Beyond VAIDS (Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency) mRNA May Have Intergenerational Consequences

lewrockwell  |  In early April 2023, microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project¹ — posted a preprint paper² detailing massive DNA contamination in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s bivalent COVID booster shots.^3,4,5,6 As explained in the abstract:⁷

“Several methods were deployed to assess the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer bivalent mRNA vaccines. Two vials from each vendor were evaluated …

Multiple assays support DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements …”

The highest level of DNA contamination found was 30%, meaning nearly one-third of the content of certain vials was plasmid DNA, the presence of which dramatically increases the likelihood of genomic integration and cancer.

What this means, in plain English, is that the shots could potentially alter your DNA, which is something vaccine makers, health authorities and fact checkers have vehemently denied and written off as “impossible.” Yet here we are, with inconvenient facts staring us in the face yet again.

Regulatory Agencies Were Aware of the Problem

In a May 20, 2023, Substack article,⁸ McKernan pointed out that regulatory agencies were clearly aware of this problem early on, as Pfizer submitted documents to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) showing sampled lots had a broad range of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) in them.

The EMA’s limit for dsDNA is 330 nanograms per milligram (ng/mg), and Pfizer’s data show sampled lots had anywhere from 1 ng/mg to 815 ng/mg of DNA. And, according to McKernan,⁹ the EMA’s limit may be too high to begin with, as “lower limits should be applied if the DNA is packaged in transfection ready lipid nanoparticles,” as they are in the shots.

In a sane regulatory environment, this kind of contamination would have resulted in a massive recall, considering the known and suspected dangers of dsDNA contaminants. Yet nothing was done about it.

Since McKernan’s paper was posted, others have confirmed the presence of dsDNA contaminants in the COVID shots. To be clear, DNA should not be present in a commercial product that has been made under good manufacturing practices.

Obviously, Pfizer and Moderna have not perfected their commercial process, or have taken shortcuts they shouldn’t have. As a result, countless millions have been injected with unnecessarily risky COVID shots.

University of South Carolina professor Phillip Buckhaults has since confirmed the presence of dsDNA in the COVID shots. September 13, 2023, he testified¹⁰ to this before the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee on the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC).

Buckhaults is a molecular biologist and cancer geneticist with extensive experience in DNA sequencing, and initially set out to debunk McKernan’s claims. To his shock, he replicated McKernan’s findings instead.

In his testimony, he explained how these DNA contaminants can integrate into your genome and disrupt the function of other genes, either long term or permanently, and may be passed on to offspring for generations.

He told the senators he was “alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine,” as “there is a very real hazard” of the dsDNA integrating into a person’s genome and becoming a “permanent fixture of the cell” that can result in autoimmune problems and cancers.¹¹

Buckhaults suspects high levels of DNA contaminants may also be causing some of the more serious side effects of the jabs, such as lethal cardiac arrest.¹² Of the two lots he analyzed, he found between 5 nanograms and 20 ng of plasmid DNA — ranging from one to 200 base pairs long — per 300 microliter dose, and he points out that having a multitude of tiny fragments is far riskier than having one big piece of DNA.¹³

The risk of genome integration by dsDNA has been known for decades,¹⁴ so the individuals who decided to allow this contamination to remain cannot claim they didn’t know public health would be put at risk.

 

Plans For mRNA Technology Extend Far Beyond COVID-19 Jabs

vigilantnews  |   Soon, mRNA technology will be coming to flu vaccines. Supporters tout that the adaptability of mRNA technology allows for quicker response times in developing vaccines that can more accurately target circulating influenza strains, potentially making yearly flu shots more effective.

Furthermore, work is being done to apply mRNA technology to “treat” various other diseases. It is being explored as a potential treatment for sickle-cell disease and the autoimmune disorder, multiple sclerosis. Additionally, its application in cancer treatment is under investigation, with the aim of harnessing the immune system to combat malignancies.

The fight against HIV, a long-standing global health challenge, is also on mRNA’s radar. Currently, three experimental HIV vaccines, built on an mRNA design akin to the COVID-19 vaccines, are in the early stages of human clinical trials.

The award to Karikó and Weissman is not without controversy.

Dr. Robert Malone, a renowned scientist, medical doctor, and pioneer in mRNA vaccine technology, made some fiery comments on “X.”

He stated, “Kariko and Weissman get the Nobel, not for inventing mRNA vaccines (because I did that) but for adding the pseudouridine that allowed unlimited spike toxins to be manufactured in what could have been a safe and effective vaccine platform, if safely developed.”

Malone further criticized the integrity of the award process, suggesting undue influence from pharmaceutical giants. “Pfizer has been campaigning for this since 2020 - at first, they even claimed (as did Kariko) that she invented the mRNA vaccine platform technology. Pfizer donates heavily to the Karolinska Institute, which awards the Nobel. Science has been hijacked again by big pharma.”

The decision to honor Karikó and Weissman while omitting key contributors like Dr. Robert Malone raises questions about the narrative that’s being pushed surrounding mRNA technology. One thing is sure: COVID is just the beginning. And what will likely ensue will be subsequent campaigns to get more mRNA injected into every man, woman, and child.

They Must Really Think You're Stupid!!!

attorneycox  |  The “they” is our government (federal and state). The “we” is you and me, and the other 300+ million Americans across our country.

