Gut microbiome specialist, Dr. Sabine Hazan, shares the shocking results of a long term study she performed comparing microbiomes in patients before and after taking the COVID-19 vaccine.
An article published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) has undertaken a formidable task: to engage in lockdown revisionism – while stating that it is fighting lockdown revisionism.
The lockdown here refers to the radically restrictive, invasive and long-lasting measures the authorities put in place during the Covid pandemic, but the article believes that the very word “lockdown” has now gained not only a powerful, but also “perverted” meaning.
Talk about “perverted” use of language – this development which worries CMAJ has taken place not only during the pandemic, but during “the infodemic.”
For those not in the know, “infodemic” is a pandemic-era neologism pushed by the likes of the World Health Organization (WHO) et al., meant to signify “an overabundance of information – some accurate and some not – that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and Access to the right reliable guidance when they need it.”
In other words, people don’t know what’s good for them, and in come all sorts of “trustworthy sources” to sort “the truth” out for them; the CMAJ article in particular wants to deal with “misinformation on lockdowns” and calls that – “lockdown revisionism.”
It is this – rather than any actions taken by governments – that has eroded trust in public health initiatives over the past three years, the journal is convinced.
The article’s authors also curiously insisted on peppering it with the mention of “democratic governments” engaging in these initiatives, possibly to bolster the “trustworthiness” of their own argument here (in reality, all sorts of governments did this – and some viewed as democratic then, did not emerge from the pandemic with that image unscathed.)
The CMAJ wants these “good” governments to now do more controversial things, such as, put euphemistically, “address the risks” of what is seen as misinformation amplification on social media.
Some of this “misinformation,” specifically regarding lockdowns as a tool of repression, not only physical, but also intellectual (considering censorship faced by those expressing their skepticism on those social sites), is defined pretty well – although, clearly from CMAJ’s point of view, as a negative phenomena (“elements of outlandish conspiracies”).
Things like this: “Lockdowns have been framed as reckless and unscientific, as junk science, as an excuse to permanently oppress populations, as gaslighting with ever-shifting goalposts.”
If that sounds about right, the CMAJ considers you a misinformation peddler with possibly a knack for outlandish conspiracies.
And now, how to fix that?
“Governments could consider strategies — including increased regulatory scrutiny — to address the risks of misinformation being amplified on social media,” is one of the ideas presented in the article.
Judicial Watch announced Wednesday it received 552 pages of records from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that include the initial grant application and annual reports to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from EcoHealth Alliance, describing the aim of its work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China to create mutant viruses “to better predict the capacity of our CoVs [coronaviruses] to infect people.”
Eco Health Alliance planned to sequence the spike protein from coronaviruses obtained from bats for the purpose of “creating mutants to identify how significantly each would need to evolve to use ACE2,” which is explained as “the receptor to gain entry to human cells.”
Judicial Watch obtained the records through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request it filed in December 2021 for:
“All reports submitted by EcoHealth Alliance to NIH or its sub-agencies related to NIH Grant No. 1R01A|110964 titled ‘Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” during the term of the grant.’”
In the initial “Application for Federal Assistance” submitted on June 5, 2013, by EcoHealth Alliance, a section is titled “Specific Aims,” which notes the intention to create mutant bat viruses and “predict the capacity of our CoVs [coronaviruses] to infect people”:
“To understand the risk of zoonotic CoV [coronavirus] emergence, we propose to examine 1) the transmission dynamics of bat-CoVs across the human-wildlife interface; and 2) how this process is affected by CoV evolutionary potential, and how it might force CoV evolution.
“We will assess the nature and frequency of contact among animals and people in two critical human-animal interfaces: live animal markets in China and people who are highly exposed to bats in rural China.”
“Specific Aim 3” discusses “Testing predictions of CoV inter-species transmission”:
“We will test our models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments in cell culture and humanized mice.
“With bat-CoVs that we’ve isolated or sequenced, and using live virus or pseudovirus infection in cells of different origin or expressing different receptor molecules, we will assess potential for each isolated virus and those with receptor binding site sequence to spill over.
“We will do this by sequencing the spike (or other receptor binding/fusion) protein genes from all our bat-CoVs, creating mutants to identify how significantly each would need to evolve to use ACE2, CD26/DPP4 (MERS-CoV receptor) or other potential CoV receptors.”
In the continuing discussion of the aims of the research, the report states:
“In vitro [outside the body] cell lines & Humanized mouse model: We have developed primary cell lines and transformed cell lines from 9 bat species using kidney, spleen, heart, brain and intestine. We have used these for virus isolation, infection assays and receptor molecule gene cloning.
“We also have a large number of cell lines from humans and animals that we will use for virus infectivity assays. We have obtained a letter of support from Dr. Ralph Baric, who is keen to collaborate with us initially to infect his humanized mouse model with our bat SL-CoV [SARS-Like Coronavirus] that uses ACE2, and subsequently to use other CoVs that we identify …
“The results will provide information whether bat-CoVs could use known bat and human ACE2, DPP4 or other known CoV receptors to enter cells, and allow us to determine critical receptor binding sites, viral host range, and to better predict the capacity of our CoVs to infect people.”
Three other Chinese sites follow: East China Normal University in Shanghai, Yunnan Institute of Endemic Disease Control and Prevention in Dali and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of Guangdong in Guangzhou.
On May 27, 2014, the NIH awarded EcoHealth Alliance $3,086,735 over five years for “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”
An EcoHealth Alliance grant application, received by the NIH on June 5, 2013, includes a list of “Senior/Key Personnel” including Shi Zhengli and Zhang Yun-Zhi of the WIV; Peter Daszak, CEO of EcoHealth Alliance; and other Chinese scientists, including Ke Changwen of the Chinese “CDC and Prevention of Guangdong Province.”
A section of the EcoHealth Alliance application titled “EcoHealth Alliance Budget Justification” describes some of the work to be conducted by EcoHealth scientists in China:
“A research scientist will be hired at 12 months time per year to provide direct assistance and oversight of field activities in China; maintain equipment and logistics; and coordinate animal and human sample shipment to the labs in China and in the US.
“Once we secure IRBs [Institutional Review Boards] for human sampling in Y1 [Year 1], we will hire three medical officers from China provincial CDCs [Centers for Disease Control] as consultants to work in Guangxi, Hunan, and Fujian during Y2-Y5. These medical officers will be responsible for IRB approved human sampling as well as maintaining cold chain for storage and shipping samples.
“Dr. Zhengli Shi, Senior Virologist. [Redacted] per year in Y1 -Y5. Dr. Shi will oversee the coronavirus screening for all samples collected in China. She will work with the PI [Principal Investigator], Co-Investigators, and Senior/Key Personnel to analyze data and write manuscripts. She will also coordinate data and material sharing with the co-investigators.”
