Puppies?! Fauci Tortured ORPHAN BABIES And CHILDREN In His AIDS Drug Experiments

fauci orphans

“In 2003, 04, 05, I was investigating this story. Children in an NYC orphanage (and the foster care system) used in clinical trials. The Associated Press took it national and found it going on in seven or more states.

“Some states declined to participate in medical experiments. Tennessee said its foster care rules generally prohibit enlisting children in such trials. California requires a judge’s order. And Wisconsin “has absolutely never allowed, nor would we even consider, any clinical experiments with the children in our foster care system,” spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis said.

Officials estimated that 5 percent to 10 percent of the 13,878 children enrolled in pediatric AIDS studies funded by NIH since the late 1980s were in foster care. More than two dozen Illinois foster children remain in studies today.” No medical records were ever made available to official investigators. You make up your own mind.” – Liam Scheff

A National Scandal: AIDS Drug Experiments On Foster Care Children – Associated Press

The article has been deleted from the AP website, but the archive survived here.

On March 10, 2004, The Alliance for Human Research Protection filed a complaint with the FDA and the federal Office of Human Research Protection about a series of AIDS drug experiments conducted on New York City children in foster care. That complaint prompted two separate investigations by the FDA and OHRP which are still on-going.

Articles in The New York Post and a documentary by BBC raised the alarm among the African-American and Latino community in NY-some of who have been protesting weekly in front of Incarnation Children’s Center, the site of some of the drug experiments.

The Associated Press AP has just released its investigative report: the problem is a national scandal–the experiments were conducted in “at least seven states — Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Colorado and Texas — and involved more than four dozen different studies.

AP’s investigation found that 13,878 children had been enrolled in pediatric AIDS studies funded by the government since the late 1980s. Of these, officials estimated that 5 percent to 10 percent were in foster care. Their age ranged from infants to late teens.

“More than two dozen Illinois foster children remain in studies today.”

Those who conducted the experiments in violation of federal regulations, are supported by taxpayers – thus they have a public responsibility which they violated. The children who were targeted to serve as human drug testing subjects – mostly poor children of color – were not afforded the protection of a personal advocate – as is mandated by federal regulations. (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46.409)

The institutional culture of arrogance is demonstrably in evidence at both medical research centers and government agencies: “Our position is that advocates weren’t needed,” said Marilyn Castaldi, spokeswoman for Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York.

And officials of NYC Administration of Child Services “defend the decision to enlist foster children en masse, saying there was a crisis in the early 1990s and research provided the best treatment possibilities.”

The children are reported to have suffered painful side effects “such as rashes, vomiting and sharp drops in infection-fighting blood cells as they tested antiretroviral drugs to suppress AIDS or other medicines to treat secondary infections.”

In one study testing the drug dapsone, “at least 10 children died from a variety of causes, including four from blood poisoning, and researchers said they were unable to determine a safe, useful dosage. They said the deaths didn’t appear to be “directly attributable” to dapsone but nonetheless were “disturbing.”

“overall mortality while receiving the study drug was significantly higher in the daily dapsone group. This finding remains unexplained,” the researchers concluded.

“Another study involving foster children in the 1990s treated children with different combinations of adult antiretroviral drugs. Among 52 children, there were 26 moderate to severe reactions — nearly all in infants. The side effects included rash, fever and a major drop in infection-fighting white blood cells.

At least three states declined to use children in foster care in medical experiments: Tennessee said its foster care rules generally prohibit enlisting children in such trials. California requires a judge’s order. And Wisconsin “has absolutely never allowed, nor would we even consider, any clinical experiments with the children in our foster care system,” spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis said.

Not addressed in the AP report is the amount of money that these trials generated for the institutions involved in the experiments.

***The NYC Council, general welfare committee is holding a hearing about the unethical experiments conducted in NYC. The hearing will take place at City Hall at 11:15.

For information and to register to speak, call: Ms. Jackie Sherman at 212-788-7015

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974

Researchers Tested AIDS Drugs On Children – Associated Press

by JOHN SOLOMON
11:08 AM PDT, May 4, 2005

azt fau cover

WASHINGTON – Government-funded researchers tested AIDS drugs on hundreds of foster children over the past two decades, often without providing them a basic protection afforded in federal law and required by some states, an Associated Press review has found.

The research funded by the National Institutes of Health spanned the country. It was most widespread in the 1990s as foster care agencies sought treatments for their HIV-infected children that weren’t yet available in the marketplace.

The practice ensured that foster children — mostly poor or minority — received care from world-class researchers at government expense, slowing their rate of death and extending their lives. But it also exposed a vulnerable population to the risks of medical research and drugs that were known to have serious side effects in adults and for which the safety for children was unknown.