Alas, here we are, entering the final quarter of 2023, and we have the United States government, and many state governments (including New York’s former Governor Andrew Cuomo, current left-wing Governor Kathy Hochul, and the super-majority Dem legislature) proclaiming for all to hear that they did not force anyone to do anything detrimental these past 3.5 years. UNBELIEVABLE! Did you hear this? They are actually saying with straight faces that they didn’t force you to wear a mask, or lockdown and shutter your businesses, or choose between taking an experimental drug or losing your job… Nope! They did none of that. And you - well, you are flat out crazy if you think they did. You are lying. You are exaggerating and totally overreacting.

Unfortunately for Big Brother, ooops, I mean unfortunately for our 100% reliable, never-lies-to-us government, we have actual documents (including lawsuits), news stories, social media posts, and videos of the government at all levels mandating and forcing us to do all of those things, and more. Here’s just one example of Biden himself, the “Big Guy,” mandating the C19 shot:

Biden is not alone. No, no. His entire administration is right there with him. His head of OSHA, Douglas Parker, is also now lying through his teeth about the OSHA mandate that REQUIRED (not suggested) that all employers in the entire nation with 100 or more employees force their employees to get the C19 shot, otherwise they had to wear a mask and test constantly for C19. (That OSHA mandate was struck down by SCOTUS last year because it was unconstitutional, by the way). Then there’s the head of HHS, Xavier Becerra, saying there was never a mask mandate. What?! Another blatant lie.

Please take the 2 minutes to watch this Congressman Kevin Kiley clip. You truly won’t believe your ears with the bullsh#* these Biden agency heads are spewing! As Congressman Kiley says in the video, the government is trying to tell us that “2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4.” You don’t get much more Orwellian than that!

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Why are they backtracking now?

Easy answers: 1) they didn’t have the authority to do any of it (all of it was unconstitutional) so they can’t justify and defend it now, and 2) if they can convince you they didn’t do it before, then you won’t mind as much when they do it again.

This should make your blood boil. It’s particularly infuriating to those of us who were speaking out from basically day one trying to tell people that the lockdowns, the masking, the shots, the limited number of people at your wedding or at your Thanksgiving table were all violations of the Constitution and our basic human rights!

There Isn’t A Single Working mRNA Covid Vaccine Right Now...,

This picture is worth a thousand words:

The Nobel Prize laureates do not trust their own 'innovation' and instead rely on pseudoscience—face diapers. https://t.co/pudNl9wIq9 pic.twitter.com/klgoBiklOo

— Dr. Simon Goddek (@goddeketal) October 2, 2023

There isn’t a single working mRNA vaccine right now...,

How can you give a Nobel Prize for it?

Reduce transmission? – you seriously must be kidding at this point. I could never even dream to make that claim with a straight face at this point. Seriously, this is the kind of thing that is causing the damage to the reputation of medicine to be hyper-driven.

Morbidity – Given the number of instant severe problems that many patients had with the vaccine – even in the early days. Blood clots, pulmonary emboli, autoimmune and neurological issues…. And now that it is becoming obvious that it is the multiply boosted and vaxxed that seem to be having many more problems with getting infected over and over again – multiple studies are now showing this.

Again – if someone can please answer the question – If it seems that the multiply boosted are getting infected more often – and it seems that multiple infections increase the incidence of all kinds of problems – how are the vaccines helping?

Extreme morbidity and mortality – hospitalizations, etc. —– in the first year of the pandemic, this may have been so. However, as with any mitigation scheme, one must keep track over the entire event – and one also must keep track of those being harmed by the mitigation procedure.

The overwhelming majority of patients who are being admitted right now are vaxxed/boosted. I think the claim of improvement in morbidity early on was justified. I am not seeing this now. When taken in its entirety – I am not certain that we can make the claim that this vaccine program has been a success. It is going to take the entirety of the raw data over the entire country/world to really ascertain this. But yet, the authorities are completely unwilling to do so. Can you explain to me why that is? What about releasing all raw data is so problematic? Especially for “The Scientists”?

With regard to Nobel prizes. We all must remember that the Medicine Prize went to the gentleman who pioneered frontal lobotomies. The Peace Prize went to Obama who spent the next 8 years bombing weddings with drones. Sometimes Nobel prizes go pear-shaped.

It should truly be an award for those whose work has stood the test of time. I wonder what will be thought of this one awarded yesterday a generation from now.

It is significant that the Nobel recipients were not involved with the development of the mRNA spike protein vaccines. Their work was in developing a mechanism for repressing the immune system response to allow cells to absorb mRNA. This mechanism was then utilized by Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer in their vaccines.

I think this was simply a way to award “The Nobel Prize” to the vaccines without actually giving it directly to Big Pharma. – i.e. it is a propaganda move.  Heaven forbid we get into the DAPRA project with Moderna concerning the Pathogen Protection Platform, which was to use mRNA to spur antibodies to send soldiers into an environment where the pathogen of interest was used as weapon. That was 2013, and DARPA stopped.

Why?

Biden's Office Of Pandemic Preparedness And Response Is Up To No Good

amgreatness |  The head of Russia’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Protection forces released a statement this week suggesting that nefarious officials in the United States developed and deployed COVID-19 for “offensive purposes” and may be plotting a new pandemic.

The United States government officially claims that its scientists study pathogens in biolabs around the world to develop preventative measures to potential viruses, but Moscow does not buy that.

Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov said that the United States may have played a role in inflicting the COVID-19 pathogen on the world and may be working to create another biological crisis.

“We do not rule out the United States may use so-called defensive technologies for offensive purposes, as well as for global governance by creating crisis situations of biological nature,”  Kirillov warned.

According to the Russian State media outlet RT, Moscow believes there was collusion between Big Pharma and USAID through the EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based non-government organization run by Peter Daszak, to develop new strains of coronavirus.