In a budget calculation for the year 2014-15, the WIV as a sub-awardee of the grant was allocated to receive $128,718 in direct costs and $10,297 in indirect costs from NIH.
The salaries of Shi Zhengli and a WIV colleague Ge Xingyl are redacted from the budget. Over the five years of the grant, the Wuhan lab was to receive $749,976.
A section of the grant award titled “Wuhan Institute of Virology Budget Justification, Subaward” discusses “Other Direct Costs”:
RNA extractions
We will be running RNA extractions for 1,000 bats per year (three samples per bat: oral, anal and blood) in each year … Extracted RNA per animal will be pooled.
DNA Sequencing
In each year of the project, DNA sequencing will be performed on 3,200 samples at a cost of $2.91 per reaction. …
Laboratory Supplies
We request support for in vitro infection experiments using pseudoviruses carrying the spike proteins (wild type or mutants) or live viruses in cell lines of different origins, binding affinity assays between the spike proteins (wild types or mutants) and different cellular receptor molecules and humanized mouse experiments.
“Testing predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. The following experiments will be undertaken in Year 2:
Humanized mice with human ACE2 receptors will be infected with WIV1 and the two rescued chimeric SARS-like coronaviruses to determine the tissue tropism and pathogenicity of bat SL-CoV.
Isolation of novel bat coronaviruses. Live virus or pseudovirus will be used to infect cells of different origin or expressing different receptor molecules. Spillover potential for each isolated virus will be assessed.
An infectious clone of full-length MERS-CoV [Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus] will be constructed using reverse genetic method. Using the S [spike] sequence of different MERS-related viruses identified from Chinese bats, the chimeric viruses with S gene of bat MERS-related coronaviruses and backbone of the infectious clone of MERS-CoV will be constructed to study the receptor usage and infectivity of bat MERS-related coronaviruses.
“In Year 3, we successfully isolated Rs4874 from the single [bat] fecal sample. Using the reverse genetic system we previously developed, we constructed two chimeric viruses with the WIV1 backbone replaced with the S [spike] gene of Rs7327 and Rs4231, respectively.
“Vero E6 cells were respectively infected with Rs4874, WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1-Rs7327S, and efficient virus replication was detected by immunofluorescence assay in all infections.
“To assess the usage of human ACE2 by the three novel SL-CoVs, we conducted virus infectivity studies using HeLa cells with or without the expression of human ACE2. All viruses replicated efficiently in the human ACE2-expressing cells.”
In the Year 4 annual report, budget period June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2019, submitted to NIH by EcoHealth on Sept. 16, 2020, in answer to the question “How Have the Results Been Disseminated to Communities of Interest,” the report details that Peter Daszak and WIV lab director Shi Zhenglibriefed their findings to, among others, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Among the accomplishments listed in the Year 4 report is:
“In vivo [experimentation done in a whole organism] infection of SARSr-CoVs with variants of S [spike] protein in human ACE2 (hACE2) expressing mice.”
The report also includes information about the construction of viruses of “varying pathogenicity” and testing them on humanized mice:
“Using the reverse genetic methods we previously developed, infectious clones with the WIV1 [bat SARS-like coronavirus] backbone and the spike protein of SHC014, W IV16 and Rs4231, respectively, were constructed and recombinant viruses were successfully rescued.
“In Year 4, we performed preliminary in vivo infection of SARSr-CoVs on transgenic mice that express hACE2. Mice were infected with 105 pfu of full-length recombinant virus of W IV1 (rWIV1) and the three chimeric viruses with different spikes.
“Pathogenesis of the 4 SARSr-CoVs was then determined in a 2-week course. Mice challenged with rWIV1-SHC014S have experienced about 20% body weight loss by the 6th day post infection, while rWIV1 and rWIV-4231 S produced less body weight loss.
“In the mice infected with rWIV1 -WIV16S, no body weight loss was observed (Fig. 35a). 2 and 4 days post infection, the viral load in lung tissues of mice challenged with rWIV1-SHC014S, rWIV1-WIV16S and rWIV1-Rs4231 S reached more than 106 genome copies/g and were significantly higher than that in rWIV1-infected mice (Fig. 35b). These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice.”
In a revised award dated July 13, 2020, the NIH granted additional funds, including $77,750 to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, $76,301 to the WIV and $75,600 to the Institute of Pathogen Biology of China.
The 2020 renewal application to extend funding for the Wuhan bat research projects states that EcoHealth would not be working with “select agents” (severe threats), such as SARS-CoV, but rather with a SARSr-CoV molecular clone designated WIV1 which, while a “BSL3” (biosafety level 3) pathogen, was not considered a select agent.
The select agent research was to be conducted at Baric’s lab at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
A section titled “P3CO Research” notes:
“Importantly, we are not proposing to genetically manipulate SARS-CoV over the course of this proposal. … However, we are proposing to genetically manipulate the full length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone during the course of this proposal, which is not a select agent, has not been shown to cause human infections, and has not been shown to be transmissible between humans.”
“This project is a multi-institutional collaboration led by EcoHealth Alliance, New York (Daszak, PI), which will subcontract funds to three institutions: the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Dr. Shi), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Dr. Baric), and the Institute of Pathogen Biology (Dr. Ren).”
“A review of these and other documents strongly suggest that U.S. funding in China and elsewhere for mutant virus, gain-of-function research may have been responsible for the emergence of the COVID pandemic in Wuhan,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“This gain-of-function scandal should be the subject of criminal investigations.”
Through FOIA, Judicial Watch has uncovered a substantial amount of information about COVID-19 issues:
HHS records included emails of then-Director of the NIH Francis Collins showing a British physicians’ group recommended the use of Ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19.
Heavily redacted HHS records showed that just two days prior to FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine a discussion was held between U.S. and U.K. health regulators regarding the COVID-19 shot and “anaphylaxis,” with the regulators emphasizing their “mutual confidentiality agreement.”
Judicial Watch obtained HHS records regarding data Moderna submitted to the FDA on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, which indicated a “statistically significant” number of rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were injected with the vaccine. The documents also revealed Moderna elected not to conduct a number of standard pharmacological studies on the laboratory test animals.
Heavily redacted records from the FDA regarding the COVID-19 booster vaccine detailed pressure on COVID-19 booster use and approval.
HHS records detailed internal discussions about myocarditis and the COVID-19 vaccine. Other documents detail adverse “events for which a contributory effect of the vaccine could not be excluded.”
Judicial Watch uncovered HHS records detailing the extensive media plans for a Biden administration propaganda campaign to push the COVID-19 vaccine.
HHS records revealed previously redacted locations of COVID-19 vaccine testing facilities in Shanghai, China. The FDA had claimed the name and location of the testing facilities were protected by the confidential commercial information exemption of the FOIA.
NIH records showed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the WIV. The records also show NIAID officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s WIV in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’s lack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.
