Well, now you can see how simple it is... All it takes is some independent research...
BTW Once you get a myocarditis, don't mess around and try the hydroxychloroquine/Ivermectin combo - you'll be surprised how well it actually works. Doctors usually leave myocarditis untreated, at best they give you steroids and painkillers - they don't have/provide treatment of myocarditis caused with viral proteins..
Are the US folks still taking Statins?? It has been proven that the initial study was a deep fake and today we know statins are no help at all
20 or so years ago when I studied pharmacy.. I thought statins were a dangerous fake
but never did I guess that statins were only the start of the INIQUITY,
Pfizer got fat on statins... and even more greedy.
and learned how to rig the US system...
and get away with it.and rich on it
and then twenty years later...
to spikecine the world
typical experience..
"My grandfather was put on statins and a "low cholesterol diet." He had three heart attacks and two surgeries in the span of months... I came home from overseas and was horrified at how much medication they had him on that was completely unnecessary. I told my Nana to stop all the medication and the diet immediately, start giving him some healthy fats and less sugar, and get a new doctor. New doctor, confirmed what I said. Now he's medication free, his blood work has improved, and he's not had a heart attack since. I grow furious at the mention of statins
Good advice on skincare,, TM 13.16 
Chapman Simon Chapman is a professor of psychology in Australia
he was considered the lead campaigner in making sure there was Tobacco Control in Australia and he wrote a paper talking about his 38-year career in public
health advocacy and gave 10 lessons ..
one of those lessons is this
as soon as your work threatens an industry or an ideological cabal
you WILL be attacked.. sometimes unrelentingly and viciously
so grow a rhinoceros hide
External Content
youtu.be
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
I thought statins were a dangerous fake
but never did I that statins were only the start of the INIQUITY,
It started much earlier from preventing people to take Praziquantel what will (would)reduce the overall cancer risk by 50%....
There is a science TV doku about how they did fake the Statin claim... Just kick out all nations with genetically low LDL and focus on nations with high LDL but using the low one's as target...
Latest since January 2022 we did know that RNA gene therapy makes you more vulnerable to covid. The last (March) fully published UK report did show and at least 8x negative protection from CoV-19 for the age group 50..60.
Then the FM/R/F/B mafia urged UK NIH/ONS to stop publishing the data. They long time tried to cheat the data by artificially lowering the recovered group. Recovered have been use to uphold fake claims about vaccine efficiency. Recovered are about 30x better protected that RNA immune therapy treated...
NIH Clinical Investigator Acknowledges Rare Neurological-Related Injuries Associated with COVID-19 Vaccines: What Are You Going to Do About It?
Avindra Nath, M.D. knows a thing or two about the COVID-19 vaccines and the neurological issues, although rare, that may ensue. Far earlier in the pandemic when the AstraZeneca vaccine was still undergoing testing in clinical trials, a group of patients including React19 co-founder Brianne Dressen engaged with Nath and others at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dressen and some others experienced neurological problems associated with the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. In fact, as myriad issues emerged with that experimental product the decision was made to not consider that particular COVID-19 vaccine for distribution as a countermeasure under the Emergency Use Authorization. Nath and others conducted an observational study that was never peer-reviewed, uploaded to the preprint server medRxiv and essentially forgotten. TrialSite reported on the study where Nath and colleagues emphasized that more time was necessary for scientists and physicians to determine the true nature of any causal relationship between the COVID-19 vaccines and neuropathies. So, lots of time has passed—what more does the NIH Principal Investigator have to say on the topic?
It should be noted that during those early days of the pandemic not only Nath via his National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), part of the NIH but also representatives from other federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were aware of these early reports of neurological-related vaccine injuries. Brianne Dressen has explained to TrialSite that numerous upbeat promises were made by the agencies to support the COVID-19 vaccine injured with research and access to care. But particularly after the political winds blew hard as 2020 transitioned to 2021, with the outgoing Trump administration fiasco, the January 6th uprising, plus Biden’s new intensified focus on vaccination, it led to the worst possible political storm impacting the vaccine injured, raising questions about the COVID-19 vaccine or unbelievably just claiming an industry tarnished a person in the eyes of many. Essentially the topic was intensely politicized and remains so. In some societal circles, it’s a taboo topic, one that can divide what were friends, even family.
