervention groups was “too small to draw meaningful, pragmatic, or broad-sweeping conclusions with regard to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.”
Pfizer’s 95 % efficacy claims were based on 162 of 22,000 placebo recipients contracting PCR-confirmed COVID-19 compared to eight of 22,000 in the vaccine group. None of the placebo recipients died from COVID-19. In the Moderna trials, only one placebo death was attributed to COVID-19.
There was also a much larger percentage of “suspected COVID-19 cases” in both groups, with participants showing COVID-19 symptoms but a negative PCR test. When factoring in those cases, measures of vaccine efficacy drop to about 19%.
The trial subject pool was comprised of largely young and healthy individuals, excluding key groups — children, pregnant women, elderly and immunocompromised people — which can also obscure the vaccine’s actual efficacy and safety.
Findings from reanalyses of data from the Pfizer trials can be interpreted as showing the vaccines made “no significant difference” in reducing all-cause mortality in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups at 20 weeks into the trial, the authors wrote.
Even the six-month post-marketing data Pfizer presented to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed no reduction in all-cause mortality from the vaccine.
The authors reanalyzed that data, adjusting the analysis of deaths to better account for the fact that when Pfizer unblinded the study people from the placebo group took the vaccine, and found the vaccine group had a higher mortality rate (0.105%) than the unvaccinated group (0.0799%), which they said was a conservative estimate.
One of the most glaring issues with the registrational trials, they noted, was that they exclusively focused on measuring risk reduction — the ratio of COVID-19 symptom rates in the vaccine group versus the placebo group — rather than measuring absolute risk reduction, which is the likelihood someone will show COVID-19 symptoms relative to people in the population at large.
According to FDA guidelines, accounting for both approaches is crucial to avoid the misguided use of pharmaceutical products — but the data were omitted, leading to an overestimation of an intervention’s clinical utility.
While both vaccines touted an approximately 95% risk reduction figure as their efficacy figure, the absolute risk reductions for Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines were 0.7% and 1.1% respectively.
“A substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.
As an example, using a conservative estimate that 119 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent infection, and assuming that COVID-19 had a 0.23% infection fatality rate, they wrote that approximately 52,000 vaccinations would be necessary to prevent a single COVID-19-related death.
However, “Given trial misconduct and data integrity problems … the true benefit is likely to be much lower,” they wrote.
And, they added, one would need to assess that benefit along with harms, which they estimate to be 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer. That means, using the most conservative estimates, “for every life saved, there were 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”
They also noted that post-rollout evidence confirmed the efficacy claims were overstated. For example, two large cohort Cleveland clinic studies showed the vaccine could not confer protection against COVID-19 — instead, in those trials, more vaccinated people were more likely to contract COVID-19.
One study showed the risk of “breakthrough” infection was significantly higher among people who were boosted and that more vaccinations resulted in a greater risk of COVID-19.
A second study showed adults who were not “up-to-date” with their shots had a 23% lower incidence of COVID-19 than their “up-to-date” colleagues.
3. The trials underestimated the adverse events, including death, despite evidence in the data.
Harms were also underreported and underestimated for a number of reasons, according to the authors, a practice that tends to be common in randomized industry-sponsored vaccine trials in general and “exceptionally evident” here.
First, because Pfizer unblinded the trial within just a few weeks of the emergency use authorization and allowed people in the placebo group to take the vaccine, there was not sufficient time to identify late-occurring harms because there was no longer a control group.
“Was this necessary, given that none of the deaths in the Pfizer trial were attributed to COVID-19 as the primary cause, and given the very low IFR [infection fatality rate] for a relatively healthy population?” they asked.
Also, trial coordinators were “haphazard” in their approach to monitoring AEs. They prioritized documenting events thought to be related to COVID-19 rather than to the vaccines for the first seven days and only recorded “unsolicited” AEs for 30-60 days. After that period, even very SAEs, like death, were not recorded. Even for the AEs recorded in the first seven days, they only solicited data from 20% of the population.
None of the trial data was independently verified. “Such secrecy may have enabled the industry to more easily present an inflated and distorted estimate of the genetic injections’ benefits, along with a gross underestimation of potential harms,” they wrote.