Texas Public Information Act (PIA) records showed the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch, Dr. James W. Le Duc, warned Chinese researchers at the WIV of potential investigations into the COVID-19 issue by Congress.
HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines showed how a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles, were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.
Records obtained from HHS through a FOIA lawsuit related to hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 revealed that a grant to EcoHealth Alliance was canceled because of press reports that a portion of the grant was given to the WIV.
HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the WIV for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.
NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for the decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.
HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci ” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high level commitment from China.”
HHS records included a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that appears to describe “gain-of-function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone.
HHS records showed the State Department and NIAID knew immediately in January 2020 that China was withholding COVID-19 data, which was hindering risk assessment and response by public health officials.
HHS records show that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.
Fauci emails include his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.
Judicial Watch, Inc. is a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.
U.S. health officials opposed a diplomatic letter requesting international scientists tour Wuhan’s coronavirus labs in the spring of 2020, according to emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
On May 15, 2020, the Department of State requested the Department of Health and Human Services cosign a letter “requesting that the PRC authorize and facilitate a visit of international scientists and public health experts to Wuhan,” the emails show.
The purpose: “To exchange information with counterparts who have conducted research on coronaviruses (including the origin and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2), examine all relevant data, and visit laboratory facilities where such research has been conducted, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention labs,” the request reads.
Secretary of State Michael Pompeo addressed the letter to Han Zheng, vice premier of the People’s Republic of China, and Yang Jiechi, the director of the Office of Foreign Affairs of the Communist Party of China. The letter’s contents are fully redacted, but are described in the request from the State Department to HHS.
HHS Secretary Alex Azar declined to cosign the letter and even recommended that the State Department reconsider sending it.
“After careful consideration, HHS respectfully declines to join the letter,” reads the reply.
The HHS media office did not respond to a request for comment.
Eight agencies and offices within HHS authorized the negative reply, including the National Institutes of Health — which funded high risk virology in Wuhan — as well as two senior aides to Azar, according to interagency communications. The communications indicate that the “authoring agency” was the HHS Office of Global Affairs.
The new emails further illustrate how fledgling efforts to gain a window into the coronavirus virology at the pandemic’s center have been obstructed from within the U.S. government.
Health officials and the U.S. intelligence community opposed publishing information related to the Wuhan lab in early 2021 in part because it “called out actions that we ourselves are doing” and “demanded access that we ourselves would never provide,” U.S. Right to Knowpreviously reported.
The NIH, which is a part of HHS, supported the discovery of new coronaviruses and experiments that enhanced their transmissibility and pathogenicity in the lab in Wuhan, according to federal records and grant reports.
Francis Collins, then the director of the NIH, and Anthony Fauci, director of its infectious diseases institute, helped conceive a 2020 scientific article that suppressed speculation about the possibility of a research related origin of the novel virus, according to other emails revealed through FOIA.
HHS outlined four reasons they opposed the diplomatic letter.
“We have sent our own letter to Mr. Azar’s counterpart at the National Health Commission, Minister Ma Xiaowei, regarding sample sharing,” the reply read. “We would like to ensure that line of inquiry remains open, and as such do not wish to confuse issues by joining this letter.”
The HHS response continues: “We recently ended funding to the institute that this letter is requesting access to. … A request for a visit could be construed as opening the possibility for that funding to again be available, something we do not wish to be suggested.”
The NIH had temporarily suspended a grant to EcoHealth Alliance, the infectious diseases group that served as an intermediary between NIH and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
“HHS recommends that the State Department reconsider sending the letter as it could be used to curtail access to Chinese vaccine and therapeutic development — something that we also do not wish to do as it could impede other Presidential health initiatives, such as Operation Warp Speed,” the response also states.
The U.S. and China would ultimately undertake separate tracks in vaccine development.
Two top Food and Drug Administration officials — director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Peter Marks, who coined the term “Operation Warp Speed,” and longtime FDA official Janet Woodcock, who led COVID-19 therapeutic development — were not involved in drafting the reply, the emails suggest.
The HHS response concludes that the desire for an inspection of the Wuhan labs by international scientists had already been “overtaken” by a resolution at the World Health Assembly in May 2020.
“Finally, the letter is now overtaken by the resolution agreed to at the 73rd World Health Assembly … to undertake an investigation into the origins of COVID-19,” the reply reads.
In fact, the World Health Assembly resolution called for an investigation to “identify the zoonotic source of the virus.” In other words, the resolution implicitly omitted a possible laboratory source.
Chinese authorities had final approval of the experts tapped to participate in the investigation. They included EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak. The investigation concluded that a lab origin was “extremely unlikely,” a conclusion immediately rejected by World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
Emails used in this story can be reviewed here. All of the documents obtained in the course of our investigation can be reviewed here.
This week, CDC director Rochelle Walensky provided witness testimony to the House Committee on Appropriations responsible for overseeing the funding of various federal programs related to labour, health, education, and other related agencies.
But serious questions have been raised about the veracity of Walensky’s testimony.
Congressman Andrew Clyde (R-Ga) asked Walensky if her March 2021 public statement on MSNBC, in which she unequivocally said that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus, they do not get sick” was accurate.
“At the time it was [accurate]” Walensky replied confidently.
She then proceeded to explain, “We’ve had an evolution of the science and an evolution of the virus” and that “all the data at the time suggested that vaccinated people, even if they got sick, could not transmit the virus.”
However, there was no such evidence at the time and it prompted criticism from scientists who said there weren’t enough data to claim that vaccinated people were completely protected or that they could not transmit the virus to others.
One of those critics was Jay Bhattacharya, professor of health policy at Stanford University School of Medicine.
“Back then, Walensky didn’t know if it was true. It was just an irresponsible use of a bully pulpit as a CDC director to say something that she did not know for certain to be true at the time,” said Bhattacharya.
“Unfortunately, people used that information to discriminate against unvaccinated individuals and would certainly have been used as fuel for very destructive policies like vaccine mandates,” he added.
Notably, only days after Walensky made that statement to MSNBC, a spokesperson from her own agency had to walk back the comments saying, “Dr Walensky spoke broadly in this interview” adding that it was possible for fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19.
Walensky missed the memo
Walensky should have known that when mRNA vaccines were first authorised in 2020, the FDA listed critical ‘gaps’ in the knowledge base. One of them was the vaccine’s unknown effectiveness against viral transmission.
Also, in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s original pivotal trials, there were 8 and 11 people respectively, who developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the vaccine group, proving the vaccines never had absolute effectiveness, like Walensky had claimed.
Several months later, the FDA’s evaluation stayed the same. In a clinical review, the FDA wrote, “remaining uncertainties regarding the clinical benefits of BNT162b2 in individuals 16 years and older, include its level of protection against asymptomatic infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, including for the delta variant.”