In Nath’s most recent article in the journal Neurology titled “Neurologic Complications with Vaccines: What We Know, What We Don’t, and What We Should Do” Nath, an NINDS Senior Investigator highlights first the impact of vaccination generally over the last half century, nearly eradicating potentially deadly infections that in days gone by were constantly taking lives. He is correct. Vaccination has played a vital role in individual and collective health despite the trendiness of elements in the medical freedom movement to deny that reality.
However, Nath and most in positions of influence and power in health-related research today treat vaccines as if they were all alike. But they are not. Importantly, not all vaccines are the same, even when the FDA has approved them as safe and effective. But it’s as if this classification immediately delegitimizes any critique of these medicinal-based products. An either-or false dilemma narrative is set up. Either you believe that it's universally good or you don’t. But that’s not how the real world works, especially with medical products with side effects.
The reality is that some vaccines have better safety track records than others, and at least historically, the vaccines that we have that are tried and true have a lengthy development lifecycle and several iterations of advancement.
The number of vaccines on the CDC childhood schedule continues to grow. As of this writing, there are 18 vaccines on the CDC’s Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for children from birth to 18 months, and this includes the COVID-19 vaccine. Importantly, the particular version of the vaccine now in circulation remains experimental (investigational) in that only the bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5 product became available as recently reported by TrialSite. See a dialogue between this author and Dr. David Wiseman on TrialSite’s YouTube channel on this topic.
There are another 18 vaccines on the CDC’s schedule from the age of 18 months to 18 years. While many of these vaccines remain a bedrock of personal and public health, TrialSite continues to have questions about the placement of the COVID-19 vaccine, again, still investigational (despite the licensure that did occur with the monovalent product), on the childhood vaccination schedule from birth to 18 months.
Nath in his generally cursory piece emphasizes that despite an evolution toward more sophisticated vaccines (mRNA or protein-based) and “well-defined” manufacturing process (see Emergent BioSolutions fiasco for glaring examples of production problems with the COVID-19 vaccines) he acknowledges that well, “despite such measures, vaccines are not without side effects including those that impact the nervous system.”
So, there is an explicit acknowledgment that neurological issues are present, at least on rare occasions. A wealth of information exists in various monitoring systems today, yet as will be noted below Nath calls for a more complex reporting scheme, involving global platforms, with full industry buy-in. A tall order that in all reality is years away. What about people with debilitating conditions today?
Nath points to “numerous case reports and case series” implying “possibilities” of such potential serious adverse events. But the NIH scientist isn’t squaring with the American public. The “React19 Scientific Publications & Case Reports,” database houses a collection of 3,400 peer-reviewed case reports and studies involving post-COVID-19 vaccine reports of serious adverse events. Including 24 therapeutic categories, the repository includes 628 studies associated with neurological issues associated with post-COVID-19 vaccine adverse events. 628 studies, even if only case series, is a lot and should be well studied, reported on and translated to the clinic to educate and empower more doctors and health care professionals to help patients. Isn’t that what it’s all about?
The NIH scientists remind all of the universal immunity the U.S. government grants to bio-pharmaceutical companies developing vaccines during the national public health emergency under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. Industry, and in fact, the entire value chain of vaccination from pharma companies to healthcare clinics has absolutely no liability associated with the mass vaccination campaign during the emergency. Any compensation for injury must come from what TrialSite has identified as a dismal failure—the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). To date, despite over 11,000 claims only three have been awarded. This is an outrageous reality. This demonstrates the government’s intention, which is to leave the vaccine injured to fend for themselves.
Importantly, vaccine makers generally don’t have liability for any injuries even before COVID-19. That dismissal of liability emerged with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 which shifted liability from industry to government under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)---an alternative to traditional products liability and medical malpractice litigation for people injured by the receipt of one or more standard childhood vaccines. While VICP is far better than CICP, it as well needs to be updated and modernized.
Nath reminds us of all that the government is busy monitoring for COVID-19 vaccine injuries thanks to both the “active and passive surveillance programs” in place by the CDC and FDA (think VAERS). TrialSite has reported on heretofore not conceivable volumes of adverse event reports in the VAERS system. Yet we are constantly reminded that despite the fact that the system was billed as a key to monitor for safety signals, VAERS doesn’t do much to help us because causation isn’t proven. This is true, however, when the incidence is reported in VAERS just one or two days after the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine the probability of some causal connection markedly increases, all things being equal.
