The announcement drew criticism from doctors and scientists who cited the lack of any evident control group in the clinical trials and any publicly available data.
The results of the NIAID study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, could open the door for the vaccine’s approval for 12- to 17-year-olds in the U.S., a month after European regulators approved the vaccine for the same age group.
According to the Oct. 16 announcement, the modified vaccinia Ankara-Bavarian Nordic (MVA-BN), marketed as Jynneos in the U.S., “generated antibody levels in adolescents equivalent to those observed in adults at day 43 and found that the vaccine was well tolerated through study day 210.”
The results are based on a pair of Phase 2 clinical trials of the MVA-BN vaccine. One trial included 229 participants between 18 and 50 years old, while the other trial tested the vaccine on 315 adolescents between ages 12 and 17.
Based on the findings, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) last month approved the MVA-BN, marketed as Imvanex in Europe and the United Kingdom, for 12- to 17-year-olds.
“The immune response in adolescents was similar to adults. … According to the submitted data, the safety profile of Imvanex in adolescents was comparable to that seen in adults and no additional risk has been identified,” the EMA stated in its Sept. 19 announcement.
Last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) approved MVA-BN for adults — and said it can be used for babies, children, teens and pregnant women if they are in “outbreak settings where the benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential risks.”
The approvals went through even though no data on the MVA-BN clinical trial results for the 12-17 age group have been publicized.
‘The complete void of any transparency in this clinical trial is stunning’
Critics of the vaccine cited the lack of data for 12- to 17-year-olds, the lack of a control group in the clinical trials, and questioned the necessity and safety of administering the mpox vaccine to children.
“The complete void of any transparency in this clinical trial is stunning,” said Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense. He added:
“Also, the clinical trial had no unvaccinated control group for comparison, which is a fatal flaw even if they would have made the trial results public. These are supposedly the premiere clinical researchers worldwide, yet they make 9th-grade mistakes in running their experiments.”
A spokesperson for NIAID who spoke with The Defender directed the public to the study protocol for the two clinical trials. However, the protocol does not indicate a control group and contains no findings.
“Short-term antibody responses in a study with an undisclosed sample size and no reported safety data are not sufficient for an NIAID press release,” cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender.
McCullough said:
“The Jynneos monkeypox vaccine has been used for years and carries a risk of myocarditis or heart damage. This study is not reassuring on safety or theoretical efficacy. The NIAID should take this post down and wait for the full peer-reviewed manuscript to be published.”
Internist Dr. Meryl Nass questioned the need for the MVA-BN clinical trials and NIAID’s claims of insufficient data for people 18 and younger. She told The Defender the studies were performed “after the U.S. government already gave hundreds of thousands of Americans both doses in mid-2022 and collected data on them.”
“One wonders what the purpose of this tiny trial was,” Nass said.
Data indicate a potentially high risk of severe adverse events
According to the NIAID announcement, “The overall frequency of adverse events was comparable between the study groups. Reports of dizziness were more common in adolescents than adults, but similar to the frequency of dizziness reported when other vaccines are administered in adolescents.”
The study results for the 18- to 50-year-old group indicated a rate of severe adverse events exceeding 1%. For Nass, a “1% SAE [severe adverse event] rate for a vaccine is very high,” though she added, “We need to know more to make any safety judgment.”
Nass suggested the actual number of severe adverse events may have been underreported.
“NIAID claims that only two of the 229 subjects had a serious adverse event. However, their definition of serious has been made more and more restrictive over the years,” Nass said.
According to Nass, while NIAID’s definition of a serious adverse event once “included an ER [emergency room] visit after vaccination,” the current NIAID definition is narrower, referring, in part, to “inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization” instead of an ER visit.
The two reported severe adverse events in the 18-50 age group involved cases of cystitis — an inflammation of the bladder — and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, an “uncommon diabetic complication.”
Nass also noted that severe adverse event data were “collected only for the first 57 days of the study.” In the event NIAID determined the adverse event was related to vaccination, further data were collected through day 181 — even though “blood was drawn at day 365 also.”
“Why were SAEs not collected through day 365 for everyone? That is how you learn what the SAEs related to a vaccine actually are,” Nass said.
According to Managed Healthcare Executive, “Bavarian Nordic is preparing for a clinical trial to assess the safety of MVA-BN in children 2 to 12 years of age.”
The trial will be partially funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which previously announced its intention to develop “pandemic-busting vaccines in 100 days.”
As a requirement for discussing and appreciating the imperative of health freedom in the USA, we must first define what is meant by health freedom. A simple definition is: the right of every American to decide what medical interventions to put into or onto one’s body, the right to access and use the medical and healing modalities of one’s choice, the right to maintain one’s health according to one’s conscience, and the right to live free of involuntary medication be it via the food supply, the water supply, or something airborne.
In a free and moral society, health freedom is not simply a convenience, it’s an imperative. In this vein, in the event of injury or illness, all Americans must possess the absolute right to choose what medical interventions and treatments to accept and what medical or healing modalities to utilize in order to address illness or injury; Americans must be free to choose how to maintain their health whether that be through nutrition, supplements, herbs, drugs, or a myriad of healing modalities; Americans must have access to truthful information regarding how the seeds for plants and animal feed and the food in our food supply has been grown or developed, medicated, processed, and packaged; and Americans have the right to exist in a society free of water and airborne medications, insect vectors, and chemicals.
Health freedom can only exist in a free and moral society which values each and every member of that society. This prerequisite thus excludes medical mandates of any kind. It is immoral to force another individual to risk their life for the theoretical benefit of another. Moreover, government does not have the moral authority or power to dictate what medical products any American puts into or on his or her body. If anyone in government does possess that power, then no American is truly free, nor does he or she possess any meaningful right whatsoever – Americans are merely chattel.
In order to create a society based on true health freedom, the following policy shifts should be implemented, as a first step. There are many more changes which should be implemented as well, but these proposals would address some of the most glaring, pernicious anti-liberty and anti-health aspects of our system as it exists today:
1. Ban all Medical Mandates:
The Declaration of Independence states, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” Medical mandates are prime facie violations of our founding documents.
Health freedom demands prior voluntary informed consent before a medical treatment or intervention is administered. Medical mandates are thus, by definition, antithetical to voluntary consent and therefore must be prohibited in a free and moral society. No single individual in government knows the medical history of any American, knows what is best for Americans, or has to live with the repercussions of any choices made by Americans, thus, medical mandates are never justified in any circumstance.
“The Bayh-Dole Act, formerly known as the Patent and Trademark Act Amendments, is a federal law enacted in 1980 that enables universities, nonprofit research institutions and small businesses to own, patent and commercialize inventions developed under federally funded research programs within their organizations.”
Under this program, government scientists may receive up to $150,000 per year on their patents.
In theory, Bayh-Dole incentivizes bright scientists to seek employment at federal health agencies rather than entering more lucrative private industry by allowing these taxpayer-funded scientists and other individuals and entities to retain the patent rights to intellectual property developed during their taxpayer-funded research and development activities.
In practice, this Act forever realigned the interests of taxpayer-funded scientists away from the American people and toward their own interests and profits and the profits of the private industries with which they collaborate. Dr. Anthony Fauci and his team at NIAID infamously owned half the Moderna Covid vaccine patent which incentivized the misguided covid era policies leading to a colossal violation of the rights of Americans demonstrating the perverse incentives created by Bayh-Dole and the necessity of repealing the act.
3. Repeal the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992:
“The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was created by Congress in 1992 and authorizes FDA to collect user fees from persons that submit certain human drug applications for review or that are named in approved applications as the sponsor of certain prescription drug products. Since the passage of PDUFA, user fees have played an important role in expediting the drug review and approval process.”
In 2022 alone, the pharmaceutical industry paid $2.9 billion in user fees amounting to 46% of FDA’s entire budget including $1.4 billion or 66% for FDA’s drug approvers’ salaries and $197 million or 43% of the biologics (vaccines) program budget. As a direct consequence of PDUFA, the FDA has a vested interest aligned with the profits and success of the pharmaceutical industry rather than the health and wellbeing of the American people.
4. Repeal the Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP Act) which authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a PREP Act declaration.
“The declaration provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims:
of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions
determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency
to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures
A PREP Act declaration is specifically for the purpose of providing immunity from liability, and is different from, and not dependent on, other emergency declarations.”
The PREP Act desecrates the ethical principle of informed consent by protecting individuals from liability even when they expressly act contrary to patients’ wishes and instructions and must be repealed.
The Affordable Care Act anchors Americans to the pharmaceutical and drug-based medical paradigm even though a majority of Americans used at least one form of “alternative” medicine in 2021 and spent $30.6 billion in out of pocket expenses for those holistic medicine services in 2023 according to Statista. Instead, implement a health savings program which permits Americans to access the health and medical modalities of their choice which in turn would foster more competition and reduce the exorbitant health care costs in the US by breaking the extant monopolies held by the medical and insurance industries.
6. Repeal the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA):
NCVIA shields vaccine makers and those who administer vaccines from liability (except for willful misconduct), creating a perverse incentive to industry to develop a never-ending stream of vaccines which are then mandated by the states and a perverse incentive to medical professionals to charge for and inject patients irrespective of the harm they may cause. Further, the NCVIA protects industry, medical professionals, and vaccine programs by creating a separate administrative federal court structure lacking due process and discovery, managed by “Special Masters” instead of judges, all in violation of the constitutionally protected right to due process. While NCVIA contains other provisions designed to protect American families and ensure the safety of the national vaccine supply, Congress is not conducting proper oversight and the promises made in 1986 at the time of the Act’s passage have not been upheld. As such, Americans who have been injured or killed by vaccines are left with astronomical medical bills and to fend for themselves.
7. Prohibit Private Donations to Government Entities:
Prohibit private individuals, foundations, corporations, contractors, any other person or entity from donating or otherwise giving money to any agency or entity of the federal government. FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) accept money from private actors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Pfizer thus skewing the interests of the agency in favor of these private actors and away from the American public. Gates has collaborated with FDA and the CDC Foundation takes money from the pharmaceutical industry whose products CDC is responsible for monitoring for safety.
8. Cooling-off Period for Senior Federal Employees:
Enact a 5-year cooling-off period before which agency leadership, deputies, and other key officials may depart federal agencies in order to enter the companies they regulate in the private sector.
9. Prevent Conflicts of Interest:
Eliminate conflict of interest waivers so that no person serving on a health agency committee, board, or other regulatory entity may have a conflict of interest. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is insufficient to ensure the agencies pursue the interests of the American people. Individuals with financial or ideological conflicts of interest should not serve as decision makers in any capacity.
10. Prohibit Government Grants to Nonprofits:
Prohibit government from allocating taxpayer dollars to nonprofit. Nonprofits exists to serve the public interests and should be funded directly by American citizens. If a nonprofit has a worthwhile mission, the public will gladly support it. Government exists to protect our rights and should not be in the business of picking winners and losers nor should it be using third parties to pursue policies outside the reach and review of the public.
11. Ban Water Fluoridation:
While water fluoridation programs are broad spread, they are not only dangerous from a health standpoint, they are forced medication in violation of the ethical principle of informed consent. Research comparing the health outcomes and IQs of communities that do and do not fluoridate their water supply reveal that children in the fluoridated water communities have reduced IQs and therefore inferior prospects in life. Other research has documented the health hazards of fluoride, an industrial waste product.
In addition, as fluoride is added to municipal water supplies, residents of those communities have no way to opt out and therefore are subjected to involuntary forced medication. No one should be forced to consume drugged water in order to maintain a biological necessity.
12. Ban Release of Genetically Modified Insects
Two tenets of good health are abundant exposure to sunshine and fresh air, however in some states, the state governments have collaborated with private business to release genetically modified mosquitoes into communities. While these mosquitoes are often designed to breed with one another and eliminate the “dangerous” species going forward, the health impacts of humans being bitten by these insects is not well understood. Nor should a person have to be risk being bitten by one of these creatures in order to venture outside. This amounts to a form of forced medication absent any form of consent and must be ended.
These recommendations should be understood as necessary first steps to begin correcting the disastrous health policy environment that exists in the United States today and to restore true health freedom in the US which would allow all Americans to decide what medical interventions to allow into or onto one’s body, which health and medical modalities to utilize in maintaining their health, and the ability to live free of involuntary medication be it via the food supply, the water supply, or the air we breathe.
Imagine if you will, an exceptionally ambitious city Fire Department, located in a city with very few naturally occurring fires.
These ambitious firemen don’t have nearly enough work, prestige, or pay for their liking. Uninterested in simply polishing their trucks, lifting weights, and cooking chili, these firemen want more. A lot more.
They construct a plan. They will start a research program, funded by taxpayers, whereby they will develop an arsenal of the biggest, scariest, most flammable products on earth. They will justify this program under the pretense that these destructive creations are absolutely necessary for the development of bigger and better fire extinguishers. Incidentally, they will also develop, market, and sell these fire extinguishers themselves.