Even today, the FDA remains clear that efficacy against transmission is unproven. The FDA’s website states, “While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if Comirnaty will reduce such transmission.”
Walensky says Cochrane summary ‘retracted’
Another astonishing falsehood made by Walensky was her response to Congressman Clyde’s question about the Cochrane review which found that wearing face masks in the community “probably makes little to no difference” in preventing viral transmission.
Walensky enthusiastically stated, “I think its notable, that the Editor-in-Chief of Cochrane, actually said that the summary of that review was…[stumble]..she retracted the summary of that review and said that it was inaccurate.”
However, the summary of the review was not retracted, nor have the authors of the review changed the language in the summary.
Misleading statements by New York Times columnist Zeynep Tufekci has likely led to this falsehood being repeated (which I cover in a previous article).
In response to Walensky’s comments, Tom Jefferson, lead author of the Cochrane study said, “Walensky is plain wrong. There has been no retraction of anything.”
“It’s worth reiterating that we are the copyright holders of the review, so we decide what goes in or out of the review and we will not change our review on the basis of what the media wants or what Walensky says,” remarked Jefferson.
Bhattacharya was also stunned by Walensky’s comments. “It’s irresponsible for her to claim that the Cochrane review [summary] was retracted when it was not. It damages her credibility and harms the scientific process, which requires public officials to be honest about scientific results,” he said.
Did Walensky lie to Congress or is she poorly informed?
Witnesses at these hearings are expected to provide truthful and accurate information to the committee and may be subject to legal penalties if they provide false information or knowingly make false statements.
But will Walensky be held accountable for misleading Congress? Unlikely.
In our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Dr. McCullough and I give numerous examples of how anyone—even eminently qualified scientists and researchers—who questions the prevailing orthodoxy about a range of public policy issues will likely be labelled a “conspiracy theorist.” Since the JFK assassination, “conspiracy theorist” has become a pejorative, accusatory label like “racist” or “sexist.” Through common usage, the label has become charged with the power to smear and dismiss someone outright without supporting evidence.
The greatest trick that powerful interest groups ever pulled was convincing the world that everyone who detects and reports their activities is a conspiracy theorist. Only the naivest consumer of mainstream news reporting would fail to recognize that powerful interest groups in the military, financial, and bio-pharmaceutical industries work in concert to further their interests. Their activities cross the line into conspiracy when they commit fraud or other crimes to advance their interests. The term “conspiracy theory” suggests the feverish imaginings of a crackpot mind. This ignores the fact that the United States government prosecutes the crime of conspiracy all the time. As one prominent defense attorney describes this reality:
Any time the government believes that it can allege that two or more individuals were a part of a common agreement to commit the same crime, they will include a charge of conspiracy in the indictment. There is no requirement that all of the members of the conspiracy even know about each other, or even know each other personally.
A person may be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime even if he doesn’t know all of the details of the crime. History is full of well-documented conspiracies. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, there were three major conspiracies to murder her and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots. All were detected and foiled. The final “Babington Plot” was discovered by Elizabeth’s secretary, Sir Francis Walsingham (an astute intelligence gatherer) and this led to Mary’s execution for treason.
Are we really to believe that there are no longer power-hungry men who conspire to acquire greater power and wealth?
As far as “theory” goes, every prosecutor develops a theory of a crime and presents it to the jury. If you are a concerned citizen and you perceive that your government officials and media are not telling the truth about a vitally important matter, you have no choice but to formulate a theory of what is going on. Developing a theory to explain a pattern of ascertainable facts is a rational attempt to detect and expose criminal conduct. To be sure, some theories are more plausible than others. Some are logical and coherent; others are wild and contradictory.
When President Eisenhower left office in 1961, he expressly warned about what he called the Military-Industrial Complex acquiring “unwarranted influence” that could “endanger our liberties and democratic processes.” When COVID-19 arrived, the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex vigorously and exclusively pursued the vaccine solution instead of the early treatment solution. In order to realize their ambition, multiple actors simultaneously waged a propaganda campaign against hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other repurposed drugs.
It’s likely that only a relatively small number of these actors knew they were making fraudulent claims about the generic, repurposed drugs, and knew they were taking action to impede access to these drugs based on fraudulent claims. These actors were the conspirators. Countless others unwittingly played roles in the conspiracy because they themselves believed the propaganda.
Only two years ago numerous alternative media sources including Zero Hedge were accused of spreading “conspiracy theories” and false information relating to the origins of the Covid-19 virus. Specifically, anyone who dared to suggest that the Level 4 virology lab in Wuhan, China (right across town from covid ground zero) might be the source of the outbreak, faced outright censorship on social media. The question many people should have been asking is: “Why?” – Why was the censorship so aggressive over clearly reasonable investigations into Wuhan lab operations?
Not only that, but why were the denials and spin from officials like Anthony Fauci so swift? Why not simply examine the evidence instead of dismissing it out of hand?
The real reason for the campaign to silence discussion on the Wuhan lab becomes evident as the connections between Fauci, the NIH and the lab are revealed. Elements of the US government including Fauci were in fact bankrolling gain of function research on coronaviruses at Wuhan, and shielding it from government oversight. It is undeniable. If one accepts that the most likely source for the covid pandemic was the Wuhan laboratory then one must also accept that Fauci and his associates helped to create the pandemic.
Fauci lied about these connections incessantly under oath. Here is Anthony Fauci defending his initial lie to Congress using further lies during questioning by Sen. Rand Paul:
Evidence of the research includes documents from the Department of Defense (obtained by Project Veritas ) which confirm that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in 2018 about gain of function research on bat borne coronaviruses under a proposal called Project Defuse. DARPA rejected the proposal on the grounds that it did not outline the risks of such experimentation and violated a moratorium on gain on function research. EcoHealth then went to Fauci and the NIH for funding, and Fauci was quick to support it using the labs in Wuhan.
Documents from the NIH itself also show that the group engaged in gain of function research at Wuhan focusing on developing coronaviruses that could be transferred from animals to humans. Fauci was aware of this research by at least 2021 (and was likely involved from the very beginning) and yet continued to lie about NIH involvement.
Meanwhile, the National Pulse– which has done multiple deep-dive investigations on the topic, uncovered in May of 2001 that the WIV scrubbed all mention of its partnership with the NIH from their website.
Scrutiny over Fauci’s disinformation campaign may be too little too late, and we have to wonder if the man will ever face consequences for his actions. However, the exposure of Fauci and the NIH is so overwhelming that the former Director of National Intelligence now admits that Fauci misled Congress and the American public.
The former Director of National Intelligence agrees with the former CDC Director that Dr. Anthony Fauci lied to Congress under oath about funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab:
"Some of Dr. Fauci's testimony is inconsistent with some of the intelligence that we have… pic.twitter.com/raoVCBQdyR
Hopefully, this revelation will help to discourage people from blindly following the claims of government bureaucrats during the next manufactured global crisis.