With 672 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 1, 2023, serious adverse events are indeed rare. But they are occurring. Out of the 19,476 preliminary reports of deaths associated with the vaccines a substantial percentage of these occurred shortly after vaccination. Again, that doesn’t mean the vaccine triggered the death. But deaths are occurring—we have been reporting on them around the world. Some nations such as Taiwan and Singapore seem to have more reasonable and responsible government compensation schemes as compared to the United States, United Kingdom and Canada.
Nath continued in his journal entry, “While most side effects of vaccines are benign and transient, such as headache or fatigue, more serious side effects, including devastating neurological complications may occur.”
So, what does Nath propose to do to help this vulnerable population? Where is the health equity agenda in this case? According to his paper, “future research” is necessary to better understand the neurological complications of the COVID-19 vaccines (which he acknowledges involve other vaccines as well). He proposes the following research trajectory:
Expansion of active surveillance programs
Develop tools for gathering precise information on neurological complications
Genetic susceptibility studies
Immune proofing of individuals with neurological manifestations
Determine association with comorbidities
Develop animal models
Conduct clinical trials for prevention and treatment of adverse events
Nath is also big on working to build influential, global monitoring systems with complete industry buy-in. Does he understand how difficult, how time-consuming the realization of such a vision entails?
What about the patients with vaccine injuries struggling now? Does he care about this vulnerable population? Nowhere therein does Nath really address what to do with the COVID-19 vaccine-injured population today.
The stakes here are bigger, more severe given the intense mandates and societal pressures that emerged during the pandemic, along with what was clearly federal agencies playing fast and loose with the law. True informed consent for example wasn’t really practiced during the pandemic in most cases. Although classified as rare, considerable risks continue to be associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for certain cohorts (Myocarditis for young men as an example), but during the emergency, the specter of catching COVID terrified the society far more than the rare prospect of an injury, which most likely would be mild.
At TrialSite we continue to carefully monitor the topic, and while we cannot prove our vaccine-injured estimations, we consider them reasonable. The extent to the scope and scale of the vaccine-injured population varies depending on point of view, outrageously, often even political point of view given the overall politicization of the topic.
We’ll simplify and call out two extremes—the so-called medical freedom movement extreme and the mainstream medical establishment, which we believe systematically suppresses accurate insight into the topic.
While the more extreme groups classified as “anti-vax” may declare millions have died from the COVID-19 vaccines in all reality there is no real evidence to make this claim. Any algorithms used to generate such high numbers are quite suspect and not validated anywhere. We are concerned by the growing tendency toward sensationalism to drive attention and eyeballs and in many cases monetization among the anti-vax crowd.
On the other hand, from a mainstream point of view, government estimates may vary but there is no formal, systematic research on the matter, at least that we are aware of. The government has only acknowledged a few deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccines even though nearly 20,000 were registered in VAERS (again that doesn’t mean they are connected to the vaccine).
At least some of the research Nath proposes in his paper has been suppressed, or even shut down. There isn’t much money in studying COVID-19 vaccine injuries. And this is unlikely to change barring some extreme unforeseeable changes.
TrialSite reminds all that in the United States 270 million people alone received their primary series and based on nearly 2.5 years of ongoing monitoring of data and study sources worldwide, we estimate that a range from anywhere from half a million to 2 million people are struggling with material health issues that persist since the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. We acknowledge that not all of these are because of the vaccine solely—long COVID and other issues very well could be factors. It’s a complex difficult situation for those that are struggling, ill, in pain and left to fend for themselves in most cases.
The vaccine-injured population along with a much larger long COVID population which too is severely underserved represent the overall demographics of America. Not surprisingly many of them face dire financial consequences. While literally trillions of public dollars were generated and redistributed during the pandemic suffice it to say coming out of the emergency there were economic winners, and a lot of losers, economically and health-wise. All things being equal socio-economic divisions only intensify during such crises. Put another way, during pandemic times while the government does offer programs of one type or another to help the masses, the rich get far richer while the poor become dramatically poorer. The middle class continues to shrink and the working poor grow in numbers. A majority of the vaccine injured based on our estimates fall into the general socio-economic categories meaning many people in this cohort face dangerous economic times.
