Joining me today is scientist and activist Willem Engel, here to discuss his ongoing legal efforts to fight back against what many are referring to as ‘crimes against humanity’ being committed under the guise of fighting COVID-19 – and rightly so – as well as what’s at the center of this battle, and that is the fight for humanity itself.
After months of denial, the U.S. government has acknowledged that the COVID-19 catastrophe may indeed have originated in a leak from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
We are now allowed to talk about what until May 13 was a debunked conspiracy theory. Like many facets of the pandemic of our age, Wuhan was censored with the dreaded “disinformation” label, on Facebook and just about everywhere else. Not anymore.
The Wuhan debacle shows what happens when public health institutions have too much power, and the media plays mouthpiece rather than watchdog. Truth suffers. So does trust.
This commentary isn’t about the media’s wholesale buy-in of a possibly mythical pangolin that caused a pandemic.
This is about other potential Wuhans — issues that social and mainstream media have put to rest and closed to honest examination. We are told: Vaccines are safe. Lockdowns are just. We must protect, and be protected from, children. All those statements should be open to debate — and dispute.
I have spent the last eight months attacking another insidious COVID myth. It holds that there is no early treatment.
This actual disinformation has led to deaths and debility. In reporting it, the guardians of media have endowed public figures and institutions with wisdom they surely did not and do not have. Once definitive, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health and Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus of the World Health Organization have reversed themselves on a potential Wuhan lab leak.
Then: “Extremely unlikely,” WHO said after a cursory probe.
Now: “Not convinced” the virus came from nature, said Fauci.
What else might they have gotten wrong?
‘Trusted’ News
Just months into the pandemic, research suggested that a handful of approved generic drugs could potentially quell COVID and save lives. By late last year, a safe drug that won its developers the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 had risen to the top: ivermectin.
That few Americans know this is a direct result of two things: First is an unreasonably high, and shifting, bar set by the NIH, FDA and WHO, which collectively reject, cherry-pick or ignore what is now a trove of studies. Second is a media campaign that upholds the anti-IVM dictum, using charged language – from “controversial” to “snake oil” — that makes doctors, medical journals and other media fearful of backlash.
In a case of government propaganda, the Food and Drug Administration actually warned against ivermectin last spring, based, it said, on “multiple” people sickened by an animal formulation, which turned out to be four. Moreover, FDA admitted it “hadn’t studied” the considerable data then available on treatment with the human form.
As government failed us, mainstream and social media did something unique in modern history. Google, YouTube, Facebook, BBC, Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters and others conspired to shape content and coverage in the government’s image.
They called it, ironically, the Trusted News Initiative. It existed to ferret out falsehoods and declare certainty in a rapidly changing information landscape. The media became a COVID fact-checking apparatus, devoid of nuance or meaningful investigation.
From the start, there was no room for both vaccines and treatments under the statute that has allowed millions of Americans to be vaccinated with an unlicensed, largely unstudied substance. The key mechanism on which this turned was the vaccine’s “Emergency Use Authorization,” which can be granted by the FDA only if there is “no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing or treating” a disease.
But even as the vaccine was minimally tested and maximally hyped, there was an alternative. Ivermectin.
“It’s the most effective antiviral agent we have,” Dr. Paul E. Marik, co-founder of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, said in a conversation for this article. “If the WHO was to say that or the NIH — were they to approve ivermectin — the EUA for all the vaccines would become invalid.”
Ivermectin, said FLCCC president Dr. Pierre Kory, “would kneecap the entire global vaccine policy around the world.”
The choice was always vaccines OR treatment. Not both. Operation Warp Speed spent three times as much — $18 billion — to develop a vaccine as it did to develop a treatment. Moreover, money for therapeutics went largely toward costly new drugs, some of which failed and others still in development.
The media did not question the oversight of existing drugs and emerging research. Instead, it became an arm of government in a shared single fixed goal: Vaccinate quickly and at any expense.
A Year Lost
America’s COVID Czar Anthony Fauci predicted in July of 2020 that an antiviral would be available by that fall. Then, last December he said his “highest priority” was a quick-acting COVID drug. In reality, NIH waited until April 29, 2021 to announce a large study of safety-tested, FDA-approved drugs. That was roughly 400 days – and nearly 600,000 U.S. deaths — into the pandemic.
Forget a few dozen studies – most from other countries — that universally agreed on ivermectin’s efficacy. Forget a peer-reviewed meta-analysis that showed 83 percent fewer deaths. Forget the experiences of hundreds of real treating doctors in the U.S. and around the world.
Viewed in the kindest possible way, that delay, that lost year, wasn’t so much intentional as institutionalized. U.S. treatments are driven by the integral and outsized influence of pharmaceutical money on the regulatory process, and no one was putting up $20 million for what are considered, questionably, the “gold-standard” of evidence-based medicine: randomized control trials.
Dr. Robert Malone, a vaccine researcher and inventor of mRNA technology, went bankrupt trying to repurpose old antiviral drugs to treat the Zika virus in the 2010s. “The investment community had zero interest because there’s no way to make a buck,” he said in a must-see podcast on pandemic missteps. “The financial incentives around drug repurposing are such that it doesn’t get done.”
Ivermectin is the penicillin of COVID, particularly when combined with other generics like fluvoxamine and the vilified but effective hydroxychloroquine. Now, however, as at the start of COVID, newly infected patients are still denied treatment and turned back into the community, often to infect others.
As Malone put it, “We’re sending people home and telling them not to come back until your lips are blue.”
“Were this a hundred years ago,” a Pennsylvania opthamologist named Neil Chasin told me months ago, “and Ivermectin was available, it would be used everywhere.”
Media Sees No Evil
The dereliction of duty, by the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal (with the Wuhan exception), Associated Press, USA Today and other media giants, likely cost many thousands of lives. The questions that were never asked, the issues never investigated, include:
–In April 2020, Fauci endorsed the high-priced anti-viral remdesivir, calling it the “standard of care” before the first study was published. Did anyone in those investigative powerhouses question the financial ties between the NIH and the drug’s maker, Gilead? Did they care that the study showed no mortality improvement, and the trial’s endpoint was changed to improve benefits so marginal that the WHO advises against the drug?
–Hospitals vehemently oppose ivermectin, forcing some patients’ families to obtain court orders to get it. Does this comport with their liberal use of treatments like monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma that are still considered experimental? Just 19 deaths were associated with ivermectin in 20 years; 503 were linked to remdesivir in its first year. Annualized, that’s roughly a 500-fold higher toll for remdesivir. Why is ivermectin — safe, FDA-approved — not used off-label, especially in dying ICU patients, when the potential harm is miniscule?
–The COVID pandemic has led to the most widespread, government-sanctioned wave of censorship and authoritarian message control in American history. Rather than fighting this, the media carries the water. When Merck disingenuously disavowed ivermectin’s safety — a drug it gave away by the billion in a life-saving campaign against parasites — widespread media reports failed to note the company’s potential to make big money on patented new drugs on which it was already working.
–More importantly, the evidence in favor of ivermectin aligns so uniformly that the odds of it being wrong are infinitesimal. Why not read the studies? Why not talk to doctors who have used the drug and patients who have taken it?
The unholy alliance of media and money was foreshadowed at a 2016 conference on preparation for the next SARS epidemic. There, Peter Daszak, whose NIH funding for virus research in China is under scrutiny, emphasized the need to use the press. He is quoted in the proceedings:
“A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage … Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process, Daszak stated.”
So far, the hype has prevailed. But it can be wrong. Can we now talk about ivermectin?
***
Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative journalist and author of twobooks. A list of her article links can be found here.
Are there any risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized on an emergency use basis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? Presently three genetic-based vaccines have been authorized via the emergency order including two mRNA-based vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech) as well as the adenovirus-based Johnson and Johnson product. Developed at historical speed under Operation Warp Speed, the mRNA-based technology foretells enormous implications for healthcare including the prospect of vaccines for cancer. An amazing research prowess has unfolded in response to the COVID-19 pandemic heralding profound breakthroughs that’ll benefit society for years to come. Governmental authorities have declared the vaccines both safe and effective and as TrialSite recently reported based on a change of law that waives the need for informed consent with investigational products. Both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and FDA have declared that the risk-benefit analyses strongly indicate the risks of not getting a vaccination outweigh any risk of vaccination. They argue that the risks associated with COVID-19 are materially greater. Moreover, health authorities are on record that there is absolutely no correlation associated with the COVID-19 vaccines to any deaths as indicated by the CDC declaration. But have they sufficiently probed and pursued granular investigation into their own data? Have they undertaken the comprehensive analyses associated with what in the CDC VAERS is now close to 6,000 deaths. Are all of these unrelated to the vaccines? Steve Kirsch, the founder and executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF), a regular contributor to the TrialSite recently conducted a more systematic and thorough analysis of the VAERS and CDC adverse event and death numbers reported in conjunction with the COVID-19 vaccines. The results are disturbing to say the least. TrialSite offers no opinion here other than the presentation of the highly successful MIT-trained engineer who has invested millions of his own funds into early stage treatment options targeting COVID-19. What follows is a summary of his deep dive into VAERS presented in this video.
Official CDC Position
The CDC is on the record that the now nearly 6,000 deaths reported in VAERS since December 2020, including “A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccine.”
The analysis provided by Kirsch suggests that while nearly 6,000 are now entered into the voluntary system, he suggests the actual number could be undercounted by a magnitude of up to 5 times and a review of direct CDC excess death data indicates what the notable entrepreneur counts as 25,000 deaths that could be associated with the coronavirus vaccines.
The Presentation
The Kirsch presentation starts with an introduction to the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System known as VAERS with a review of some key indicators including reported deaths. Open to the public, he reveals by June 4th the following adverse events were associated with the COVID-19 vaccines:
Reported Event
#s
Deaths
5,088
Hospitalizations
19,587
Urgent Care
43,891
Office Visits
58,800
Heart Attacks
2,190
Anaphylaxis
1,459
Bells Palsy
1,737
Thrombocytopenia/Low Platelet
1,564
Myocarditis/Pericarditis
1,087
A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.
At 12:15 into the presentation Mr. Kirsch reveals a data distribution revealing a dramatic spike in deaths associated with the COVID-19. Moreover in this data analysis it’s revealed that the majority of deaths occur closer to the actual time of the vaccination event indicating a higher probability of a causal relationship.
At 12:49 he presents the data findings indicating that overwhelming the incidents of heart attacks associated with the VAERS COVID-19 vaccine spike within a day to three days after the vaccination event. He also emphasizes that the indication of Myocarditis/Pericarditis actually increases with vaccination as age decreases which is counter intuitive in that young people should have less probability of experiencing such heart related troubles. Is the vaccine causally connected to this data?