These proprietary fire extinguishers will net the ambitious firemen an incredible fortune – if they can just get every man, woman, and child in the city to buy one.
The Fire Department, working with the corporations that would manufacture their miracle extinguishers, actively publicizes the supposedly tremendous, ever-increasing risk of fires that they claim threaten the population. According to the ambitious firemen, risk factors for worsened fires are everywhere and are ever-increasing – global warming, population growth, take your pick – and the next “big one” is just around the corner.
Credulous, fearful citizens and heavily lobbied politicians fall for their story, pumping ever more tax dollars into the Fire Department’s research and development program.
The Fire Department develops and grows its stockpile of manufactured fire super-hazards, until one day…
OOPS!
Somehow, one of the flammable products is released, and a raging conflagration ensues. No one knows exactly how it started – in fact, the chief firemen gather together and publicly deny that any of their products could be responsible.
But by terrifying the public and confusing the politicians, the firemen coerce the population to shelter in place and follow their strict instructions, lest they perish in the holocaust. After all, the firemen are the experts.
They heavily promote their special fire extinguishers as the only solution, even managing to get water outlawed for firefighting purposes! (Water wouldn’t work on this kind of fire, they insist. Only the Fire Department’s special extinguishers will suffice.)
Using a huge injection of taxpayer funds, the Fire Department gets their fire extinguishers built in record time, and they hard-sell them to everyone they possibly can. In the meantime, large swaths of the city burn to the ground. And due to the fire extinguishers’ poor design and hasty construction, these devices turn out to be every bit as deadly as the fire, if not worse, for their damaging effects linger long after the fire has burned itself out.
But the firemen and their corporate cronies have secured their fortunes.
The bewildered, traumatized population can’t figure out what happened, any more than the feckless politicians. The Fire Department emerges as the most powerful entity in the city. They resume their “research,” fortified by their growing wealth and power.
After all, the next big conflagration is just around the corner.
Sound implausible? Think again. Because in the realm of “pandemic preparedness,” the arsonists are running the Fire Department.
The Pandemic Preparedness Sweepstakes
Under the cover of vaccine development, there are dozens – perhaps hundreds – of biolabs around the world performing gain-of-function research on countless viruses and other infectious agents. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is the most infamous, but a great many of these labs are located in the United States, with at least 5 US labs manipulating H5N1 avian flu alone. This vast, shady industry of manufactured pathogenicity has infiltrated our government agencies, our military, and our universities, and of course, the pharmaceutical industry is thoroughly entwined in the whole enterprise.
Such “research” involves a multi-step process:
obtaining grant funding – which also provides legal, intellectual, and ethical cover – for gain-of-function research, by promoting it as essential for “pandemic preparedness” and vaccine development
obtaining pathogens (usually viruses) from nature that do not currently transmit to and among humans, but could be made to do so
altering those pathogens genetically in the lab by adding, manipulating, or removing genetic material, to make them more transmissible and/or more deadly in humans
speeding the evolution of these viruses by passaging them through mammals with immunological features similar to humans, as well as to human cell cultures
publishing one’s “achievements” of successfully enhancing the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens in the scientific literature, thereby securing continued grant support
securing patents on key elements of the manufactured viruses to ensure royalties when and if a vaccine for the pathogen is developed
waiting for (or perhaps causing) the escape of these pathogens into animal or human populations
setting into motion the entire pandemic response/vaccine development juggernaut
This work violates the Biological Weapons Convention of 1975. But these labs persist in their work, under the false premise that their “research” is designed to protect the world’s population from “rapidly emerging infectious diseases” by promoting vaccine development.
This is a lie.
The gain-of-function type research done in these labs genetically alters these animal viruses, empowering them to do easily and readily what they rarely do in nature: jump from species to species, spread readily among humans, and kill humans in significant numbers.
In essence, these researchers take viruses naturally found in animals, and which possess minimal-to-limited risk to humans, and alter them to make them highly transmissible and deadly to humans.
Why?
There is no legitimate rationale for this research. It’s really this simple: if one truly wishes to protect the world’s population from Godzilla, one does not deliberately and systematically create Godzilla in the lab.
Such research makes no sense when it comes to vaccine development, either. If one is concerned about existing pathogens, one should develop treatments that conquer those existing pathogens themselves.
Naturally occurring pathogens already have numerous targets for interventions – whether those interventions involve repurposing existing medications or developing new medications (including vaccines). We already have an armamentarium of existing medicines that are known to be effective against viruses. Sensible, ethical, indeed sane research would focus on strategies of targeting the existing chinks in the potential pathogens’ armor, rather than creating new, lethal superbugs in the lab.
Unfortunately, there is much less money to be made and little power to be grabbed using the sane approach. Contrary to the alarmist claims, there simply aren’t many naturally-occurring pandemics. And the enormous payoffs that Big Pharma and the investigators seek only come from patented, new, proprietary products – especially of the kind that can be put on a subscription model, like annual vaccines.
The Covid Pandemic as Dress Rehearsal
Of course, we have already seen the entire arsonists-running-the-fire-department scenario during Covid. A lab-developed, leaked pathogen prompted lockdowns. Patients who tested positive were told to stay home without treatment. Existing, established generic drug treatments with excellent safety profiles, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, were ruthlessly suppressed by the authorities – but only for use against the virus.
When patients became seriously ill, they were admitted to hospital and treated with proprietary medicines administered under directed protocols that later proved to be toxic to the patients, yet highly profitable to the drug manufacturers and patent holders. Meanwhile, the hospital systems were rewarded for their obedience with large bonuses for each Covid diagnosis made and each Covid death they presided over.
The proprietary “vaccines” were manufactured in record time (translation: far too quickly), and the most outrageous, coercive campaign to enforce medical treatment in history was unleashed, to compel the entire world to accept an experimental, rushed-to-market, misnamed “vaccine” based on the novel mRNA gene therapy platform. The results were devastating.
According to the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), the Covid injections resulted in adverse events at a rate 117.6 times higher than the influenza vaccine.
As of May 30, 2024, more than 1.6 million adverse events have been reported to VAERS for the Covid-19 injections, as well as 38,559 deaths and 4,487 miscarriages. These numbers dwarf the VAERS reports for all other vaccines combined. By any measure, the Covid-19 mRNA injections were historically toxic and deadly interventions.
These data have accrued despite the fact that VAERS is a very laborious system in which to file a report and the fact that healthcare personnel who insisted on filing appropriate VAERS reports were harassed and sometimes even fired for doing so. Furthermore, the compilation and publication of these data has been suppressed by the authorities and has only been revealed to the public by independent investigators. Additionally, there is a well-established underreporting error related to VAERS of at least one and perhaps two orders of magnitude.
Today, multiple of the Covid injections that were repeatedly touted by the authorities as “safe and effective” have been pulled from the market, including the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca products. Ironically, the most dangerous ones remain.
Why? Because the survivors are mRNA products. The mRNA platform on which the “surviving” Covid injections are created presents a nearly unlimited potential for financial gain, as it provides an almost “plug and play” platform for gene therapies that can be marketed against future numerous infectious pathogens – as well as cancers and other diseases.
The Capture of Medicine and Academia
As mentioned above, hospital systems were drawn into this disreputable work by powerful financial incentives from both Big Pharma and captured government agencies. But hospitals are not the only formerly trusted institutions that have been drawn in.
Decades before Covid, many universities became implicated in bioweapons research, with highly profitable gain-of-function labs appearing at numerous of these prestigious institutions. These labs are funded by multiple problematic sources: government agencies such as Anthony Fauci’s disgraced NIAID branch of the National Institutes of Health, Big Pharma, and private vaccine proponents/investors such as the ubiquitous Bill Gates.
Seminal work on the creation of SARS-CoV-2 – the virus that causes Covid – took place not in Wuhan but at the Ralph Baric Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It’s no stretch to say that since Covid-19, the world’s most famous Tar Heel is no longer Michael Jordan – it’s SARS-CoV-2.
At this writing, the same scenario is undergoing a terrifying reprise with the H5N1 influenza virus, commonly referred to as “avian influenza” or “Bird flu.” As mentioned before, at least 5 labs in the United States alone are manipulating this virus, as well as multiple other labs abroad.
If the Bird flu does get out of the lab and become a pandemic, here are 2 key scientists (and their associated labs) to hold accountable:
Shockingly, the Kawaoka lab has been responsible for two known prior leaks of avian influenza. In the first, occurring in November 2013, a lab worker was stuck with a contaminated needle. While that fortunately did not lead to an outbreak, protocols were not followed both prior to and after this accident, leading to an NIH investigation that should have shut down the research entirely.
In the second accident, a lab worker in training lost a connection to his breathing tube and was exposed to air infected with respiratory droplets from ferrets infected with altered avian flu. Although this did not lead to infection, protocols were not properly followed yet again, and NIH was not appropriately notified of the accident.
As alarming as it is that such an accident-prone and protocol-breaking lab is allowed to continue in any capacity, it is scandalous that Kawaoka’s lab is now working with the same subclade (2.3.4.4b) of the H5N1 virus that has infected cattle in 12 states as well as three dairy workers.
One can only wonder what University of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman and the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents know (and do not know) about the Kawaoka lab’s activities, and how they can justify sponsoring such potentially catastrophic “research” at the University they oversee.
Prof. R.A.M. (Ron) Fouchier, PhD, the Deputy Head of the Department of Viroscience at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, came to the forefront of avian influenza research in late 2011 when he successfully created a strain of the virus that could transmit in ferrets via aerosol respiratory droplets. This was a major step towards developing a virus that could transmit in humans, as the immune systems of ferrets and humans share considerable similarities.
This shockingly dangerous research earned Fouchier considerable criticism from even some of the most prominent pro-vaccine figures in medical research. The Foundation for Vaccine Research wrote a letter to the Obama White House in March 2013 condemning Fouchier’s work, calling it “morally and ethically wrong,” and stating the need to
consider the ethical issues raised by H5N1 gain-of-function research, especially experiments to increase the transmissibility of H5N1 viruses so they can be transmitted between humans as easily as the seasonal flu… [which could] cause a global pandemic of epic proportions that would dwarf the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic that killed over 50 million people.
Notably, this letter was signed by multiple preeminent vaccine proponents such as the “Godfather of Vaccines” Dr. Stanley Plotkin, and famous vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit. Fouchier’s gain-of-function work was so alarming that even the most zealous vaccine advocates took unusually strong action to halt it.
A temporary halt on gain-of-function research ensued in the United States but did not last. Fouchier has not heeded their warning, and no one at Erasmus University or elsewhere has stopped him. Fouchier has continued his gain-of-function work with different strains of avian influenza and has amassed 20 US patents, many of which are focused on his gain-of-function experiments.
The Current State of Bird Flu in the United States
H5N1 influenza, specifically subclade 2.3.4.4b, genome B3.13, is currently infecting over 90 herds of cattle in 12 different states. The first report of the virus in cattle was in March 2024. Reverse Transcriptase-PCR testing has returned positive for virus RNA in nasal secretions and the milk of cows. However, the cattle appear to recover from the virus with supportive treatment and the mortality rate is near zero. Active infection has not been reported in beef cattle.
There have been three cases of cow-to-human transmission of the virus, where infected humans were working with dairy equipment. The first two cases (Texas and Michigan) resulted in conjunctivitis (pink-eye) which cleared on its own in three days. In those cases, viral RNA was detected in eye secretions but not in nasal swabs. The third case (Michigan) resulted in a cough without fever, and eye discomfort with a watery discharge. Strangely, the complete genomic sequence of H5N1 for this case has yet to be released, despite the fact that the case was reported weeks ago. The other two cases appear to be consistent with the strain infecting cattle.
Several scientists have proposed that the current strain of H5N1 (subclade 2.3.4.4b, genome B3.13) circulating through cattle and to three humans in the US could have leaked from the USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) in Athens, Georgia. Hulscher et al. 2024 point out that the virus emerged in South Carolina extremely soon after identification in Newfoundland and Labrador. The timing doesn’t make sense for natural spread because both identifications occurred in December 2021, meaning that the virus must have somehow transported nearly 1,700 miles in the same month – unless it was somehow leaked from the SEPRL facility. There is no publicly available sequence information for the Newfoundland identifications, which is most unfortunate.
However, gain-of-function research projects involving H5N1 commenced at SEPRL in April 2021 and continued through December 2021. No sequence information has been publicly released from these projects and USDA officials claim that such information does not exist. Very soon after the South Carolina identification, the virus spread to a bottlenose dolphin found off the coast of Florida and moved precipitously through wild birds and poultry in the Southeast and Midwest. The first identifications of genome B3.13 in poultry in the US were in chickens in Indiana (January 2022) and the first identification in dairy cattle was in March 2024, although the transfer to cattle may have been as early as December 2023.
Very recently, H5N1 virus isolated from cattle in the US was sent to the UK for further testing. A lab leak in this instance could lead to catastrophe given the rapid spread of the strain seen in the US.
The overriding concern is the accidental or deliberate release of a lab-developed H5N1 clade that is designed to transmit human to human. At this point, the accounts of individuals like Fouchier explaining the current Bird flu situation don’t add up.