“The intermediary organization EcoHealth Alliance has played a key role in implementing projects to study this pathogen. Since 2015, the organization’s researchers have been involved in studying a diverse population of bats, searching for new coronavirus strains and mechanisms for animal-to-human transmission. Over 2,500 bats have been studied,” Kirillov stated.

The general brought up the troubling fact that the World Health Organization, Gates Foundation, and Johns Hopkins University conducted the Event 201 drills in New York on October 18, 2019, just two months before the first COVID-19 cases were officially reported in China. The ostensive purpose of the exercise was to practice the steps that would be taken during a coronavirus outbreak, but many people believe it was a “practice run” for the pandemic.

“The fact that the pandemic unfolded exactly according to this scenario, as well as the implementation of EcoHealth Alliance’s projects, gives rise to questions as to whether COVID-19 was in fact an intentionally man-made disease and whether the US may have had a hand in this incident,” Kirillov said.

Kirillov also expressed deep concern that the Biden regime’s new Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy is up to no good.

“The United States’ next step, aimed at pushing ahead with its strategic plans for establishing global control over the biological situation, was the creation of the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy. This new agency is expected to be responsible for charting a course and coordinating actions to combat known and unknown biological challenges, including pathogens that might trigger another global emergency,” Kirillov said.

 

 

The Non-Consensual Modification Of Human Genetics

tomrenz  |  This article is pretty science heavy so at this point I also want to acknowledge two additional points. First, I am not a Peter McCullough/Harvey Risch type scientist. I am a lawyer with some science background. That means that I am not the guy that will be creating science, but to do my job as an attorney litigating in this area I have to be able to read and understand the science. I do those things quite well. Second, the information in this article is based simply on reading and understanding the science. There is nothing here I’ve created - I just know how to read.

Disclaimers aside, I want to open this article with a confession. This article was titled using the acronym mRNA but that was intentionally misleading. For purposes of this article - mRNA actually stands for modRNA which is different from mRNA. mRNA is messenger RNA and is found all over in life. modRNA is laboratory modified RNA that has been synthetically created for a purpose. It can be more durable, and have substantially greater impact than a true mRNA and can do many other things. 

Why does this matter? Well let’s start with the COVID “vaccines”. Because mRNA is a weak particle and breaks down easily with a relatively lower risk of messing with your genetics than other gene therapy products (like modRNA) that is what is always talked about in the jabs. The problem is that it is a lie. Here is the FDA label for the Pfizer jab:

You can find the entire label here: https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14471. Note that different vials are different (denoted by the cap color) but also, under number 3, that one of the ingredients is modRNA. No one is talking about this but it is crucial.

The human body is built on instructions carried in our genes. Here is a great summary of this info from NIH found here - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21134/:

Life as we know it is specified by the genomes of the myriad organisms with which we share the planet. Every organism possesses a genome that contains the biological information needed to construct and maintain a living example of that organism. Most genomes, including the human genome and those of all other cellular life forms, are made of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) but a few viruses have RNA (ribonucleic acid) genomes. DNA and RNA are polymeric molecules made up of chains of monomeric subunits called nucleotides.

To give you an idea of how complicated the genes that make up our body are this description from the same webpage follows:

The human genome, which is typical of the genomes of all multicellular animals, consists of two distinct parts (Figure 1.1):

*The nuclear genome comprises approximately 3 200 000 000 nucleotides of DNA, divided into 24 linear molecules, the shortest 50 000 000 nucleotides in length and the longest 260 000 000 nucleotides, each contained in a different chromosome. These 24 chromosomes consist of 22 autosomes and the two sex chromosomes, X and Y.

*The mitochondrial genome is a circular DNA molecule of 16 569 nucleotides, multiple copies of which are located in the energy-generating organelles called mitochondria.

*Each of the approximately 10¹³ cells in the adult human body has its own copy or copies of the genome, the only exceptions being those few cell types, such as red blood cells, that lack a nucleus in their fully differentiated state. The vast majority of cells are diploid and so have two copies of each autosome, plus two sex chromosomes, XX for females or XY for males - 46 chromosomes in all. These are called somatic cells, in contrast to sex cells or gametes, which are haploid and have just 23 chromosomes, comprising one of each autosome and one sex chromosome. Both types of cell have about 8000 copies of the mitochondrial genome, 10 or so in each mitochondrion.

So think about how complex that makes us. The nuclear genome contains 3.2 billion nucleotides & the mitochondrial genome contains 16.5k. Each of these were designed by God and have evolved over the millennia to work as a singular machine. Now imagine a watch. The watch tells perfect time because a bunch of tiny gears all work perfectly together to move the hands the appropriate amount to point to the proper minutes and seconds. If one of these gears becomes damaged or the wrong size gear is put into place the entire watch would go haywire and fail to work. A watch may have hundreds of parts - our bodies have billions.

With that in mind let’s talk about modRNA (or worse - saRNA). Rather than taking my word for what this is let me share this explanation from Pfizer you can find at https://www.pfizer.com/science/innovation/mrna-technology until they change it (which will likely happen shortly after I publish this):

So Pfizer’s modRNA and saRNA vaccines modify the nucleosides that make up the genes that make up our body.

 

Not Long Ago You Couldn't See A Dying Relative In The ICU - Now It's A Covid Free-Fire Zone

BostonGlobe  |  On a recent warm and humid summer night, a group of public health colleagues and I were approaching a restaurant for dinner. “Inside or out?” I asked. Not long ago, COVID-19 would have decided — outside. But not that night. We ate inside, where it was cooler.