This is the second of our two-part series on the role played by ventilators in the pandemic phenomenon. In Part 1 published yesterday, which you can read here, we considered the dubious clinical rationale and adverse outcomes of the widespread use of ventilators, and today we explore the psychological purpose.
VENTILATORS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL TOOL
‘LOOK her in the eyes and tell her you never break the rules’, exclaimed a billboard posted around the country in spring 2020, each version depicting a petrified patient with a breathing tube or mask. This was the State of Fear documented by Laura Dodsworth (2020) in the aftermath of the first lockdown, imposed purportedly to limit the spread of a deadly new coronavirus. To achieve compliance with an unprecedented deprivation of liberties, the government pushed propaganda at every opportunity, inducing fear of the disease and loathing of anyone daring to stray from pandemic discipline.
For the regime to work, the people needed to be sufficiently scared. The virus was portrayed as universally life-threatening, with an exaggerated fatality rate in the early weeks derived from a relatively low number of cases. The reported rate of about 5 per cent declined after mass testing, which reduced the IFR to nearer that of influenza (this inversion was useful in demonstrating the effectiveness of lockdown and social distancing), but the initial message was highly effective.
Alongside the seriousness of the contagion was an absence of cure. For a patient who developed severe symptoms, typically drowning in pneumonia, the only chance of survival was to be intubated and to rely on a ventilator in the hope of microbial mercy.
Nothing invokes public dread more than scenes of multiple patients on ventilators; even better if those working around them are covered in maximally protective clothing and face masks. Rows of patients in ordinary hospital beds would not have had the same effect; indeed, in some televised recordings politicians visiting wards were met by stoical Brits, inconveniently chatty or smiling. NHS hospitals became a tightly scripted stage show, as illustrated by nurses doing choreographed TikTok dances (often imploring people to ‘stay at home’), and activist Debbie Hicks arrested (and later fined almost £1,000) for filming in her local hospital corridors.
‘Ventilator’ became le mot du jour in conversations with friends and family. This was all part of the theatre: overwhelmed doctors and nurses, beds in the corridors, hurriedly built Nightingale hospitals (which never fully opened), and a treatment apparatus that filled minds with fear. Being put on a ventilator may be traumatising, one Covid-19 patient reflecting on it as the ‘worst experience of her life’. The blunt message was that if you wanted to avoid such drastic intervention you must follow all guidelines and mandates. Through their daily projection in mainstream media, ventilators were a useful tool for compliance with social distancing, lockdown, regular testing and mask-wearing.
Indeed, we suggest that the deployment of ventilators was primarily for psychological rather than clinical reasons. For many watching the news on television, this machine was as terrifying as the disease. Furthermore, it contributed to the government-desired yearning for a promised vaccine. Mainstream media, controlled by the authorities throughout the pseudo-pandemic, contributed to the fear by reporting that one’s chances of survival on a ventilator were at best 50:50. As discussed in Part One, the real odds were only about one in four.
Although ventilators aroused fear, their scarcity was also instrumental. As the outbreak reached the UK, people had seen images of chaotic hospitals in Italy, and wanted to believe that the wonderful NHS would be better prepared. Instead, they were told by news bulletins that only a fraction of the necessary machines were available. Reckless rule-breakers, perceived as tantamount to murderers running amok, were deemed undeserving of such resources.
On March 15 2020 prime minister Boris Johnson called on British manufacturing firms to adapt their production lines to making ventilators, with the Department of Health issuing specifications to companies that expressed interest. Yet despite the appearance of the government going on a war footing, there was no requisitioning, which you would expect if the need was so dire. Dyson designed a new machine, CoVent, but decided not to proceed with mass production after Covid-19 cases had passed a peak. Similarly in the US, the federal government announced a budget of a billion dollars for ventilator production, having lined up companies such as General Motors, but only a small fraction of the order was fulfilled.
Having failed to achieve its initial target of 18,000 mechanical ventilators by the end of April, the UK government was reportedly making substantial progress towards the later target of 30,000 by the end of June. Although incidence was falling, the authorities were preparing the public for a predicted second wave of the pandemic. Despite the disastrous results, and knowing that ultimately supply would vastly outstrip demand, ventilators remained centre-stage.
Like testing kits and other Covid-19 paraphernalia, ventilator provision was mired in allegations of ministers’ conflict of interest and corruption. As reported by Private Eye in Profits of Doom, thousands of these ventilators went into storage in Ministry of Defence warehouses. Nevertheless, the money for their purchase is stored in the bank accounts of the people who, subject to little scrutiny, supplied them.
Ventilators were elevated to a first-line treatment when they should have been a last resort. Their use as an instrument of fear is abhorrent, but worse is the suspicion that such equipment caused death. At the very least we can say that physicians continued to put Covid-19 patients on ventilators in the knowledge that this would most likely hasten their demise. This is quite a charge, but have we not seen enough crimes against humanity over the last three years to think the unthinkable?
In honor of the memories of Nobel prize winner Kary Mullis (1944-2019), researcher and gay rights activist Hank Wilson (1947-2008), writer and activist Christine Maggiore (1956-2008), journalist Terry Michael (1947-2017), journalist Liam Scheff (d. 2017), and biomedical researcher David Crowe (d. 2020) who worked ceaselessly and courageously to expose the numerous frauds of Anthony Fauci and his fellow conspirators in the HIV=AIDS industry.
This is the story they would have us believe.
A deadly new virus is discovered… there’s no treatment or cure… it’s highly contagious… everyone is a potential victim… the world is at risk from asymptomatic super spreaders…new clusters of cases reported daily…
Everyone must get tested even though the tests are unreliable… positive antibody tests are called “infections” and “cases” even when the patient has no symptoms…every politician gets involved… media hysteria in high gear… activists demand salvation from government and Big Pharma…
Billions of dollars are authorized for fast track drug and vaccine research… simple, effective remedies are rejected while expensive, dangerous ones are pushed…presumptive diagnoses… exaggerated death statistics… falsified death certificates…
Covid 2020?
No.
AIDS in the 1980s.
Every single fraud technique being used today to “sell” CoVid hysteria was invented in the 1980s and 1990s by Tony Fauci to sell the AIDS fraud.
Are you surprised to hear AIDS called a fraud? You won’t be after you see this film.
This is the first and only film to put Fauci where he belongs: squarely in the middle of the AIDS fraud story.
Share widely.
Demolishing the AIDS fraud is one of the keys to undermining the CoVid Con and it will save millions of lives here in the US, in Africa and around the world.