They propose that the virus crossed over from Europe to Newfoundland and infected an exhibition farm in December 2021. Then this supposedly spread – almost magically – to South Carolina (with two separate Genbank entries) in a wigeon and a blue winged teal on Dec. 30, 2021. There were no reports made between Newfoundland and South Carolina during this time which is at a minimum very curious.
The spread from South Carolina makes some sense from that point forward (i.e., to a bottlenose dolphin in Florida and later to poultry, starting in Indiana). The Athens, Georgia USDA lab SEPRL was doing work on H5N1 subclade 2.3.4.4b, genome B3.13 from April to December 2021 and this could have very well spread, via mallards or other wild birds, to the surrounding population.
The Return of “Fear Porn”
On Tuesday, June 4, 2024, Dr. Deborah Birx (the “Scarf Lady” of Covid-19 fame) stated to CNN that every cow in the US should be tested every week for Bird flu and that every worker should also be pool-tested. Birx made this absurdly impractical recommendation despite the facts that a) there is little to no mortality in cattle infected with Bird flu, b) the FDA has yet to change guidelines regarding consumption of raw or pasteurized milk, and c) such irresponsible use of the diagnostic tests would generate huge numbers of false positive results.
Even considering her performance during Covid, Birx must know that such willy-nilly testing will destroy the reliability of the PCR tests, the specificity of which is highly questionable to begin with. Making such impractical and counterproductive recommendations is quintessential “fear porn,” and calling for such irresponsible testing appears to be a deliberate attempt at stoking panic, and perhaps even generating false-positive cases.
Another example of the “fear porn” approach to “pandemic preparedness” was recent claims by the World Health Organization (WHO) that a patient in Mexico died in April 2024 due to H5N2 influenza. Even setting aside the issue of relevance, as H5N2 is an entirely different strain of influenza than H5N1, the claim was false. The Mexican Health Secretary refuted the WHO’s claim outright. The WHO later admitted their claim had been incorrect.
The WHO’s initial, false claim was widely reported in the mainstream media. However, their retraction has been mostly buried, and the rare reports of the retraction that have been published have been deceptive. An ABC report by one Mary Kekatos acknowledging the retraction misleadingly claimed the WHO had stated the patient “died with the H5N2 strain of bird flu.” Just one week earlier, Kekatos herself had written an article about the WHO’s description of the case titled “1st fatal human case of bird flu subtype confirmed in Mexico: WHO.” Of note, the WHO’s initial report explicitly described “a confirmed fatal case of human infection with avian influenza A(H5N2) virus.”
Even on the rare occasion when the mainstream media reports data refuting pandemic “fear porn,” they appear unable or unwilling to do so with transparent honesty, and even such disingenuous admissions are buried in internet search results.
On a more rational note, Robert Redfield, MD, former director of the CDC during the first year of Covid-19, predicted in an interview with NewsNation that the next pandemic would be avian influenza. Redfield believes that this will be a lab-leaked version of Bird flu, stating that “the ‘recipe’ for making bird flu highly infectious to humans is already well established,” recalling that gain-of-function research on the avian influenza virus was carried out in 2012, against his recommendations. In other words, he believes the arsonists are at it again.
Conclusion and Recommendations
If, in fact, any labs were to release weaponized H5N1 into the population, this would be the outright act of biological arson at least the equivalent of SARS-CoV-2’s initial escape from the Wuhan lab, and given the precedent set by the Covid-19 disaster, even an accidental release would constitute an inexcusable act of mass murder.
The risk of this research is so great, the likelihood of leaks – be they accidental or deliberate – is so well-established and so high, and the stakes regarding human life are so potentially catastrophic, that gain-of-function research must be stopped altogether.
Dr. Jane Orient, MD, Executive Director of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, made the following common-sense recommendations in response to the continued H5N1 “fear porn” promoted by persons such as Deborah “Scarf Lady” Birx and the WHO, and the warnings of former CDC Director Robert Redfield:
We need to cancel the panic, monitor for, and isolate, sick animals. Same for humans. Research and use repurposed drugs for treatment. Disqualify the people responsible for the Covid debacle. Allow free discussion of opinions. Destroy the dangerous viral stocks and secure the labs, and be aware of who’s paying for the research.
Along those lines, here are our recommendations:
Citing the 1975 International Bioweapons Convention, immediately shut down ALL gain-of-function research in the US. As Dr. Orient states, this action must include securing the labs and destroying the viral stocks. Any resistance or interference with this should be subject to criminal punishment for Nuremberg Code violations.
Immediately call for the same to be done at all international labs (especially, but not limited to, Fouchier’s lab in the Netherlands and the Wuhan Institute of Virology). Again, announce that any resistance at any level will be regarded as Nuremberg Code violations.
Pass prompt legislation that any and all intellectual property associated with completed gain-of-function research resides entirely in the Public Domain. Any vaccines or therapeutics developed from such research will be generic and non-proprietary.
Cease all present funding and outlaw any future funding for genetic manipulation of pathogens.
Common-sense approaches to respiratory viruses must be re-established, focusing on good hygiene, isolation of the sick (not the healthy), intelligent and free use of existing therapies, a local-to-regional (not global) approach to public health, and the complete removal of those with a record of failure and/or dishonesty during the Covid-19 period from the entire process, including the WHO.
Now is the time for citizens to loudly voice their concerns on this issue to elected officials and to other persons of authority who are responsible. For example, residents of Wisconsin should let Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, Senators Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin, and their State Legislators know how they feel about the Kawaoka lab. Additionally, University of Wisconsin President Rothman and the Board of Regents should hear from any and all Badger alumni who do not want their alma mater to be the source of the next pandemic.
The State of Florida has outlawed gain-of-function research within its borders. Of course, the Federal Government should be pressured to act definitively to end such research at home and abroad, but other states should still follow Florida’s lead on this issue. Every political entity, large and small, that prohibits gain-of-function research makes an important step in the right direction.
The arsonists must be fired from the Fire Department. The whole fear-driven and deception-based operation that is “pandemic preparedness” must be stopped. If it isn’t, the Covid-19 experience will be converted from a once-in-a-lifetime trauma to a regularly recurring man-made disaster.
C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.
For nearly nine years Anthony Fauci’s institute concealed plans to engineer a pandemic capable mpox virus with a case fatality rate of up to 15 percent, congressional investigators revealed in a new report Tuesday.
In June 2015, a scientist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases received formal approval from the National Institutes of Health’s Institutional Review Board for experiments expected to engineer an mpox virus with high transmissibility and moderate mortality.
NIAID — the institute Fauci oversaw for nearly four decades and which underwrites most federally funded gain-of-function research — concealed the project’s approval from investigators with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce over the course of a 17 month-long investigation.
A new interim report describes the obstruction and secrecy around the mpox proposal as a case study in how the institute “oversees and accounts for the monitoring of potentially dangerous gain-of-function research of concern.”
The revelations land amid global concerns about whether coronavirus gain-of-function research — research that might generate pathogens with increased pathogenicity or transmissibility — may have contributed to the worst pandemic in a century.
The committee, in conjunction with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, is also investigating coronavirus gain-of-function research underwritten by NIAID at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and faces similar stonewalling in that investigation, a committee aide said.
NIAID’s lack of transparency surrounding the proposed mpox experiment for nearly a decade undermines Fauci’s assurances at a congressional hearing last week that any biosecurity breach at the Wuhan lab could not have any connection to his former institute. Investigators continue to pursue documentation from EcoHealth Alliance, an NIAID contractor whose funding was recently suspended for failing to properly oversee coronavirus experiments exported to Wuhan.
Mpox, formerly known as monkeypox, caused a public health emergency in the U.S. from August 2022 to February 2023. It is endemic in Africa. The more deadly clade circulates in Central Africa (clade I) while the more transmissible clade circulates in West Africa (clade II). Mpox has infected more than 20,000 people and caused more than 1,000 deaths in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where clade I predominates, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — though some experts believe that is an undercount of true cases. A strain of the clade II virus drove the American outbreak.
The gain-of-function project proposed by NIAID virologist Bernard Moss would splice genes conferring high pathogenicity from the clade I virus into the more transmissible clade II virus. The new “chimeric” (combined) virus could have retained up to a 15 percent fatality rate and a 2.4 reproductive number, a measure of transmissibility indicating every sick person could infect up to 2.4 people on average, giving it pandemic potential.
The committee’s attempts to learn more about the experiment were met with stonewalling.
NIAID maintains the experiment was never conducted, but has never provided any contemporaneous documents to support that claim such as emails or lab notebooks, according to the committee’s report.
The lack of engagement from NIAID, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services does not comport with the idea the experiment was never conducted and that there is nothing to hide, according to the committee.
HHS and NIH misled congressional investigators for nearly a year and a half, falsely denying that Moss had obtained formal approval for this gain-of-function experiment.
The committee launched its investigation in October 2022 but was only permitted to view key documents in camera in March 2024, which confirmed NIH’s formal approval of the experiment.
The committee lays blame with officials at NIAID, who fund most federally underwritten gain-of-function research, have the subject matter expertise, and may have misled their bosses at HHS and NIH.
For months NIAID and Moss had reported to the committee that the mpox experiment had not moved forward and that Moss had simply been spitballing with the Science reporter in 2022 without serious intention.
However amid the committee’s investigation in May 2023 an approval from the Federal Select Agent Program for a chimera involving both clade I and clade II of the mpox virus was revoked.
NIAID also misled Science and STAT News in saying the gain-of-function mpox experiment was never approved, according to the committee.
Committee aides say they will continue to press for full accountability and transparency, and hope for a culture change at NIAID away from secrecy under new leadership.
Fauci retired after 38 years as the head of NIAID in December 2022; Jeanne M. Marrazzo now serves as director of the institute. Former NIH Director Francis Collins retired in December 2021; Monica Bertagnolli now serves as director of the NIH.
The revelations also come amid a debate about the future of gain-of-function research regulation.
New policy unveiled last month by the White House Office and Science and Technology Policy maintains a largely self-regulatory framework, vesting the responsibility for initiating increased regulation with the researchers and funding agencies such as NIAID.
The vast majority of gain-of-function research that could generate epidemic and pandemic capable viruses is likely to be exempted from more rigorous scrutiny under the new protocols, according to the committee.
Many of the world’s most public virologists have dismissed the theory that the COVID-19 pandemic may have resulted from a lab accident as a conspiracy theory and have chafed at the idea that the work should be regulated by an outside agency, subject to public input or not pursued at all.
That culture extends to NIAID, too, according to the committee’s investigators, who have also uncovered that top administrators may have illegally evadedfederal record retention and transparency law.
Concerns were raised by a committee aide that NIAID exerted undue influence at OSTP to preserve the laissez-faire status quo.
“The new OSTP policy continues to give funding agencies, like NIAID, primary responsibility for oversight of GOFROC and DURC experiments involving potentially dangerous pathogens,” the committee’s report reads. “In almost any other scientific field or industry, this arrangement would be immediately recognized as a conflict of interest, necessitating independent review and oversight.”
Policy improvements suggested by the committee’s report include codifying public input through a community oversight board, which already exist for high-containment biosafety level four laboratories, as well as moving final approval for gain-of-function research out of NIAID.
According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the number of labs capable of growing orthopoxviruses like mpox and smallpox from scratch currently stands at less than 100, but could increase significantly as DNA synthesis and engineering techniques improve and become cheaper.
A longtime aide to former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci allegedly boasted in emails about his ability to evade public records requests and his intention to delete any potential “smoking guns,” a congressional hearing revealed Thursday.
Former National Institutes of Health Acting Director Lawrence Tabak testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, which has been investigating an American research organization at the center of suspicions that the COVID-19 pandemic may have resulted from a lab accident in Wuhan.
The hearing follows an announcement Wednesday that this organization — EcoHealth Alliance, helmed by President Peter Daszak — has had its federal funding suspended and could be on track to be debarred from federal funding for years. The enforcement action stems from EcoHealth’s failure to adequately oversee the research it subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This research included experiments that made SARS-related coronaviruses more dangerous. Daszak testified before the committee earlier this month.
EcoHealth’s research was underwritten by NIAID — placing Fauci and his aides in the spotlight too. The scrutiny of EcoHealth and NIAID has revealed that Daszak had a close connection to Fauci’s inner circle in the senior advisor to the NIAID director, David Morens.
Morens told the committee in a transcribed interview that Daszak is one of his oldest friends.
Now evidence has surfaced suggesting that Morens evaded the Freedom of Information Act — which requires that records from federal agencies be made public with limited exceptions — and that an unidentified public records official with the NIH helped him to do so.
NIH and NIAID did not immediately reply to request for comment.
Morens boasted about the ability to “make emails disappear” even after a FOIA request had been submitted, according to the committee.
The emails were revealed in questions by House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky.
“Dr. David Morens, a senior advisor to Fauci for decades, wrote in an email to Dr. Daszak, ‘I learned from our FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear after I am FOIA’d but before the search starts. So I think we are all safe. Plus I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to Gmail,’” Comer said Thursday. “Is that consistent with NIH document retention policies?”