Like so many others, we are living with COVID. The virus isn’t going anywhere, but how safely we live with it has changed dramatically. Most Americans have resumed the full range of their pre-pandemic activities — concerts, parties, summer camps, and family events. But with the virus still circulating, many who have gone back to pre-pandemic life still worry if they are safe.

It makes sense to be wary. We have lived with these risk assessments and daily decisions for almost four years. And yet we are in a much different, much better place. We can protect ourselves with vaccines, which remain free and widely available. Treatments like Paxlovid are more accessible than ever. Innovative research continues, with an updated vaccine expected in the fall that will better target the circulating variant. Tests are available for those who still want to use testing, and surveillance, through wastewater and genomic sequencing, is much better than it used to be. Add in large investments in improving indoor air quality and the infrastructure to respond more effectively to future outbreaks and things are much better.

The truth is that we can now prevent nearly every COVID death. People who are up to date on their vaccines and get treated when infected rarely get seriously ill. Even for the vulnerable like my parents, who are in their 80s, vaccines coupled with treatments provide a very high degree of protection against serious illness. This is also true for most immuno-compromised individuals. The fact is, now a few basic steps mean you can ignore COVID safely — and get back to doing things that matter, even with COVID still around. Think of these safety measures like the routine check-ups that keep your car safe to drive.

What are these measures? The most important is making sure immunity is up to date. For most of us, this means one COVID booster shot annually. For high-risk people whose immune systems are less robust (like my parents and others over 65), two shots per year will help shore up waning immunity and avoid unnecessary vulnerability. The Biden administration has made a large investment in building vaccines that will stop infections and whose benefits will potentially last years. Until those vaccines arrive, an updated shot annually for most of us and two shots a year for the most vulnerable will keep most people safe from serious illness.

I get it — no one likes to get shots. But vaccines are the single greatest weapon we have to put the pandemic behind us. Getting a shot against the flu is already a regular part of the lives of many Americans, including those of us who work in health care. Vulnerable Americans will be safer if we all get both flu and COVID shots every year.

Second, if you do contract COVID, make use of the highly effective treatments. There are several available now and more coming soon. These treatments, like Paxlovid, are remarkable at preventing serious illness, with some preliminary evidence that they might also help reduce the risk of long COVID. While treatments are particularly important for those of us over 50, all adults should immediately explore treatments if they contract COVID.

 

Project Nextgen: Brandon Doubling Down On Unsafe and Inneffective Vaccine-Only Strategy...,

NEJM  | The development of safe and effective Covid-19 vaccines and treatments within a year after SARS-CoV-2 was first identified represents one of the great successes of modern science.¹ Thanks to the ingenuity of scientists, along with cooperation between the U.S. government and the private sector, these medical countermeasures changed the trajectory of the pandemic, saving millions of lives in the United States and tens of millions globally. Today, nearly 70% of Americans have received their primary vaccination series, including nearly 95% of those over 65 years of age.²

Although the numbers of deaths and hospitalizations due to Covid-19 have dropped by more than 90% since President Joe Biden took office, our fight against SARS-CoV-2 is not over. The virus continues to evolve rapidly³ and still causes substantial numbers of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths each day. The emergence of new variants is hard to predict and continues to threaten the ability of countermeasures such as monoclonal antibodies to protect vulnerable patients. Immunity from both vaccines and infection wanes over time. The only way to stay ahead of the virus is to continue to update the composition of our vaccines and administer them in a regular cadence. Although this strategy is critical, with our current generation of vaccines, it also requires immense resources for mounting frequent vaccination campaigns — at a time when antivaccination sentiment continues to grow and the public’s appetite for regular vaccinations has waned.

Next-generation vaccines and treatments are needed if we are to break the cycle of responding to new variants as they appear: we need tools that can improve our bodies’ ability to stop infections, reduce transmission, build longer-lasting immunity, and target parts of the virus that are less likely to evolve.⁴ Ideally, such vaccines and treatments would provide better protection, enabling us to avoid disruptions of our lives and continue to enjoy the activities we value.

Since it’s safe to assume that SARS-CoV-2 will continue to evolve, the goal for the next generation of vaccines and treatments is to be effective irrespective of that evolution — to protect against infection, transmission, and severe illness. This new approach is important for everyone, but particularly for the most vulnerable people — older adults and people who are immunocompromised, for whom infections can have more severe consequences.

The Biden administration has therefore announced Project NextGen, which will coordinate a whole-of-government effort to advance innovations from labs through clinical trials and safely deliver them to the public. It aims to bring new vaccines and treatments to market by investing in research and development, expanding manufacturing capability and innovation, and providing updated and streamlined regulatory guidance. This $5 billion investment will focus on three main areas: vaccines that provide broader immunity both against new SARS-CoV-2 variants and across the family of epidemic-prone sarbecoviruses, vaccines that generate effective mucosal immunity to block infection and transmission, and monoclonal antibodies that can weather viral evolution and serve as a basis for our arsenal against new threats from beta-coronaviruses.

Why is government investment needed at this time and for this effort? Although there is consensus that these tools are critical for our fight moving forward, current market forces have made development slow. Reduced interest in traditional vaccines has limited investments in this area. In addition, the science underpinning these efforts is difficult and requires work that is not guaranteed to pay off on the timelines that many private investors seek. There are also important scientific and regulatory challenges, such as determining how to best measure a new vaccine’s efficacy. Although companies may eventually bring the needed products to market, the current anticipated timelines could leave the public vulnerable, without additional tools, for many years. This prospect reflects a classic market failure: the costs of development have been left to private market forces that may not place adequate value on products’ broad benefits for the people of the United States and the rest of the world.