Sections:
CoVid response’s social impact – 00:11
Fauci’s Public Face – 04:20
Fauci’s Power Base: AIDS – 05:41
Aids: Fauci First Fraud – 09:50
Peter Duesberg challenges HIV = AIDS – 15:24
AZT: The Untold Story – 21:22
Who Ran ACT-UP? – 29:25
Poppers: Fauci Hides the Smoking Gun – 45:47
A Look at Testing – 01:02:26
Summary – 01:28:01
Sources:
AIDS – A Second Opinion (2001), Gary Null & Associates
AIDS Inc. (2007), Gary Null
AIDS: The Unheard Voices (Dispatches series) (1987), Meditel Productions/Joan Shenton
AZT: Cause for Concern (Dispatches series) (1991), Meditel Productions/Joan Shenton
Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS (2003), Gary Null
House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic (2009), Brent W. Leung
Perspectives on the Pandemic (Episodes 3, 4, 5) (2020), Journeyman Pictures/Libby Handros & John Kirby
The Age of AIDS (Frontline) (2006), PBS/Renata Simone
‘You’ll end up on a ventilator’. That threat was frequently aimed at dissidents in the early months of Covid-19. ‘End’ is the operative word, as most patients who were put on to the mechanical breathing apparatus lost their lives. Many may have died anyway, but undoubtedly ventilators did more harm than good.
As Registered Nurses, we are concerned by needless iatrogenic deaths in the Covid-19 regime, whether by excessive use of midazolam, cardiovascular harm from vaccines, curtailed access to cancer screening and surgery, or the impact of fear-inducing propaganda. What was the role played by ventilators in the pandemic phenomenon?
We have divided this review into ‘how’ and ‘why’. In Part One we consider the dubious clinical rationale and adverse outcomes of such widespread treatment, and in Part Two we explore its psychological purposing. It’s not a pretty picture.
THE CLINICAL CARNAGE
IMAGINE being admitted to hospital for any reason and after testing positive for a respiratory virus, being moved to another ward, sedated into semi-consciousness and hooked up to a mechanical breathing machine. How on earth did you get here? Yet this was a common fate of hospital patients admitted in the Covid-19 outbreak in 2020. For too many, it was a silent spring, as their last breaths were taken before the tube was passed into their lungs.
A ventilator operates by a tube inserted through the mouth reaching down the windpipe into the lungs, blowing oxygen in and enabling exhalation of carbon dioxide out. The ventilated patient is normally sedated, partly to reduce distress caused by losing the ability to breathe naturally.
In an exchange with TCW editor Kathy Gyngell, former Pfizer chief scientist Mike Yeadon asserted: ‘I believe they were sedating, intubating and ventilating people admitted for non-respiratory reasons if they tested positive for Covid. My bottom line is that close to zero people should ever have been ventilated. Did you know that once sedated/unconscious and ventilated, everyone will die in due course? It’s a horribly dangerous procedure. When lifesaving like deep surgery or after trauma in a road accident, or perhaps a chest wall injury or stabbing and pneumothorax, or if you’ve an obstructive lung disease and are physically exhausted by the work of breathing, and finally a 50 per cent burn victim in agony, mechanical ventilation may be justified.’
The equipment is not standard treatment for influenza and pneumonia, a leading cause of death in older people, for whom such intervention would normally be regarded as unnecessarily invasive (and costly). Indeed, Yeadon doubts whether any patients testing positively for Covid-19 should have been ventilated.
The mad rush for ventilators began after the virus reached Italy and then spread across Europe and North America. On March 25 2020 the analytics company GlobalData estimated that about 10 per cent of the Covid-19 cases worldwide needed ventilators and that 888,000 ventilators would be needed. The company’s medical devices analyst Tina Deng said: ‘Ventilator shortages are a crucial reality as the Covid-19 outbreak continues to worsen globally. All ventilator manufacturers have full order books and hold little in stock – receiving orders not only from regular customers such as hospitals, but also directly from governments.’
Italy became the benchmark for the rest of Europe, but account was not taken of the uniqueness of the Italian health service. Before Covid-19, Italy had considerably higher bed occupancy than in the UK. With similar populations (60million for Italy; 68.5million for UK), the former has 25,000 more beds than the latter (187,000 for Italy; 162,000 for UK). In 2019 Italians were admitted to hospital a staggering 58.6million times compared with approximately 6million in the UK. Patients in Italy are much more likely to be admitted, with high use of intensive care units (ICU), where Italy has 3.1 beds per 1,000 people compared with 2.4 in the UK.
At the time of the Covid-19 outbreak the NHS had 5,000 adult and 900 child ventilators, but at least 30,000 were deemed necessary for the surge in pandemic patients. The government called on major British manufacturers such as Rolls-Royce and Dyson to build ventilators instead of engines and vacuum cleaners (see Part Two).
But ventilators were clearly no panacea. In April 2020 the Daily Mail reported data from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre on the first 777 Covid-19 patients treated in 285 ICUs, showing that only 34 of 98 ventilated patients lived to tell the tale. According to the newspaper, volunteers at the hurriedly erected Nightingale Hospital in London were told that 80 per cent of patients on ventilators would die.
On April 9 theIndependent reported that ‘some working on the front lines of the coronavirus epidemic are now wondering whether (ventilators) might do more harm than expected’. On the same day the Daily Mail went almost as far as saying that doctors knew that this intervention was killing people. On April 26 an NIH pre-print reported that ‘mortality rates range from 50-97 per cent in those requiring mechanical ventilation’. Meanwhile the US publications STAT (twice) and Time both reported warnings by physicians that use of ventilators for Covid-19 patients was misguided.
As Kit Knightly remarked in OffGuardian(May 4 2020), ‘over-use of ventilators may actually be killing people who could otherwise have survived’. Knightly’s detailed article explained why so many patients were dying, including this quote from German pulmonologist Thomas Voshaar: ‘Invasive ventilation is fundamentally bad for patients. Even if the ventilator is optimally adjusted and the care is perfect, the treatment brings with it many complications. The lungs are sensitive to two things: excess pressure and excessive oxygen concentration in the air supplied . . . The terminal failure of the lungs is often caused by too high pressure and too much oxygen.’
Rather than ameliorating pulmonary infection, ventilators increase the risk. Under sedation, the intubated, ventilated patient’s cough reflex is disabled, often leading to fluid accumulating in the lungs. These stagnant pools are prone to bacterial infection (particularly in the microbial culture of a general hospital). Survivors of ventilation are often left with lasting damage. A study published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene found that mechanical ventilation seriously damages the lungs of Covid-19 patients.
After the frenzied quest, ventilators were quietly dropped. According to the BMJ, 60 to 75 per cent of Covid-19 patients admitted to hospital in the UK in April 2020 were subjected to this apparatus. However, according to recent UK Government figures for the seven days leading up to April 6 2023, only 4 per cent of the same type of patient were ventilated. As Ingrid Torjesen said in the BMJ in January 2021: ‘The pace of the move away from invasive ventilation varies among hospitals and has been driven by greater clinical experience of treating covid patients, by data associating invasive ventilation with higher mortality.’ Yet as we have shown, there was never a good medical rationale for intubating and ventilating patients as a front-line treatment.