Subsequent analysis by Michels et al. revealed that deaths and other SAEs — like life-threatening conditions, inpatient hospitalization or extension of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, a congenital anomaly, or a medically significant event — did occur after the cutoff period and before the FDA advisory meeting where emergency authorization was recommended.
During the first 33 weeks of the Pfizer trials, 38 subjects died, according to Pfizer’s own data, although independent research by Michels et al. estimated that that number is only approximately 17% of the actual projected number due to missing data.
And after that, the rate of deaths continued to increase. Michaels et al. found Pfizer failed to report a substantial increase in the number of deaths due to cardiovascular events. They also found a consistent pattern of reporting delays on the date of the death on subjects’ case reports.
Overall, the review authors reported that there were “twice as many cardiac deaths proportionately among vaccinated compared to unvaccinated subjects in the Pfizer trials.”
In their discussion, the authors wrote “Based on the extended Pfizer trial findings, our person-years estimate yielded a 31% increase in overall mortality among vaccine recipients, a clear trend in the wrong direction.”
This raises serious red flags about how the registrational trials were conducted, Mead said. “Assessments of the safety profile of the COVID-19 modified mRNA injections warrant an objective precautionary perspective, any substantial upward trend in all cause mortality within the intervention arm of the trial population reflects badly on the intervention.”
4. Numbers of SAEs in the trials and post-rollout reporting are well-documented, despite claims to the contrary.
Both Pfizer and Moderna found about 125 SAEs per 100,000 vaccine recipients, or one SAE for every 800 vaccines. However, because the trials excluded more vulnerable people, the authors note, even higher proportions of SAEs would be expected in the general population.
The Fraiman et al. reanalysis of the Pfizer trial data found a significant 36% higher risk of SAEs, which included deaths and many life-threatening conditions in the vaccinated participants.
Official SAEs for other vaccines average around only 1-2 per million. Fraiman et alestimated 1,250 SEAs per million vaccines, exceeding that benchmark by “at least 600-fold.”
After the vaccine rollout, analyses of two large drug safety reporting systems in the U.S. and Europe identified signals for myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, cardio-respiratory arrest, cerebral infarction, and cerebral hemorrhage associated with both mRNA vaccines, along with ischemic stroke.
And millions of AEs have been reported to those systems.
Another study by Skidmore et al. estimated the total number of fatalities from the vaccines in 2021 alone was 289,789. Autopsy studies have also provided additional evidence of serious harms, including evidence that most COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related deaths resulted from injury to the cardiovascular system.
In multiple autopsy studies, German pathologist Aren Burkhardt documented the presence of vaccine-mRNA-produced spike proteins in blood vessel walls and brain tissues. This research helps to explain documented vaccine-induced toxicities affecting the nervous, immune, reproductive and other systems.
The Pfizer data also showed an overwhelming number of adverse effects. According to a confidential document released in August 2022, Pfizer had documented approximately 1.6 million AEs affecting nearly every organ system, and one-third of them were classified as serious.
In Pfizer’s trial, Michels and colleagues found a nearly 4-fold increase (OR 3.7, 95%CI 1.02-13.2, p = 0.03) in serious cardiac events (e.g., heart attack, acute coronary syndrome) in the vaccine group. Neither the original trial report nor Pfizer’s Summary Clinical Safety report acknowledged or commented on this safety signal.
“The serious adverse events are all well documented,” Mead said. “Yet it’s surprising to see so many in the medical field continue to ignore or dismiss outright the latter half of the equation when considering all cause mortality trends.”
5. The failure to appropriately test for safety and toxicity poses serious problems.
Researchers have raised concerns that the mRNA technology is inherently unstable and difficult to store, which leads to batch variability and contamination linked to different rates of AEs.
Recent findings by McKernan et al. that found Pfizers’ mRNA vaccines are contaminated with plasmid DNA that shouldn’t be present — and wasn’t present in the vaccines used in the trials – raising serious safety issues.
That’s because “Process 1,” used in the trials to generate the vaccines involved in vitro transcription of synthetic DNA — essentially a “clean” process. However, that process isn’t viable for mass production, so the manufacturers used “Process 2,” which involves using E. coli bacteria to replicate the plasmids.