“It is not,” Tabak answered.
Asked if the NIH FOIA office instructs employees on how to evade FOIA, Tabak answered, “I certainly hope not.”
U.S. Right to Know is among the organizations that have submitted FOIAs to the NIH for emails from Morens about information with potential relevance to the origins of COVID-19 and is litigating against the NIH over its failure to comply with a January 2022 FOIA request for Morens’s records.
In a separate email, Morens said that he intended to delete any records or emails that might constitute a “smoking gun.”
“He also later wrote Dr. Daszak, ‘We are all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns. And if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails. And if we found them we would delete them,’” Comer said. “Is that consistent with NIH document retention policies?”
“It is not,” Tabak again replied.
According to Comer, Daszak and Morens also collaborated in crafting public messages in response to emails set to be released by NIH under FOIA.
The emails described by Comer undermine Tabak’s prepared testimony at the hearing in which he claimed the NIH is committed to transparency and following the science on the question of the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Tabak’s testimony sets the stage for Morens to testify next week. Morens supplied the committee with 30,000 emails the day before Daszak testified before the committee on May 1.
Morens wrote in an email to Daszak in 2021 that he communicates on Gmail “because my NIH email is FOIA’d constantly,” The Intercept previouslyreported.
“Just send to any of my addresses and I will delete anything I don’t want to see in the New York Times,” Morens wrote.
Looped into this email chain were several virologists who have cast the lab origin hypothesis as a conspiracy theory in the press. These virologists included University of Sydney virologist Edward Holmes, Scripps Institute virologist Kristian Andersen, and Tulane University virologist Robert Garry, who have also been investigated by the committee for their role in an influential paper that dismissed the idea SARS-CoV-2 could have been engineered without disclosing the involvement of Fauci and former NIH Director Francis Collins.
The committee released emails earlier this month showing that Daszak informed Morens of his intention to voluntarily release only enough records to stave off a subpoena for more. The committee is now demanding more documents from Daszak, according to Subcommittee Chair Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio.
The committee’s investigation is building up to the testimony of Fauci on June 3.
Tabak confirmed Thursday that the NIAID did indeed fund gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in Wuhan through EcoHealth Alliance according to the colloquial understanding.
According to the policy in place from 2014 to 2018 — the “U.S. Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses” — the definition of gain-of-function research at the time of the experiments involving the Wuhan Institute of Virology included “research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.”
Grant reports demonstrate that “chimeric” or combined coronaviruses studied by EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology caused more severe disease in mice engineered to express human receptors than the backbone virus.
However, Tabak downplayed the risk posed by these chimeric viruses because they were bat coronaviruses, though the public literature described one of these viruses as “poised for human emergence.”
Fauci repeatedly denied that NIAID funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan in high-profile exchanges with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in 2021.
“Sen. Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly, and I want to say that officially,” Fauci said in a July 2021 hearing.
Tabak confirmed in the hearing Wednesday that in October 2021 the NIH communications office changed the definition of “gain-of-function research” on the NIH website.
Asked to identify which scientist at NIH made or vetted the decision, Tabak could not identify any particular official.
As America faces an unlikely bird flu ‘outbreak’ in chickens and cows, many are speculating on when this rare illness will jump to humans. Jefferey Jaxen looked into the previous gain-of-function lab work on H5N1 funded by Tony Fauci and NIAID, and found something very interesting.
Exactly one year ago, the investigative journalist and author, Alison Young, published a report in USA Today on an accident that occurred on December 9, 2019 at the University of Wisconsin’s Influenza Research Institute.
The accident involved experiments with an H5N1 influenza virus that had been modified through GoF to make it transmissible among ferrets. The research team leader—a renowned virologist named Yoshihiro Kawaoka—had gained international attention (or notoriety) for his controversial GoF research on H5N1. As Alison Young reported:
… in late 2011 the world learned that two scientific teams – one in Wisconsin, led by virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka, and another in the Netherlands, led by virologist Ron Fouchier – had potentially pushed the virus in that direction. Each of these labs had created H5N1 viruses that had gained the ability to spread through the air between ferrets, the animal model used to study how flu viruses might behave in humans.
The ultimate goal of this work was to help protect the world from future pandemics, and the research was supported with words and funding by two of the most prominent scientists in the United States: Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Kawaoka contended it would be “irresponsible not to study” how the virus might evolve in nature. “Some people have argued that the risks of such studies – misuse and accidental release, for example – outweigh the benefits. I counter that H5N1 viruses circulating in nature already pose a threat,” he said at the time.
In Nov. 2013, a needlestick accident happened on Kawaoka’s research team, followed by failure to adhere to the established quarantine rules. Though no human infection resulted from this accident, it was nevertheless alarming. Young’s report continues:
By 2014, there was a growing discomfort at the highest levels of the U.S. government about the risk of an accident with an engineered virus.
Wisconsin’s needlestick incident, which drew questions within NIH but wasn’t publicly known, was soon followed by a series of high-profile accidents at federal labs in 2014 – from safety breaches with anthrax and avian influenza at the CDC to the discovery of forgotten vials of smallpox that had been kept for decades in a storage room on the NIH campus.
The funding pause remained in place for three years until it was finally lifted in December 2017. But it was only in 2019 that some of the halted experiments were quietly allowed to begin again under a revised federal oversight process, which was criticized for keeping secret the details of the new experiments and the basis for the government approvals.
The second accident on Kawaoka’s team occurred less than a year after GoF experiments were allowed to resume. This time, a lab researcher in training was working with ferrets infected with the GoF-modified H5N1 when his respirator hose was discovered to have detached from his hood, allowing him to breathe the possibly contaminated air in the cabinet. Again the quarantine rules were not properly followed, and nor was the incident promptly reported to the NIH.
Though the accident purportedly did not result in a human infection, it nevertheless raises many questions about the prudence of manipulating the H5N1 virus in a lab in order to make it infectious and transmissible among mammals.
Alison Young’s report prompted me to start reading her book, Pandora’s Gamble: Lab Leaks, Pandemics, and a World at Risk, published on April 25, 2023. Young has a long history of researching and reporting on Bio-labs and their checkered past. Most lab manipulation of pathogens is purportedly done to develop vaccines against them in the event that their natural iterations should ever evolve to infect humans, but this rationale is highly questionable if not downright mendacious.
Indeed, on December 18, 2013, the Foundation for Vaccine Research wrote a letter to the European Commission, signed by 56 scientists (including Nobel Laureates) in which they sharply criticized the GoF experiments on H5N1 by virologist, Ron Fouchier.
The 56 scientists vehemently express their opinion that naturally-occurring H5N1 does NOT efficiently transmit to humans and therefore poses little risk to humans.
Far more dangerous, they claim, is the possibility of a lab-modified H5N1 virus escaping from a lab. The scientists refer to the resurgence of H1N1 influenza in 1977 after a 20-year hiatus, most likely after escaping from a lab in the former Soviet Union.
The video above features a lecture David E. Martin,1 Ph.D., gave in Dornach, Switzerland, in late October 2023. Martin is a national intelligence analyst and founder of IQ100 Index, which developed linguistic genomics, a platform capable of determining the intent of communications.
This technology has allowed Martin to scan and review millions of patents, resulting in a paper trail2,3 that conclusively proves SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade bioweapon that has been in the works for 58 years.
Unambiguous Admission of a Premeditated Plandemic
As he is now in the habit of doing, Martin opens his lecture with a quote by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance. During a March 27, 2015, forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events, Daszak noted4 that unless an infectious disease crisis is at an emergency threshold, it tends to be ignored.
“To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs (medical countermeasures) such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine,” Daszak said, adding:5
“A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”
Martin comments:
“This is the admission, unambiguously, which states without any equivocation, that the reason for the global terror campaign that began officially in the minds of most people in late 2019, was a premeditated plan of terrorism, collusion, coercion and, ultimately, murder … This quote is the admission of four felonies, regardless of which side of the Atlantic you’re on.”
What Felonies Did Daszak Admit to in 2015?
Martin then goes on to explain how, in that quote from 2015, Daszak admitted to several different felonies. In summary:
• “To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis …” — Daszak is not speaking of expanding or benefiting public health here. He’s also not referring to an actual health crisis that was taking place when the comment was made.
No, according to Martin, “the crisis was that there was a reduction in funding of biological weapons programs sponsored by the World Health Organization. The crisis was not a health crisis. It was a funding crisis for the people who were running out of money for their bioweapons programs. Those are two crimes.”
• “A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype.” — This, according to Martin, is an admission of two additional crimes. “Hype” refers to psychological terror. In other words, funding will follow provided the psychological terror is great enough, and he admits the media will be used to push that fear porn.
The second felony is economic conspiracy, because “economics that follow hype is not informed consent,” Martin notes. “That’s not willing buyer, willing seller, informed of all the facts.” Using psychological terror to secure funding implies “an intent to defraud.”
Martin explains: “Under Crown Law we call it ‘fraudulent conveyance’ when you don’t inform the counterparty of the risks associated with a contract … Why is this important?
The reason why fraudulent conveyance is such an important principle in the law, is … [because] the fraud-perpetrating party is required under the law to not just recompense the damage.
Their legal obligation is to return the damaged party to their pre-damaged state. It’s not, ‘We’re going to give you a couple bucks for your pain and suffering. No, you are legally required to return the condition to the pre-damage state.”
So, to reiterate, financial compensation is not the legal standard when it comes to fraudulent conveyance. The party that engaged in the fraud is legally required to make the defrauded whole again. And why is THAT important? Because “we’re not even asking for what we should ask for,” Martin says.
Is there a dollar amount that can cure the myocarditis you suffered after the shot? Or the turbo cancer that’s killing your mother? Or the blood clots that killed your father? “If we followed the law, we would actually recommend, not a financial compensation, we would recommend a return to the pre-damaged state,” Martin says.
• “We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues.” — What are “the real issues”? To get investors to respond with funding, which they will do if they can “see profit at the end of the process.” In other words, investors will open their pocketbooks if they can confirm that psychological terror makes people line up to receive an injection.
Why Do We Need a Vaccine for an Eradicated Infection?
Martin goes on to note that a Pan-Coronavirus Vaccine Program was actually publicly announced during the moratorium on gain of function on coronaviruses in the United States, which was in place from 2014 until 2017.6
“That gain of function moratorium was going on while we were announcing a global plan of global terrorism, a pan-coronavirus vaccine, which, by the way, the World Health Organization … declared eradicated a year earlier,” Martin says.
“How do we need a vaccine for an eradicated disease, during a gain of function moratorium, when there’s theoretically no chance that we could have a reason to need a vaccine for a thing that doesn’t exist? Well, because we were making it — professor Baric. We were hyping it — Peter Daszak … And we were going to hijack liberty with it.”
The 58-Year Timeline of SARS-CoV-2
As explained by Martin, the virus called “coronavirus” was first described in 1965. Two years later, the U.S. and U.K. launched an exchange program where healthy British military personnel were infected with coronavirus pathogens from the U.S. — “as part of our biological weapons program.”
In 1992, Ralph Baric at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, took a pathogen that used to infect the gut and lungs and altered it with a chimera to make it infect the heart, causing cardiomyopathy.
“Pause and think about what I just said,” Martin says. “What what goes on in the head of a person who says, ‘This was a little glitch in my tummy, it was a little sniffle in my nose. Let’s see if we can make it hit hearts and … create cardiomyopathy,’ one of the most lethal heart inflammations possible …”
In November 2000, Pfizer patented its first spike protein vaccine. So, Operation Warp Speed really didn’t produce a spike protein vaccine in a few months. No, that research had been going on since late 2000. So, the COVID shots were 19 years in the making by the time they were rolled out.
The problem is that during those 19 years, none of the coronavirus vaccines worked. “Every single trial, from November of 2000 until [2019], had killed all of the animals into which the experimental injections were placed,” Martin says.
Despite that, the University of California San Francisco’s institutional review board was told, in the summer of 2020, that the clinical trials for the coronavirus vaccine were a “straight to humans protocol.” In other words, it didn’t need to go through preliminary animal research.
As noted by Martin, it would be quite inconvenient to have safety data showing it kills animals. No one would line up for a shot like that, no matter how many free cheeseburgers you throw at them.
How Can We Know That SARS Was a Weapon?
While all of that is disturbing enough, there’s more. Martin continues:
“You kind of can’t make this egregious level of a crime up unless you realize that behind this, there must be another crime. Each one of these, in and of themselves, is horrific. But the sum of them becomes much, much, much more problematic.
Let’s go ahead and jump to the wonderful creation of the patent that was filed in 2002, which is actually the reason why I am done with everybody who ask the question ‘Was there a novel virus; was there novel disease?’ Let’s stipulate, with the facts, that there were neither.
There’s not a novel virus. There WAS a variety of biological weapons designed off the back of the patent that was filed in 2002, which was the ‘infectious replication-defective clone of coronavirus.’