At 15:51 in the presentation Kirsch depicts again the growing numbers of deaths corresponding to the release of the vaccines under emergency use authorization by mid-December 2020. At 18:55 he reveals a corresponding increase in excess deaths reported by the CDC.
Kirsch goes on at 26:13 to discuss the imperative to consider a time out in the process to at least investigate these safety data signals. At 28:09 Kirsch raises the imperative for informed consent under the Declaration of Helsinki. Although as TrialSite reported the law was changed in 2016 thus waiving the need for informed consent with investigational products deemed safe.
At 32:22 Mr. Kirsch discusses early treatment options for COVID-19. He shares that considerable research has gone on pointing to a number of potential treatments for early onset COVID-19 that can serve to help combat COVID-19. A risk-benefit comparison at 41:50 showcases at least one argument that early stage treatments currently under study should be accelerated.
The presenter offers a plethora of other information that merits review for those interested in a debate on this topic.
Kirsch commented on the findings “The narrative is that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective but the truth is that the data points to an otherwise alternative conclusion.” Kirsch declared that “if anyone was paying attention they would have picked up these safety signals by the end of January.”
Data-Driven Truth or Random Coincidence?
TrialSIte cannot advocate one position over another but rather can serve to share information that fits within the guidelines of the platform for purposes of discussion and hopefully healthy debate. This isn’t a platform for attacking others but rather one that fosters awareness, transparency and engagement. The data present in the CDC VAERS database as well as the CDC death reports do indicate a material spike in activity associated with the coronavirus vaccines. Does the CDC’s position that none of these deaths are conclusively correlated to the vaccine itself despite the data in this presentation revealing a disturbing trend of adverse events and death within a day to three days within the vaccination event? It’s not clear but TrialSite invites the CDC and others on to the platform to put forth an explanation.
The Health Secretary claims he “tried” to throw a protective ring around care homes but, from my experience in the early days of the pandemic, he couldn’t have come up with a more disastrous and deadly policy.
As a GP working mainly with elderly patients in care homes and intermediate care I witnessed, at first hand, the absolute disaster that was the government policy at the start of the Covid-19 outbreak. Elderly patients who were Covid-19 positive, or not tested, or perhaps even negative, were simply shovelled out of hospitals and into care homes. ‘The hospitals must be cleared out… nothing else matters.’
At the time there was no PPE available… at all. In fact, in many care homes staff were actually ordered by the management not to wear PPE. This was also the case in hospitals. Not that it would have made a great deal of difference in most care homes where patients with dementia often wander happily from room to room without masks, and oblivious to any potential danger. I had to usher one or two out of the nurse’s office from time to time.
In my work with intermediate-care patients, looking after those who were too well to be in an acute hospital bed, but not yet well enough to be at home, we were placed under massive pressure to just send everyone home. That is, if they were Covid-19 positive, or not, or untested, where they could spread it to their – often elderly – relatives. Alternatively, they could infect their carers who would then travel to the homes of other elderly people they were looking after – without PPE.
In fact, if you wanted to design a system of ensuring that every single vulnerable person in the country gained full exposure to Covid-19, you could not have done a better job. I wrote various increasingly frustrated emails to various managers, but they simply stated they were just following policy so ‘you can’t blame me’. Policy set at the very top.
Here is an example of the type of email I was sending in April 2020. You may sense the frustration (I have changed the names of the unit and wards, for confidentiality reasons).
“I think this is very simple, Unit A is currently ‘hot’. We have five patients and four staff ‘Covid positive’ swabbed. Eight patients have now died of Covid.
“If we admit Covid negative patients into Unit A this is putting them at great risk of being infected. So, we should stop admissions. The only ones that should come in are those found positive, recovered, and 14 days post positive swab – at least.
“Equally if we discharge patients, we are, almost certainly, spreading Covid around the entire care community. Until fourteen days have passed.
“There is also a plan to send Covid positive patients to ward B, and keep Unit A as green (no Covid). The only way Unit A can be green is if we stop admitting patients. Because, once new patients reach Unit A they are likely to get infected, then another 14 – 21 days must pass. So, we will go round and round, forever.
“Also, another plan is to send high risk staff to Unit A, and have low risk staff in ward B, so the staff will be swapped around. Again, Unit A is currently red hot. We will be endangering high risk staff if we send them to Unit A. Some of them will get infected. Then, they will incubate for 7 – 14 days. They will infect patients, and other staff, then they will go off sick. Then, some of them may well die.
“The current plan seems to be to admit elderly vulnerable patients into a high risk Covid ‘hot’ environment and hope they don’t get Covid. We have already seen staff to patient transmission in Unit A. So, some of these patients will get infected, with a very high risk of dying….”
In a way, it is hard to blame management who were trying to follow every changing edict from above. Edicts often directly contradicting what they had been told the day before. It was chaos. Now, we have Matt Hancock, the UK Health Secretary, stating, amazingly without being struck down by a lightning bolt, that he threw a ring of steel around care homes and elderly hospital units at the time. A… ring… of… steel. This was presumably to stop anyone escaping somewhere safer. Of course, he now says that the most important word in his statement is ‘tried’ as in ‘We tried to throw a ring of steel…’
This will now be his perfect defence. I didn’t say we succeeded, I only said that we tried. How completely pathetic. First, he did the exact opposite of trying. He put in place policies that were directly responsible for the massive number of deaths in care homes. He commanded hospitals to be emptied of elderly patients. What’s his next excuse? ‘Lots of the other countries did the same thing.’ Which is true. But you can hardly claim you are a leader, if all you managed to do was follow others down a disastrous policy failure.
How many deaths did this cause? Well, during the first wave of Covid-19 it has been estimated that 40% of deaths occurred in care homes. Here from the Nuffield trust:
“The burden of the virus fell much more severely on care homes (relative to the population generally) in the first wave. Of the 48,213 Covid deaths registered between mid-March and mid-June, 40% were care home residents.”
There are around half a million residents in care homes, which is 0.7% of the entire population. Yet they had 40% of the deaths. Yes, the elderly, especially those in care homes, were most likely to die from Covid-19. But this was known very early on. In Italy, where Covid-19 first hit Europe, the average age of death was 82, and almost all of those who died had other significant diseases.
If there was one population that needed to be protected it was elderly, vulnerable care home residents. Matt Hancock presided over policy decisions that threw care home residents under a bus. Now he is trying to claim he did all he could to protect them. Anyone who works in the health service, or in the care sector, knows exactly what he did.
Malcolm Kendrick is doctor and author who works as a GP in the National Health Service in England. His blog can be read here and his book, ‘Doctoring Data – How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense,’ is available here.
One should believe the science, and the scientific evidence is overwhelming that ivermectin (IVM) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are effective for preventing and treating COVID, especially when combined with other drugs.
The information has been available since the start of the pandemic. As early as April of 2020, some clinicians were saving their patients and pleading, in vain, with the health authorities to investigate the value of these drugs.
Throughout this time, the major social media companies have suppressed this vital information. Facebook seems to be the most ruthless. YouTube and Twitter are close behind, though some information escapes the eagle eye of the censors.
COVID-19 Response. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we launched multiple initiatives to support the global public health community’s work to keep people safe and informed. We took steps to provide our community with access to accurate information, stop misinformation and harmful content, and support global health experts, local governments, businesses, and communities. . . We also launched an information center on Facebook and Instagram to provide our community with real-time updates, information, and the ability to offer and ask for help. We have already connected over two billion people to authoritative COVID-19 information[.]
In its zeal to “keep people safe and informed,” Facebook also deplatforms groups that question the safety of the vaccines.
The wages of this sin of official mendacity and private enforcement of The Official Narrative is death. Of the 600,000 Americans who died of COVID (at least according to official numbers), a defensible estimate is that 500,000 could have been saved. And it continues, even as the evidence in favor of these treatments continues to confirm their value.
These facts raise a puzzling issue of corporate governance. All of these companies are controlled by boards of directors composed of the crème de la crème of the American elite. See the members of the Board of Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet (which owns YouTube). They are well compensated. For example, Alphabet directors get $75,000 to $100,000 in fees, plus bonuses such as stock options that can boost total annual compensation to almost half a million.
Board members are mostly from the corporate and financial worlds, but not entirely. A Twitter director is Fei-Fei Liu, a Canadian cancer researcher, whose personal opinion would be worth knowing. Facebook’s board includes Peter Thiel, one of the most brilliant entrepreneurs of our time, and chair of the company’s Compensation, Nominating, and Governance Committee. Until 2018, the Alphabet Board included Shirley Tilghman, a distinguished molecular biologist. Her opinion on the censorship would also be interesting.
So what is going on here? These people are far too sophisticated to take at face value all the statements of Anthony Fauci or the World Health Organization. They did not get rich and powerful by being so credulous, and their refusal to look behind the Wizard’s curtain demands explanation.
Because stupidity won’t serve, the most logical explanation is strategic cowardice. As long as the companies can pretend to believe Fauci and WHO, they will not bear legal responsibility for any consequences. Were they to provide alternative information, they have reason to fear a weaponized Deep State, which could make a company’s life hell. All the quasi-monopoly social media outlets need continuing government forbearance.
But neither should one neglect sloth and greed. For an individual director to raise the alarm would require work to review the literature and would risk the loss of a lucrative board seat. It is easier to pretend to believe the staff’s assurances.
As to the moral responsibility for the unnecessary fatalities, remember the old Tom Lehrer song: “Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department!” In the end, if cornered, the directors can claim that they were just following orders and blame Fauci.
But one would like to see the news media start asking them for an explanation.
A short video was recently brought to our attention on twitter. It shows a man and woman (off-camera) pulling up to a chainlink fence around a concrete yard and engaging in a brief conversation with a man on the other side.
The man is one of several dozen people walking in slow, counter-clockwise circuits around what appears to be an un-used car park. He’s polite to the strangers, discussing how tight security is, how many guards there are on each floor, and how often they’re allowed outside for this “exercise”.
At that point a security guard comes up and tells the man he’s not allowed to talk through the fence, and a brief argument ensues. The guard tells the people in the car that they cannot talk to anyone inside the facility without permission from “the office”. After moments of insisting the guard desists, likely to report the incident to his supervisor.
The couple in the car and the stranger behind the fence part on friendly terms, with the man remarking that he paid seventeen-hundred and fifty pounds to stay there.
Because this isn’t a prison or detention facility, it’s a “quarantine hotel”.
You can watch the video here:
[NOTE: This is a re-upload, with some discussion, from the channel Hugo Talks Some More. The original we have been unable to find, it was likely taken down. (If you’re aware of a copy of the original, or who filmed it, do let us know. We’d like to credit the people who did the filming.]