Removing plasmids E coli. can result in residual plasmids in the vaccines and the effects of their presence is unknown.
McKernan’s work also revealed the presence of DNA from simian virus 40 (SV40), an oncogenic DNA virus originally isolated in 1960 from contaminated polio vaccines, induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals, raising other safety concerns.
Researchers from Cambridge published a paper in Nature in December 2023, where they found an inherent defect in the modified RNA instructions for the spike protein in COVID-19 immunizations that causes the machinery that translates the gene to the spike protein to “slip” about 10% of the time
This process creates “frameshifts” that cause cells to produce “off-target” proteins in addition to the spike. These proteins, which developers either failed to look for or did not report to regulators, cause undesirable immune responses whose long-term effects are unknown.
6. There are many different possible biological mechanisms that cause AEs and vaccine ineffectiveness.
The review points readers to a series of papyrus that explain a number of different theories to explain the high number of AEs from the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
“The mechanisms of molecular mimicry, antigen cross-reactivity, pathogenic priming, viral reactivation, immune exhaustion, and other factors related to immune dysfunction all reinforce the biological plausibility for vaccine-induced pathogenesis of malignant and autoimmune diseases,” they wrote. And these mechanisms of immune activation are distinct from the body’s response to a viral infection.
They also note the toxic effects of the primary adjuvant, PEG, and of the spike protein itself.
They close their analysis of the vaccines with a complex explanation for the different immunological basis for protection provided by the vaccines versus natural immunity through infection. They explain the mechanisms for vaccine failure and problems generated by the ability for the mRNA vaccines to perpetuate the emergence of new variants.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
January 30, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
‘Many are also pledging not to take donations from Big Pharma’
More than 100 candidates for public office and nearly as many current officeholders across 35 states have publicly declared that they believe the COVID-19 vaccines should be “immediately discontinued” in the interest of public safety, according to a group of medical freedom advocates.
Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, an otolaryngology and sleep medicine specialist who is also president of the group Americans for Health Freedom (AHF), announced Sunday that the tally of public figures who have signed their COVID declaration is up to “106 candidates, 103 elected officials and 1 Surgeon General [Dr. Joseph Ladapo of Florida] from 35 states.”
“Many are also pledging not to take donations from Big Pharma,” she added. “Over 17,000 physicians stand behind them.”
She shared the list of the newest signatories in her announcement post on X (Twitter). Most were state-level candidates, though three are currently running for Congress.
The complete list of signatories can be found at AHF’s website, which also contains the declaration itself.
“We declare, and the data confirms that COVID-19 experimental genetic therapy injections must end,” it reads. “All COVID-19 and other modified mRNA ‘vaccines’ must be immediately discontinued. We demand that Covid-19 vaccines be removed from the pediatric vaccine schedule […] We declare injury from COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ must be recognized. Compensation must be provided for those injured by these injections. Funding must be allocated to the study of these syndromes and the development of diagnostics and treatments should be pursued.”
“We declare Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Astra Zeneca studies were severely flawed, and they withheld safety and efficacy information from patients and physicians. They should face legal consequences for their dereliction of scientific duty which resulted in countless unnecessary disability and deaths,” the declaration also says. “We declare governments, media, global regulatory bodies, and medical agencies, such as CDC, FDA, NIH, NIAID, MHRA, NHS, TGA, SAPRA etc., and unelected international bodies including but not limited to WHO, WEF, UN, GAVI, and EcoHealth Alliance must be held accountable for mandating policies and procedures, and directing funding for reckless gain of function research that resulted in massive harms.”
The public health establishment has been overwhelmingly averse to investigating problems with the mRNA-based COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under former President (and likely 2024 Republican presidential nominee) Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative, yet concerns persist thanks to a large body of evidence affirming they carry significant health risks.
The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 36,986 deaths, 213,536 hospitalizations, 21,335 heart attacks, and 28,052 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of December 29, among other ailments. An April 2022 study out of Israel indicates that COVID infection itself cannot fully account for the myocarditis numbers despite common insistence to the contrary.