The U.S. government has committed to accelerating the science by streamlining development processes, using such strategies as standardizing assays, standardizing protocols, and providing timely regulatory guidance. This approach will build on years of success of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services), and it is designed to help ensure that new tools reach the American people in the shortest time possible.

Strokes, Heart Attacks, Massive Infertility Resulting From mRNA Jabs

amidwesterndoctor  |  Reducing global population has been a consistent goal of the ruling class for centuries.  While many support the abstract idea of population control, no one wants to volunteer to be the ones who are culled.  The business of population control has hence been a very messy subject.

When the COVID vaccine program began, I—and likely many others—suspected the COVID vaccines would have an “unexpected” side effect of reducing fertility.  Early in their development, Mike Yeadon (and others) at great personal risk publicly warned regulators of a clear fertility danger inherent to the vaccine (found in section IX of their petition).

Subsequent regulatory document leaks from the European FDA revealed Pfizer exempted themselves from testing the key areas of concern (infertility, autoimmunity and cancer) in animals.  This highly unusual moved further suggested serious problems existed in these three areas (as you can’t find something if you don’t officially test for it).

Despite repeated denials, signs of each of these key complications from the vaccine have now emerged.  While I do not have every piece of the puzzle—there are likely many “population control initiatives” I’ve never heard of—I know enough to paint a clear picture of this dirty business. 

The first half of this two-part article will lay out the historical precedent of using any means necessary to reduce the population, while the second part will examine how this has been attempted with vaccinations. 

Cruel Philosophies

As best as I can tell, there are three overlapping schools of thought that have created the zealous belief in a need for population control. 

            1. Many governments, especially those in the East, have adopted the viewpoint that periodic wars are necessary for the stability of the society.  This viewpoint primarily arises from social instability caused by too many young adult males in the state coupled with the issues that occur when there is insufficient food available to the population. In turn, many wars have been fought specifically for this reason. (I am most familiar with this being a common theme in China, as they have observed over the centuries the one thing that will cause rebellions are famines.)

Following World War 2, the Western ruling elite came to a consensus that the war approach was no longer tenable due to the extreme collateral infrastructure and environmental damage modern weaponry (ie. nukes) created. I only know of two exceptions to this rule:

     Wars in third-world nations lacking advaced weaponry where the collateral damage those wars caused was inconsequential to first-world nations.

     Talks that occurred within the Chinese military leadership, but have so far not materialized, over starting a war with India so both countries could mutually alleviate their challenging population burden. For context, China has attempted population control with their “one-child” policy, but it has been met with mixed success and widespread social resistance.

The alternative to war is a multi-pronged attack that seeks every possible avenue to reduce fertility and accelerate aging, which many argue is the more humane option of the two.  One of the curious facts I have observed over the decades is how frequently an odd policy or environmental agent always seems to converge on the common pathway of reducing population.  Once or twice, you can write it up as a coincidence, but at a certain point, you have to wonder if it is all intentional.

When I studied the early history of infectious diseases (discussed in my previous articles on smallpox), one of the most striking things to me was the absolute squalor the serfs were forced into as the feudal lords kicked them off the land to live in the early cities.  It was much worse than most people of this modern era can even conceive of. 

When I first learned of this, I guessed the suffering that move caused for the lower class must have been viewed as a necessary trade off by the European rulership to facilitate the Industrial Revolution, something vital for national development.  After I learned about the Malthusian philosophy, I realized those abhorrent living situations was likely the goal in of itself. 

In 1798, Rev. Thomas R Malthus published the influential work An Essay on the Principle of Population, which argued that human populations tend to increase at a geometrical (exponential) rate, but the means of subsistence (food) grows at only an arithmetic (linear) rate.  "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man," according to Malthus, who therefore believed the standard of living of the masses could not be improved without the checks of war, famine, or disease. In their absence, population would increase by a geometric rate and lead to a catastrophic “Malthusian” food supply collapse. 

While there are numerous errors in his theory, Malthus was appointed to multiple important positions, and his ideas appear to have gradually become a prevailing conviction among members of the ruling classes in the 19th century. These ideas also influenced other key figures, such as Charles Darwin while he created his theory of evolution and natural selection. 

Numerous groups were founded over the decades, which emphasized birth control and increasing mortality of the poor.  These groups included Dr. George Drysdale's Elements of Social Science in 1854, the Malthusian League in 1877, and Margret Sanger’s National Birth Control League in 1915, which became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.  Initially these groups were domestic, but gradually they became global, at which point, they tied international aid and development to population control measures. 

The Malthusian and Darwinian ideals gradually gave birth to Social Darwinism and Eugenics, which were both widely adopted by the ruling elite.  Social Darwinism argued that class divisions were the will of nature and that this form of natural selection, rather than being evil, was necessary.  The most extreme version of this ideology, eugenics, appears to have arisen from two key factors:

1.     The tribal nature of human beings and the tendency to view all other tribes as inferior (the ruling class felt this way towards the poor).

2.     The advances of society were making it possible for many of the weaker members of society, who previously would have died off, to survive long enough to reproduce and, over time, significantly weaken the gene pool.

Eugenics in turn advocated preventing those who were less “fit” from breeding.  This has been responsible for horror upon horror since its inception, and it provided the theoretical foundation for why, among other things, the Nazis forcibly sterilized the mentally-ill.  When the Nazis eventually were tried at Nuremberg for their crimes against humanity, few know that that many cited the fact similar actions were first conducted by the “Great United States” as part of their defense.