The research was conducted in at least seven states — Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Colorado and Texas — and involved more than four dozen different studies. The foster children ranged from infants to late teens, according to interviews and government records.

Several studies that enlisted foster children reported patients suffered side effects such as rashes, vomiting and sharp drops in infection-fighting blood cells as they tested antiretroviral drugs to suppress AIDS or other medicines to treat secondary infections.

In one study, researchers reported a “disturbing” higher death rate among children who took higher doses of a drug. That study was unable to determine a safe and effective dosage.

The government provided special protections for child wards in 1983. They required researchers and their oversight boards to appoint independent advocates for any foster child enrolled in a narrow class of studies that involved greater than minimal risk and lacked the promise of direct benefit. Some foster agencies required the protection regardless of risks and benefits.

Advocates must be independent of the foster care and research agencies, have some understanding of medical issues and “act in the best interests of the child” for the entirety of the research, the law states.

However, researchers and foster agencies told AP that foster children in AIDS drug trials often weren’t given such advocates even though research institutions many times promised to do so to gain access to the children.

Illinois officials believe none of their nearly 200 foster children in AIDS studies got independent monitors even though researchers signed a document guaranteeing “the appointment of an advocate for each individual ward participating in the respective medical research.”

New York City could find records showing 142 — less than a third — of the 465 foster children in AIDS drug trials got such monitors even though city policy required them. The city has asked an outside firm to investigate.

Likewise, research facilities including Chicago’s Children’s Memorial Hospital and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore said they concluded they didn’t provide advocates for foster kids.

Some states declined to participate in medical experiments. Tennessee said its foster care rules generally prohibit enlisting children in such trials. California requires a judge’s order. And Wisconsin “has absolutely never allowed, nor would we even consider, any clinical experiments with the children in our foster care system,” spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis said.

Officials estimated that 5 percent to 10 percent of the 13,878 children enrolled in pediatric AIDS studies funded by NIH since the late 1980s were in foster care. More than two dozen Illinois foster children remain in studies today.

Some foster children died during studies, but state or city agencies said they could find no records that any deaths were directly caused by experimental treatments.

Researchers typically secured permission to enroll foster children through city or state agencies. And they frequently exempted themselves from appointing advocates by concluding the research carried minimal risk and the child would directly benefit because the drugs had already been tried in adults.

“Our position is that advocates weren’t needed,” said Marilyn Castaldi, spokeswoman for Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York.

If they decline to appoint advocates under the federal law, researchers and their oversight boards must conclude that the experimental treatment affords the same or better risk-benefit possibilities than alternate treatments already in the marketplace. They also must abide by any additional protections required by state and local authorities.

Many of the studies that enrolled foster children occurred after 1990 when the government approved using the drug AZT — an effective AIDS treatment — for children.

Arthur Caplan, head of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said advocates should have been appointed for all foster children because researchers felt the pressure of a medical crisis and knew there was great uncertainty as to how children would react to AIDS medications that were often toxic for adults.

“It is exactly that set of circumstances that made it absolutely mandatory to get those kids those advocates,” Caplan said. “It is inexcusable that they wouldn’t have an advocate for each one of those children.

“When you have the most vulnerable subjects imaginable — kids without parents — you really do have to come in with someone independent, who doesn’t have a dog in this fight,” he said.

Those who made the decisions say the research gave foster kids access to drugs they otherwise couldn’t get. And they say they protected the children’s interest by carefully explaining risks and benefits to state guardians, foster parents and the children themselves.

“I understand the ethical dilemma surrounding the introduction of foster children into trials,” said Dr. Mark Kline, a pediatric AIDS expert at Baylor College of Medicine. He enrolled some Texas foster kids in his studies, and doesn’t recall appointing advocates for them.

“To say as a group that foster children should be excluded from clinical trials would have meant excluding these children from the best available therapies at the time,” he said. “From an ethical perspective, I never thought that was a stand I could take.”

Illinois officials directly credit the decision to enroll HIV-positive foster kids with bringing about a decline in deaths — from 40 between 1989 and 1995 to only 19 since.

NIH, the government health research agency that funded the studies, did not track researchers to determine if they appointed advocates. Instead, the decision was left to medical review boards made up of volunteers at each study site.

A recent Institute of Medicine study concluded those Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) were often overwhelmed, dominated by scientists and not focused enough on patient protections. An ethicist who served 22 years on such boards said they lack the resources to ensure the safety of foster children.

“Over the last half century, IRBs have basically broken under the strain of some of the structural changes in research,” said Gregory E. Pence, a University of Alabama-Birmingham bioethicist.

