By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | August 19, 2022
The latest figures from the UK’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) suggest that the knock-on effects of lockdown may be harming more people than “Covid” ever did, or so the press are saying anyway.
The ONS’s weekly data apparently shows over 10,000 more reported deaths than expected.
Since none of these excess deaths has been “linked with Covid”, the press is calling them the “true cost of lockdown”, with some papers suggesting lockdown is “killing more people than Covid”.
To which the only proper response is: “No shit.”
Even for those who still cling to the orthodoxy that “Covid” actually exists, the fact lockdown was going to do more damage than it prevented was obvious from the moment early mortality studies showed “Covid” had a 99.5% survival rate, back in the spring of 2020.
Many experts in economics, statistics, epidemiology and virology voiced this opinion, and were vilified and abused for their trouble.
And, really, anyone with the smallest shred of common sense could figure it out for themselves. Shutting down the health service and crashing the economy is never going to end well (unless you want to kill people, then it’s a great plan).
Even Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19, described lockdowns as a “global catastrophe” in October 2020:
We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…] it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”
So the question is not “Is lockdown worse than Covid?” The answer to that is “yes”, and we’ve known that for over two years.
The real question is: why are they finally admitting it?
It’s not just this week’s excess deaths either. Elsewhere the media is concerned about the mental health impacts of lockdowns, delays in cancer treatments, the “lockdown drinking”, the impact on children missing school, teenagers self-harming and so and so on.
Professor Karol Sikora – one of those vilified experts I mentioned earlier – has even been given space in the Telegraph to write a 2000 word “I told you so”.
Why?
Perhaps the answer to that lies not in what they’re talking about, but in what they are most pointedly not talking about.
The excess deaths are being very definitely laid at the feet of lockdowns, not the experimental “vaccines”.
Now, were the deaths really caused by the lockdown? Or by the “vaccines”? Or a mix of both? We don’t know, and can likely never know.
At this point our collective trust in institutions and official figures should be low enough to question if there were any excess deaths. Maybe they just made them up. They do that.
Regardless of the truth of it, the narrative is certainly shifting to highlight “the true cost of lockdowns”.
This could be about disguising the harm done by untested vaccines, admitting to potentially deleterious effects of lockdown to spare Pfizer’s blushes.
There’s a lot more invested in the vaccines than the lockdown – in every sense of the word – and if something has to be blamed it makes sense they would much rather it be lockdowns than jabs.
That’s a decent explanation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more to it.
This narrative could be about setting up the public for the next “covid” wave or some new “pandemic”.
Consider how quickly the “true cost of lockdown” story could be parlayed into a new mainstream consensus that “Lockdown was so damaging, we must do whatever it takes to avoid another“.
Then consider how “Whatever it takes” could take the form of quarantine camps for the unvaccinated, vaccines mandates, enforced testing and surveillance…or whatever the hell else they want.
By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | August 12, 2022
EXCESS all-cause mortality in New Zealand is running at record levels. About 100 people are dying each day in a country with a population of five million. A few times during the last couple of months, we have asked a key question: What are people dying of?
Ministry of Health data records that about seven people are dying each day with Covid, but only about a maximum of three of these because of Covid. That is just three per cent of deaths. Occupancy of intensive care beds with Covid hovers around three to five per cent Therefore it is not Covid that is overwhelming our hospitals, so what is?
The Ministry of Health and mainstream media have been talking vaguely about a bad flu season, but a quick check of the FluTracking website reveals that the 2022 flu season is not even as bad as 2019.
My plumber was doing a job for me last week and complained about staff falling ill continuously. Sick leave among teachers in New Zealand is up by 80 per cent. The newspapers are reporting businesses are closing because of staff shortages exacerbated by ‘winter illness’, but as the incidence of flu is not that high, what could be going on?
An article on the Stuff news website contains an important hint: Te Whatu Ora Taranaki hospital emergency department clinical nurse manager Therese Manning said while there had not been much change in the number of presentations to department in the last five years, the patients tend to be more unwell and therefore likely to stay in hospital longer.’
Acute presentations at emergency departments are increasing, but what are the patients ill with? We aren’t being told and may never be, if our health czars are allowed to continue to deny access to information.
This week it has been reported (correctly) that six Canadian doctors died suddenly (at least three of them immediately after receiving their mandatory fourth Covid shot), but hospitals refused to release the cause of death or vaccination status, citing privacy concerns. The authorities have vehemently denied that the deaths could be related to mRNA vaccination. See this article for a summary.