The quarantine hotels have been in the mainstream media before, with the reporting focusing on them being expensive, having terrible food and being dull. But this little clip offers something worse than that – a little glimpse of the dehumanising nature of detention. The mission-creep of arbitrary rules, enforced to the letter by people either too ignorant to know better or willingly malign, is an oft-repeated motif in human history. It never bodes well.
It’s telling to contrast (as Hugo does at the end of the video) the grey building – with its grey fence and grey yard full of people milling in grey circles – with the recent G7 summit in Cornwall.
Notice the lack of social distancing. Observe the absence of masks (except for the lowly servants, naturally). And, of course, not one of them had to pay to be there at all. In fact, we literally paid them a salary to do it – and then paid for the catering, alcohol and accommodation too.
Do these “world leaders” look like people in the middle of a life-threatening pandemic to you? Do they look like people that honestly believe they have a chance of catching a terrible disease?
When the people giving us these orders do not follow them themselves, they are not showing themselves to be “hypocrites”. They are showing themselves to be liars. They are admitting they don’t really believe what they’re saying.
Clearly, the rules of the “new normal” only apply to ordinary people. And that’s as sure a sign as any that it’s not now – and never was – really about “protecting” anyone. It was always about control.
A leaked Whitehall document seen by Politico suggests that perspex screens installed to stop the transmission of COVID-19 may actually have increased its spread.
Businesses and schools were told by the government to install the screens as a condition of re-opening after the first lockdown and they were widely used by ‘essential’ shops throughout the entire period.
Politico’s Alex Wickham writes that the perspex screens could be about to be scrapped given new information the government has received on their efficacy.
“Ministers are also being advised that those perspex screens that have appeared in some offices and restaurants are unlikely to have any benefit in terms of preventing transmission,” states the report.
“Problems include them not being positioned correctly, with the possibility that they actually increase the risk of transmission by blocking airflow. Therefore there is clear guidance to ministers that these perspex screens should be scrapped.”
Despite the report, government ministers say there is no plan to change advice on installing the screens in businesses.
What other COVID-19 measures put in place to fight the spread of the virus have been utterly useless or actually made it worse?
A study on the effectiveness of face masks involving 6,000 participants in Denmark found “there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19.”
This month marks the 40th anniversary of the first report of what was subsequently dubbed ‘acquired immunodeficiency syndrome’ or ‘AIDS.’
Officials like Anthony Fauci are using the occasion to spread the message that vaccines for HIV, which is the virus said to cause AIDS, will soon be rolling out. Forty years of fruitless effort supposedly are suddenly successful thanks to the precedent of the lightening-speed and ‘successful’ development of Covid vaccines.
Fauci said June 4 in an MSNBC interview by Rachel Maddow that because of “the technologies that have now been perfected, particularly the mRNA technology and other vaccine platforms that were perfected and used in Covid-19, I believe strongly we’ll go back and be able to really forward and advance the HIV [vaccine] effort.”
AJune 6Guardian article says that Fauci “holds out hope that the three HIV vaccines in advanced clinical trials will prove at least 50% efficacious, justifying a global roll out. But he now hopes mRNA or other advanced technologies could yield even more powerful HIV vaccines.”
Note that under Fauci, in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed, four major NIAID-funded HIV global clinical-trials networks were retooled into the Covid-19 Prevention Network (COVPN). People in the network help create vaxxes and other ‘treatments’ for both HIV and Covid.
And already byApril 14, 2020, mRNA ‘vaccine’ maker Moderna had announced that soon they’ll be conducting small human trials on their experimental jabs against HIV and the flu.
So far, at least 26 different mRNA shots are on the way from Moderna,in addition to their three types of Covid jabs. The shots in development range from two for HIV to one ‘personalized cancer vaccine.’
Vaccines are immensely profitable: the new, Covid jabs are topping the all-time charts for medical money-making. Plus vaccine makers have no liability for the illnesses and deaths they cause. Thereforeusing the name ‘vaccine’ for all ‘treatments,’ no matter what they contain, is a formula for making huge amounts of money with very little downside.
And the potential market for HIV ‘vaccines’ alone is very large. For example, an October 2020 paper in the journal Lancet HIV — on the use of two experimental HIV vaxxes made by Janssen in healthy, HIV-negative people, and funded by among others the Gates Foundation — starts with the sentence, “Current estimates of 37.9 million people living with HIV worldwide and 1.7 million new infections annually, with no cure on the horizon, make development of an effective prophylactic vaccine a global priority.” (The paper’s authors reported very high rates of adverse events to the vaccines, but still assessed the shots as being “generally safe and well-tolerated.”)
All of this is despite the fact that HIV has not been detected by anything other than indirect methods such as antibody, T-cell and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. HIV also has not been clearly shown to cause disease. Nor has it been isolated or rigorously imaged via electron microscopy. Isolation is a necessary step before sequencing – because otherwise the resulting sequences reflect a heterogeneous mix of material rather than pure virus. Details on this are below.
This also holds true for the novel coronavirus.
Phalanxes of officials such as Fauci censor these inconvenient facts. And they keep the public captive, overloaded and off-balance with an avalanche of complex and contradictory jargon, modelling and scientific studies.
The Myth of HIV and of AIDS
Kary Mullis won the Nobel Prize in 1993 for inventing PCR. He died in August 2019. There are many videos of him demolishing Fauci and/or the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. He also discusses this in his autobiography Dancing Naked in the Mind Field.
For example, Mullis said the following in one of his video interviews: “He [Fauci] doesn’t know anything really about anything, and I’d say that to his face. Nothing! … He doesn’t understand electron microscopy, and he doesn’t understand medicine, and he should not be in a position like he’s in…. Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people [taxpayers] who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.”
Indeed, falsely claiming to have isolated HIV and imaged it with electron microscopy are key parts of the artifice used by Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo to assert in 1984 that they’d discovered HIV and that it causes AIDS.
The same applies to the novel coronavirus. For example, one of today’s top electron microscopy experts – Duke University pathology professor Sara Miller — herself failed in an April 2021 paper to prove that an electron-microscopy image shows the novel coronavirus. She simply asserted it’s the virus without giving information on, or even references to, the techniques used to show that it is. (If she had given information, it certainly would have relied on the use of antibodies, because they are the main tool for identification purposes. But as I document in my article The Antibody Deception, antibodies cross-react with many other things and therefore cannot accurately pick out the novel coronavirus.)
Mullis wrote the foreword to the very long but very important book Inventing the AIDS Virus. The book was published in 1996 and is byPeter Duesberg, a University of California, Berkeley, professor of biochemistry, biophysics and structural biology. It details the genesis of the HIV-AIDS myth and is still highly relevant today. (Note that Duesberg believes the virus exists but is harmless because it doesn’t multiply in the body, while Mullis believed the virus doesn’t exist at all.)[Note added June 14 after article posted: Mullis apparently did believe the virus exists. See for example this video, which a friend just emailed me. However, I stand by my assertion that HIV has never been conclusively isolated or imaged. Even Mullis’s statements in that video can be seen as indicating HIV is virtually impossible to conclusively isolate or image.]
Mullis writes this in the forward:
“We [he and Duesberg] have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that it is true,” wrote Mullis in that foreword. “… We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.”
In the book, Duesberg documents that one main part of the trajectory toward the creation of the myth started in 1912, with the reorganization of the U.S.’s Public Health Service. Another key part was the creation in 1946 of the predecessor of the current CDC — with its predilection for deeming ‘outbreaks’ to be due to infectious diseases, and then testing, tracking and quarantining people under the premise of stopping the spread.
(Two of many valuable insights by Duesberg are on page 137-138: “The CDC has … continued to exploit public trust by transforming seasonal flus and other minor epidemics into monstrous crises and by manufacturing contagious plagues out of noninfectious medical conditions.” And, “[E]pidemiologists have classically studied clusters of sick people as clues to subtle environmental hazards, not infectious agents. But when public health officials issue ominous warnings about mysterious disease outbreaks, they terrify the public with visions of deadly pandemics.”)
Duesberg also details, on pages 174 to188, the failure of HIV to fulfill Koch’s postulates. And on page 202 he concludes that, “AIDS fails all epidemiological criteria of an infectious disease.”
(I believe the same is true for Covid.)
Duesberg points, in addition, to the reasons ‘experts’ give for why it’s virtually impossible to directly detect the virus. For example, he writes on page 206 that:
“[I]f little or no HIV can be found in the body, scientists propose hidden reservoirs and special routes of infection. If only antibodies against HIV [rather than HIV itself] can be found, researchers call them ‘nonneutralizing’ (or ineffective) antibodies and assert that the virus mutates too fast for the antibodies to keep up…. All these hypotheses are constantly being disproved or shown to be irrelevant, but the reservoir of new evasions is inexhaustible.”
That of course parallels the pranks ‘experts’ are playing on the public with respect to the novel coronavirus and Covid.
There are many other prominent people who have spent decades exposing the HIV-AIDS hoax. They include: activist and journalist John Lauritsen in his many articles and his books including The AIDS War: Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex; microbiologist Eleni Papadopulos in, among others, a 2004 paper detailing the fatal flaws in the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, a 1997 interview and an October 2020 interview; journalist Jon Rappoport in dozens of blog posts including his March 8, 2021 one, and in his 1988 book AIDS Inc.; and Duesberg’s colleagueDavid Rasnick in many formats such as a 2009 article they co-authored, and his blog, including this May 2021 post. (Rappoport and Rasnick, among others, also have pointed out the striking parallels in the politics and deception surrounding HIV and AIDS and the novel coronavirus and COVID.)
What Are the Real Causes of ‘AIDS’?
Duesberg makes the strong case that ‘AIDS’ is actually 30 conditions inappropriately lumped into the single category. And he demonstrates that the main causes are: toxicity from AZT and other meds given to people who test positive for HIV(more on this below); toxicity from recreational drugs like nitrite inhalants — AKA ‘poppers’; and overuse of antibiotics.
In countries such as Africa, the causes also include poverty, malnutrition, lack of indoor plumbing and tropical infections.
Lauritsen also details this in his 1993 book The AIDS War.
“‘AIDS’ … is defined entirely in terms of other, old diseases, in conjunction with dubious test results and even more dubious assumptions. Although people are undeniably sick, ‘AIDS’ itself does not really exist; it is a phoney construct,” Lauritsen states on page 180 of the book.
Yet virtually all the funding for the vast HIV/AIDS research-administrative-medical-industrial complex assumes HIV is the cause of ‘AIDS.’
In 1984, just three years after the first report of what later would be dubbed AIDS, Fauci became the head of NIAID.
AIDS made him a star: he’s good at grabbing the spotlight with his gift of glib gab, and under his tenure NIAID ballooned thanks to a huge inflow of AIDS-related funding.