Now let’s slow down and answer the question, what does that phrase mean? Infectious replication-defective. ‘Infectious’ means we want to target a cell in the body to make sure the thing that we’re injecting goes into the cell …
‘Replication-defective’ means we want the information that we inject to infect that cell, but not replicate and spread to others, which means that the bioweapon itself was engineered as a weapon to hit a target, but not proliferate.
That’s what the patented technology is, which is the reason why, when we had SARS 1.0 in 2002 and 2003 … we were [told there would be] dead people everywhere. [But] as hard as we tried to make it into a pandemic … we [could] only kick 900 people off the mountain. That was the global pandemic. Why? Because the weapon worked.
If you exposed somebody to the toxic agent, they died. But they didn’t spread it to others, which is the reason why we did not have the transmission of SARS 1.0, because you can’t transmit a thing that’s designed not to replicate.
But worse still: What is the definition of a virus? … A virus is a replicating protein sequence. Guess what this isn’t? Replication-defective means we took the virus out of a virus. It was not a replicating device. It was in fact a weapon.
Now, I’ve got tons of people who go, ‘Dave, you’re crossing the line, don’t say it’s a weapon. It’s not a weapon … You offend people who kill people when you call it a weapon.’ Well, guess what, if you’re offended, I don’t care, because I didn’t call it a weapon — the guy who built it called it a weapon.”
mRNA Spike Protein Is a Biological Warfare Agent
Indeed, mRNA spike protein was publicly described as a bioweapon 18 years ago. In 2005, at a conference hosted by DARPA and the Mitre Corporation in the U.S., the mRNA spike protein was hailed as a “biological warfare-enabling technology.” Does that sound like it has any public health-related applications? No, as Martin insists, “biological warfare-enabling technology” means it’s a biological warfare agent.
“So, I’m not the one saying that it’s a biological weapon. I’m not the one saying it’s biological warfare,” Martin says.
“The perpetrator called it that in 2005, and was rewarded with a dual entry budget, where … the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, received money from Anthony Fauci’s NIAID/NIH budget, and exactly at the same time … Fauci had a second checkbook [that] came from the Department of Defense pandemic preparedness program. And guess what that was? An equal matching noncompetition grant …
In Europe, that’s a violation of anti-competition laws. You’re not allowed to double down on a public grant without competition or transparency, saying that this agency is going to give you $10 million … and [a second] one is going to give you $10 million … because [the first] one gave you $10 million —
Not because it was fair, not because it was open, not because it was transparent, not because there was actually grant competition, but by virtue of the determination of one side, the other side facto matched the money. And that started in 2005, not in 2019.”
Big Pharma Owns All North Carolina Universities
Over the past two years, a lot of information has come out exposing how Daszak funneled millions of research dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China for gain of function research on coronaviruses. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. According to Martin, at least $141 million went to the U.S. bioweapons program led by the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Martin continues:
“I have been the most ardent advocate for shaming the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill for a very good reason … and the reason is because in 1984, the state of North Carolina, not just the university, sold itself to … GlaxoSmithKline and the Wellcome companies.
The reason why you’ve heard the term ‘Research Triangle Institute’ or ‘Research Triangle Park’ — which is University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Duke University and North Carolina State University — is because the state of North Carolina sold its universities to GlaxoSmithKline Wellcome, and they did it because of AZT.
AZT was on patent, and we needed a state in the United States to be ground zero, to make sure that AZT became the drug of choice for the treatment of HIV. So in 1984, we invent HIV, conveniently for the purpose of making sure we have one treatment: AZT.
Here’s the interesting little fact that very few people know. If you go back and look at the videos of Anthony Fauci in 1985 and 1986 … he’s talking about [getting] a vaccine for HIV. But he suddenly got a knock on the door from GlaxoSmithKline going, ‘Hey Mr. Fauci, don’t start that project until the patent on AZT runs out.’
I’m not making this up. It’s actually videos that you can see. And so, mysteriously, courtesy of the Wellcome AZT protest, from 1991 to 1996, the world was told that the only treatment for HIV was AZT, and as such, the patent and the rest of the patent life on AZT could expire, so that GlaxoSmithKline Wellcome could get all of the money for the patented technology for a thing that was killing patients that allegedly had HIV.
Murder for hire. North Carolina sold the state so that could happen. Conveniently, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) decided that UNC Chapel Hill was its go-to institution, while AZT was in its monopoly run, to begin the process of doing HIV vaccine research …
So, ‘91 to ‘96 is the AZT cover story. Underneath that you have Ralph Baric genetically modifying and making chimeras of this coronavirus thing to create an HIV vaccine, which is going to conveniently roll out in 1997, as the patent on AZT expires.
[This] is the reason why you need to figure out how to get the gastrointestinal and flu problem to become a heart problem: Because you need to get that package, that little envelope around what we call coronavirus … to deliver the HIV vaccine.
So all of the funding for the HIV vaccine that was going to this program was actually going to use coronavirus as the packet in which the HIV vaccine was going to be delivered. That’s the model. [There are] hundreds of papers on this.
And, this is why this question of … is there HIV fragments somewhere in [the COVID shots]? The answer is, of course there is. It was designed into it. And it was designed into it, not a couple of years ago, not by Moderna, not by BioNtech. This was designed in many, many years earlier.
Not surprisingly, from ‘96 to ’99, Ralph Baric begins the weaponization of this allegedly synthetic coronavirus envelope to become a vaccine vector. 1999 comes along, and lo and behold, Baric and Fauci create what I affectionately call FrankenCoV.
What’s that? That is the monster, that’s the chimera. That’s the idea that we can change surface glycans, we can change surface spike proteins, we can change surface oligomerization, we can do all kinds of things to modify this thing.
So we can actually have this … package shell, the outer edge of coronavirus, we can allow that to be the carrier of getting anything we want into any cell we want. Which is the reason why the 2002 patent becomes interesting.”
NIAID Funded Research to Increase Human Pathogenicity
Next, Martin shows a letter, dated October 21, 2014, from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, declaring that Baric’s grant I1077810-02 had been deemed subject to the moratorium on gain of function research involving coronaviruses. However, at the bottom of the page 1, it also states that:
“As this grant is already funded, the pause is voluntary and you can continue to conduct the applicable GOF [gain of function] research until the end of the currently active budget period.”
In other words, the NIAID gave Baric a free pass to decide whether he wanted to abide by the moratorium or not. What’s more, the grant actually didn’t have a termination date, because it was a noncompetitive, perpetually funded grant. So, Baric was given a free pass to conduct gain of function research indefinitely.
And what was this grant for? To increase the “human pathogenesis” of coronavirus in vivo, meaning inside the body. “Two billion people are going to be incapacitated or killed — because of this letter,” Martin says.
Who Can Be Held Accountable?
Alright. So, why can’t we just prosecute Baric, Fauci and whomever else and be done with it? Because this research project was placed under the World Health Organization’s GAVI Vaccine Alliance, and under Article 5, Section 13 of the WHO’s charter, they cannot be investigated or prosecuted for any crimes committed. GAVI, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, also has diplomatic immunity and cannot be investigated by local authorities there either.
“They knew that if they put the project under the WHO, it was shielded from all criminal investigation and all criminal liability — forever,” Martin says.
But that’s not all. 2010 to 2020 was declared The Decade of Vaccines. GAVI devised a global vaccine action plan that included global acceptance of a “universal influenza-coronavirus vaccine” by 2020, to protect against “accidental or intentional release” of a respiratory pathogen. As noted by Martin, “release” is “an active, intent-filled word. It is not an ‘oops’ accident.”
Recall, the same person who said they needed to create media hype to create sustained funding, Daszak, was appointed to lead the WHO’s investigation into the lab leak theory. Not surprisingly, his team decided there was no evidence to support the lab leak theory and it was probably a case of zoonotic transference after all.
A Crime That Keeps Going and Going
Martin also stresses that this crime is not just about the creation of COVID. It’s a crime that keeps going and going. He explains how children were murdered in 2011 clinical trials for a malaria vaccine. Sixty-six of the children in the vaccine group suffered serious and/or fatal adverse events, as did 28 in the control group. However, controls were not given saline, but rather a cocktail of other vaccines.
“When people attempted to hold the clinical trials agents accountable for their actions, guess what they referred to? They referred to Article [5 Section] 13 of their representative as members [of the WHO, which gives them] ‘immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure personal baggage and respect to words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their official capacity, immunity from legal process of every kind.’
That’s in the charter of what we call the World Health Organization. That ladies and gentlemen is the mafia, and we should stop pretending it’s something else.
It is an embarrassment to the Swiss people. It is embarrassment to the Swiss government that the World Health Organization exists in this place. Because the Swiss have enabled the organized crime of the World Health Organization, and they have enabled it so that real individuals can murder children under the age of three months …
We the People cannot allow this to happen. We’re talking about the [WHO pandemic] treaty … [when] we should be talking about the World Health Organization itself, not the treaty. And as long as Section 13 of Article 5 remains in the charter, I don’t care what treaties they pass, it doesn’t matter, because the institution is corrupt at its core, and you can’t fix that. That is a license to kill.”
Martin also provides a quick review of the history of how the WHO came to be, and how, in 1952, then-director-general of the WHO, Brock Chisholm, declared that “the role of the WHO is population control.”
Aside from being in charge of population control, the WHO is a marketing and distribution arm for private sector interests that sponsor it (Bill Gates being a primary one), while simultaneously providing them with immunity from prosecution.
According to Martin, Gates various organizations provide so much money to the WHO that “By every definition of the law, [the WHO] is a wholly owned subsidiary.”
Timeline
Toward the end of his speech, Martin summarizes some of the key items on the timeline of the conspiracy to commit global genocide:
• In 2002, U.S. scientists developed the weapon.
• In 2003, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention patented the weapon in its first commercial deployment (SARS).
• In 2005, mRNA spike protein was declared a biological “warfare-enabling” technology.
• In 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published “SARS-Like W1V1-COV Poised for Human Emergence.”7 The W1V1-COV refers to the first COVID-like virus made at the WIV. In that article, they not only state that the virus is ready for release, but they also detailed the best ways to release it.
At the bottom of the article, you also learn that the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill impaneled two separate institutional review board reviews of this study, the first to review the ethics of the research and a second to review the ethics of violating the gain of function moratorium, which is unusual to say the least. As noted by Martin:
“You do not usually have an ethics board going ‘Well, should we do this? It’s probably a bad idea.’ And then somebody goes, ‘It’s illegal’ … ‘OK, should we do the illegal thing?’ ‘Yeah, let’s go ahead do that. The guys over here said it was ethical to do the illegal thing to kill people.’ That happened and is published in this 2016 article.”
• September 18, 2019, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, jointly founded by the WHO and the World Bank,8 warned that “a rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements.”
Furthermore, the “Progress indicator by September 2020” section specified the commitment by donors and member countries to finance and develop a universal influenza vaccine and other therapeutics.9
“This is the admission by the World Health Organization that they are going to do a release of a respiratory pathogen,” Martin says, adding:
“And, by the way, the reason why this is particularly important is they say ‘a lethal respiratory pathogen.’ They knew they were going to kill people. That’s why they use the word lethal …
This is the evidence that we can use in a criminal case to say, ‘This was not an accident. This was an actual premeditated act of lethality.’ They not only told you when it was going to happen. They told you the deadline for the outcome response. ‘We’re going to release the pathogen so that by September 2020, the world has accepted a universal vaccine.’ That is prima facia terrorism, collusion, racketeering, criminal conspiracy and … murder.
So that’s why we have the Wanted posters … [for] Peter Daszak … Ralph Baric … Jeremy Farrar … Chris Elias … Ghebreyesus … Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, the World Health Organization, DARPA, the United Nations … Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation.
These individuals, in violation of racketeering, antitrust and anticompetition laws, colluded to create the largest act of global terrorism known to Earth and announced the plan to do it on September 18, 2019, with premeditation and with the intent to kill.
This was entirely a premeditated act. They told us it would happen in 2011. They announced the event horizon in 2019 … Conspiring to commit acts of terror, restraint of trade, deceptive medical practices, price fixing, fraudulent conveyance. These are the crimes that the World Health Organization not only allowed to happen, but [it also] promoted these crimes and gave political cover for those crimes …
All-cause mortality in the ages of 18 to 55 is now 40% higher in the people that were injected with a biological weapon. That number is not going down. That number is going up in every jurisdiction. And here’s the saddest part about it. That number will continue to go up. If they [meet] their 2011 objective, that number will go up to 2 billion people.”
The Damage Is Done
Martin points out that even if they don’t unleash any other bioweapons, the desired death toll may still be achieved, because they used pseudouridine in the mRNA shots, which is causing “turbo cancers.”
Pseudouridine suppresses cancer-controlling agents and promotes oncogenic activity in the body, and this has been known since 2018, so its inclusion was hardly an accident.
The shots are also targeting reproduction, which is a key target if you want to depopulate. It’s not just infertility. Prostate, ovarian and uterine cancers make it more difficult to have sex, and hence more difficult to have children.