I don’t know if you have noticed, but stories about sudden death incidents seem to have dropped off the mainstream media radar. Three years ago a sudden unexplained death might have made the headlines, but today if they are reported at all, they only remain on the visible online page for a very short time. You might have missed this one.
Yet, as the Taranaki Hospital emergency department data and the all-cause mortality data reveal, acute illness and sudden death are at an all-time high. Life insurance data from the US paints a similar picture.
So have our newspapers ceased to care, or are they, like the hospitals and emergency services, too inundated to cope? Having heavily promoted mRNA vaccination for 18 months, are they too embarrassed to ask questions?
Not everyone is keeping silent. Professor Shmuel C Shapira, longtime head of the Israeli Institute of Biological Research, has been speaking out about the failure of the Israeli mRNA Pfizer vaccination programme, describing it as a house of cards about to come tumbling down.
He tweeted: ‘I am not against vaccines, I am against stupidity, false science and management that is not professional and ignores matters of fact.’
Dr Clare Craig, a former NHS diagnostic pathologist, is also raising her voice. On GB News, she analysed official German government data. This shows that one in every 5,000 doses causes a serious reaction to Covid vaccines. But it doesn’t stop there. The German government conducted a survey of more than half a million vaccine recipients. It found that one in 500 reported a serious adverse reaction after an mRNA dose (more than ten times the underreported official count).
If you are worried that lightly-affected Germans are inflating the figures, don’t be. The definition of a serious adverse reaction requires that a person be hospitalised or suffer a permanently life-changing event.
Dr Craig invited us to step back from the modelling and government guidance about efficacy and safety, and consider that Covid data from around the world does not show that mRNA vaccination leads to any reduction in deaths. Most illustrative are comparisons between comparable countries with high and low vaccination rates.
For example, compare Israel, with close to 100 per cent vaccinated (and most boosted with four doses), with Palestine, with just 40 per cent double-vaccinated.
Israel has 1,204 Covid-related deaths per million population and Palestine 1,182 deaths per million – roughly the same. It thus becomes apparent that mRNA vaccination does not reduce the Covid death rate.
Look at the Covid data from Africa and the picture becomes more concerning. Africa has a vaccination rate of 15 per cent, a population three times larger than Europe, and nine million confirmed Covid cases. Whereas Europe has 240million cases, and a Covid vaccination rate around 90 per cent.
Just remember that analysis of Covid death data does not include rising all-cause deaths unrelated to Covid infection. The evidence points to reduced immunity as a result of mRNA vaccination.
Dr Craig reported that the UK public are voting with their feet and failing to come in for boosters (and they are stopping bringing in their children for this dangerous jab). Aren’t we all in sympathy? We are waiting for our doctors to speak up and our courts to do the math.
The writer is in New Zealand.
By Mike Campbell | The Counter Signal | August 12, 2022
The CDC has dropped special quarantine recommendations for unvaccinated persons, finally admitting that natural immunity should be considered and that vaccines don’t stop infection.
“CDC’s COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur, though they are generally mild, and persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection,” their update reads.
The CDC removed the recommendation that unvaccinated persons quarantine after they’re exposed to the virus. They now recommend that individuals wear a mask for ten days post-exposure and get tested after five days.
The CDC further acknowledged that the Omicron variant of COVID poses a smaller risk of hospitalization and death than previous variants.
This announcement will likely pressure Canada’s health authorities (and Trudeau) to follow suit. Although numerous countries dropped their medical segregation policies long ago, Canada remains one of the last to do so.
Moreover, each consecutive variant appears to be weakening, with immunity (including natural immunity) being widespread. Although Canada has an abnormally high amount of mask and vaccine fanatics, the remaining medical segregation could soon be a thing of the past.
With that said, Canada’s health authorities have done nothing but warn of a return to restrictions and upcoming waves of COVID, telling Canadians that the pandemic is not over.
Additionally, the University of Toronto recently mandated that young health students living on residence get a 3rd vaccine.
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | August 12, 2022
Newly released internal messages between Twitter staff show them discussing an April 2021 meeting with the White House where the Biden administration reportedly pushed for journalist and author Alex Berenson to be booted from the platform before Twitter banned him.