"Dr.: Peter Hotez: "Anti-Science Aggression" Is Racist Violent Extremism (Anti-Semitism)

stevekirsch  |  Science used to be about data and what the data shows. Sadly, today, science is about what the CDC says, even if there is no data in support of the recommendation whatsoever.

The most stunning example of this is the “six foot rule.” Did you know that it was entirely fabricated out of thin air? From Presidential Takedown page 49:

What is even more stunning is that the CDC has never admitted this publicly. This is evidence that they are a corrupt organization and the corruption goes to the very top of the organization.

We have over two years of data. Why not make it public?

We now have over two years worth of death and vaccination data for people who died after getting a COVID shot, yet nobody wants to see the record level data tied to the vaccination dates?!?!

Let me be perfectly clear:

This is an abject failure of the entire medical community for not demanding to see this data.

People paid for us to see this data with their lives. Why is it being hidden from us?

In the US, hundreds of millions of people participated in a massive clinical trial and have data to share with people. At least 500,000 of the participants paid the ultimate price: they sacrificed their lives to send a message to America about the vaccines. It is extremely disrespectful to these people to ignore their death data and not share it with the public. Why are we not allowing these people to share their data?

Do you think if we could ask those people right before they died, “Do you want to let others know what killed you?” Do you think they would all say, “No! Don’t let anyone know. Please keep it a secret!”?

Every institution in the world that is recommending or requiring COVID vaccination should be DEMANDING to see this data made public

John Beaudoin and I have been calling for the death data to be set free and made public. We have been ignored.

Why aren’t any of these organizations calling for data transparency here so we can learn the truth?

1. The mainstream medical community

2. Heads of state throughout the world

3. The CDC

4. The FDA

5. The White House

6. Congress

7. The mainstream media

8. Public health authorities

9. Any doctor or nurse who recommends the jab to patients

10. Universities who mandate the vaccines for students, staff, or faculty

11. Any organization that supports COVID vaccines for their members, employees, or visitors

The data exists in VSD as well. But the CDC won’t allow anyone to see it.

The data exists in every state health department. But you can’t FOIA it because it requires a join to avoid PII problems and FOIA requests are not allowed if they generate effort like that. So FOIA requests won’t work.

It’s time for everyone to demand that our health authorities “Show us the data!”

We should all refuse to comply until they produce it.

Jordan Trishton Walker : Grindr-Mediated Pfizer Gain Of Function Research Disclosures

brianoshea  |  Project Veritas recently released a video featuring "Jordon Trishton Walker," Pfizer executive who revealed shocking new info. But finding anything about him is tough. Here is what I've found so far.

thedailybeast  |  The Daily Mail took down a digital article last week that promoted Project Veritas’ latest sting operation alleging that a Pfizer executive admitted the pharmaceutical giant was making a “more potent” version of COVID in order to create new vaccines for sale.

Following days of anti-vaxxers and right-wing media outlets complaining about the article’s quiet deletion, and hours after The Daily Beast reached out to the tabloid, the piece was back online—and was completely changed.

Senior reporter Andrea Cavallier, the article’s original author, was originally removed from the byline but has since reappeared. The updated article, which came back online Monday afternoon, now largely focuses on Pfizer’s response to Project Veritas’ video and the far-right activist group’s suggestion that the company is practicing “gain-of-function” research. In addition to Cavallier, the byline now features health editor Connor Boyd and health reporter Caitlin Tilley.

“Our original story did not carry a response from Pfizer. We temporarily took the story down while we vigorously pursued answers,” a Daily Mail spokesperson told Confider. “Now Pfizer has responded, we are able to report that they have confirmed they manipulated the covid virus—although they insist there was no gain of function. This updated story is now fully live again.”

In a video that went viral in right-wing social media circles, a person Project Veritas claims is Pfizer’s director of research and development tells an undercover journalist that the company is “exploring” the possibility of “mutating” viruses in monkeys so as to “preemptively develop new vaccines.”

“You’re not supposed to do gain-of-function research with viruses,” the man, whom Project Veritas claims is named Jordon Trishton Walker, added. “Regularly not. We can do these selected structure mutations to make them more potent. There is research ongoing about that. I don't know how that is going to work. There better not be any more outbreaks because Jesus Christ.”

The video blew up among conservatives, especially vaccine skeptics. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson fumed about the “near-total media blackout of this story” about how Pfizer was conducting “Frankenstein science.” GOP lawmakers soon began sending letters to the company’s CEO asking him to confirm whether Pfizer was taking part in gain-of-function research, citing Project Veritas’ “investigative report.” (Conservatives have latched onto the theory that Dr. Anthony Fauci funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan, largely blaming the “lab leak theory” for possibly creating COVID-19.)

The Mail’s initial piece on the video essentially gives a play-by-play of Project Veritas’ video while noting the outlet reached out to Pfizer for comment. Shortly after it went up on Thursday, however, the article was nowhere to be found on the website. And its disappearance soon drew notice.

“Hi, @MailOnline can you clarify why you have appeared to remove this story from your website?” British parliament member Andrew Bridgen tweeted on Thursday. Bridgen was recently suspended by his own Conservative Party for peddling conspiracy theories about vaccines and comparing the side effects of COVID shots to the Holocaust.

After the Mail piece was pulled offline, Pfizer released an online statement responding to the allegations made about the company following the publication of Project Veritas’ video.

“In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research,” the statement, released Friday night, said. “Working with collaborators, we have conducted research where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern.”

The statement also added that “in a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells.” The Mail’s updated article, which went back up on Monday afternoon, now largely focuses on Pfizer’s response to the undercover video.