Jab defenders are quick to stress that reports submitted to VAERS are unconfirmed, as anyone can submit one, but U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.
A 2010 report submitted to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS’s) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) warned that VAERS caught “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events.” On the problem of under-reporting, the VAERS website offers only that “more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones” (emphasis added).
In 2021, Project Veritas shed light on some of the reasons for such under-reporting with undercover video from inside Phoenix Indian Medical Center, a facility run under HHS’s Indian Health Service program in which emergency room physician Dr. Maria Gonzales laments that myocarditis cases go unreported “because they want to shove it under the mat,” and nurse Deanna Paris attests to seeing “a lot” of people who “got sick from the side effects” of the COVID shots, but “nobody” is reporting them to VAERS “because it takes over a half hour to write the damn thing.”
Further, VAERS is not the only data source containing red flags. Data from the Pentagon’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) shows that 2021 saw drastic spikes in a variety of diagnoses for serious medical issues over the previous five-year average, including hypertension (2,181%), neurological disorders (1,048%), multiple sclerosis (680%), Guillain-Barre syndrome (551%), breast cancer, (487%), female infertility (472%), pulmonary embolism (468%), migraines (452%), ovarian dysfunction (437%), testicular cancer (369%), and tachycardia (302%).
Leading COVID shot manufacturer Pfizer donated more than $8.5 million to political candidates, leadership PACs, trade associations, and party committees representing both parties in 2022, fueling suspicion as to why only a handful of nationally prominent GOP officeholders, such as U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, are opposed to the company’s vaccine.
January 30, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
Dr. Trozzi to appeal after College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revokes his licence
PRESS RELEASE | January 25, 2024
The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal issued a penalty decision today revoking Dr. Mark’s Trozzi‘s medical licence after ruling in October that he had committed acts of professional misconduct by spreading misinformation about Covid-19 science and making statements critical of Covid-19 public health policies and recommendations. Through his counsel, Michael Alexander, Dr. Trozzi announced today that he will exercise his statutory right to appeal the decision to the Ontario Divisional Court.
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal rejected Supreme Court cases, dating from 1939, which hold that Canadians enjoy an absolute constitutional right to express minority opinions on any subject. This allowed the Tribunal to rule that the College has a right to regulate the expression of its members in the name of the public interest.
The Tribunal’s ruling also rested on the prior discipline hearing decision, where the Tribunal found that Dr. Trozzi had caused harm by spreading misinformation, even though expert witnesses for the College failed to tender evidence that Dr. Trozzi’s statements had caused harm to a patient or a member of the public.
In support of its ruling, the Tribunal also rejected a 41-page report Dr. Trozzi submitted in 2021 in which he defended himself against the College’s initial allegations, citing 29 references from mainstream sources such as Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, Public Health Ontario and Statistics Canada. This was done without mentioning that the College’s main expert witness, Dr. Andrew Gardam, had admitted on cross-examination during the discipline hearing that he had never attempted to refute the Trozzi report.
When the pandemic was on the horizon in 2020, Dr. Trozzi, a university professor and 25-year ER veteran, played a leading role in preparing his own ER facility to deal with Covid patients. However, while the press was reporting in late 2020 that ER rooms were overwhelmed, Dr. Trozzi’s ER room was virtually empty. Wondering how this could be, Dr. Trozzi called colleagues around Canada and the U.S. to inquire about their experiences and learned that their ER rooms were empty too.
As a result, Dr. Trozzi began to study Covid-19 science rigorously and soon discovered the government’s narrative regarding the virus was deeply flawed. He then quit his job and devoted himself full-time to exploring the truth about all things Covid on a dedicated site. When a scientist friendly to the government’s narrative alerted the College of Physicians to the site and Dr. Trozzi’s heretical views, the College launched an investigation that resulted in his prosecution for professional misconduct.
Dr. Trozzi’s registration history: no disciplinary issues in 20+ years of medicine since his start Jun. 22, 1990. Issues only began when he, like any other doctors during Covid, spoke out against the unscientific Covid and “vaccine” mandates and, ironically, by continuing to follow the CPSO’s own guidelines prior to Covid, including giving patients informed consent for any medical treatments.