According to Martin, the evidence is clear. None of this is accidental. It’s a conspiracy, alright. But not a conspiracy theory in the dismissive sense. It’s a global conspiracy by identifiable agents who have, for nearly 60 years, plotted to commit, and profit from, the greatest genocide the world has ever seen, while hiding behind the false veneer of “public health.”
The White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) knew in April 2021 that the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine was linked to heart damage on an unprecedented scale for a vaccine — but they hid that knowledge from the public while pushing vaccine mandates, according to emails obtained by DailyClout through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The emails show the White House communications team struggling to craft a cover-up message on email chains that included Dr. Anthony Fauci, then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to President Biden; CDC Director Rochelle Walensky; Dr. Janet Woodcock, then-acting commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Dr. Francis Collins, then-director the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
A number of high-level public health officials worked with upper-echelon leadership to craft a “Myocarditis Email” that minimized the relationship between COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and myocarditis,” said Amy Kelly, program director for the War Room/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Project.
According to Kelly, the officials included: Ian Sams, COVID-19 response and special assistant to the president and senior advisor and spokesman for the White House; Abbigail Tumpey, then-associate director for communication science for the CDC’s Public Health Infrastructure; and Dr. Dana Meaney-Delman, CDC lead on maternal immunization and CDC chief of Infant Outcomes Monitoring Research and Prevention Branch.
The FOIA emails were obtained by Edward Berkovich, one of 250 volunteer attorneys Kelly oversees on the DailyClout and War Room Project to analyze the court-ordered, FDA-released 450,000 pages of Pfizer’s records on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine — records the drug maker tried unsuccessfully to keep private for 75 years.
The War Room-DailyClout Project was founded by bestselling author and journalist Naomi Wolf, a former advisor to the Clinton campaign, in collaboration with Steve Bannon, former advisor to President Trump and podcaster on “The War Room.”
In addition to volunteer attorneys, Kelly oversees approximately 3250 volunteer doctors, nurses, scientists and others who are reviewing the documents. They’ve issued 89 investigative reports, including the Oct. 18 report on the myocarditis cover-up evident in FOIA emails.
“Astonishingly, the emails reveal that the most senior of leaders, all the way up to the White House, knew about heart damage linked to mRNA vaccines,” Kelly said. “Yet they “colluded behind the scenes to conceal this side effect from the American people.”
Anyone can study the three FOIA releases of emails at dailyclout.io, Kelly said.
“What I think most important is to see who all is involved,” she said. “I believe 105 different people are on the emails, a whole slew of people at the White House, CDC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIAID, Pfizer, some children’s hospitals and organizations and some other external people,” Kelly said.
“My takeaway from seeing this is that everyone, all over the public health agencies, knew there was an issue” with myocarditis dangers linked to the COVID-19 vaccines, Kelly said. Yet “when you read through the emails, you see they are crafting messages to downplay the significance of myocarditis and the vaccines, all the the way up to the White House.”
“They said, ‘We’re seeing a myocarditis signal and we’re happy to share information with you,’” she said. “The CDC actually didn’t even respond to the first email as far as I can tell. So the Israeli Ministry of Health emailed again March 2, ‘Hey we’re seeing this myocarditis signal, we’re concerned, let’s discuss it if you want.’”
White House created 17-page script to ‘keep everyone on message’
The FOIA email trove was a frequent topic of discussion Saturday at the “Summit for Truth,” which brought together leaders of the health freedom movement at the Bethel Christian Fellowship church and community center in downtown Rochester, New York.
Wolf was the keynote speaker in a lineup that included Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Ryan Cole, attorney Bobbie Ann Cox, and Brownstone Institute publisher and writer Jeffrey Tucker.
Wolf spoke about her journey from feminist icon to outcast from the liberal media establishment when she questioned the safety of the COVID-19 shots.
She has written two books on her experience investigating and reporting on the pandemic. They include, “The Bodies of Others: The New Authoritarians, COVID-19 and the War Against the Human,” and the forthcoming “Facing the Beast: Courage, Faith, and Resistance in a New Dark Age.”
During a panel discussion Saturday, Wolf called the White House involvement in a cover-up of vaccine dangers “absolutely shocking.”
Berkovich’s FOIA request was aided by “a whistleblower at the CDC,” Wolf said, who was “throwing the White House under the bus.”
“In addition to the pages he had asked for, he got 46 pages he didn’t request that showed the White House communications team was “freaking out at the highest levels in April of 2021, because news of blood clots and heart damage had reached them,” Wolf said.
“Instead of coming clean with the American people and pulling this injection off the market, they looped in Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, Dr. Walensky and created a script,” she said.
It was “a 17-page script, their word, which is wholly redacted, to keep everyone on message and downplay the dangers. And in fact if you recall from 2021, rather than pulling this injection off the market, they mandated it. They doubled down and mandated it.”
Wolf said the emails reveal “a massive crime.”
They show a template was prepared to email to “POTUS, which stands for president of the United States,” to keep the president up to date on the email discussions among the top U.S. public-health officials on myocarditis and vaccines, Wolf said.
“Dr. Wallensky was on the emails, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins,” she said. “The entire White House communications team was driving the discussion.”
“They were reacting to the fact that blood clots and heart damage had been presented to them at scale and that the American Association of Pediatrics was warning them about myocarditis in teens, a serious, sometimes fatal disease that needs constant management. Instead of coming clean with the American people… they doubled down and made a strategy to cover it up.”
Public-health officials went ahead with mandates for the Pizer COVID-19 vaccine, “knowing it was killing people,” Wolf said.
Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most highly published cardiologists in the world, said the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines should have been pulled from the market in January 2021, after “no more than 50 deaths” — the previous government standard to guarantee the safety of a biologic product.
McCullough said FDA records show the agency expected a myocarditis risk from the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines as early as Oct. 22, 2020.
“If they had reported these deaths, there would have been a three- to four-fold excess cardiovascular risk with Pfizer in the core slides at the Dec. 10, 2020 meeting and Pfizer would never have been approved,” he said.
McCullough said the myocarditis cover-up has killed untold thousands of Americans.
He pointed to his research paper with other scientists including Dr. William Makis. They performed a systematic review of “all published autopsy reports involving COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis” through July 3, 2023.
The paper concluded “there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death from suspected myocarditis in cases where sudden, unexpected death has occurred in a vaccinated person.”
McCullough and colleagues concluded that “urgent investigation is required for the purpose of risk stratification and mitigation in order to reduce the population occurrence of fatal COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis.”
Dr. Bruce Boros, a Key West, Florida cardiologist who was one of the first American physicians to use ivermectin for early COVID-19 treatment based on his resarch of the emerging literature, said recent studies show that the RNA from the COVID-19 vaccines “goes right to the heart.”
A study that applied the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine to heart muscle cells in culture “showed direct evidence that within 48 hours there was heart dysfunction, mechanical and electrical chaos,” Boros said.
Young athletes dropping dead from heart failure at unprecedented rates are “almost assuredly suffering” myocarditis symptoms brought on by the shots, he said.
“Everybody who received the shot had some damage to the heart muscle,” Boros said. “They knew it in the preclinical studies and they covered it up. All the signals were there, the FDA went ahead and approved it anyway.
“It’s all a money game, a eugenics game, and they’re continuing to say you need to get a booster,” Boros said. “Now every child in the world should get this shot for a virus that has been falsely normalized as dangerous when the risk, especially for children, is essentially zero when it comes to death,” he said.
“It saddens me,” Boros concluded. “We need to remember this was created as a bioweapon, and hold our government accountable.”
Mike Capuzzo is the managing editor of The Defender. He is a former prize-winning reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Miami Herald, a science writer, and a regional magazine founding editor and publisher who has won more than 200 journalism awards as a writer, editor and publisher.
In the new era of biosecurity totalitarianism when authorities actively seek to silence even the most qualified dissenting voices, perhaps nothing could be more corrosive to public confidence than finding that a leading research institute participated in a deliberate fraud. The scientific misconduct in question is the intentional selection of an inappropriate animal model for a pre-clinical study and its subsequent concealment. Intentional scientific misconduct for financial gain is fraud.The organisation in question is the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest public funder of biomedical and behavioural research in the world, which describes itself as ‘the driving force behind decades of advances that improve health, revolutionize science, and serve society more broadly’. In this case, the interests served were the NIH’s own finances and those of a private company, Moderna.
The NIH was implicated by Stephane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, in an April 1, 2020 webcast hosted by MIT Sloan Business School Finance Professor Andrew Lo and co-hosted by the Laboratory for Financial Engineering. Bancel’s presentation, ‘Accelerating mRNA medicines to patients’, was about the company’s Covid-19 vaccine candidate mRNA-1273 developed jointly over the course of a pre-Davos January 2020 weekend with the NIH’s National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), led by Dr Anthony Fauci. Investor interest in the company and its vaccine was high. Moderna was leading the race for a Covid-19 vaccine with the NIH not long having announced that it had dosed the first human volunteer with mRNA-1273 in a Phase 1 clinical trial expected to run for six weeks.
An excited Bancel said, ‘What I want to share with you is just one set of data, but I think it is important. It is data that we published in our S-3 in February. This is the pre-clinical data on a related coronavirus MERS, the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, that many of you will recall happened in the Middle East, in Saudi, a few years ago and a few years later again in South Korea. So what you see here is a rabbit model.’
Bancel showed his audience graphs of data from a pre-clinical study conducted on rabbits and concluded: ‘We are very excited to see this data that was realised with the NIH, with the team of Dr Tony Fauci.’
One of the graphs showed antibody levels over time in a placebo group injected with saline and in single and double dose vaccine groups. But the antibody levels induced by the vaccine doses should have been compared with the levels of antibodies produced by exposure to the MERS virus itself, as a vaccine response must be shown to be superior to antibody levels induced by natural infection to be beneficial. Alongside was a second graph showing viral loads in the nose, throat and lungs following a challenge test in which the animals were exposed to ‘much higher doses of virus’ than during a natural infection. A caption on the slide claimed ‘We observed an induction of neutralising antibodies (my italics) that reduced viral load in the nose, throat and lungs of vaccinated animals’.
The rabbit study was not intended to fool drug regulators, who require an explanation of the relevance of the chosen animal model to the human disease the vaccine is meant to be protecting against. Customarily, before drug regulators permit clinical trials to begin with human volunteers, the efficacy of the candidate vaccine in preventing symptomatic clinical disease and/or pathologies associated with the disease must be demonstrated in a suitable animal model. The induction of antibodies is evidence of immunogenicity but in and of itself is not evidence of efficacy. Antibodies can be either neutralising or non-neutralising, the latter meaning that they fail to prevent reinfection following exposure to the targeted virus.
The choice of animal model for pre-clinical trials is an important one and consequently animal models must be validated. The scientific evidence that rabbits are an unsuitable model for testing the efficacy of a MERS vaccine had been in the public domain for years. In July 2019, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) hosted a workshop and subsequently commissioned IAVI (International Aids Vaccine Initiative) to prepare a report, ‘MERS-CoV standards, assays and animal models vaccine development landscape analysis’, which was funded by the NIAID, NIH, and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). So far as rabbits are concerned it concluded: ‘Despite the fact that rabbits shed MERS-CoV from their URT [upper respiratory tract], it appears that the New Zealand white rabbit model is neither suitable to study MERS-CoV transmission, nor is the model appropriate for studying clinical disease progression, given that rabbits remained asymptomatic after MERS-CoV inoculation.’
The CEPI report states: ‘Since concerns over SARS-related pathology led to a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical hold on vaccine studies, investigation of MERS-CoV vaccine candidates to induce virus-enhancing antibodies and harmful immune response in animal models could be informative before human clinical trials are initiated.’
The FDA ‘hold’ followed the October 2014 gain of function research moratorium on SARs, MERS and influenza ordered by the US government. However some research on MERS continued. As some people were believed to have asymptomatic MERS infections and rabbits were known to be asymptomatic when infected with it, researchers from the NIAID studied the phenomenon in rabbits. The NIH declared the experiments ‘were determined by the NIH to be urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security and as such, were exempted from the US Government Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses.’
The results of this asymptomatic study were published in 2017. The findings were not positive: ‘The rabbits developed antibodies against viral proteins that lacked neutralizing activity and the animals were not protected from reinfection (my emphasis).’ Further, the study found that even without an increase in viral RNA titers, reinfection resulted in increased inflammation of the lungs. The researchers warned: ‘Our data from the rabbit model suggests that people exposed to MERS-CoV who fail to develop a neutralizing antibody response, or persons whose neutralizing antibody titers have waned, may be at risk for severe lung disease on re-exposure to MERS-CoV.’
Bancel told the webinar audience that mRNA mimics natural infection without introducing the actual virus. But if exposure to the virus itself does not produce antibodies that protect against reinfection, there is no mechanism by which artificially stimulated antibodies can, thus rendering the company’s specific claim that the MERS vaccine induced ‘neutralizing antibodies’ untrue. The company repeated the claim in the S-3 referred to by Bancel, which was a $500 million supplementary stock offer made in February 2020, where investors were told: ‘We have demonstrated the ability to induce neutralizing antibodies that confer protection against viral challenge with a related coronavirus, MERS.’