Berenson was banned from Twitter for violating its “COVID-19 misinformation” rules four months later in August 2021. Berenson responded by suing Twitter in December 2021, with the lawsuit accusing the tech giant of acting “on behalf of the federal government in censoring and barring him from access to its platform.” Berenson’s account was subsequently reinstated in July 2022 after both parties settled the censorship lawsuit.
These internal messages were published by Berenson and show April 22, 2021 discussions between Twitter employees on the business messaging app Slack. Berenson said he obtained the messages as part of his lawsuit against Twitter.
In one of the Slack messages, a Twitter employee says their meeting with the “WH [White House]” was “pretty good” but “they had one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform.”
In another Slack message, a Twitter employee says that the White House “really wanted to know about Alex Berenson” and that Andy Slavitt, a Senior Advisor to President Biden’s COVID-19 Response Coordinator, “suggested they had seen data viz that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public.”
Berenson said that in another Slack message, a Twitter employee said: “I’ve taken a pretty close look at his account and I don’t think any of it’s violative.”
Berenson noted that the message about White House officials questioning why he hadn’t been banned from the platform “make clear that top federal officials targeted me specifically, potentially violating my basic First Amendment right to free speech.”
He added: “If the companies are acting on behalf of the federal government they can become ‘state actors’ that must allow free speech and debate, just as the government does.”
Berenson also noted that previous censorship lawsuits accusing the government and social media companies of colluding to ban users have failed because the courts have “universally held that people who have been banned have not shown the specific demands from government officials that are necessary to support state action claims.”
However, in this case, Berenson argues that “federal officials appear to have gone far beyond generically encouraging Twitter to support Covid vaccines or discourage ‘misinformation’ (i.e. information that the government does not like). Instead, top officials targeted me personally.”
Berenson said he intends to sue the Biden administration for violating his First Amendment rights by pressing Twitter to ban him and that there will be “more to come soon.”
Jenin Younes, an attorney for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), who has worked on two lawsuits that accuse the Biden administration of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by coercing tech companies to censor “misinformation,” said that the revelations in the Slack messages released by Berenson are “a virtual smoking gun, and along with myriad circumstantial evidence proves our contention beyond any doubt.” Younes added that despite initial setbacks, she is confident that the NCLA’s lawsuits will be successful.
31% boosted people still contagious 10 days post-infection vs. 6% unvaccinated
By Rabinovitz | July 10, 2022
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has demonstrated that people who are triple-vaccinated (boosted) against COVID recover significantly more slowly from COVID infection and remain contagious for longer than people who are not vaccinated at all.
The study did not deal with the severity of illness with or without a vaccine.
Researchers swabbed infected people and cultured the swabs, repeating the process for over two weeks until viral replication was not observed.
At five days post-infection, less than 25 percent of unvaccinated people were still contagious, whereas around 70 percent of boosted people were still carrying viable virus particles. For those partially vaccinated, around 50 percent were still contagious at this point.
Even more strikingly, at ten days post-infection, one-third of boosted people (31 percent) were found to still be carrying live, culturable virus. By contrast, just six percent of unvaccinated people were still contagious at day 10.
In other words, people who have received a booster shot are five times more likely still to be contagious at ten days post-infection than are unvaccinated people.
The findings go a long way to explaining why Paxlovid, Pfizer’s anti-viral medication, is often not effective for people who have been vaccinated against COVID, with many experiencing a recurrence of symptoms along with a positive COVID test after completing the five-day regimen (as recently occurred with quadruple-vaccinated Dr. Anthony Fauci). This phenomenon is known as COVID rebound.
Meanwhile, Israeli Health Ministry data shows that in the older population (those over the age of 60), having submitted to more COVID shots often correlates to a greater likelihood of becoming infected with COVID.
The blue line represents the unvaccinated; light-green is the partially-vaccinated; dark-green is those who have received a booster shot within the past six months.
THE SEVEN US GOVERNMENT PAYOFFS TO KILL YOU IN HOSPITALS BY DR. PETERSON PIERRE
By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. and Ali Shultz, J.D. | November 17, 2021
Upon admission to a once-trusted hospital, American patients with COVID-19 become virtual prisoners, subjected to a rigid treatment protocol with roots in Ezekiel Emanuel’s “Complete Lives System” for rationing medical care in those over age 50. They have a shockingly high mortality rate. How and why is this happening, and what can be done about it?
As exposed in audio recordings, hospital executives in Arizona admitted meeting several times a week to lower standards of care, with coordinated restrictions on visitation rights. Most COVID-19 patients’ families are deliberately kept in the dark about what is really being done to their loved ones.