Alexander commented: “Since Dr. Trozzi’s right to appeal to the Divisional Court is based on a statute, the Court will be required to employ the highest standard of review on all legal issues, and that standard is correctness. In other words, the Court will have to determine whether the Tribunal got the right answer on every key legal issue; and where it does not, the Court will be required to correct the Tribunal’s reasoning. The College has never had to face a fundamental challenge to its authority on this basis.”
He added: “On correctness review, it will be very hard for the College to justify its initial decision to investigate Dr. Trozzi. Under the legislation, the College must have reasonable and probable grounds, which is the criminal standard, for believing that a member has committed an offence before it can launch an investigation. However, in its orders, the College did not describe any evidence to support the probable belief that Dr. Trozzi had done something wrong, and even failed to cite a specific offence. The appeal should succeed on this point alone.”
Finally: “The Court of Appeal’s recent decision to refuse to hear Jordan Peterson’s case does not mean, as some have speculated, that freedom of expression is dead in Ontario. The Peterson case turned on the issue of whether the College of Psychologists could regulate the form of Dr. Peterson’s expression, not its content. In Trozzi, the Divisional Court must decide whether to recognize the right of every citizen to express an alternative opinion, even if it offends censorious bureaucrats.”
To support Dr. Trozzi, DONATE HERE.
January 28, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Canada, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Ontario |
Leave a comment
The Pentagon is exploring how new biotechnological innovations — including mRNA vaccines, CRISPR gene-editing and brain-computer interfaces (BCI) — could change the nature of future warfare, investigative journalist Lee Fang reported Thursday.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) used to consider biotech-based warfare too risky or even eugenicist, according to a new report produced for the agency by the RAND Corporation. But recent advances “change strategic choices for the human body as a warfighting domain,” the authors of the report wrote.
The RAND Corporation is a military think tank established during the Cold War and known for its work actively influencing government and military policy.
The report — “Plagues, Cyborgs, and Supersoldiers: The Human Domain of War” — presents a series of future war scenarios based on advances in engineered bioweapons, the Internet of Bodies and genomics that the authors said “might seem fantastical,” but are “not far-fetched,” given rapid advances in 21st-century biotechnology.
The report recommends that military planning anticipate these future war scenarios.
“We see a complex, high-threat landscape emerging where future wars are fought with humans controlling hyper-sophisticated machines with their thoughts,” where “synthetically generated, genomically targeted plagues” disrupt the American military-industrial base and the future soldier is an “enhanced warfighter” who can survive in extreme conditions, the report warns.
Fang told The Defender, “These Pentagon research reports read like science fiction, but they provide crucial insight into how the military sees future conflict and exerts pressure on lawmakers on crucial policy issues.”
The scenarios: engineered pathogens, Internet of Bodies and enhanced genomics
The report posits scenarios with future COVID-19-like pandemics that emerge from engineered pathogens, and considers them in the context of war with China and Russia.
The authors argue the U.S. would be at a major disadvantage without serious prior investment in its own biotech weapons and a strategy to curb the development of such weapons by competing global powers.
The first hypothetical scenario, referred to as a “vignette” in the report, takes place in 2028, when a new and highly infectious “SARS-CoV-3” spreads in the South China Sea and then on U.S. Navy vessels, forcing them to cease operations. U.S. agencies get caught up in infighting over which agency should investigate the causes and spearhead the response.
China, which appears to be immune to the virus, launches an assault on Taiwan, and the disabled U.S. fleet is unable to respond.
The World Health Organization credits Chinese social distancing with its slow spread, unaware that the Chinese military and population were unwittingly vaccinated against the new version of the disease, released as a bioweapon.
This scenario was initially conceived by Pentagon researchers, Fang wrote, who “believe that a ‘coronavirus bioweapon’ may lurk on the horizon.”
In another scenario — “Pandemic Geopolitics” — a new airborne pathogen with a long contagious period and an astronomical mortality rate of 2.5% begins circulating in 2033, killing 1 million Americans in four months with 6.5 more million projected to die.
China and Russia in this scenario have vaccines in advance and use the opportunity to expand their borders. The U.S. and Europe lack the capacity for a military response.