If True - THIS WOULD EXPLAIN SO MUCH!!!

Brownstone |  Contrary to popular belief that pharmaceutical companies drove the COVID vaccine development programs, the US FDA’s website (FDA, 2020) reveals that the United States Department of Defence (DoD) has been in full control of the Covid Vaccine development program since its beginning. The DoD has been responsible for development, manufacturing, clinical trials, quality assurance, distribution and administration, since that time (FDA, 2020; Rees and Latypova, 2022; KEI, 2022; Medical Defense Consortium, 2022; Rees, 2022). The major pharmaceutical companies have been involved as “Project Coordination Teams” effectively performing as subcontractors to the DoD. The Chief Operating Officer for the Warp Speed vaccine program is the US Department of Defence, and the Chief Science Advisor is the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

The Nature of Gene-based Vaccines

The true nature of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ has been largely misrepresented by mainstream media, big pharmaceutical companies and governments and is poorly understood by the population at large.  Referring to these products as “vaccines” led most people to consider them as relatively safe and well-researched and readily accept their widespread use. However, they are not really vaccines – they are serious gene-based interventions which have never been deployed widely in any population, especially never to healthy individuals including children, infants and pregnant women.  In this sense they should be considered experimental. 

COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ fall into a special class of therapeutic agents under the US FDA Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies’ defined as “gene therapy products,” which involve “introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease” (FDA, 2018). Heretofore, use of gene therapy products has been limited to the treatment of usually rare, serious and debilitating disease or genetic conditions. They have potential to cause permanent intergenerational genetic damage, cancer and interfere with reproductive capacity. 

The FDA and other drug regulatory agencies have specific rules and guidelines to direct manufacturers in development and testing of such products, for both preclinical (FDA, 2013) and clinical (FDA, 2015) research.  However, the FDA did not evaluate these COVID-19 “vaccines” according to these gene therapy guidelines.  

Instead, there was a concerted effort to avoid referring to them as gene therapy products, based, in part, on the argument that the genetic material in the COVID-19 vaccines was not intended to be incorporated into an individual’s DNA, nor to modify gene expression. There was no prior short-term safety information and no long-term data on which to predict future effects. No similar therapeutic products have been previously approved anywhere in the world.  Their widespread administration globally with no historical safety experience was an unprecedented risk in human health.        

Accelerating Development 

Messenger RNA platform technology has been researched by DARPA (Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency) since at least 2012 (McCullough, 2022).  In early 2020, in the panic to develop the COVID-19 vaccines, certain critical research and development procedures were omitted, bypassed, curtailed, or not done in a logical sequential manner, or to established laboratory or manufacturing standards. Although the spike protein is the active drug and is directly responsible for the immune response, its pharmacology and toxicology have not been studied in animals or in humans as would normally have been required. 

Other notable deficiencies include lack of critical research on carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity and reproductive toxicology in appropriate animal species. In particular, the potential for reverse transcription of mRNA genetic material into an individual’s DNA was not investigated. Furthermore, scale-up manufacturing was premature and lacked adequate quality control to ensure that product made in large batches is the same as made in smaller batches. 

Without such research, the potency, mRNA integrity, presence of contaminants and stability of the “vaccines” cannot be guaranteed. Such oversights are directly responsible for the failure to predict the serious adverse drug reactions and mortality which have now been reported in association with these vaccines. 

To mitigate risk, the plan in vaccine development was to use multiple technologies, multiple facilities and redundancy. Leverage of existing facilities would also take place. In the interest of expediency, the plan was to avoid using traditional pathways from early development to large-scale production.  Avoidance of quality standards and guidelines such as Good Manufacturing Practice and Good Laboratory Practice guidelines was necessary to speed development, and conventional New Drug Application (NDA) and Biologics License Application (BLA) approvals were bypassed. 

Instead, the process moved rapidly using compressed timelines and overlapping stages of development towards Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Scale-up and large volume manufacturing was planned in parallel with, instead of before, clinical trials which, again, may have contravened accepted codes of Good Manufacturing Practices. These approaches were probably a recipe for potential disaster. (Latypova, 2022; Watt and Latypova, 2022).

The Billions In Profit Are Conspicuously Obvious, But Seriously Folks Pfizer Jes Phukkin With Y'all...,

dailymail |  Joe Biden has been re-infected with COVID after taking an anti-viral drug that leaves patients running a 40 per cent risk of flare-up of the virus shortly afterwards.

Taking Paxlovid leaves COVID sufferers in danger of testing positive for the virus again very quickly after clearing their initial infection. 

When Paxlovid came to market in December 2021, studies from Pfizer indicated that only 1-2 percent of patients who took the drug tested positive for Covid again shortly after finishing their dosage. 

But other experts say the rapid reinfection rate is closer to 40 per cent, and that Paxlovid can cause this issue by suppressing patients' immune systems too early, meaning their own bodies are unable to get a handle on COVID.  

Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a prominent cardiologist and professor of medicine and surgery at George Washington University Hospital tweeted: 'I think this was predictable.'

He continued: 'The prior data suggesting 'rebound' Paxlovid positivity in the low single digits is outdates and with BA.5 is likely 20-40% or even higher.'

In a memo released by the White House, Dr. Kevin O'Connor said that the president will continue to isolate, just like he did when he first tested positive on July 21. 

Dr. O'Connor also said that the president would not be prescribed Paxlovid again. The president's doctor earlier noted that it was likely that the president was infected with the BA.5 variant. 

In June, a Mayo Clinic study showed that five percent of adults who had taken the drug tested positive again for Covid within 30 days, according to the New York Times. 