Just three years later, in 1987, the first medication for HIV went on the market: AZT, which is highly toxic.
AZT has killed huge numbers of people, thanks in large part to Fauci pushing the message that it is ‘safe and effective.’
“I would say there were hundreds of thousands of people killed by AZT. And many — perhaps most — of them were perfectly healthy before they were put on the drugs,” Lauritsen told me in a telephone interview from his home in Boston. “They got a positive result on the worthless HIV tests, and then they were told to put time on their side and take AZT. And of course it killed them.”
Fauci and other powerful officials have also pushed other deadly drugs, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb’s didanosine (ddI).
Duesberg and Lauritsen detail how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was pressured into giving ddI fast-track approval in 1991 — despite clear evidence that it is toxic, and that there were no placebo-controlled safety or efficacy studies conducted on it.
Even Wikipedia, which usually censors information that criticizes big pharma, states that about one-quarter of people taking ddI develop peripheral neuropathy. And in 2010 the FDA issued a warning that a serious liver disease can occur in people taking ddI.
The latter include drugs as tenofovir, lamivudine and emtricitabine. These are a type of drug known as nucleoside analogues (AKA nucleoside inhibitors or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors). And they have the same, and potentially very dangerous, mechanism of action as AZT and ddI: that is, they stop DNA synthesis from taking place in cells throughout the body.
[Full disclosure: in the mid- to late 1990s as a freelance medical writer I co-wrote marketing materials for HIV drugs such as lamivudine and tenofovir through a Toronto, Ontario, marketing agency called Jeffrey Simbrow Associates. Then later, until the mid-2000s, as a medical journalist I wrote many stories for trade publications about HIV drugs. I somehow was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding these drugs and HIV and AIDS.]
Today tens of millions of healthy people are taking PrEP because they’ve been led to believe this will either prevent infection, or lower their HIV levels to undetectable (the latter goes by the slogan ‘U=U’ for ‘undetectable = untransmissible’). And information is suppressed that many people who have tested positive for HIV but haven’t taken any medication remain healthy for decades.
Over the last year, PreP sales have been sliding somewhat, as has HIV testing. ‘Experts’ are blaming this on the curtailment of usual accessible care during the pandemic. (And they’re also telling scary tales of untreated ‘HIV/AIDS’ potentially interfering with efforts to quash Covid.)
Enter the news about HIV vaxxes being on the horizon — and their potentially huge market.
There are tens of millions of people who have tested positive, and many many more being tested every day.
Plus, most people would prefer an HIV vaxx instead of a daily pill; pills are expensive and inconvenient.
Central Players in the HIV and Novel Coronavirus Capers
Not surprisingly, there are major overlaps between the key figures in the HIV-AIDS and novel coronavirus-COVID agendas. And they’re not just the usual suspects such as Bill Gates.
They include names such asLarry Corey, Myron Cohen and Lindsey Baden.
Corey leads the HIV Vaccine Trials Network, a position he’s held since 1999, and which now is the operational center for the COVID-19 Prevention Network (COVPN – mentioned earlier). He also is co-leading vaccine testing at the COVPN – which started, last summer, with a Phase 3 studyof one of Moderna’s mRNA Covid jabs.
Cohen is director of the Institute for Global Health and Infections Diseases, and a prof of medical microbiology, immunology and epidemiology at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.
They’re testing PrEP drugs and antibodies. The latter includes the AbCellera/Eli Lilly antibody bamlanivumab.
The results of one of those studies, on bamlanivumab for workers and residents in care homes, were announced on Jan. 21 by Lilly via a press release. They were published in the prominent Journal of the American Medical Association onJune 3, 2021, with Cohen as the lead author. (In my The Antibody Deception article I described how it’s virtually impossible for bamlanivumab to bean effective treatment for anything.)
Baden is the deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM), a position he’s had since 2005. And he’s also a long-time associate prof at the Harvard Medical School.
He has been working toward HIV vaxxes since at least 2007
Baden’s pushing both the HIV and Covid agendas forward at warp speed. For example, he’s the first author on the Dec. 30, 2020, NEJM paper that concluded that one of Moderna Covid vaccines has “94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness.”
Baden is funded by, among many others, Moderna, the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Janssen, the Military HIV Research Program and NIAID (see pages 2 and 3 of the disclosure forms for the paper’s authors).
There also are many other ways that the money pipers call Baden’s tune.
For example, since February 2020 Baden has been giving once-weekly audio interviews for NEJM, together with the journal’s editor-in-chief Eric Rubin. The pair use this prominent pulpit to, among other things, endorse mass vaccination for Covid including inminorities, pregnant women and children.
And Baden, Corey and Cohen were among the co-authors of a March 2021NEJM paper titled, ‘Two randomized trials of neutralizing antibodies to prevent HIV-1 acquisition.’ In other, using antibodies for PrEP.
There are hundreds of other key players in the parallel HIV-COVID play. You can use PubMed to look up the papers and conflicts of interest of prominent scientists in your area who have been among those pushing the Covid agenda.
They’re all engaged in the gold rush for bogus ‘vaccines’ and other ‘treatments’ for an array of non-existent or benign conditions.
After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca.
In September 1943, the US Army created “Operation Capricious,” a secret biowarfare program described as purely defensive against insect pests enemy nations might use against America by bombing America with germ-infected insects. Under the direction of George W. Merck, president of Merck & Co. The program stockpiled bacillus anthracis (anthrax), clostridium botulinum (botulism), and other deadly bacteria until President Truman approved and operationalized its use by the U.S. military, in 1952, on North Korea and China where, like previous biowarfare efforts, it proved ineffectual.
On March 15, 1976 President Ford, informed of an outbreak of Swine influenza A, planned an immunization program and, once pharmaceutical companies were guaranteed a profit and legal indemnity, they produced a vaccine. But cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome affecting vaccinated patients were reported, and the program was abandoned.
On March 18, 2008, the FBI falsely cast suspicion on former government scientist, Dr. Steven Hatfill, for releasing an anthrax strain developed by the US Army and media implied that Hatfill was the culprit. The long-time Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote, “I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip came in a roundabout way from a high government official. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.”
In 2009, H1N1, Swine Flu, a novel virus with a combination of influenza genes previously unseen in animals or people, spread quickly from the US across the world, killing 284,000. 60 million people, mostly children, received Glaxo Smith Kline’s H1N1 vaccine, Pandemrix, but it caused lifelong narcolepsy and cataplexy–an incurable, lifelong condition requiring extensive medication–in thousands of them. H1N1 still circulates as a seasonal flu, causing hospitalizations and deaths
July 9. White House withdraws the CDC’s epidemiologist embedded with China’s CCDC. “The message from the administration was, ‘Don’t work with China, they’re our rival”.
July 12: Three dead, 54 sickened in respiratory outbreak at Springfield, VA care home, one hour from Fort Detrick. Since respiratory illness usually spreads in winter, officials can neither explain the number of cases nor the season.
Jul 14. Chinese researcher escorted from infectious disease lab by Cnd’s RCMP for sending biological samples to China.
July 17. Still-unexplained pneumonia epidemic reported at a Burke, VAnursing home, one hour from Fort Detrick, MD.
Jul. 19. CDC shuts down Ft. Detrick Lab, MD. Senior scientist describe its atmosphere as one of “fear and mistrust.”
July 26. VA State stops all nursing home collective activities, screens residents, and mandates cleanliness measures to prevent the spread of pneumonia epidemic.
August 4. First case of EVALI (vaping) reported to CDC. Shortness of breath, pain in breathing, cough, fever, chills, nausea, weight loss, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, ground glass lung CT scan. By Feb 18, 2020, 2,807 EVALI cases and 68 deaths were recorded. No cases reported outside the US.
October 3. Doctors studying EVALI lung tissue rule out vaping, deepening the mystery over the cause of uniquely American illness.
October 3. US Army team arrives in Wuhan for Military Games.
Oct. 18. CIA Deputy Director participates in Event 201, Gates Foundation pandemic exercise modeling a fictional coronavirus pandemic.
November 12. A couple from Inner Mongolia is admitted to Beijing hospital with pneumonic plague. Says physician Li Jifeng: “I am very familiar with diagnosing and treating the majority of respiratory diseases but, this time, I could not figure out what pathogen caused the pneumonia.”
Nov. 15. CDC advertises for quarantine managers in all major cities:
Dec 17. South Koreancoronavirus exercise was ‘blind luck’: a hypothetical South Korean family contracts pneumonia after a trip to China, where cases of an unidentified disease had arisen. It quickly spreads to colleagues and medical workers. Experts develop tests, algorithms to find the pathogen and its origin.
Dec 27. Wuhan’s Dr. Zhang Jixian detects & reports suspicious cases of a ‘pneumonia of unknown origin’ to CCDC. Three more patients arrive, all related to Huanan Seafood Market.
Dec 31. A team from Beijing investigates, informs the WHO of “cases of pneumonia unknown etiology.” Since no medical worker was infected, they find no evidence of human-to-human transmission, and verify this on January 4. Wuhan announces the virus on CCTV and CGTN.
2020 Year
Jan. 1. Huanan Seafood market shut down.
January 2. WHO incident management system activated across WHO country office, regional office, and headquarters.
Jan. 3. Dr. Gao Fu, head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC), phones the CDC’s Dr. Robert Redfield to warn him of the virus.
Jan. 3. China reports 44 suspected patients with the mystery pneumonia, classifies it as highly pathogenic, orders all labs without high pathogen licenses to destroy or transfer samples to secure labs.
January 4. WHO reports that Chinese authorities had informed it of “a cluster of pneumonia cases, with no deaths, in Wuhan”.
January 5, WHO’s Disease Outbreak News: “There is limited information to determine the overall risk of this reported cluster of pneumonia of unknown etiology. The symptoms reported among the patients are common to several respiratory diseases, and pneumonia is common in the winter season; however, the occurrence of 44 cases of pneumonia requiring hospitalization clustered in space and time should be handled prudently.”
Jan 8 ‘Unknown cause’ identified as a novel coronavirus.
Jan. 9. Chinese labs begin genetic sequencing of the virus. China reports the death of an infected 61-year-old male in Wuhan with several underlying medical conditions.
Jan. 9. Chinese officials announce 44 confirmed cases of the coronavirus outbreak.
Jan 11. Beijing uploads the genetic sequence of the coronavirus to an international database and distributes preliminary test kits in Wuhan.
Jan 15. Wuhan Health Commission: “Although significant evidence confirming human-to-human transmission has yet to be found, the possibility cannot be ruled out.”
Jan 16. President Trump evacuates Americans from Wuhan and bars entry to the US.
Jan. 18. HHS begins six-month Crimson Contagion scenario of a respiratory virus pandemic that begins in China and quickly spreads around the world.