The report then turns to an Internet of Bodies scenario that Fang wrote is “seemingly inspired by the decline of Sen. Dianne Feinstein,” and set in a more distant future.
Elderly congressional leaders fear a loss of power due to rumors of their cognitive decline. To appear more competent, they have BCI devices implanted in their brains to boost their physical and cognitive functioning. However, the devices malfunction, the politicians act erratically and foreign allies begin to distance themselves from the U.S.
In yet another scenario, government employees use artificial lenses for their eyes that have recording devices and storage. However, the technology also is used to collect and leak sensitive information, unbeknownst to the U.S. government.
BCI could offer benefits to the “warfighter,” for example allowing commanders and their forces to communicate directly. However, the report cautions that BCI devices can also be hacked.
The U.S. currently leads Internet of Bodies technology development, at least according to the number of patents that have been filed, but the authors warned that “China is quickly catching up.”
The authors posit a distant future where genomic surveillance is used to select the most appropriate military recruits and another where genetic modifications are used to create “super soldiers.”
U.S. should plan to integrate biological warfighting
The report makes recommendations inspired by missteps the authors see regarding the handling of the COVID-19 response, and advises the Pentagon to consider the risks and benefits of emerging technologies.
Fang wrote:
“In a not-so-veiled shot at those who denied the COVID-19 lab leak theory as ‘disinformation,’ they note that in the event of an engineered coronavirus bioweapon, most scientists ‘would likely’ presume that the virus had a natural or zoonotic origin, disputing claims of a manufactured attack. This ‘ambiguity could serve a nation-state well,’ the report argues.”
The existing United Nations Biological Weapons Convention should be revised to address new issues raised by new technologies, the authors recommend. But they also called such treaties “intractable” — because some countries don’t comply — and recommended “bilateral treaties” governing bioweapons.
They also call for the U.S. to divest from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which many argue is the source of the COVID-19 lab leak.
According to Fang, “The report takes aim at Congress, criticizing the recent repeal of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for service members. It urges lawmakers to resist ‘anti-vaccine populism’ to ensure military readiness.”
The authors recommended sanctions on foreign powers misusing biotechnology and that the Pentagon begin using genetic screening.
Finally, they said the DOD should develop guidelines for integrating biological warfighting into its suite of military capabilities.
Despite the science fiction-esque nature of the scenarios RAND poses in the report, Fang said it is important to track such policy documents, because similar past reports have foreshadowed future government action that did come to pass.
He wrote:
“Over a decade ago, In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA, published a report looking at the opportunities posed by social media and suggested that major platforms could be analyzed with artificial intelligence for sentiment analysis and advanced intelligence gathering.
“Soon after, the agency began funding several specialized startups to analyze protests and political movements using platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Some of the CIA-backed firms have gone on to engage in sophisticated forms of surveillance.”
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
January 27, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
The Canadian government’s use of the Emergencies Act was unlawful. The Trucker Convoy did not constitute a national emergency. So said a judge of the Federal Court on Tuesday. The decision may help to pull Canada back from the brink of authoritarian rule.
The Federal Court decision contains four conclusions. Two prerequisites for invoking the Emergencies Act, said Justice Richard Mosley, were not met. Moreover, the two regulations issued under it were unconstitutional. Predictably, the government has promised to appeal. For the government to prevail, an appeal panel would have to overturn all four. But there is a wrinkle, which I will get to momentarily.
Between 1963 and 1970, the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ), a separatist organization in Quebec, committed bombings, robberies, and killed several people. In October 1970, they kidnapped British trade commissioner James Cross, and then kidnapped and killed Pierre Laporte, a minister in the Quebec government. In response, Pierre Trudeau’s government invoked the War Measures Act, the only time it had been used in peacetime. In the years that followed, the invocation of the Act became regarded as a dangerous overreach of government powers and breach of civil liberties.
The Emergencies Act, enacted in 1988 to replace the War Measures Act, had higher thresholds. It was supposed to be more difficult for governments to trigger. Before Covid and the trucker convoy, it had never been used.