Given the economics of health care delivery in this country and the fact that the appropriate government agencies have decided to avoid all accountability and responsibility, we must find other means to support vulnerable populations while finding ways to organize across partisan divides to hold elected officials accountable.
It would appear that care navigation and coordination support, vitally needed for complex health matters, must be supported and sustained by the private sector. Nonprofits such as React19 but also myriad other groups, faith-based organizations and firms committee to helping fellow humans in dire health care need to receive more support. Help should be available from corporations of all types, foundations and charities, faith-based groups, and from wealthy households. Big pharma involved such as Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna must chip in. This would do wonders for their brands (currently in the gutter), and potentially turn around what has become a complete lack of trust in that particularly important industry.
This author personally emailed Albert Bourla suggesting that Pfizer, a great American pharmaceutical company, support programs to help the vaccine injured. No response as of yet, and I’m not holding my breath, but unfortunately, I have little trust in the leadership across the key government agencies. These are institutions I have looked up to over the years with great reverence. Not anymore.
I founded TrialSite to disseminate and democratize information associated with the world of biomedical/health-related research, with a particular focus and emphasis on clinical trials; how they worked, what advanced therapeutics were in the pipeline and importantly, what trial sites and principal investigators were involved with any given study.
Our paradigm at TrialSite necessitates an openness--and commitment to be as objective and unbiased as humanly possible. I was told by someone relatively high placed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of the importance of TrialSite. I asked them why they made that statement to me—what was the basis for that declaration?
This individual, again fairly high up the ladder in government, told me that during the COVID-19 pandemic, TrialSite was the only biomedical media platform consistently reporting a diverse, unbiased array of COVID-19 vaccine study results. TrialSite consistently reported on the positive outcomes (how the vaccines have prevented more severe infections especially earlier in the pandemic for example) as well as the negative outcomes (from their durability and breadth challenges to reports of serious adverse events/injuries, for example).
This official further told me that while media on the right became increasingly unbiased, even radicalized, headed to more universal anti-vaccine positions (never mentioning any of the positives associated with the COVID vaccines), media to the center and left, especially mainstream media only followed very careful scripts, likely influenced by a confluence of government industry, influence, and power.
The topic of health research becomes ever more important with an ongoing revolution in life sciences, from amazing new ways to combat cancer to the latest in vaccine technology, but at the same time, declining health indicators across various American segments portends mounting crises ahead.
With TrialSite we sought to create an independent media platform that could showcase all the good, but also the challenges, and the outright problems, including the ugly ones, involving the science and the business of research. Four years into this still-emerging startup and I believe we have accomplished a lot, but there is so much more to do.
Knowledge in any particular field helps empower individuals and groups, and as we have seen during the pandemic the government along with large media and tech corporations actively collaborated to suppress and censor access to vital biomedical research information, reflecting powerful vested interests in the economy and society. Unfortunately, as committed as Dr. Nath is to the advancement of good science, he’s stuck in an institution that likely needs considerable reform, and definitely new leadership with a different agenda, and mission.
Check out Dr. Nath’s article in the journal Neurology.
to spikecine the world
but not India..
the first nation to stand up against BigPharma
"
Mansukh Mandaviya revealed why the Indian government didn’t procure the vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna.
Mandaviya said that Moderna and Pfizer had placed a condition before the Indian government that it would only their vaccines if an indemnity clause is signed.
It means that if there is any side effect or if someone dies after taking the vaccine, then the company will not be held accountable and cannot be prosecuted under Indian law.
This caused problems for India.
The health minister said that it didn’t seem wise for the Indian government to accept their demands, and instead went ahead with the indigenous vaccines.
Hopes have been dashed that genomic data from swabs collected in the early days of the pandemic will reveal the origins of COVID-19. Data from the swabs, collected by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, have been analysed by three teams, but each has failed to pinpoint which animal species — if any — infected people at the market. “I would basically describe this as a negative result,” says Jesse Bloom, the virologist who conducted the latest analysis. Nature | 5 min read |
Wuhan market samples shed no more lightHopes have been dashed that genomic data from swabs collected in the early days of the pandemic will reveal the origins of COVID-19. Data from the swabs, collected by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, have been analysed by three teams, but each has failed to pinpoint which animal species — if any — infected people at the market. “I would basically describe this as a negative result,” says Jesse Bloom, the virologist who conducted the latest analysis.