The combination that enables this tragic and avoidable loss of hundreds of thousands of lives includes (1) The CARES Act, which provides hospitals with bonus incentive payments for all things related to COVID-19 (testing, diagnosing, admitting to hospital, use of remdesivir and ventilators, reporting COVID-19 deaths, and vaccinations) and (2) waivers of customary and long-standing patient rights by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
In 2020, the Texas Hospital Association submitted requests for waivers to CMS. According to Texas attorney Jerri Ward, “CMS has granted ‘waivers’ of federal law regarding patient rights. Specifically, CMS purports to allow hospitals to violate the rights of patients or their surrogates with regard to medical record access, to have patient visitation, and to be free from seclusion.” She notes that “rights do not come from the hospital or CMS and cannot be waived, as that is the antithesis of a ‘right.’ The purported waivers are meant to isolate and gain total control over the patient and to deny patient and patient’s decision-maker the ability to exercise informed consent.”
Creating a “National Pandemic Emergency” provided justification for such sweeping actions that override individual physician medical decision-making and patients’ rights. The CARES Act provides incentives for hospitals to use treatments dictated solely by the federal government under the auspices of the NIH. These “bounties” must be paid back if not “earned” by making the COVID-19 diagnosis and following the COVID-19 protocol.
The hospital payments include:
CMS implemented “value-based” payment programs that track data such as how many workers at a healthcare facility receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Now we see why many hospitals implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates. They are paid more.
Outside hospitals, physician MIPS quality metrics link doctors’ income to performance-based pay for treating patients with COVID-19 EUA drugs. Failure to report information to CMS can cost the physician 4% of reimbursement.
Because of obfuscation with medical coding and legal jargon, we cannot be certain of the actual amount each hospital receives per COVID-19 patient. But Attorney Thomas Renz and CMS whistleblowers have calculated a total payment of at least $100,000 per patient.
What does this mean for your health and safety as a patient in the hospital?
There are deaths from the government-directed COVID treatments. For remdesivir, studies show that 71–75 percent of patients suffer an adverse effect, and the drug often had to be stopped after five to ten days because of these effects, such as kidney and liver damage, and death. Remdesivir trials during the 2018 West African Ebola outbreak had to be discontinued because death rate exceeded 50%. Yet, in 2020, Anthony Fauci directed that remdesivir was to be the drug hospitals use to treat COVID-19, even when the COVID clinical trials of remdesivir showed similar adverse effects.
In ventilated patients, the death toll is staggering. A National Library of Medicine January 2021 report of 69 studies involving more than 57,000 patients concluded that fatality rates were 45 percent in COVID-19 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, increasing to 84 percent in older patients. Renz announced at a Truth for Health Foundation Press Conference that CMS data showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% percent of all patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.
Then there are deaths from restrictions on effective treatments for hospitalized patients. Renz and a team of data analysts have estimated that more than 800,000 deaths in America’s hospitals, in COVID-19 and other patients, have been caused by approaches restricting fluids, nutrition, antibiotics, effective antivirals, anti-inflammatories, and therapeutic doses of anti-coagulants.
We now see government-dictated medical care at its worst in our history since the federal government mandated these ineffective and dangerous treatments for COVID-19, and then created financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to use only those “approved” (and paid for) approaches.
Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become “bounty hunters” for your life. Patients need to now take unprecedented steps to avoid going into the hospital for COVID-19.
Patients need to take active steps to plan before getting sick to use early home-based treatment of COVID-19 that can help you save your life.
BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE – AUGUST 8, 2022
Brownstone Institute has repeatedly reported on the unholy alliance between the administrative state and Big Tech with the censorious results of free speech suppression. We’ve published a full articles of inquiry as a template for further investigation into these unprecedented actions.
The cooperation between these people during the pandemic response became intense and pervasive. This model is being deployed in other areas too, with a symbiotic relationship between power centers that ends in suppressing dissent. This is contrary to the First Amendment.
The state attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana have filed suit against the Biden administration. Among the plaintiffs are Brownstone Senior Scholars Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya, and Aaron Kheriaty who have experienced this censorship first hand. The case is joined by the New Civil Liberties Alliance and filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Monroe Division.
The text of the lawsuit is embedded below. Here is an excerpt.