Bancel said that Fauci’s team at NIAID helped Moderna realise the data, raising the question of why NIAID would accept the use of a model their own researchers who conducted the 2017 study knew to be unsuitable?
The week before the Phase 1 human clinical trial started in March 2020, STAT News reported on Moderna’s pre-clinical animal studies. None of the interviewees mentioned the MERS rabbit study that Moderna presented to investors and the US Patent Office the previous month. STAT News reported that they had been told by NIAID by email that ‘Virologists at NIAID tried the new vaccine [mRNA-1273] on run-of-the-mill lab mice, on the same day that the [phase 1] trial began enrolling participants’. They quoted Dr Barney Graham, the now retired Director of the NIAID Vaccine Research Centre, as saying that those mice showed the same sort of immune response generated by a similar mRNA vaccine against MERS, another coronavirus. ‘That level of immune response was sufficient to protect mice from MERS CoV infection,’ he wrote. Graham also said that mice susceptible to SARS-CoV2 ‘are being bred so that the colony can be enlarged’ adding that they ‘will be available for experiments within the next few weeks’.
Humanised mice are a validated study model for MERS, whereas rabbits are not, so if data from a mouse study of the mRNA-MERS vaccine was available, as Graham claimed, why wasn’t it used in Moderna’s February prospectus and the patent application?
Under the Research Collaboration Agreement between Moderna and NIAID, which has an effective date of July 19, 2019, NIAID was to conduct immunogenicity studies on Moderna’s mRNA-MERS vaccine in animals. During 2020, Dr Kizzmekia Corbett, the NIAID researcher assigned to run these studies for Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine mRNA-1273, wrote two papers: a June 11, 2020 preprint article entitled ‘SARS-CoV2 mRNA vaccine development enabled by prototype pathogen approach’ and a second peer reviewed paper published in the journal Nature on August 5, 2020 entitled ‘SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Development Enabled by Prototype Pathogen Preparedness’. In addition to mice studies on mRNA-1273, both papers cite the mRNA-MERS mouse study that Graham told STAT News about. Neither mentions an mRNA-MERS rabbit study. Oddly, neither is the mRNA-MERS vaccine’s alpha-numeric identifier given.
Heavily redacted copies of Moderna’s contracts with NIAID were released following a freedom of information application by AXIOS News. On December 17, 2019, Moderna signed a material transfer agreement (MTA) transferring ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates developed and jointly owned by NIAID and Moderna’ to Dr Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (UNC-CH), directing him to perform animal challenge studies. The research programme is redacted. More suspiciously, so is the animal model stipulated in paragraph 3. Dr Baric did not respond when he was asked by me if he was commissioned to run the mRNA-MERS rabbit study.
Dr Baric is widely regarded as the world’s leading coronavirus researcher. He was a member of the World Health Organization working group on animal models to accelerate the development of Covid-19 vaccines and therapeutics. So too was Dr Graham who signed the MTA on behalf of NIAID. Given their expertise, the selection of a suitable animal model should have been a straightforward matter rather than a contentious one requiring concealment. One possible explanation for why experts would choose an inappropriate model is that they were in a hurry and suitable mice were not available. As per a 2015 paper in Virology, the first transgenic mice for MERS research were bred by Dr Agarwal at the University of Texas. Laboratory mice specially bred such as those developed by Dr Baric for his research into the original SARS are not susceptible to MERS. Baric certainly has the expertise to breed his own, given sufficient time. In 2020, he filed an invention report with UNC-CH (UNC ref 18752) for a mouse adapted model to test SARS-CoV-2 countermeasures.
On December 16, 2019, the day before Moderna signed the Baric MTA for the jointly owned Moderna/NIAID mRNA coronavirus vaccines, the company signed an amendment to the July 2019 NIAID research collaboration agreement. This amendment was countersigned by Vincent Feliccia, the branch chief of NIAID Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office, on January 13, 2020, the day the design of Moderna’s SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was finalised.
Intentional scientific misconduct for financial gain is fraud. In addition to publishing the mRNA-MERS rabbit data in its supplementary stock offer, Moderna used it to apply for a patent for an mRNA-betacoronavirus vaccine on February 28, 2020. The same patent covers Spikevax, its Covid-19 vaccine. The US Patent Office is notoriously poor at detecting scientific fraud in patent applications even when it is in the public domain. In 2014 it astonishingly issued a patent to Dr Hwang Woo-suk for a technique to clone human embryos although the associated journal paper had been retracted in 2005 due to the data having been faked. Unlike drug regulators, the Patent Office apparently does not require the use of validated animal models, or a justification for the selection of a given model.
As was widely reported in 2021, Moderna and NIAID became embroiled in a dispute over the NIAID’s ownership interest in mRNA-1273. The company omitted to include Dr Kizzmekia Corbett, Dr Barney Graham and his boss, Dr John Mascola, when it filed for its patent. An NIH spokesperson told CBS news: ‘Omitting NIH inventors from the principal patent application deprives NIH of a co-ownership interest in that application and the patent that will eventually issue from it.’
As of the end of February 2023, Moderna is reported to have earned $36billion from Spikevax. Despite the ongoing patent dispute with NIAID, following negotiations in December 2022 the company gave NIH a $400 million ‘catch-up royalty payment’.
Under the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act, US government researchers are also entitled to receive up to $150,000 in royalties annually if their inventions are commercialised. Meanwhile, despite Bancel’s initial enthusiasm for sharing the mRNA-MERS rabbit data, it soon disappeared. Perhaps that’s because it’s hard to see how their indemnity shield under the US Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act stretches that far.
When he retired in December 2022, Dr. Anthony Fauci, then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) was the highest-paid federal employee and the recipient of the largest federal retirement package in history.
Fauci’s successor, Dr. Jeanne M. Marrazzo, will soon take over leadership of the agency — and its $6.3 billion budget.
Fauci praised Marrazzo, telling CNN, “She’s very well-liked. She’s a really good person. I think she’s going to do a really good job.”
But some of her critics, including medical and public health experts interviewed by The Defender, questioned Marrazzo’s suitability for leading NIAID, citing her limited experience as a medical practitioner and her role in supervising clinical trials of remdesivir, a controversial drug used to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Critics also called out her steadfast support for strict restrictions and countermeasures during the pandemic, and her receipt, since 1997, of more than $20 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and payments from Big Pharma — including from Gilead, the manufacturer of remdesivir.
Before being named director of the NIAID, Marrazzo was director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the UAB at Birmingham. She will replace Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, who has served as NIAID’s acting director following Fauci’s departure.
Commenting on the appointment, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said:
“It looks like Dr. Marrazzo will give us more of the same, unfortunately. Her flip-flopping, penchant for Big Pharma, and support of draconian public health (control) measures mean that she’ll take a reactionary posture to any ‘pandemic threat’ and may be as gleeful as Fauci at the prospect of new pandemics.
“I have dim hopes that she may learn some lessons while the investigations into Fauci lying to Congress play out. However, these bureaucrats don’t really believe that the law applies to them.”
The NIAID is the second largest center at the NIH. According to CNN, it “supports research to advance the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of infectious, immunologic and allergic diseases,” as well as “research at universities and research organizations around the United States and across NIAID’s 21 laboratories.”
“Marrazzo fits the mold of every public health leader so far that has led the charge during the pandemic,” Dr. Kat Lindley, president of the Global Health Project and director of the Global COVID Summit, told The Defender.
Lindley added:
“My concern with Marrazzo is actually her Big Pharma ties, her lack of clinical experience with COVID-19 in particular, and her blatant ignorance on early treatment and support for unproven, scientifically debunked measures, in particular masking.
“Any scientist or physician should understand that masking has never proven to be effective and, in the case of children, even detrimental.”
Touted remdesivir as ‘silver bullet’ for treating COVID
During her tenure at UAB, the university served as one of the clinical trial sites for remdesivir, an antiviral originally developed by Gilead Sciences as a treatment for Hepatitis C and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
According to the NIH, the trial was intended “to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the investigational antiviral remdesivir in hospitalized adults diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019.” Marrazzo supervised the UAB trial site.
UAB has long served as a research site for remdesivir. A February 2021 UAB report states, “Gilead entered into collaboration with the UAB-led Antiviral Drug Development and Discovery Center … to study remdesivir against coronaviruses” in 2014.
“These earlier studies enabled remdesivir to more quickly be tested and approved for human use as a treatment for COVID-19 when the 2020 pandemic struck,” UAB stated.
The trial results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in November 2020, found remdesivir shortened “the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.”
Fauci later praised remdesivir as the “standard of care” for treating COVID-19.
However, according to investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel, studies “show that there are zero clinical benefits to injecting patients with remdesivir. Many studies show that remdesivir can severely injure vital organs such as the heart and kidneys.”
Yet, Marrazzo never disclosed a conflict of interest when publicly commenting on remdesivir, Schachtel said. She described it as a “silver bullet” in remarks shared with The Washington Post in July 2020, and in tweets praising the drug.
“Given the UAB-Gilead partnership, one would think that Dr. Marrazzo would refrain from commenting on issues through which she maintained a clear conflict of interest,” Schachtel wrote. “She did no such thing.”
According to the U.S. government’s Open Payments database, Marrazzo received seven payments from Gilead, totaling $2,474.93.
But as Marrazzo repeatedly praised remdesivir — and, according to Schachtel, has “never shown remorse” for this despite mounting evidence of the harm it has caused — she has repeatedly spoken out against hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19.
In June 2020, in reference to a study published in the NEJM claiming hydroxychloroquine is ineffective in protecting people from COVID-19, Marrazzo said these findings “should provide a very big nail in the coffin” for the use of this treatment.
The following month, Marrazzo called a video that went viral on social media describing hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID-19 “very irresponsible and despicable,” adding that she was “glad that video is hopefully not being shared very much.”
In October 2021, she said hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin hold “special appeal” to the unvaccinated.
Yet, in April 2020, prior to the conclusion of the remdesivir clinical trial, Marrazzo said, “We are using it [hydroxychloroquine] in our hospital … for a range of patients including when patients are beginning to deteriorate,” adding:
“And lots of media folks are asking what we think about hydroxychloroquine. And the reality is that we live and die by the evidence. And one issue is the argument about whether it’s even ethical to use these treatments when we don’t have the evidence.
“But I would get back to the compassionate use argument. When you have a patient who’s dying, you have to use what you can, what’s available.”
Cheerleader for COVID vaccines and Merck’s molnupiravir
Marrazzo has also praised COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics. In May 2020, she was “hopeful” about the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial — despite its enrollment of only eight volunteers, saying “We don’t have the luxury of time here in this case.”
In January 2022, Marrazzo said “Vaccination makes the biggest difference” in fighting COVID-19, adding that “boosters, of course, are going to augment that protection.”
And in October 2021, Marrazzo praised molnupiravir, Merck’s antiviral pill for COVID-19, stating it had “extraordinary potential.” Results of a preprint study later showed the drug may fuel the development of new and potentially deadly variants of COVID-19.
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender Marrazzo “has been willfully blind to the failure of COVID-19 vaccines” and “appears incapable of mastering the four pillars of pandemic response to lead America through the next pandemic: 1) contagion control, 2) early treatment, 3) late treatment and 4) vaccination.”
A ‘slap in the face’ to vaccine, hospital protocol victims
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Marrazzo made frequent television appearances in which, according to a UAB statement, she “helped inform the world … sharing critical information and perspectives.” UAB touted Marrazzo as a COVID-19 expert during this period.
According to AL.com, Marrazzo was on Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey’s COVID-19 task force, supporting “emergency public health measures that closed business and mandated mask wearing.”
In March 2020, Marrazzo supported “flattening the curve,” calling on the public “to make personal sacrifices for the greater good.” In similar statements made on May 8, 2020, Marrazzo warned of a “backslide” if measures like social distancing were loosened.
In a June 2020 YouTube video, “Why you should wear a mask,” Marrazzo said, “Masks have contributed to the control of this pandemic in other communities.” She called for masks for schoolchildren over age 6 and included mask-wearing in a list of “Three basic rules” along with hand washing and social distancing.
In an article she co-authored and in which she highlighted “the intersection of the COVID-19, HIV, and STI pandemics,” Marrazzo drew parallels between wearing masks and wearing condoms, writing:
“Condoms reduce transmission of HIV and bacterial STIs effectively, if used adequately and consistently, but lack of access to condoms or perhaps even personal preference limits their utility.
“As a correlate to barrier protection, masking has proven effective to reduce the expulsion of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory virus droplets.”
The paper also repeated claims regarding the “lack of benefit” of hydroxychloroquine, zinc and vitamins C and D in treating COVID-19. Conversely, referring to the COVID-19 vaccines, the authors stated, “There were few serious adverse events in either arm, and there were no deaths related to the vaccine.”