January 20. Respiratory disease expert, Zhong Nanshan, announces the first verified human-to-human transmission.
January 21. China’s National Health Commission reports that the novel coronavirus is a Class B infectious disease and that Class A methods of prevention must be adopted. Chinese epidemiologists publish first Covid-19 paper, A Novel Coronavirus Genome Identified in a Cluster of Pneumonia Cases. Wuhan, China 2019-2020. CCDC Weekly.
Jan 20-21. WHO Field Team Visits Wuhan. “We were at the hospital where the first patient was identified in the last week of December, 2019. We met with staff there, and with one of the earliest known patients”. Team leader Peter Ben Embarek calls the visit “very informative.”
January 22. Scott Liu, 56, a Wuhan native and a textile importer who lives in New York, caught the last commercial flight out.
January 23. Cordon sanitaire around Wuhan. China suspends flights after 571 confirmed cases and 17 fatalities, builds a 1,000-bed hospital over the weekend.
Jan. 24. Following private briefings on COVID-19, five US senators sell major stock holdings, avoiding significant losses before markets fall.
Jan. 24. Slate: “Many of China’s actions to date are overly aggressive and ineffective in quelling the outbreak.” LA Times: “China boasts of ‘people’s war’ against coronavirus, but Wuhan residents see shoddy propaganda”.
Jan. 26 – First clinical cases published in The Lancet: “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases. Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the seafood marketplace”. Daniel Lucey, infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University: “If the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace.”
Jan. 27. WHO’s Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warns against “unnecessarily interfering with international travel and trade” in trying to halt the spread of coronavirus. China bans citizens from reserving overseas tours. Japan Tourism Company faces 20,000 cancellations from coronavirus outbreak. Tourism industry hit hard as Chinese tourists stay home. China screens people leaving the country.
Jan 29. WHO rejects accusations that China was responsible for the global spread of COVID-19: “[China’s] actions helped prevent the spread of coronavirus to other countries.”
Jan. 30: With 82 cases outside China and zero deaths, WHO declares Covid-19 a global health emergency.
Jan. 30. US State and Federal officials refuse permission for Dr. Chu, U. Washington infectious disease expert, to use ongoing flu tests to monitor for coronavirus.
Jan. 30.NYT: “The fallout from the virus in China will accelerate the return of jobs to North America, with millions at the time placed under lockdown in Wuhan and elsewhere”. The Guardian: “Coronavirus deals China’s economy a bigger blow than global financial crisis”.
Feb 4. 57 personnel arrive at a Nebraska military base from Wuhan. Infectious disease specialist Dr. James Lawler asks to test them. CDC refuses: “The CDC does not approve this study. Please discontinue all contact with the travelers for research purposes.”
Feb. 25. Against CDC instructions, UW’s Dr. Chu begins testing and gets an immediate Covid-19 result dating from January 28. By then, the virus had contributed to two deaths and would soon kill twenty more. “It must have been here this entire time. It’s just everywhere already,” Dr. Chu recalls thinking.
March 4. US ignores international investigators’ repeated requests for EVALI postmortem lung tissue samples.
March 9. The White House orders federal health officials to treat top-level coronavirus meetings as classified, an unusual step that hampers response to the contagion.
Mar. 11. US tests 5,000 people suspected of Covid-19 infection.
Mar 12. White House classifies scope of infections, quarantines, and travel restrictions. Moves discussions to Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility, SCIF, “It has something to do with China.” CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield testifies that some early fatalities attributed to flu ‘have been attributed to C-19 after post-mortem analysis,’ does not identify dates or locations.
March 12. Chinese FM spokesman Zhao Lijian: “When did patient zero begin in the US? How many people are infected? What are the names of the hospitals? It might be the US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make your data public! The US owes the world an explanation”.
March 15. Santa Clara, CA, reports 114 infections. Fifteen were associated with travel to China or other infection hot zones, 28 had close contact with infected people, and 52 had no travel or contact with known cases, indicating local acquisition.
March 17. American, British, and Australian virologists: “We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible… Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”.
March 18. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vow s to prevent Iran from purchasing medicines and ventilators. US sanctions on Venezuela increase the cost of tests 300%.
March 19. The US sees the sharpest increase in deaths and new infections per day of any country in the world. US doctors exhaust supply of N95 masks.
Why did the U.S. erase internet news reports of the Ft. Detrick Lab shutdown?
Why was Fort Detrick military lab shut down?
Why did flu-season come earlier this year?
What caused vaping pneumonia?
Why not allow people to do coronavirus testing?
What are you trying to hide?
“You owe everyone an explanation,” Julius Ryde tweets to President Trump.
Why did we withdraw from 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 2001?
Why did the US threaten and prevent UNSC from setting up BTWC monitoring?
March 20. US State Department cables all officials: “[PRC] Propaganda and Disinformation on the Covid-19 Pandemic. Chinese Communist Party officials in Wuhan and Beijing had a special responsibility to inform the Chinese people and the threat world since they were the first to learn of it. Instead, the… government hid news of the virus from its people for weeks, while suppressing information and punishing doctors and journalists who raised the alarm. The Party cared more about its reputation than its own people’s suffering”. Says one official, “These talking points are all anyone is really talking about right now. Everything is about China. We’re being told to try and get this messaging out in any way possible, including press conferences and television appearances.”
Mar 21. Oxford University’s Evolutionary Ecology of Infectious Disease Group says Covid-19 reached the UK no later than mid-January and may have infected half the population by March 21.
March 24. Covid samples taken from Italian patients in Sept-Nov. 2019 prove genetically distinct from China’s strain. Prof. Massimo Galli, at the University of Milan, describes ‘a very strange pneumonia” circulating in Europe in 2019.
Timeline Video:
April 16. Peter Daszak, disease ecologist, “I’ve been working with that [Wuhan] lab for 15 years. And the samples were collected by me and others in collaboration with our Chinese colleagues; they’re some of the world’s best scientists. There was no viral isolate in the lab and no cultured virus that’s anything related to SARS coronavirus 2. So it’s just not possible.”
April 17. Chris Cuomo says, “Cristina believes that at least two of the kids had it in the last few months. It’s atypically long-duration sinus, fever, lethargy. I think we’re going to learn that coronavirus has been in this country since October. How many people do you hear saying, ‘I think I had it, I had this and this, I lost my sense of smell and this and that, but I never got tested’?”.
May 5. Brazilian virologists find antibody samples from November 2019: “We analysed human sewage located in Florianópolis from late October. Our results show that SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating in Brazil since late November 2019”. The tests were repeated in three laboratories independently, with internal controls and negative controls.
May 7. First peer-reviewed Covid article: Identification of a novel coronavirus causing severe pneumonia in humans: a descriptive study.
June 17. Spanish virologists find traces of C-19 in Barcelona wastewater from March 2019: “The levels of SARS-CoV-2 were low but were positive,” said research leader Albert Bosch.
June 20. French virologists find SARS-CoV-2 was spreading in France in December 2019. “Early community spreading changes our knowledge of the COVID-19 epidemic”.
Nov. 16. Italian Researchers find Coronavirus in Italy from September, 2019. “Traces of SARS-Cov-2 have been found in samples of waste water taken in Milan and Turin between September 2019 and March 2020”.
Nov. 30. American researchers find high levels of Covid-19 antibodies in archived Red Cross blood samples throughout the USA from Dec. 2019. Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020.
Dec. 1.Bloomberg: “COVID-19 was silently infecting Americans before first cases emerged in Wuhan: CDC study. Coronavirus was present in the U.S. weeks earlier than scientists and public health officials previously thought, raising questions about the pandemic’s origin”.
2021 Year
January, 2021. US monthly Covid deaths peak at 95,000. MIT says the number is 133,000.
Feb. 25. “Analyzing Covid genomes using k-mer natural vector method, we conclude that the virus likely already existed in France, India, Netherlands, England, and USA before the Wuhan outbreak”.
Mar. 30.Joint WHO-China Report on Jan.-Feb. China visit: “Researchers reviewed 76,000 clinical records from October to November 2019, in which were 92 possible cases of Covid-19. 67 of those had no signs of infection based on antibody tests done a year later, and all 92 were ultimately ruled out based on the clinical criteria for Covid-19”.
May 4. Mutations of the progenitor and its offshoots have produced many dominant coronavirus strains, which have spread episodically over time. Fingerprinting based on common mutations reveals that the same coronavirus lineage has dominated North America for most of the pandemic in 2020. There have been multiple replacements of predominant coronavirus strains in Europe and Asia and the continued presence of multiple high-frequency strains in Asia and North America. We have developed a continually updating dashboard of global evolution and spatiotemporal trends of SARS-CoV-2 spread: An evolutionary portrait of the progenitor SARS-CoV-2 and its dominant offshoots in COVID-19 pandemic.
June 1.WHO sends 30 Italian 2019 biological samples to Rotterdam’s Erasmus University laboratory for re-testing.
June 5. European Medicines Agency’s reports 13,867 deaths and 1,354,336 serious injuries following injections of MRNA Moderna (CX-024414), MRNA Vaccine Pfizer-Biontech, AstraZeneca Vaccines, Vaccine Janssen (AD26.COV2.S).
June 8. Erasmus University results confirm Italian 2019 samples ‘are very similar to what (Italy’s National Cancer Institute) discovered, despite some small differences. The combined results made a convincing case that the coronavirus or a similar virus was circulating in Italy months before the country’s first officially recorded case’.
June 9. A study conducted of 52,000 Cleveland Clinic employees found that vaccines significantly reduce the risk of COVID-19 for those who have never tested positive–but not for those with previous infection. 4%-6% of Americans tested positive in December, 2019, according to the CDC.
June 10. UK Government reports 1,295 deaths and 922,596 injuries recorded following the experimental COVID injections: AstraZeneca: 863 deaths and 717,250 injuries; Pfizer- BioNTech: 406 deaths and 193,768 injuries; Moderna: 3 deaths and 9243 injuries. (Source); Unspecified COVID-19 injections: 22 deaths and 2335 injuries. (Source) Italy halted use of AstraZeneca injections for people under the age of 60, following the death of a teenager who died from blood clots.
June 11. CDC lists 329,02 injuries following COVID-19 shots: 5,888 deaths, 4,583, permanent disabilities, 5,884 life-threatening, 43,892 ER visits, and 19,597 hospitalizations.
June 13. Europe’s drug regulator suggests countries stop using AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine for all age groups as more alternatives have become available amid fears of rare blood clots. “In a pandemic context, our position was and is that the risk-benefit ratio remains favorable for all age groups,” he said.