The aggressive censorship that Defendants have procured constitutes government action for at least five reasons: (1) absent federal intervention, common-law and statutory doctrines, as well as voluntary conduct and natural free-market forces, would have restrained the emergence of censorship and suppression of speech of disfavored speakers, content, and viewpoint on social media; and yet (2) through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and other actions, the federal government subsidized, fostered, encouraged, and empowered the creation of a small number of massive social-media companies with disproportionate ability to censor and suppress speech on the basis of speaker, content, and viewpoint; (3) such inducements as Section 230 and other legal benefits (such as the absence of antitrust enforcement) constitute an immensely valuable benefit to social-media platforms and incentive to do the bidding of federal officials; (4) federal officials—including, most notably, certain Defendants herein—have repeatedly and aggressively threatened to remove these legal benefits and impose other adverse consequences on social-media platforms if they do not aggressively censor and suppress disfavored speakers, content, and viewpoints on their platforms; and (5) Defendants herein, colluding and coordinating with each other, have also directly coordinated and colluded with social-media platforms to identify disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content and thus have procured the actual censorship and suppression of the freedom of speech. These factors are both individually and collectively sufficient to establish government action in the censorship and suppression of social-media speech, especially given the inherent power imbalance: not only do the government actors here have the power to penalize noncompliant companies, but they have threatened to exercise that authority.
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | August 6, 2022
Professor Jeffrey Sachs is an American academic with specialities in economics, global poverty, human-induced climate change and financial crises. Jeffrey is University Professor at Columbia University and before this was professor at Harvard University. He has worked as Special Advisor to UN Secretaries-General Kofi Annan, Ban Ki-moon and Antonio Guterres.
The mini résumé above is to show that Professor Sachs is pretty mainstream. So mainstream in fact, that he was appointed, early in the pandemic, as the Chair of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission. So mainstream, that he appointed Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance to chair the Lancet’s task force on the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
A few weeks ago, Professor Sachs said a few ‘controversial’ statements about the origins of Covid. Now, a more detailed interview with him, in Current Affairs, has revealed some important facts. Most of us have read much of this information for a few years now but coming from the head of the Lancet Commission, these statements are quite extraordinary.
Click on the link above to read the whole interview but I have included some fascinating quotations below.
When asked about his recent statement about being pretty convinced about a lab leak he said:
[Scientists are] creating a narrative. And they’re denying the alternative hypothesis without looking closely at it. That’s the basic point.
Now, what is the alternative hypothesis? The alternative hypothesis is quite straightforward. And that is that there was a lot of research underway in the United States and China on taking SARS-like viruses, manipulating them in the laboratory, and creating potentially far more dangerous viruses. And the particular virus that causes COVID-19, called SARS-Cov-2, is notable because it has a piece of its genetic makeup that makes the virus more dangerous. And that piece of the genome is called the “furin cleavage site.” Now, what’s interesting, and concerning if I may say so, is that the research that was underway very actively and being promoted, was to insert furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses to see what would happen. Oops!
Professor Sachs was asked to distinguish between facts and speculation; do we actually know gain of function research was actually ongoing somewhere?
We have a lot of reason to believe that it was, because the scientists that were doing that research loved that research. And they explained to us publicly why it’s so important. And they wrote editorials about why this research must continue. And they made grant proposals saying that it should continue. And for those of us in the business of writing grant proposals, the fact that a particular grant proposal that’s deeply troubling was turned down doesn’t mean that it wasn’t carried out afterwards…
And the scientists like those that talk about the Huanan market, they don’t even discuss that research that was underway. That is just misdirection, to my mind. It’s like sleight of hand art. Don’t look over there. Look over here…
And yet I see NIH with its head in the ground. “Oh, no, nothing here to look at.” And then I see the scientists. “Oh, nothing here to look at. We know it’s the market. Did we find an animal? No. Do we have an explanation of where that furin cleavage site came in? No. We don’t have an explanation of the timing, which doesn’t quite look right. Oh, but don’t look over there, because there’s nothing there, they keep telling us. Well, that’s a little silly.
What I’m calling for is not the conclusion. I’m calling for the investigation. Finally, after two and a half years of this, it’s time to fess up that it might have come out of a lab and here’s the data that we need to know to find out whether it did.
He continued about Gain of Function research.