Nature | 5 min read
I wonder if there's anyone left still waiting for evidence to say if the bat soup hypothesis-fantasy was ever true.
NIAID/Moderna Agreements Re-Open Questions about COVID-19: Did We Have Foreknowledge of the Pandemic?
Many aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak, and response have been problematic. For example, why was the lab-originated hypothesis rigidly shut down for the first couple years of the pandemic? A new set of questions are raised by a set of contracts that can be seen here. The first document, dated November 6, 2015, is between Moderna and the US government’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. Titled, “Confidential Disclosure Agreement,” the contract states that NIAID’s proprietary information relates to vaccine research for HIV, influenza, Ebola, and MERS, while Moderna’s “proprietary and confidential information [is] related to design and manufacture of a messenger RNA platform…” This agreement was then amended many times to extend its duration. The next relevant document is a contract from August 22, 2016. In the appendix, the agreement posits that, “Moderna's vaccine development efforts have spanned various infectious diseases, and include world-class expertise in mRNA construct production optimization, up to and including cGMP drug product manufacturing in order to bring clinical candidates forward through regulatory processes in the US and EU.” More agreements between NIAID and Moderna were signed in 2017 and 2018. A reminder during 2015, Ralph Baric and colleagues from University of North Carolina and elsewhere including Wuhan Institute of Virology world published in the journal Nature “A SARS-like cluster of circulating coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.” This risky gain-of-function-esq coronavirus modification methodology made its way to China according to an important piece by Rowan Jacobson titled “Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links American to Wuhan.”
Is two days to create a COVID-19 vaccine credible?
Next, we fast forward to 2019, a mid-December 2019 Material Transfer Agreement between Ralph Baric and team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and NIAID as well as Moderna, states that the later parties will transfer to the university, “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates developed and jointly owned by NIAID and Moderna.” (Italics added.) Also, according to a New York Magazine article published December 7, 2020, Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had been “designed by January 13” 2020. The piece’s author David Wallace-Wells noted that this was only two days after the SARS-CoV-2’s genetic sequence was made public by Chinese researchers. The New York Magazine article reported that “the Moderna vaccine design took all of one weekend. It was completed before China had even acknowledged that the disease could be transmitted from human to human, more than a week before the first confirmed coronavirus case in the United States. By the time the first American death was announced a month later, the vaccine had already been manufactured and shipped to the National Institutes of Health for the beginning of its Phase I clinical trial.” An amazing feat.
A ”few weeks” of vaccine protection?
The story, “How a secretive Pentagon agency seeded the ground for a rapid coronavirus cure” was published by the Washington Post on July 30, 2020. According to the Post, in February 2020, vaccine scientists were hard at work: “Their mission was part of a program under the Pentagon’s secretive technology research agency. The goal: to find a way to produce antibodies for any virus in the world within 60 days of collecting a blood sample from a survivor.” The article continues, “The program was halfway done when the first case of the novel coronavirus arrived in the United States early this year. But everyone involved in the effort by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) knew their time had come ahead of schedule.” In an opinion that, due to short effectiveness time, COVID-19 vaccines are limited: “The idea was to take the blood of a virus survivor and quickly identify the best antibody out of thousands in the bloodstream. Then, the genetic code of that antibody could be injected into troops to give them temporary protection against the virus immediately. Protection could range from a few weeks to a few months — enough time for a deployment.”
Full story someday?
TrialSite previously published a look at DARPA’s role and the possibility that the US government created SARS-CoV-2. After all a memo was sent to TrialSite, one seemingly originating from DARPA with the research agency’s formal seal declaring that SARS-CoV-2 was an American-made technology.
We asked DARPA to confirm that the document was a fake. They could not, rather a communications executive informed TrialSite that DARPA could not confirm or deny the authenticity of the memo. Interestingly, this executive in DARPA offered TrialSite interesting information: the spokesperson in an email assured TrialSite that DARPA was not funding EcoHealth Alliance. Of course, they didn’t have to communicate anything other than that they could not confirm nor deny the question in the email.
But EcoHealth alliance—the group that worked with NIAID to potentially bring coronavirus gain-of-function to China during a time when the Obama administration put a halt on such research. Remember the ties established above between Baric and Wuhan scientists. Baric denies that his coronavirus engineering had anything to do with SARS-CoV-2. There is no hard evidence for a connection.