Blaming the unvaccinated
In May 2021, she criticized loosened Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations that the vaccinated do not need to wear masks, stating that because less than 50% were vaccinated in her community, she would still wear a mask indoors despite being fully vaccinated herself.
In July 2021 she warned of a “summer surge” that would be fueled by the unvaccinated.
In December 2021 Marrazzo again scolded the unvaccinated. “Your decision to get infected is unfortunately not just going to be affecting you,” she said. “It’s going to be serving a source of incredible infectiousness going forward.”
Dr. Scott Atlas, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force during the Trump administration, told KUSI News San Diego that Marrazzo “was completely wrong about COVID … Pushing pseudoscience, pushing … her belief that vaccines stopped the spread of the infection, that children have high risk, and that masks were efficacious.”
“Marrazzo represents everything that was done wrong in the handling of COVID,” said Gail Seiler, Texas chairperson, Projects and Content, for the FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation and a survivor of the CDC’s COVID-19 hospital protocols, including administration of remdesivir.
Seiler told The Defender that Marrazzo advocated for no early treatment until the patient “worsened to the point of hospitalization,” and at that point to give remdesivir, “a drug that she profits from.”
Seiler added:
“Because of people like Marrazzo, patients in the hospital were given no hope of survival. Because of her ignoring the evidence, over a million people died who shouldn’t have.
“Her selection to the NIAID is a slap in the face to every family whose loved ones were killed by the protocols she profited from. And it exemplifies why the general public has lost trust in agencies such as the NIAID.”
Financial ties to Big Pharma
Marrazzo received a total of $20,405,337 in NIH grants for 67 studies between 1997 and 2023, according to NIH data. These grants ranged between $6,000 and $2.82 million and averaged over $304,000 per grant.
Open Payments data show Marrazzo has received $28,761,36 across 37 “general payments” and $152,208.42 across seven payments for “associated research funding,” including $18,636.59 in consulting fees, $4,500 in honorariums, and payments from companies such as Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Janssen and Abbott Laboratories.
Her employer, UAB, received at least two Gates Foundation grants pertaining to health-related research in recent years. This includes a June 2021 grant, “Modeling Impact of Service Delivery Redesign” totaling over $1.5 million, and a $124,921 grant in April 2020 for a project titled “COVID-19 CTA: HTS Core for screening compounds.”
UAB’s Division of Infectious Diseases boasts “an active research portfolio with approximately $39 million in external research funding.” Research specialties include “Pathogenesis of viral infections,” “Antiviral therapy,” “Travel medicine and international health” and “Host defenses and infectious diseases in immunocompromised patients.”
Big supporter of gain-of-function research
UAB also houses a BSL3 research laboratory, the Southeastern Biosafety Laboratory Alabama Birmingham (SEBLAB), funded in part by NIH. According to UAB, it is “one of a limited number of institutions,” adding that the university ranks “among the top 25 in funding from the National Institutes of Health.”
The university states that SEBLAB researchers are “able to bring their skills to bear on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and other issues directly relevant to biodefense and emerging infectious disease,” with a focus on NIAID “priority pathogens” and discovery of “new treatments to prevent or combat” diseases caused by infectious agents.
These projects have also included “Testing drugs on SARS-CoV-2,” a process involving growing the virus in SEBLAB. According to UAB researcher Kevin Harrod, Ph.D.,“We grow the viruses, measure them and provide them to the BARDA [the U.S. government’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority] contractor.”
BSL3 and BSL4 laboratories across the U.S. and the world have been associated with controversial gain-of-function research, which some have said is responsible for the development and subsequent alleged leak from one such facility, the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, leading to prominent calls to end such research.
According to Independent Institute, “Marrazzo’s views on the origin of COVID-19 are hard to find,” as are her views on gain-of-function research.
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a professor of international law at the University of Illinois who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender that Marrazzo’s selection signals that the NIH and NIAID have no intention of stopping gain-of-function research at BSL3 and BSL4 facilities.
Boyle said:
“They will have her in place to deal with the next pandemic that they know is coming out of their own BSL3 and BSL4 labs, just as Fauci dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic that came out of the Wuhan BSL4 and the University of North Carolina BSL3 and that Fauci and [former NIH Director] Francis Collins funded.
“Under her auspices NIAID will continue to research, develop, manufacture and stockpile every hideous type of Nazi biological warfare weapon known to humanity … There will be no end to it and to these death scientists like her … unless and until we stop them by criminal prosecutions.”
Boyle called Marrazzo a “Fauci clone, not an original and independent thinker,” adding, “The Bidenites and the globalists and Big Pharma behind them picked her to continue the Fauci/NIAID policies and programs across the board.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
A fascinating “what-might-have been” article published by The Brownstone Institute presents evidence that one White House meeting – later cancelled – might have prevented the lockdowns and much of the Covid madness that later ensued.
According to author Eric Hartmann, Stanford scientist Dr. John Ioannidis and a team of other “elite” scientists were set to meet with President Trump. The goal: Let the President know that every scientist didn’t think like Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx.
(Ioannidis later became famous, or infamous, for showing that, for most citizens, the Infection Fatality Rate for this virus was roughly the same or lower than the death risk of the flu.)
The article’s salient points hinge on my favorite taboo subject – “early spread” – as Ioannidis is among the group who believed many Americans had probably already been infected by this virus by mid-March 2020.
This would mean any lockdowns to slow or stop the spread – or “flatten the curve” – were probably pointless and would cause far more harm than these draconian, unprecedented “mitigation” measures would prevent.
For me, the article also raises this intriguing question: What did certain officials know (about virus origins and spread) … and when did they know this?
Although my formal “science education” ended in 11th grade, my parents and God bestowed me with common sense, which I’m going to employ in today’s thought exercise, which shows what I would have done if I was Donald Trump or if I was the Science King of the World in the first 75 days of 2020.
Something like the events that follow SHOULD have happened in the pivotal, history-changing weeks of early 2020.
The fact something like this did NOT happen provides another giant tell about how corrupt and captured our science establishment has become.
I’m no scientist, but here’s what I would have done ….
The key “known knowable” in the “virus origins” saga is perhaps this nugget of information:
On the last day of December 2019, Chinese officials reported a pneumonia-like illness of “unknown origins” to the World Health Organization.
For the entire global “public health” establishment, this was a Super Bowl-type event.
“Okay, guys, this might be the Big One we’ve all been predicting. Let’s all get hot and prove our expert bonafides and save the world,” etc.
What would I have done when this news hit the Emergency Bat Wire?
First, I would have asked, “Okay, what are the symptoms of this alleged/possible new disease?”
Next, I would have asked: “Is it possible this possible new virus was already infecting people outside of Wuhan?”
Knowing the symptoms of this new disease are almost exactly like Influenza-Like Illnesses (ILI), I would have immediately started looking at all the weekly ILI “Surveillance Reports” produced by all 50 U.S. state health agencies and the CDC.
I would have asked: “Have we had a conspicuous spike of people going to the doctor with similar symptoms? For example, are people getting more flu tests than in previous flu seasons?”
The next thing I would have done is told all my public health colleagues: “Guys, we need to develop an antibody assay to test for this new disease ASAP.”
After our crack scientists and medical labs had developed a suitable antibody test (China had one by late January 2020), I would have said: “We need to test ‘archived’ blood we already have in storage and see if any Americans had developed antibodies to this virus before, say, Dec. 30, 2019.”
My nextQuestion: “Do we have any stored archived blood we can actually test for Covid antibodies?”
Answer: As it turns out, we do.
The Red Cross (and several other blood-bank organizations) actually collects tens of thousands of pints of blood every single day. One assumes at least some of this blood must be saved for weeks or months.
I would then order that we expedite the testing of every vial of “archived blood” in the country – Blood from California, Washington, New Jersey, Florida, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama – from all 50 states.
The whole purpose of this exercise would be to provide data and intelligence on how many people may have already been infected by this virus.
As Science King, I’d order that we use our invaluable new antibody-diagnostic tool to test samples collected from October 2019 through February 2020.
This way we could see if more blood donors in January had Covid antibodies than in November. If this was the case, we’d have what some might call “a virus-spread situation.”
Another point I would have made: Why do we have to depend on the Red Cross to provide us blood we can test for antibodies? We’re the U.S. Government; can’t we start collecting our own blood? Tell people it’s for a good cause – “Science.”
Apparently, the U.S. only had one batch of archived blood that could be tested ….
As readers of Bill Rice, Jr’s Substack Newsletter surely know by now, the CDC identified ONE tranche of saved Red Cross blood from three states, with that blood having been collected Dec. 13-16, 2019.
But surely this was not the only archived blood that had been saved and could have been tested (given that this was, after all, a “national emergency” – The Mother of All Live Exercises.)
But let’s say this was the only 1,900 vials of blood in the country available for antibody testing.
I would have said: “Okay, let’s at least go ahead and test that blood … but let’s test it as fast as we can …. Before we order the whole country to lock down.”
At some point, these 1,900 pints of Red Cross blood were tested for Covid antibodies, but, to this day, nobody knows WHEN these preserved blood specimens were tested. For all we know, that blood might have been tested by the end of February 2020 (weeks before the lockdowns were ordered) … or in September 2020, nine months after the blood had originally been collected.
All we know is the CDC (itself) published a “study” in late November 2020 telling everyone that at least 39 of those blood donors (2.04 percent of the tested cohort) did test positive for IgG (and/or IgM) antibodies via an ELISA antibody test.
So, to be clear, the dad-blasted virus was here – in at least three U.S. states in November 2019. That’s what the CDC’s own antibody test showed.
And President Trump – and Bill Rice, Jr. – could have known this by March 2020 if the Science officials had just put a “rush job” on the testing project. I mean, how long does it really take to test 1,900 units of blood for antibodies? Probably a couple of days.
I also note that the “Red Cross Antibody Study” results were published AFTER the 2020 presidential election – when the vaccine had already begun to be rolled out.
We also know (I think) President Trump wasn’t told anything like this in the weeks between January and March 2020:
“Mr. President, we’ve got a lot of blood we are currently testing to see if any Americans might have had this virus in November or December 2019. It’s possible, sir, this virus was already spreading pretty widely in America a couple of months ago. If this is the case, lockdowns to slow or stop virus spread probably won’t do much good.”
For what it’s worth, my conjecture is that SOMEONE in our Science/Virus-Fighting Leadership didn’t want the President (and/or the public) to know this non-trivial information.
Certainly nobody ordered any Red Cross archived blood to be tested as soon as possible.
(Also, just as certainly, no Cracker Jack investigative journalist at The New York Times,Wall Street Journalor “Sixty Minutes” asked any questions like: “Is there any evidence this virus has already been spreading around the world?”)
My main point is that nobody at NIH, NIAID, the HHS, the CDC or any member of the White House’s Covid Leadership Team said, “Let’s hold on here. Let’s see what these blood donor antibody tests tell us.”
When it came to locking down a couple billion people on the planet, why check any antibody test results first?
So what does this basic information tell us?
It tells me “someone” wanted to conceal evidence of early spread in America … that these trusted public health officials didn’t want to “confirm” anything that might stop or “call-off” the lockdowns.
… and, if we didn’t have the lockdowns, we might not have had 250 million Americans lining up to get a rushed, experimental” mRNA “vaccine,” a shot that was mandatory for many Americans if they wanted to keep their jobs or keep attending college.
Eric Hartmann’s article is about a White House meeting that did NOT take place, a meeting that might have changed history for the better if it had taken place.
Regarding Hartmann’s article, I’d simply highlight the topics that could and should have been brought up at said non-meeting … but weren’t … for some reason.
So what might this reason have been?
My strong hunch is that “someone” (or several people) knew, or at least strongly suspected, that this virus had already spread around the world, including America.
This prompts one final question: How in the hell could this person or people have known this?
It seems to me they knew what they didn’t want anyone to investigate. They didn’t want anyone to find undeniable evidence of early spreadand then publicize said evidence to the entire world. Again, how did these people know or suspect what those investigations would have revealed?
The so-called “rules-based international order” aims to facilitate a hegemonic world, which entails displacing international law. While international law is based on equal sovereignty for all states, the rules-based international order upholds hegemony on the principle of sovereign inequality.
The rules-based international order is commonly presented as international law plus international human rights law, which appears benign and progressive. However, this entails introducing contradictory principles and rules. The consequence is a system devoid of uniform rules, in which “might makes right”. International human rights law introduces a set of rules to elevate the rights of the individual, yet human-centric security often contradicts state-centric security as the foundation of international law.
The US as the hegemonic state can then choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while adversaries must abide strictly by state-centric security due to their alleged lack of liberal democratic credentials. For example, state-centric security as the foundation of international law insists on the territorial integrity of states, while human-centric security allows for secession under the principle of self-determination. The US will thus insist on territorial integrity in allied countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Spain, while supporting self-determination within adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia and Syria. The US can interfere in the domestic affairs of adversaries to promote liberal democratic values, yet the US adversaries do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US. To facilitate a hegemonic international order, there cannot be equal sovereignty for all states. … 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 [email protected].
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 