But they [champions of Gain of Function research] weren’t actually aiming to just test viruses that they were collecting in nature. They were aiming to modify those viruses. Because the scientists knew that a SARS-like virus without a furin cleavage site wouldn’t be that dangerous. But they wanted to test their drugs and vaccines and theories against dangerous viruses. Their proposal was to take hundreds, by the way—or least they talked about in one proposal more than 180 previously unreported strains—and test them for their so-called “spillover potential.” How effective would they be? And to look: do they have a furin cleavage site, or technically what’s called a proteolytic cleavage site? And if not, put them in. For heaven’s sake. My God! Are you kidding?
Jeffrey was asked about the distinction between ‘kooky theories’ and plausible ones.
The right one to look at is part of a very extensive research program that was underway from 2015 onward, funded by the NIH, by Tony Fauci, in particular NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], and it was to examine the spillover potential of SARS-like viruses. The champions of this research explained in detail their proposals. But after the event, we’d never asked them, “So what were you actually doing? What experiments did you do? What do you know?” We somehow never asked. It was better just to sweep it under the rug, which is what Fauci and the NIH have done up until this point. Maybe they could tell us, “Oh, full exoneration,” but they haven’t told us that at all. They haven’t shown us anything. So there’s nothing “kooky” about it, because it’s precisely what the scientists were doing…
So you saw a narrative being created. And the scientists are not acting like scientists. Because when you’re acting like a scientist, you’re pursuing alternative hypotheses. And the scientists just wrote recently an op-ed saying the only evidence that this came out of a lab that’s been put forward is that it came in a city, Wuhan, where an institute was located. Well, that’s a lie. That is not the only coincidence that leads to this theory. What leads to this alternative hypothesis is the detailed research program the NIH funded that was underway in the years leading up to the outbreak. So I see the scientists absolutely trying to create a narrative and take our eyes off of another issue.
Next, he was asked about the research being undertaken in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
We know that at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the scientists there had been trained by American scientists to use advanced bioengineering methodologies. And in particular, we have scientists in North Carolina, Texas, and so forth who do this kind of research, believe in it, argue for it, and say that they don’t want any regulations on it and so on. And they were in close contact with Wuhan Institute of Virology, and they were part of a joint research group that was stitched together by something called EcoHealth Alliance. And EcoHealth Alliance was the kind of marriage maker between the American scientists and the Chinese scientists. That was the vehicle for funding from the U.S. government, especially from the National Institutes of Health, and especially from Tony Fauci’s unit, the NIAID.
When asked about EcoHealth Alliance, Professor Sachs admitted that he hired Peter Daszak to head the task force on the origins of Covid.
I thought, naively at the beginning, “Well, here’s a guy who is so connected, he would know.” And then I realized he was not telling me the truth. And it took me some months, but the more I saw it, the more I resented it.
And so I told him, “Look, you have to leave.” And then the other scientists in that task force attacked me for being anti-scientific. And I asked them: “What are your connections with all of this?” They didn’t tell me. Then when the Freedom of Information Act released some of these documents that NIH had been hiding from the public, I saw that people that were attacking me were also part of this thing. So I disbanded that whole task force. So my own experience was to witness close up how they’re not talking. And they’re trying to keep our eyes on something else. And away from even asking the questions that we’re talking about…
He [Peter Daszak] could have explained to me right from the beginning that there was a big research program and that they were manipulating the viruses, and here’s how. He could have given me the research proposals. And when I asked him for one of the research proposals, he said, “No, my lawyer says I can’t give it to you.” I said, “What? You’re heading a commission. We’re a transparent commission. You’re telling me your lawyer says you can’t give me your project proposal.” I said, “Well, then you can’t be on this commission. This is not even a close call.”
But there were so many other things. He was just filled with misdirection.
He concluded that we need far more oversight over Gain of Function work.
I can tell you one thing that I’ve learned from talking to a lot of scientists in the last couple of years: the technological capacity to do dangerous things using this biotechnology is extraordinary right now. So I want to know what’s being done. I want to know what other governments are doing, too, not just ours. I want some global control over this stuff.
Furthermore, he is disappointed with the information that, even he as the head of the commission, is able to obtain.
The most interesting things that I got as chair of the Lancet commission came from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits and whistleblower leaks from inside the U.S. government. Isn’t that terrible? NIH was actually asked at one point: give us your research program on SARS-like viruses. And you know what they did? They released the cover page and redacted 290 pages. They gave us a cover page and 290 blank pages! That’s NIH, for heaven’s sake. That’s not some corporation. That is the U.S. government charged with keeping us healthy.
A fascinating interview which I recommend you read in full.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 