In the meantime, while Fauci and colleagues at the NIH/NIAID tried to position the SARS-CoV-2 origins with a high certainty as a natural, zoonotic event, no one has been able to prove that either. And by the time Biden came into office the World Health Organization sent a mission to China to investigate the pathogen’s origins again. This time representing America was none other than EcoHealth Alliance’s president Peter Daszak, one of the top coronavirus researchers in the world, intimately associated with gain-of-function, Fauci and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Talk about a potential conflict of interest.
But taken together, all the above facts raise serious questions as to SARS-CoV-2 origins: If the pathogen was created in a lab, and a good number of federal agencies now suspect this is a distinct possibility, who created the virus? It’s popular among American politicians and associated Beltway pundits to point the finger at the Chinese Community Party (CCP) for the main culpability of COVID-19. And the elements in the Chinese government undoubtedly play a serious role in COVID-19 as reported by TrialSite in numerous articles such as in March 2020, titled “China’s Response to COVID-19: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.” But there is most certainly a lot of highly coincidental, disturbing data points suggesting at least some probability of American involvement if the pathogen (SARS-CoV-2) was in fact developed in a lab.
The reality that Moderna was researching mRNA coronavirus vaccines prior to official recognition of the pandemic raises more questions than answers.
Of course, this could be merely coincidental as it has become clear among other things, apparently Pentagon-funded research into general pandemics occurred around the same time, and the generic coronavirus (based on the experience of SARS-CoV-1) was likely one for consideration.
Then there are other coincidences such as the Event 201, occurring October 2019, featuring a simulated coronavirus pandemic. Robert Kennedy Jr., now running for President of the United States, argued in his book “The Real Anthony Fauci” that this was beyond coincidence, evidencing probable foreknowledge of the imminent pandemic. Yet the fact checkers have made it clear (and from a logical standpoint) that this isn’t proof of any foreknowledge.
It would appear that at least some of the Republican-led House is also curious about all of this given the recent letter sent to the acting director of the National Institutes of Health. The other day the House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY) sent a letter to Dr. Lawrence Tabak, the senior official who is performing the duties of Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Their concern on behalf of the Oversight and Health subcommittee concerns a request for information to bolster the committee’s ongoing investigation into the origins of COVID-19, regarding any early sequences, data from early cases, or other pertinent documents related to the early stages of the pandemic.
We here at TrialSite have some serious questions about all this, including:
How can the foundation of a vaccine be developed in two days?
Is it merely coincidence that Moderna and NIAID agreed to transfer coronavirus-specific mRNA vaccine candidates to Chapel Hill days or weeks before we knew anything about SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind what was to become just several weeks later COVID-19?
What’s the nature of the Pentagon pandemic readiness program occurring during the same time?
Why did leadership in NIH/NIAID scramble to stop any discussion of lab origins? Note, for the first year if a journalist even mentioned the prospect of the lab leak theory they would be labeled as a conspiracy theorist, and likely censored on social media like Facebook.
What’s behind the purported DARPA memo and the research agency’s unwillingness to deny its veracity? Why did a relatively high up executive there point out in an email to TrialSite that they were not funding EcoHealth Alliance?
Why was Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, sent as an American representative to the WHO group looking into the SARS-CoV-2 origins in Wuhan, despite the clear conflict of interest?
Was unprecedented censorship during the pandemic, evidenced by intensive collaboration between elements of government, media and tech, evidence of some broader agenda?
Hopefully, one day we will have the full story of how SARS-CoV-2 and the deadly COVID-19 pandemic came to be, as well as the backstory of how some folks appeared to, perhaps, have foreknowledge, moving with uncanny timing, seemingly anticipating unprecedented events to come.
I wonder if there's anyone left still waiting for evidence
Anthony Fauci? 13 March,2023
"Former Chief Medical Advisor to the President of United States"
"Having opened with a true but irrelevant statement, Fauci then addresses a more pertinent scenario: that “a lab leak could be that someone was out in the wild, maybe looking for different types of viruses in bats, got infected, went into a lab"
Fauci also said
"There’s been no previous case of a lab leak causing a pandemic"
perhaps an astute interviewer could have asked about
"2004 The SARS virus escapes twice from a high-security laboratory in China (the Chinese Institute of Virology in Beijing), infecting two scientists and six other people, one of whom dies. The low contagiousness of the virus prevents these leaks from becoming a pandemic.