One ICU nurse we interviewed about the early days of Covid-19 described policy and practice on ventilation as ‘a farce’, with no consistency between physicians. But policies must have existed, whether on paper or not. Unsubstantiated anecdotes proliferated on social media of ambulant patients being intubated and ventilated to immobilise them to reduce transmission. A YouTube video by nurse Erin Marie Olszewski, featuring covertly recorded conversations in the intensive care unit of a New York hospital, tells of the tragic death of a 37-year-old man. Admitted with shortness of breath but otherwise healthy, this case illustrated how patients were regarded by hospital management as throughput, placed on ventilators simply because they had low oxygen level. In the killing fields of New York more than 80 per cent of ventilator cases died, and according to Olszewski one person who did not perish saved himself by pulling the tube out. She attributed this radical practice to orders ‘from above’ and financial incentives from the government; it was literally cash for corpses.
Most doctors and nurses who worked through the great pandemic scare of 2020 would be aghast at any implication that they were knowingly terminating lives. As with most aspects of Covid-19, the pandemic response was orchestrated at a higher level, but this does not excuse any clinician who departed from the Hippocratic Oath to first do no harm. Ventilators killed, but as we shall discuss in Part 2, they also had a much wider, malign impact on society.
Fear of a Microbial Planet, by Dr. Steve Templeton, is a wonderfully accessible book on the Covid era now published by Brownstone institute, offers desperately needed clarity and science on the organization and management of individual social life in the presence of pathogenic infection. It can be read as a definitive answer to expert arrogance, political overreach, and population panic.
For three years following the arrival of the virus that causes Covid, the dominant response from governments and the public has been to be afraid and stay far away through any means possible. This has further mutated into a population-wide germophobia that is actually being promoted by elite opinion.
Steve Templeton, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute and Associate Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Indiana University School of Medicine – Terre Haute, argues that this response is primitive, unscientific, and ultimately contrary to individual and public health. The most unhealthy populations are those which preserve immunological naivete in the presence of a virus that is otherwise going to circulate widely.
Dr. Templeton’s story is both scientific and highly personal, taking the reader through the basics of immune response and public health even while relaying his personal frustrations with trying to talk sense to others in senseless times.
If a public health response is like an immune response, then consider this book as immunization against germophobia, politicized science, a self-defeating safety culture, and misplaced faith in experts. Dr. Templeton is our guide to helping us gain a new and more robust understanding of the relationship between the microbial kingdom and our own lives.
The pandemic forecasts in the United States were very grim. Experts were predicting that 60-70 percent of the population would ultimately be infected resulting in over 1.5 million deaths in just a few months. People on social media were in an absolute panic. Stories about empty shelves and runs on toilet paper were everywhere. Those who tried to refute these doomsday predictions were shouted down and eventually silenced.
And yet, the science on the virus was very clear. Disease severity was age-stratified. Extreme measures would not drive it away and would cause a tremendous amount of collateral damage. Even if the worse-case scenarios were true, it was extremely important that we take measures based on evidence.
But eventually, the cry to “do something” became overwhelming, and the costs no longer mattered. Trying to calm people with wisdom about infectious disease became nearly pointless. Germophobia swept through society and political culture.
Hardly anyone wanted to hear the truth that microbes are everywhere, and they cannot be avoided. There are an estimated 6×10^30 bacterial cells on Earth at any given time. By any standard, this is a huge amount of biomass, second only to plants, and exceeding that of all animals by more than 30-fold.
To live at peace with the microbial kingdom requires trained immune systems, as George Carlin said years ago. That means exposure and the protection of normal social functioning even under pandemic conditions with a new virus.
Many books have been and will be written about pandemic response mistakes, and that’s a good thing. There can’t possibly be enough reflection on what went wrong, otherwise we will be doomed to follow the same path, or an even worse one, next time. This book argues that the safety-at-all-costs culture will continue to result in counterproductive policies until it is challenged at its root.
How did people in our communities and around the world get to the point of hysteria over a pandemic with a clear age-stratified and comorbidity-amplified mortality? Why were young and healthy people with very little risk for disease and death treated as if they were a grave danger to others?
It was always pointless to try to stop much less eradicate this virus. We’ve evolved with pathogens and need to learn to live with them without imposing mass psychological, social, economic, and public-health damage.
Everyone who panicked to the point of meltdown needs this book as a corrective. And even if you did not, everyone knows someone who did, public-health officials above all else.
I am a physician who stood against the false narratives swirling around Covid and, for a time, it seemed like I lost.
Before Covid became a public reality, I was working as a successful trauma surgeon and surgical ICU physician in the hospital that had the first diagnosed Covid case in America. I was working as one of the more senior surgeons of a team of 12 surgeons. The hospital and medical community had already been struggling prior to Covid with various departures from reality with narratives including ‘racism everywhere’ and ‘diversity as long as it supports deviancy’, but it wasn’t appearing to dramatically affect patient care.
In 2018-2019, I stumbled onto a fraud scheme perpetrated by some of the administrative doctors in our hospital that did cause patient harm, so I reported our hospital administration for fraud. I similarly observed and discovered other connected issues that caused patient harm by various other providers that I tried to bring to light in our hospital. I was ‘rewarded’ with 12 complaints filed against me over a two week period, in retaliation. These complaints accused me of breaches of almost every aspect of professional behavior and ethics. They followed one of the administrators sending out an email asking her colleagues to “get rid of Dr. Miller”. None of these allegations stood (they were all false to begin with), and I continued to do my job to the best of my abilities in this hostile situation, but it became increasingly difficult. Eventually, every single complaint was dismissed as unsubstantiated.
Then, through February and March of 2020, our hospital had a large number of Covid patients including a real upsurge of many sick patients in early March. A couple of weeks later, it hit the news, but only after the virus had passed its inflection point in our hospital and after our healthcare system was not in any threat of having inadequate resources. Things then went completely mad with hype and fear – again, this was after the real infectious surge was passed.
Suddenly, our hospital outcomes and quality data became hidden and opaque to us. Prior to this, almost all data were openly shared and discussed in quality assurance meetings. The hospital forced upon us a narrative that was pure lunacy and contrary to all available observations and previously available data. A chilling example is the following.