The Freedom Convoy arrived at Parliament Hill in Ottawa on January 29, 2022 to protest Covid vaccine mandates. The truckers parked unlawfully in downtown Ottawa. They violated parking bylaws and probably the Highway Traffic Act. Authorities could have issued tickets and towed the trucks away. But they didn’t.
In the meantime, protests in other parts of the country emerged. Trucks blocked border crossings in Coutts, Alberta and at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario. Local and provincial law enforcement dealt with those protests and cleared the borders. By February 15, when Justin Trudeau’s government declared a public order emergency and invoked the Emergencies Act, only the Ottawa protests had not been resolved.
The government issued two regulations under the Act. One prohibited public assemblies “that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.” The other outlawed donations and authorized banks to freeze donors’ bank accounts. On February 18 and 19, police brandishing riot batons descended on the crowd. They arrested close to 200 people, broke truck windows, and unleashed the occasional burst of pepper spray. By the evening of the 19th, they had cleared the trucker encampment away. Banks froze the accounts and credit cards of hundreds of supporters. On February 23, the government revoked the regulations and use of the Act.
Governments cannot use the Emergencies Act unless its prerequisites are met. A public order emergency must be a “national emergency” and a “threat to the security of Canada,” both of which are defined in the Act. A national emergency exists only if the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” “Threats to the security of Canada” can be one of several things. The government relied upon the clause that requires activities “directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective.”
The trucker protests were neither a national emergency, Mosley concluded, nor a threat to the security of Canada.
There was no national emergency:
Due to its nature and to the broad powers it grants the Federal Executive, the Emergencies Act is a tool of last resort. [Cabinet] cannot invoke the Emergencies Act because it is convenient, or because it may work better than other tools at their disposal or available to the provinces.…in this instance, the evidence is clear that the majority of the provinces were able to deal with the situation using other federal law, such as the Criminal Code, and their own legislation…For these reasons, I conclude that there was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the decision to do so was therefore unreasonable and ultra vires.
A threat to the security of Canada did not exist:
Ottawa was unique in the sense that it is clear that [Ottawa Police Services] had been unable to enforce the rule of law in the downtown core, at least in part, due to the volume of protesters and vehicles. The harassment of residents, workers and business owners in downtown Ottawa and the general infringement of the right to peaceful enjoyment of public spaces there, while highly objectionable, did not amount to serious violence or threats of serious violence…[Cabinet] did not have reasonable grounds to believe that a threat to national security existed within the meaning of the Act and the decision was ultra vires.
Nor were the regulations constitutional. The prohibition on public assemblies infringed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Empowering financing institutions to provide personal financial information to the government and to freeze bank accounts and credit cards was an unconstitutional search and seizure under section 8. Neither was justified, Mosley concluded, under section 1 of the Charter, the “reasonable limits” clause.
To prevail on appeal, the government would have to reverse all four conclusions. Justice Mosley did not make obvious errors of law. But there are a couple of odd bits. In particular, Mosley admits to doubts about how he would have proceeded had he been at the cabinet table himself:
I had and continue to have considerable sympathy for those in government who were confronted with this situation. Had I been at their tables at that time, I may have agreed that it was necessary to invoke the Act. And I acknowledge that in conducting judicial review of that decision, I am revisiting that time with the benefit of hindsight and a more extensive record of the facts and law…
Which brings us to the wrinkle. In April 2022, Richard Wagner, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, gave an interview to Le Devoir. Speaking in French, he characterized the protest on Wellington Street in Ottawa, where Parliament and the Supreme Court are located, as “the beginning of anarchy where some people have decided to take other citizens hostage.” Wagner said that “forced blows against the state, justice and democratic institutions like the one delivered by protesters… should be denounced with force by all figures of power in the country.” He did not mention the Emergencies Act by name. But his comments could be interpreted as endorsing its use.
The government’s appeal will go first to the Federal Court of Appeal but then to the Supreme Court of Canada. Its chief justice appears to have already formed an opinion about the dispute. Having made his public comments, the chief justice should announce that he will recuse himself from the case to avoid a reasonable perception of bias. That too would help bring Canada back from the brink.
Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.
January 26, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | Canada, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 