The majority of those who experienced rebound symptoms occur within two to eight days.  

Some experts have said that the current treatment cycle of taking three pills twice a day for five days is too short a time period to clear Covid from the patient's body. 

The conclusion of the Mayo Clinic study was that extending the time period of the course of Paxlovid was unnecessary. 

The authors of the study conceded in their findings that immunocompromised people were unrepresented in the study.  

Also in June, the president's chief medical advisor, Dr. Anthony Fauci, experienced rebound Covid-19. In his case, he did take a second round of Paxlovid. 

Dr. Ashish K. Jha, the White House’s Covid-19 response coordinator, has denied that the Paxlovid rebound numbers are nearly 50 percent. 

The doctor maintained that the actual percentage of reinfections is 'in the single digits.'

Dr. Jha said: 'When people have rebound, they don’t end up in the hospital. They don’t end up particularly sick.' 

He added: 'Paxlovid is working really well at preventing serious illness, rebound or no rebound, and that’s why he was offered it. And that’s why the president took it.

Supersaturated With Pfizer, Biden Is Now A Superspreading Sack Of Spike Protein Disease...,

igorchudov  |  Both Dr. Fauci and Joe Biden are elderly men who are in good physical shape, with Anthony Fauci, in addition, being in good mental shape. They both had four COVID vaccine shots.

What made them have Paxlovid rebounds? How do Paxlovid rebounds work? Why did Dr. Fauci’s COVID bout last 26 days instead of 5-6 days, as was the usual case prior to vaccines? The answer can be seen after examining what repeated “COVID vaccinations” do to immune systems, and understanding Paxlovid’s role better.

Paxlovid is not a magic STOP button that kills all active virions of Sars-Cov-2 and ends the illness. It is a protease inhibitor that puts puts on hold a key stage of viral replication called “cleaving”. It can be best described as a SNOOZE button, that pauses viral replication for 5 days, just as the SNOOZE button would pause your alarm clock for 5 minutes. The 5-day treatment ends, and a few days after that the replication process, paused by Paxlovid, is able to restart.

In early trials, Paxlovid was helpful to unvaccinated patients, whose undamaged immune systems were able to mount an adequate response and suppress any new virions that emerged from infected cells, where replication was paused by Paxlovid. So, Paxlovid appeared to work in unvaccinated people by stopping replication for 5 days, as 5 days was enough to develop a robust response.

However, science has established that boosted people, whose immune systems are damaged by repeat transfections of spike-protein-generating mRNA nanoparticles, have problems with viral clearance and need much more time to clear live, replicating virions.

So, since boosted people are slow to mount an effective immune response, and have no defenses developed by Day 5 of Paxlovid treatment, their infection essentially restarts again after a five-day pause.

Why the slow immune response? Because of immune tolerance arising from repeated spike protein antigen shots, as seen with allergy shots, where tolerance is the intended effect.

Fauci and Biden received four antigen shots of mRNA, making “Covid spike protein”. If you heard of such repeat antigen shots before the pandemic, it is possibly because you or your loved ones received “allergy shots”. The purpose of allergy shots is very noble: give people repeated shots of allergens like pollen, have people develop “tolerance” to the antigen, and stop allergies from reducing our quality of life. I received allergy shots myself. It helped somewhat.

However, Sars-Cov-2 is NOT pollen! Unlike pollen, which should not cause immune overreaction, a dangerous virus is supposed to cause a robust immune response, high fever, muscle pains, and other symptoms of the immune system giving a strong reaction that ends viral infections quickly.

 

Immune Tolerance Is One Reason Repeated mRNA Jabs And Boosters Kill

igorchudov  |  Now, for June-July, we see that more boosters mean MORE deaths and that the association between booster rates and Covid deaths is highly statistically significant!

This is the Best “Apples-to-Apples” Comparison

Let’s summarize. We looked at the same set of countries in Europe during three different periods of time. During the first period, booster rates were associated with statistically significant reductions in Covid deaths. During the second period, booster rates had no effect on Covid death rates. And during the last, third period, booster rates CONTRIBUTED to greater deaths!

The fact that all three periods involved the same countries (except a couple who did not report booster rates during the first period), means that this outcome is NOT due to population-wide age or other demographic differences. The difference between outcomes in these periods is due to the passage of time, and changes in the interaction of boosted immune systems with the evolving virus.

Note that my data shows something much worse than “boosters stopping to work”. Instead of merely becoming useless, like in the second period, boosters became harmful and promoted deaths in the third period.

Immune Tolerance due to Boosters

Why is this happening? Boosters and vaccines worsening Covid outcomes is really a topic for another article to explore possible answers.

There are certainly MANY REASONS why boosters do not work anymore. Let me touch upon just one such reason. Remember that other reasons are also important!

Jan Ashton describes the “immune phenomenon known as tolerance”. What “tolerance” means is that repeated antigen injections end up working like allergy shots, increasing tolerance to the antigen, which is in this case spike protein.

Tolerance towards allergens, like tree pollen, is a good thing. (I had allergy shots myself). However, tolerance toward a replicating virus that damages our cardiovascular system and immune system, is a bad thing! Tolerance also turns affected people into walking Covid superspreaders.

Instead of seeing the viral antigen as a sign to start a battle against the virus, the immune system says “oh well, another spike protein injection” and ignores it. That allows the virus to multiply unchecked and cause immense damage by killing various cells and hurting our cardiovascular systems and more. The infected person feels less fever and less disturbance than they would feel from a robust immune reaction, so the illness feels “milder”, but this is actually a bad thing because the virus multiplies unopposed.