There was no credibility to asymptomatic spread in COVID-19 as a key driver of the pandemic nor even as a driver of minimal infection. We knew early on that this was rare, if at all an issue, in the transmission of COVID virus. Yet this falsehood was propagated by the medical media cartel and Task Forces globally despite having no evidence that it was credible. The US Pandemic Task Force propagated this falsehood to the extent that it was a major driver of the pandemic and used it to shutter the economy and lives. We have looked at the evidence gathered across the last 15 to 16 months and can safely say this was a false narrative that hurt the US immensely. This was such a significant aspect of the pandemic policy decisions, that it could not be based on supposition, speculation, or assumptions. It could not be based on whimsy. I am afraid however, that it was, and this had catastrophic consequences. There was no strong data or any evidence to underpin this and even if this was assumed for several weeks, and even if we took a more cautious approach, we used this false narrative in place to keep draconian and punitive lockdown restrictions in place for too long that had no basis. Lives were lost as a result! For me to buy this, I need to see the evidence and data and there is none! The reality is that there is no verifiable evidence that persons have developed COVID-19 based on asymptomatic spread, evidence that is credible. You must torture the data or infections to find one and still, it is plagued with the very questionable RT-PCR results.
You just cannot discuss this asymptomatic issue without factoring in the very flawed RT-PCR test with its 97% false positives at cycle counts of 35 and above. This RT-PCR disastrous test cannot be omitted for it was part of the ‘asymptomatic’ deception. I cannot be generous in my language anymore. This was not a falsehood; it was meant to deceive!
As such, we are about to debunk ‘asymptomatic spread’ fully on the heels of the catastrophic masking, lockdowns, and school closure polices that visited crushing harms on society. That the US Pandemic Task Force and these absurd, illogical, irrational, unscientific medical experts could use this falsehood and shut the society down and cost so much destruction is a scandal, shameful, and unforgiveable. There was no basis to the ‘asymptomatic spread’ and the falsehood should have been stopped soon after it became clear that this was misleading and had no basis. It cost thousands of lives! More lives lost and instead of protecting the vulnerable, they allowed them to die! Our precious elderly.
They did not try to and failed to protect public health, all these crazy lockdown insane lunatics! That’s what they are, lunatics! These bureaucrats and technocrats, this ruling elite. Flat wrong on everything COVID, yet run around extolling each other, patting each other on the back. For what? The destruction they caused? We begged them to secure the elderly and high-risk strongly but they did not and did not stop the lockdowns. They pretended there were no harms to their lockdowns. It was deliberate, a perverse cruelty on populations. Just look at the declining health due to the isolation from the lockdowns (the mental health costs, the dementia), the inactivity, the loss of education due to school closures, lost medical care, loss of jobs/employment, and income. “Some of these costs, sadly, remain ahead of us, including deaths from delays in cancer screening and treatment, rising opioid overdose, and harms to the life expectancy of today’s children due to lost schooling” (Collateral Global). Alarmingly, we see how COVID wreaks havoc differentially due to baseline risks that are often exaggerated in the underprivileged, but also in the underprivileged in terms of the harms and effects of the lockdowns. For example, “while breast cancer screening in Washington state fell by 50% for women overall, the drop was even more precipitous among minorities”.
Before we lay bare this ‘asymptomatic’ fraud, let us show just how duplicitous these public health agencies can be and how many lies they (and their leaders) spew in an attempt to deceive and confuse the public. In this case to drive fear in parents so as to push them to vaccinate their children. On Friday, the CDC put out a statement (based on their June 11th 2021 MMWR report) that there is a troubling rise in teens being hospitalized for COVID-19. The first fact that jumps out at us is that there were 0 (zero) deaths. CDC stated that adolescent hospitalization rates increased during March and April 2021 after decreases in January and February 2021. This message went viral in the media 24/7. This misinformation and clear effort to lie to the public was couched as ‘troubling rise’. But the lie was that there was a rise in March and April but then a decrease in May back to the level it was at the close of February 2021.
The CDC and its Director Walensky had clear knowledge that the hospitalization rate had decreased but they cherry picked a portion of the graph and data (the upside of the graph) and presented that without the downside portion that shows the decline. What hubris and deceit by Walensky! For she knew she was cherry-picking the data because across all age-groups, hospitalizations had declined during the prior 6 to 8 weeks. She knew this. “Allen says the latest data from May showed that hospitalization rates declined to 0.6 on May 29”. The real atrocity in this reporting by the CDC is that they did not include the data from May 2021. This was a pure effort to mislead the public because the same data used in the report showed a significant decline in the month following the slight increase”. So, the CDC took data that showed an increase in April 2021 and now reports it in June as if the May data of the clear decline does not exist. Just the April data and also, why is it now being reported? How incredibly duplicitous and such arrogance to think the American people are that stupid that they cannot see the decline in May?
Dr. Walensky was actually mis-reporting (deliberately) CDC’s own data. Why? Is this the first time a CDC MMWR report was basically junk pseudo-science? Based on falsehoods? This MMWR report was based on a population-based surveillance system of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalizations in 99 counties across 14 states,covering approximately 10% of the U.S. population. Horowitz of Blazemedia was beside himself as he discussed this duplicity by the CDC and rightly so. Dr. Walensky stated she was para ‘deeply concerned by the rise’. Yet she knew she was being deceitful, in plain view, understanding that the media cartel would gobble the erroneous tripe up and the public would be too lazy to do the reading just a bit further down in the MMWR to understand the mis-information. “It turns out they picked arbitrary start and end points-an old trick they’ve used with mask studies”. Or is it that Dr. Walensky cannot read the science or understand the data or graphs? Or those reporting to her? They (Dr. Walensky) made this type of deceitful error and omission when they reported and misled on the risk of outdoors transmission (< 1% but claiming it is more like 10%), among many others. Same issues with the summer camp rules and spread after vaccination, with flips and flops between Walensky and Fauci. Someone was or is lying, who?
Makary of Johns Hopkins stated para “that the CDC did not report the key issues in that report. No child died, and the CDC should have said this. This is the great news! The hospitalization rate was lower for COVID than it was for influenza. The CDC should have said this also as the headline. What about the heart swelling complications on teens due to the vaccine… one of the failures of the CDC is their ignoring of natural immunity and this insane rush to mass vaccinate people already immune… we are seeing another set of talking points on the Delta variant scare”.
CDC knew the number was coming down for months but misled in their report when they knew it was 20 hospitalizations per day of about 25 million teens, so a rate of approximately 0.00008%. This was to drive panic about a troubling rise in teen hospitalizations and the very small number was going down, and not up. They pick only one piece of data and this was terrible so as to exploit the fears of parents. This was to drive vaccinations. How low has the CDC fallen and how come they have absolutely no common sense! We set the table for this op-ed with that falsehood by the CDC on rising teen hospitalizations. This is how the last 16 months has been with CDC’s reporting. Late and false! Always one year behind the science. Always misleading. Politicized.
Back to the ‘asymptomatic spread’. This duplicitous ‘asymptomatic’ assertion hobbled and basically doomed the pandemic response from the start, for all of the societal shutdowns and school closures revolved around this falsehood. Dr. Anthony Fauci can be credited with perhaps the greatest falsehood to the American population and the then President Trump. He even has still carried this misleading and duplicitous narrative on asymptomatic spread into current [proclaimed] President Biden’s administration.
Fauci stated the following as he advocated and moved to shut society down: “historically people need to realize that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all history of respiratory viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers”. This clear statement by Fauci is really the [last] nail devastating his handling of this pandemic. What a disaster he has been and how many thousands of lives he has cost with his statements that have all turned out to be wrong. Recently uncovered e-mails show that Fauci stated that “most transmissions” of virus “occur from someone who is symptomatic” and “not asymptomatic”. But Fauci publicly stated at the Task Force podium that asymptomatic spread is “not rare” but is in fact common and why the nation had to be shut down.
I am so ashamed to be a scientist today and really do not wish to belong in this perverse group of ‘fallen’ nonsensical, illogical, irrational, and specious academics. They are (have been) absurd and actually very harmful by the policy positions they advocated. I have bolded and underlined the critical words by Fauci for the reader as these stand out. Fauci was not supposing here as to asymptomatic spread, he was not speculating, he was declarative and definitive. He was firm! Does this make any sense though given what Fauci then did to society, after making this type of declaration? They did the opposite. They repeatedly came to the podium and misled the nation for they repeatedly told us that due to asymptomatic spread, we would have to wear masks, and socially distance, and close schools, and shut everything down.
These US Task Force experts and the so called ‘medical experts’ in the media knew it. They knew this was false, as there was no science to back this up. None. They knew they were misleading the public and were openly lying, while holding opposing positions behind the scenes. Dr. Fauci’s recent e-mail on asymptomatic spread being no issue and his public Task Force discussions on this early in the pandemic underscore how much deceit and duplicity were in his language to the American people. These people conspired and sold the nation(s) a lie, and in fact, many lies around COVID-19. Lies that cost lives of business owners who lost businesses, workers who lost jobs, and adults and children who lost hope and killed themselves. Not from COVID, but from the lockdowns and the crushing harms from them.
What also hobbled and irreparably damaged the US’s response out of the gate was the devastating lie that we were all at equal risk of severe illness and death if infected. This was a flat lie that has Johnny still today at 20 years old, and in perfect health cowering under his bed thinking he is at the same risk as granny at 85 who has 3 serious grave underlying medical conditions. These medical experts would come to the podium daily and make statements and demands and had no data or evidence to back it up. No credible data, and no media, no one asked them for any. We grew to know that they were empty suits, especially Fauci, just baseless statements but they cost many, many lives, tragically. They caused much suffering and the blame rests with them, the Task Force, for the President implemented their policies, not his policies. He got guidance and recommendations from them. It was their lockdowns, it was their school closures, it was their social distancing, it was their mask mandates.
We knew very early on that COVID was amenable to risk stratification and that your baseline risk was most prognostic for mortality, age and obesity being the principle ones along with renal disease and diabetes as well as heart disease. We knew this. We knew early on that a more focused ‘targeted’ approach was needed and not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that was devastating. Like how we knew that recurrent infection (re-infection) was not real and also a lie. Are we sure that recurrent or re-infection is not credible? Well, you judge for yourself. We have looked at the published evidence and can conclude based on the existing body of evidence, that reinfections are very rare, if at all, and based on typically one or two instances with questionable confirmation of an actual case of re-infection e.g. often easily explained by flawed PCR testing etc. (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins wrote “reinfection is extremely rare and even when it does happen, the symptoms are very rare or [those individuals] are asymptomatic”. Importantly, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently (May 10th 2021 Scientific brief, WHO/2019-nCoV/Sci_Brief/Natural_immunity/2021.1) alluded to what has been clear for many months (one year now), which is that people are very rarely re-infected. The WHO was very late but better late than never.