I was working a shift in the ICU in late April 2020 and had basically nothing to do because greater than half our beds were empty. We were ‘low censusing’ any nurses willing to go home because there were so few sick patients. I was having a cup of coffee, chatting with the staff and another ICU physician, who was in leadership, when the daily newspaper was delivered. Prior to the paper being delivered, we were all relaxed, jocular and noting how little work we all had. The other ICU physician picked up the local paper where the main headline said, “Local ICU Overwhelmed”. The article was referencing our ICU, as we were the only hospital in the county. He looked at me, started sweating, panicked and said, “What are we going to do? We may not be able to handle this!” I replied with, “Pour another cup of coffee and laugh at the morons writing the paper.” He became visibly distressed and left to call the hospital administration about the situation, who confirmed they were complicit with the newspaper article. This colleague was one of the medical directors of our ICU. Our hospital and ICU were not overfull at the peak number of infections in March 2020. In fact, the ICU was never overfull, even after the horrible protocols that hurt so many patients were established. I knew we were in serious trouble as a medical community when clinical leaders started believing the words in a newspaper and hospital administrators more than their own eyes and experience.
Then, I watched as every policy, practice and quality metric that makes a trauma and surgical programme have good patient outcomes was undermined or abandoned by my colleagues and hospital administration. I filed countless complaints to our quality department for disgusting breaches of care that were now becoming commonplace. I could not turn my back on my oaths taken to advocate for patients. Between mid-2020 and 2021, following a leak of information from the opaque administration, I learned that our unanticipated morbidity and mortality numbers had more than doubled for indexed trauma patients. It was horribly demoralising to watch.
After the vaccine was rolled out in late 2020, it became a functional mandate in the broader community, and then definitively mandated by the late summer of 2021. The medical community in the county I was working in (Snohomish, Washington State) started refusing to care for unvaccinated patients except in the hospital setting. I couldn’t believe that patients were banned from accessing basic primary care at first, but then I spoke to a man at my church who was denied both refills of his diabetic medications and treatment for a sinus infection by his primary care provider, all because of his Covid vaccination status. This was so inconceivable that I still didn’t believe it. Even when patients did make it to the hospital, I learned that the physicians and staff in the emergency room were directed to provide a lower tier of medicine to this group of patients. It was less than acceptable, and worse, less dignified, than the care given to any other patients pre- and post- Covid. I had to verify with physician leaders that they approved of this inhumanity. I found out that all the major healthcare systems in the county had agreed to this action, and drove the creation of the policies that demanded physicians act in direct opposition to their oaths. After discovering this, I departed from the medical community in spirit.
Working with my pastor, we turned our church into a free clinic to care for those ostracised from society. I obtained independent malpractice insurance and we started seeing patients. People were desperate. We didn’t advertise, but there were so many people seeking basic healthcare that we struggled to see everyone. I did my best to see people in their time of need, but it was hard. I was still working in my full-time hospital position. I just didn’t have enough hours in the day. Most of the people I cared for were seen at the church – they were met with maskless smiles, prayer, support and free medical care. Sometimes, people would be waiting in my driveway for me when I arrived home in the early morning after a night shift or late at night after I finished a day shift. What became obvious as the most important thing about our clinic is that our patients needed to be treated as valuable people created in God’s image.
Prior to this experience, I was a seasoned (and hardened) subspecialist with the best reputation one could hope for in the hospitals I worked in. When other doctors, health executives, nurses and local politicians or their families had surgical problems, I was often the one asked to deliver their care even if I wasn’t scheduled to be working. After our health care system abandoned the oaths we took as physicians, I had an identity crisis and pivoted to putting more efforts into the free clinic, caring for the dispossessed patients.
Eventually, my work at the free clinic treating unvaccinated patients became known, and the hospital administration learned of it. Subsequently, the real pressure against me started. The hospital responded by opening an investigation of me on synthesised charges of ‘micro-aggression’. There ended up being two separate and independent investigations (one by the hospital, one by my physician group leadership who were working in tandem with the hospital) into my conduct. My colleagues, who months earlier asked for my help and guidance about both professional and personal matters, would no longer return my calls, text messages or emails, or speak to me in public, for fear of being labelled as affiliated with me while in my state of political disfavour. The investigations themselves and the repercussions to my reputation were the punishment. I was treated as guilty, even when proven innocent, by the hospital administration and my colleagues. The investigations eventually exonerated me, my behaviour and my healthcare delivery, but left open the possibility for immediate suspension or termination if I committed a ‘micro-aggression’ in the future. Obviously, this was a no-win scenario for me since micro-aggressions are subjective, undefinable, unprovable and therefore indefensible. I refused to continue working without an independent mediator, so the hospital gladly paid out my contract instead of mediation and restoration.
Separately during this time I was reported to the State Medical Board by an outpatient pharmacist for prescribing a two-week course of fluvoxamine (an anti-depressant) to help a patient recovering after Covid. This prescription had been banned by the Washington State Medical Association as a treatment for Covid or its repercussions. Incidentally, the patient had a positive response and near complete recovery from her illness, but the pharmacist and WSMA didn’t seem to care about that data point and were apparently just offended that I violated their protocol.
By March and April of 2022, multiple other clinics in the county began to accept care for most patients, regardless of vaccination status, and so we wound down the free clinic at my church, transitioning people’s care to physicians in established practices who would now agree to deliver appropriate care. As I had been reported to the state (although no formal charges were brought) and I was being pushed out of hospital medicine for practising ethical medicine, I knew it was time to leave Washington State. The message to me was clear: if I stayed, I would have formal investigations that would prohibit me from obtaining a medical licence in another state. My livelihood would be stripped away. So, we sold our homes and boats, liquidated our assets and moved to South Florida in May 2022. I was, and am, bitter at the medical establishment that committed these crimes, so I planned to retire at age 50 with the move and have nothing further to do with the establishment.
However, after the hurricane came through Florida in the fall of 2022, I started doing volunteer work for hurricane victims. This included some medical relief work. I realised there is still good that can be done in medicine, that people need healthcare providers, and that by nature, I am a healer.
So, in February of 2023, I returned to practising medicine and started working as a primary care physician at a holistic clinic where no patient is turned away. I discovered that I enjoy being a family physician, too. I lost my prestigious career and my social position, but I did not lose my ethics or integrity. I did not violate my oaths of practice. So, ultimately, I have won. And I’m happy.
Almost immediately after the proxy war erupted, ISIS-tier footage of the torture and murder of Russians in Ukrainian custody emerged.
On July 6th, the New York Times published an astonishing investigation: In Ukraine, Killings of Surrendering Russians Divide an American-Led Unit. The article documents in grim detail how Chosen Company, an international volunteer battalion for Kiev, routinely executes Russian prisoners of war. It is the very first mainstream admission that this practice – a brazen breach of the Geneva Conventions, and a grave war crime – is widespread among Ukraine’s fighters, both foreign and homegrown. … 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.
Fear of a Microbial Planet, by Dr. Steve Templeton, is a wonderfully accessible book on the Covid era now published by Brownstone institute, offers desperately needed clarity and science on the organization and management of individual social life in the presence of pathogenic infection. It can be read as a definitive answer to expert arrogance, political overreach, and population panic.
Aletho News