I meant anyone whose's life doesn't depend on it.
Or the cattle...
An outbreak of foot and mouth disease last month was most likely caused by the virus leaking from poorly maintained drains at a laboratory and spreading to nearby farms on mud carried on construction vehicles, an official report concluded today.
The spread of the disease to two farms in Surrey - prompting the slaughter of 600 cattle and a three-week ban on livestock exports - appeared to have been caused by "a unique and unhappy combination of circumstances", the environment secretary, Hilary Benn, told reporters.
However, there was still "no excuse" for the outbreak, Mr Benn said, announcing a series of reviews into work at the Pirbright facility at the centre of the outbreak, as well as the wider issues of the use of animal pathogens.
The National Farmers' Union said the government should compensate farmers who lost money as a result of the outbreak. Peter Kendall, the NFU president, called the failings that apparently caused the outbreak "well-nigh incredible and quite indefensible".
It was "now pretty clear" that the outbreak originated at the Pirbright facility near Guildford, Surrey, said the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) chief executive, Geoffrey Podger.
It was not possible to pinpoint the exact source of the outbreak at the site, Mr Podger said. The facility is shared by the government's Institute for Animal Health (IAH) and a laboratory run by the pharmaceutical firm Merial.
However, his team's examination of the site showed "long-term damage" to the pipework of the effluent system, which could have allowed the virus to escape.
"We judged it likely that waste water containing the live virus, having entered the drainage pipework, then leaked out and contaminated the surrounding soil," he told a press conference alongside Mr Benn.
According to the HSE report (pdf) into the incident, tiny quantities of a strain of the foot and mouth virus that caused an outbreak in 1967 - and no longer exists outside laboratories - could have entered the drainage system from either facility. The IAH site uses the virus for research while Merial has it to make vaccines.
I wonder if there's anyone left still waiting for evidence to say if the bat soup hypothesis-fantasy was ever true.
Some times it takes time
Lab leak is the biggest suspect in 1977 flu pandemic. But it took 3 decades to gain currency
The 1977 pandemic — called the 'Russian Flu' — was caused by the Human influenza H1N1 virus. It came to be known as such because it was first reported by the erstwhile Soviet Union.
bat soup hypothesis-fantasy was ever true.
Covid was first spread by mermaids ...
How can the foundation of a vaccine be developed in two days?
Joke! Moderna had access to the SARS-COV-2 spike at least 3 years in advance. They were able to chemically change it in a non folding version something not done in the Pfizer poison. Of course you can produce a RNA vaccine in 2 days once you have the virus code but you can't change the spike in 2 days.....
Basically you can enter the virus code in a PCR printer and produce the whole virus RNA - only the final virus assembly (folding) cannot happen that way.
Joke! Moderna had access to the SARS-COV-2 spike at least 3 years in advance. They were able to chemically change it in a non folding version something not done in the Pfizer poison. Of course you can produce a RNA vaccine in 2 days once you have the virus code but you can't change the spike in 2 days.....
Basically you can enter the virus code in a PCR printer and produce the whole virus RNA - only the final virus assembly (folding) cannot happen that way.
Legal prosecution expert researcher PhD. David Martin has the whole documentary back up of when this all started in the late 1990s. His annoyingly long (because of the translation to German) hearing with Reiner Fuelmich is something few people have the stamina to sit through.
SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Accumulation in the Skull-Meninges-Brain Axis: Potential Implications for Long-Term Neurological Complications in post-COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Accumulation in the Skull-Meninges-Brain Axis:
Once more the original leaked spike proliferation study from Japan (tables in English!)
Have you lost a friend due to colon cancer or stomach cancer then blame big pharma...
Thanks to the non big pharma spin sling journal..
Papers confirming the usefulness of the horse worm drug... Wiiiherriii
What is wrong with other countries/Switzerland??? https://www.worldometers.info/…irus/country/switzerland/
No more Covid deaths reported 8in wolrdomter) for Switzerland since January 30th?!
Is it just Moderna with only a few boostered added versus Pfizer poison?
The official Swiss dashboard says for this period there are a few deaths. About 40 for age > 80 what ever this means...Only 6 for age < 70... Compare this to US reporting, where also gun victims tested positiv show up the fear mongering porn...