Like how we knew that the RT-PCR test was near 100% false positive and a flawed test as a diagnostic test and was damaging lives with the erroneous quarantines and closures when a positive test emerged. We knew that what mattered most was the number of hospitalizations, ICU bed use, and deaths, not the infections. An infection did not mean one was a ‘case’ of disease. And likely a false positive. We knew that a cycle count threshold (Ct) of 24 was the limit and everything above this was a PCR test that was likely false positive, picking up viral dust, fragments, old coronavirus, old recovered infection etc. We knew the CDC had set the Ct at 40 which contributed to the hundreds of thousands and millions of positive cases that were not positive and schools were closed and people quarantined for no reason. We knew that children were at near zero risk of acquiring the infection, spreading it, or getting ill from it, yet continued on frightening parents. The CDC, the teachers’ unions, and the television medical experts have spent the last 15 to 16 months lying and scaring parents needlessly and have been lying openly on risk to children. How else do I state it? They were delivering falsehoods and misleading facts to the public and these are flat lies.
Like how we knew that you do not vaccinate someone who has recovered from COVID-19 as they now have robust, durable, life-long immunity that is far more long-lasting, durable, robust, and complete (sterilizing) than any conferred by a vaccine immunity that confers only narrow ‘spike-specific’ immunity with only the spike epitopes for the immune system to look at, and not the surface of the virus and all the viral epitopes that our natural immunity will consider.
Like how we knew you never ever vaccinate during a pandemic for this drives the emergence of variants yet they did it anyway.
Like we knew that the variants will blow past the narrow vaccine induced immunity and principally the spike that you are injecting with today is long gone. What exists out there now is way different than the initial strain due to mutations on the spike.
Like how we knew that T-cell immunity was out there and represented a large portion of persons who were not candidates for vaccine and were already strongly immune to COVID e.g. had prior infection with other coronaviruses and common cold coronaviruses that confer ‘cross-protection’ cellular immunity via T-cell immunity etc. (Weiskopf, Grifoni, Le Bert, Mateus, Tavukcuoglu, Cassaniti, Dykema, Echeverría, Bonifacius, Nelde, Ansari, Ma, Lineburg, Borena) (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). You judge for yourself if this makes sense.
Like how we knew that early outpatient treatment (references 1, 2, 3, 4) was very successful in reducing the risk of hospitalization and death (McCullough, Risch, Zelenko, Tenenbaum, Kory, Smith, Bernstein, Fareed, Ladapo etc.) and that you do not give successful anti-virals late in the disease course for they will not work.
Like how we knew the research community was conducting studies ‘designed to fail’ to show that the anti-virals did not work. They were deceiving the public.
Like how we know that using a vaccine that has not undergone the right and proper safety testing and duration of testing, will result in adverse effects and deaths, as we are now seeing (CDC’s very own VAERS database). Anyone who says, no matter their position in government or any medical expert, that it is safe, is lying to you for they did not do the requisite long-term safety assessment in their studies. They are flat lying and this is dangerous and reckless for it is costing lives. And now they are coming for our children! We pray that the FDA staves them off, as the principle regulator. Our hope rests there.
Like how we knew that the ‘ZERO COVID’ view was ridiculous and impossible and not attainable, and was devastating to our societies. There is no way we could eliminate every infection/case as COVID is now endemic and all around us. ZERO was never possible and we knew it and an absurd intention and all it does is destroy the society by locking down to attain ZERO, you force the pathogen to mutate more infectiously and you will forever be going in circles. And you will have a destroyed society to emerge to. We knew this and particularly that we would likely have to learn to live with it as we do with seasonable influenza and common cold coronaviruses. We have never been able to get rid of every infection/case and the same here. But somehow the Task Force experts did not know this.
Like how we knew all that was needed in this pandemic was calm, some sensible leadership, no politicization, and simple enhanced hand-washing and isolation of only the symptomatic ill/sick persons. No isolation of asymptomatic persons, none. None in their homes or at the borders. We knew this. We knew all we needed to do was give early drug treatment and protect the elderly strongly and allow society to move on unfettered. We knew that population immunity would emerge, as we had no reason to think COVID operated any differently than other viruses etc. as to population immunity.
We also knew early on that the blue and cloth face masks were ineffective and utterly dangerous as used, with no clear benefit, and that mask mandates were a failure, all of them! We knew this. We also knew masks were actually dangerous and, for children, so much so as to impact their social and emotional health and well-being. But we pretended and now masks are part of the daily wardrobe while we knew the medical harms that were accruing and being reported from mask use. We knew the social distance rule of 6 feet was made up, not based on credible science. Same as the 3 feet in school, courtesy of CDC. We know that mass testing of asymptomatic persons was nonsensical and dangerous, adding no benefit. Same as contact tracing etc. once the pathogen breached your shores. We knew this. We knew all of the lockdown measures would hollow out our societies and all of the steps taken, and that handwashing and isolation of ill persons were all that was needed. We knew that we had early outpatient therapeutics that were very effective in reducing hospitalization and death, but failed to use them.
We also knew of the ineffectiveness of masks (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35) and knew of the failure of mask mandates (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8). All of this we knew early on and evidence kept accumulating. But the inept medical experts kept hardening the lockdowns and punishing the population needlessly. And lives were lost!
We quickly grew to know that every single mitigation step like lockdowns and school closures was a catastrophic failure and was harming the people, especially crushing harms on women and children, and particularly the poorer women and children (children of color). We knew! We knew that none, not one of the bureaucrats and technocrats and ‘caffe latte’ drinking ‘lap-top’ class elitist academics and scientists and Task Force advisors who called for and pushed the lockdowns and school closures would not suffer the burden like the poorer in society. Not one day did they miss a salary or mortgage or rent payment. They were ‘safe’ and it is quite easy for you to extoll and exact a burden on others once you are not subject to it. It became like a game, these lockdowns, indeed, it becomes a game. We knew we shifted the burden onto the poorer in society. But we did not care, we had uber, lap-tops, gardens to tend to, walks to take, naps to catch up on, Amazon to order from, and secured jobs that allowed us to ‘remote’ exist. The poorer had no such facility. But we did not care. We had pods, tutors, internet, lap-tops and the like for our kids. We did not care!
Yes, we knew all of this but were bamboozled and confused by the idiotic and absurd, specious statements by medical experts who for the life of me have been flat wrong on most everything COVID. Case in point, Dr. Fauci. Flat wrong. Makes no sense. But put a pin in that for a moment. Let me focus on asymptomatic spread of COVID virus, this being the core thesis of this op-ed.
What do we know as of today and knew in the spring of 2020 and certainly in the fall of 2020? What does the science say, the same science that these television medical experts and nonsensical, illogical, irrational, and uninformed Task Force and medical advisors failed to take into account due to their academic sloppiness and sheer politicization. They exhibited a depth of cognitive dissonance to anything that disagreed with their absurdities that they spewed at us daily, to a public who yearned for just honesty and the facts for their informed decision-making. They seem unable to read the science, or to understand the science, or ‘get’ the science, and are clearly blinded to the science.
The fact is that if you are having no symptoms, or if they are very mild, then this significantly reduces spread and actually, with no symptoms, there is no spread. This is where the media and the inept medical experts have confused the public. No one is arguing that you cannot be asymptomatic. Of course you can. We are arguing if you are asymptomatic, the mere fact you have no symptoms means you are not spreading the virus. This works for all pathogens so why is it different for SARS-CoV-2? “Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling”. We knew very early on that asymptomatic transmission was not a driver of COVID. This is not only my contention.
We are being emphatic in saying there is no evidence of asymptomatic spread. If there is, please provide us the evidence. Yet we had these incompetent medical experts on television talking and speculating about asymptomatic spread, supposing about it, yet giving us no evidence about it. We also recognize that one must be careful not to claim ‘zero’ as the evidence changes daily and rapidly and absence of documented evidence is also not a reason. It may just have not been studied yet or documented optimally. But we are confident enough based on the existing literature to also agree that ‘it is a dangerous assumption to believe that there is persuasive, scientific evidence of asymptomatic transmission’.
The basis for the societal lockdowns was that 40% to 50% of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 could potentially spread it due to being asymptomatic. “But fears that the virus may be spread to a significant degree by asymptomatic carriers soon led government leaders to issue broad and lengthy stay-at-home orders and mask mandates out of concerns that anyone could be a silent spreader”. However, the evidence in support of common asymptomatic spread remains largely non-existent and we argue, was overstated and potentially was made with no basis. We actually say that these Task Force members lied to the nation! We argue it was made to drive fear and compliance but was never credible. And just consider the harms from nearly one and a half years of testing and closures for a phenomenon that is not credible. Look at the financial costs and lives lost.
We want to focus on evidence to make our case, that we think validates our hypothesis that asymptomatic spread was a falsehood. We want to debunk it here and we argue that the study findings we share here can be extrapolated fully to examples of no asymptomatic (or very limited/rare) transmission. You judge for yourself.
A high-quality review study byMadewell published in JAMAsought toestimate the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in households and determine factors that modify this parameter. In addition, researchers sought to estimate the proportion of households with index cases that had any secondary transmission, and also compared the SARS-CoV-2 household secondary attack rate with that of other severe viruses and with that to close contacts for studies that reported the secondary attack rate for both close and household contacts. The study was a meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77 758 participants. Secondary attack rates represented the spread to additional persons and researchers found a 25-fold increased risk within households between symptomatic positive infected index persons versus asymptomatic infected index persons. “Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)”. This study showed just how rare asymptomatic spread was within a confined household environment. “The real impact of asymptomatic transmission is likely to be even smaller than this figure because the study combines asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals”.
A study published inNature found no instances of asymptomatic spread from positive asymptomatic cases among all 1,174 close contacts of the cases, based on a base sample of 10 million persons. AIER’s Zucker responded this way “The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but not does drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000”.
One study in May 2020 examined the 455 contacts of one asymptomatic person. Researchers found that “all CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test”.
The World Health Organization (WHO) also made this claim that asymptomatic spread/transmission is rare. This issue of asymptomatic spread is the key issue being used to force vaccination in children. The science, however, remains contrary to this proposed policy mandate.
Additionally, a high-quality robust study in the French Alps examined the spread of Covid-19 virus via a cluster of Covid-19. They followed one infected child who visited three different schools and interacted with other children, teachers, and various adults. They reported no instance of secondary transmission despite close interactions. These data have been available to the CDC and other health experts for over a year, and while one has to tease out the concept of no asymptomatic spread though I argue it is an easy argument to make, it clearly shows that children do not spread the virus.
Ludvigsson published a seminal paper in the New England Journal of Medicine on Covid-19 among children 1 to 16 years of age and their teachers in Sweden. From the nearly 2 million children that were followed in school in Sweden, it was reported that with no mask mandates, there were zero deaths from Covid and a few instances of transmission and minimal hospitalization. We include this study for it is seminal in showing that masks were never needed and children do not spread the virus or get sick or die from it. But importantly, if asymptomatic spread was so vast, and there were 2 million children, would there not be much more elevated numbers of infection reported?
A recent June 10th 2021 op-ed sheds more confirmatory light that asymptomatic spread was more a myth that a reality. Ballan and Tindall wrote “People presenting with symptoms of Covid-19 are almost exclusively responsible for transmitting SARS-CoV-2… serious infection usually results from frequent exposure to high doses of SARS-CoV-2, such as health care workers caring for sick Covid-19 patients in hospitals or nursing homes and people living in the same household.
A person showing no symptoms of Covid-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. They explain further that the myth was driven by a single case report of an asymptomatic woman from China who had spread the virus to approximately 16 contacts in Germany. “Later reports showed that, at the time of contact, this woman was taking medication for flu-like symptoms, invalidating the evidence provided for the theory of asymptomatic transmission”.
Ballan and Tindall further explain that “a person showing no symptoms of Covid-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. There are four ways in which this can happen: i) the test may give a false positive result due to several faults in the testing process or in the test itself (the person is not infected), ii) the person may have recovered from Covid-19 in the last three months (the person is not currently infected but dead debris of the virus are being picked up by the test), the person may be pre-symptomatic, i.e, the person is infected but still in the early stages of the disease and has not yet developed symptoms, and iv) the person may be asymptomatic, i.e. the person is infected but has pre-existing immunity and will never develop symptoms”.
In asymptomatic individuals, the viral load is typically very low and the infectious period is also short in duration. They may still exhale virus particles, which another person may encounter. However, the overall likelihood of transmitting the disease to others is negligible. Thus, asymptomatic cases are not the major drivers of epidemics.
Perhaps the clearest statement and we argue the most definitive one came from Dr Anthony Fauci of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who stated in March 2020 (we outlined in more detail above): ‘In all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person”. Fauci says clearly the driver of transmission is ‘always’ a symptomatic person. Fauci went on to dispute his own declaration by his admonitions on subsequent Task Force podium speech that asymptomatic spread was very serious and a key driver, and thus why we must close schools, wear masks, and lock down the society. We found out how devastatingly wrong that was as we lost businesses and lives, including of our children due to the lockdowns/closures.
Dr Clare Craig, a pathologist, and her colleague Dr Jonathan Engler have examined the research evidence behind the claim that Covid-19 can be transmitted by asymptomatic individuals. They wrote “harmful lockdown policies and mass testing have been justified on the assumption that asymptomatic transmission is a genuine risk. Given the harmful collateral effects of such policies, the precautionary principle should result in a very high evidential bar for asymptomatic transmission being set. However, the only word which can be used to describe the quality of evidence for this is woeful. A handful of questionable instances of spread have been massively amplified in the medical literature by repeatedly including them in meta-analyses that continue to be published, recycling the same evidence base.”
It is important to carefully distinguish purely asymptomatic (individuals who never develop any symptoms) from pre-symptomatic transmission (where individuals do eventually develop symptoms). To the extent that the latter phenomenon, which has in fact happened only very rarely, is deemed worthy of public health action, appropriate strategies to manage it (in the absence of significant asymptomatic transmission) would be entirely different and much less disruptive than those actually adopted.
We state emphatically that the concept of ‘asymptomatic spread’ of COVID virus was devised to frighten the population into compliance and that it was not central to this pandemic as we were told. Evidence to support its existence remains lacking and absent. We close by offering our continued beliefs and thus opinion on how this pandemic should have been handled from the start. We would have as a basic, the strong double and triple down protection of the elderly high-risk populations. If this is not done properly and first, then there will be no success. We should have fostered improved hand-washing hygiene and isolation of only the ill/sick/symptomatic persons. No asymptomatic person is/was to be quarantined and there is only to be testing of symptomatic persons or when there is strong clinical suspicion. We would promote improved support for the immune system such as public service messages about vitamin D supplements (especially in societies with limited sunlight), and allow the rest of the low-risk society to live largely unfettered daily lives, taking sensible reasonable safety precautions. This would allow them to mingle and be exposed to each other harmlessly and naturally, so that this would drive population level immunity. At the same time, we would offer early outpatient treatment to high-risk positive persons (in nursing homes or their private homes). This includes the elderly, younger persons with underlying medical conditions, and obese persons.
We feel that had this approach been enacted from the very beginning, the devastating losses incurred by businesses and the economy, as well as the deaths of despair to the business owners, employees, and our school children would have been avoided. There were crushing harms to our societies and especially our children and this is unforgivable for the data was always available and we have been screaming loudly from March 2020 on the pending tragedy if our governments continued in that manner. The narrative and falsehood of ‘asymptomatic spread’ helped severely hobble and damage the pandemic response as it caused devastating personal and economic loses to accrue needlessly, and especially for our children. Especially for the poorer among us who could least afford!
Ivermectin, a common anti-parasite drug, has shown great efficacy in the fight against covid-19. For the first time, medical researchers have documented how ivermectin docks to the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain that is attached to the ACE2 receptor. In this way, ivermectin effectively inhibits viral attachment and replication, assisting a precise antiviral response that can target the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at its most advantageous cleavage site. The researchers showed how ivermectin interferes with the attachment of the spike protein to the human cell membrane. Ivermectin is a simple medicine derived from the bacterium Streptomyces avermitilis. It weakens and kills parasites by interfering with their nervous system and muscle function. Ivermectin targets the glutamate-gated chloride channels in the parasite’s nerve and muscle cells, bolstering inhibitory effects in the parasite’s own neurotransmission. As the chloride ions permeate, the parasite’s cells are hyper-polarized and then paralyzed, resulting in their demise. In this study, ivermectin docked in region of leucine 91 of the spike protein and at the histidine 378 of the ACE2 receptor. The binding energy and constancy of ivermectin was also measured and found to be sufficient at the ACE2 receptor, proving the anti-parasitic molecule a powerful force for blocking viral attachment of SARS-CoV-2.
Ivermectin blocks SARS CoV-2 at the ACE2 receptor in humans
The 17 randomized controlled trials that use ivermectin for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73 percent and 83 percent, respectively. Out of 37 early treatment and prophylaxis studies for ivermectin, 97 percent report positive effects. One of the studies documents how ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and displays broad-spectrum anti-viral activity against the causative virus (SARS-CoV-2). This study showed a 5,000-fold reduction in viral RNA after just 48 hours. The study also proves that effective treatments and prophylactics can mitigate the replication and spread of a virus thousands of times faster than the paranoid, isolationist approach of social distancing and lockdowns. If antivirals were encouraged early and often, then the spread of actual infectious virus would have been mitigated at rates thousands of times faster than the insane method of treating everyone as if they are infectious. By treating actual infections where symptoms are present, the spread is reduced at magnitudes thousands of times greater, while conveying immunity instead of terror. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is designed to attach to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in humans. To see whether ivermectin could dock at this receptor site and block viral attachment, the researchers used a program called AutoDock Vina Extended. This docking study showed the crystal structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain. The researchers looked specifically at the human ACE2 receptor and calculated the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of its atomic positions. A lower RMSD value indicates a more accurate docking capacity. When the RMSD value is three or greater, no docking has occurred at the receptor site. Ivermectin did not dock at nine of the locations; however, it did dock at the leucine 91 region of the spike and histidine 378 at the intersection of proteins between SARS CoV-2 and the ACE2 receptor complex. Previous studies proved ivermectin’s efficacy, but had to use high concentrations of the drug because the study relied on African green monkey kidney epithelial cells, which do not express the human ACE2 receptor. SARS-CoV-2 is specifically equipped to infect human ACE2 receptors, so this study could prove ivermectin to be effective in much smaller dosages. Clinical trials are now underway to determine if ivermectin is an effective treatment for covid-19.
The global conspiracy to suppress effective anti-viral medicines
The World Health Organization, the FDA, and the NIH have repeatedly suggested that no antiviral treatments exist for covid-19, even though multiple antiviral herbs and drugs have been studied during previous SARS and MERS epidemics and found to be effective. This time around, many of these antivirals were used with great effectiveness by doctors who were willing to go out on a limb and save lives. Chinese hospitals used various antiviral herbs to treat covid-19 patients. These hospitals studied the effects of the herbs for impeding virus-cell receptor binding, for stimulation of the host’s immunity, for blocking virus entry into host cells through action on the host’s enzymes, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 RNA synthesis and replication. The research found numerous phytochemicals to be effective, including: quercetin, ursolic acid, kaempferol, isorhamnetin, luteolin, glycerrhizin, and apigenin. The top three most effective plants for treating covid-19 included licorice root, (Glycyrrhiza glabra) chicory root, (Cichorium intybus) and hibiscus flowers (Hibiscus sabdariffa). A number of antiviral plants contain compounds that target all three antiviral targets, including olive leaf (Olea europaea), white horehound (Marrubium vulgare), black cumin seed (Nigella sativa), garden cress (Lepidium sativum), Judean wormwood (Artemisia Judaica), guava (Psidium guajava), chrysanthemum (Glebionis coronaria), and Maryam’s flower (Anastatica). Medical systems around the world are not properly equipped to strengthen the human immune response or understand what individuals need to overcome an infection. When it comes to fighting infections, the US FDA and European drug regulators parrot the same narrative of ignorance and apathy, withholding viable antivirals from the public. By the way, this is the only legal way to bring experimental vaccines to the global marketplace, by proving that no effective treatments exist. This suppression of science on antiviral treatments has paved the way for emergency use authorization of experimental vaccines and forced countless patients to suffer (and die) on ventilators, without treatment.
By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 11.04.2022
Amid the ongoing global inflation crisis, NATO heads of state and mainstream media repeat a mantra that high energy prices are a direct result of Putin’s actions in Ukraine since end of February. The reality is that it is the western sanctions that are responsible. Those sanctions including cutting SWIFT interbank access for key Russian banks and some of the most severe sanctions ever imposed, are hardly having an impact on the military actions in Ukraine. What many overlook is the fact that they are increasingly impacting the economies of the West, especially the EU and USA. A closer look at the state of the global supply of diesel fuel is alarming. But Western sanctions planners at the US Treasury and the EU know fully well what they are doing. And it bodes ill for the world economy.
While most of us rarely think about diesel fuel as anything other than a pollutant, in fact it is essential to the entire world economy in a way few energy sources are. The director general of Fuels Europe, part of the European Petroleum Refiners Association, stated recently, “… there is a clear link between diesel and GDP, because almost everything that goes into and out of a factory goes using diesel.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