The U.S. Office for Human Research Protections, created to protect research participants after the infamous Tuskegee syphilis studies on black men, is investigating the use of foster children in AIDS research. The office declined to discuss the probe.

NIH said it considers patient safety its top priority and awaits the outcome of the investigation. “If we find that patient protections need further strengthening, we will take action to do so,” spokesman John Burklow said.

AP’s review found that if children were old enough — usually between 5 and 10 — they also were educated about the risks and asked to consent. Sometimes, foster parents or biological parents were consulted; other times not.

“Our policy was to try and contact the (biological) parents because it was fairly common when we got done the foster kid would go back to the parents,” said Dr. Ross McKinney, a pediatrics AIDS expert at Duke University.

Research and foster agencies declined to make foster parents or children in the drug trials available for interviews, or to provide information about individual drug dosages, side effects or deaths, citing medical privacy laws.

Other families who participated in the same drug trials told AP their children mostly benefited but parents needed to carefully monitor potential side effects. Foster children, they said, need the added protection of an independent advocate.

“I don’t believe a foster care parent can do it,” said Vinnie DiPoalo, a New Jersey woman whose 10-year-old adopted son has participated in three AIDS drug trials. “There are informed consents that have to be signed. There are follow-up blood appointments.

“I think that’s the role the advocate should take, because a foster parent may only have this child for three months and then the child moves on and someone needs to be watching all the time,” she said.

Many studies that enlisted foster children involved early Phase I and Phase II research — the riskiest — to determine side effects and safe dosages so children could begin taking adult “cocktails,” the powerful drug combinations that suppress AIDS but can cause bad reactions like rashes and organ damage.

Some of those drugs were approved ultimately for children, such as stavudine and zidovudine. Other medicines were not.

Illinois officials confirmed two or three foster children were approved to participate in a mid-1990s study of dapsone. Researchers hoped the drug would prevent a pneumonia that afflicts AIDS patients.

Researchers reported some children had to be taken off the drug because of “serious toxicity,” others developed rashes, and the rates of death and blood toxicity were significantly higher in children who took the medicine daily, rather than weekly.

At least 10 children died from a variety of causes, including four from blood poisoning, and researchers said they were unable to determine a safe, useful dosage. They said the deaths didn’t appear to be “directly attributable” to dapsone but nonetheless were “disturbing.”

“An unexpected finding in our study was that overall mortality while receiving the study drug was significantly higher in the daily dapsone group. This finding remains unexplained,” the researchers concluded.

Another study involving foster children in the 1990s treated children with different combinations of adult antiretroviral drugs. Among 52 children, there were 26 moderate to severe reactions — nearly all in infants. The side effects included rash, fever and a major drop in infection-fighting white blood cells.

New York City officials defend the decision to enlist foster children en masse, saying there was a crisis in the early 1990s and research provided the best treatment possibilities. Nonetheless, they are changing their policy so they no longer give blanket permission to enroll children in preapproved studies.

“We learned some things from our experience,” said Elizabeth Roberts, assistant commissioner for child and family health at the Administration for Children’s Services. “It is a more individualized review we will be conducting.”

Researchers likewise defend their work, saying they often sat with foster families to explain the risks and benefits, and provided them literature and 24-hour phone numbers.

“We talk about it. Then they come the next time. There is no rush,” explained Dr. Ram Yogev, the chief pediatric AIDS researcher in Chicago whose patients include a large number of foster children.

Kline, the Texas researcher, added: “I never wanted a parent or guardian to ever say ‘yes’ simply because they thought that it was what I wanted them to do. I wanted it to be the right choice for them. I think there is not any single right answer for any family.”
_____

Researcher Rachel Landau in Washington and reporter Carla K. Johnson in Chicago contributed to this story. On the Net:

Documents associated with this story are available at: http://wid.ap.org/inv/foster.html

Liam Scheff’S BOMBSHELL Interview:

Includes nurses who participated in the experiments!

An excerpt below from Kennedy’s explosive book describing Fauci’s medical experiments on children:

scheff fauci orphan children experiments aids

Robert Kennedy sat for an interview this past month to journalist James Corbett where he laid out some key arguments from the book and specifically explained the facts on Fauci’s illegal testing on orphan children:

  • Fauci tested harsh chemotherapy drugs on orphan children in order to determine its use for AIDS treatments in the 1980s
  • Fauci got control of foster homes in 7 states
  • Children were tortured to death
  • Children were denied guardians and any kind of legal protector
  • Children who refused to take Fauci’s drugs had feeding tubes installed so drug companies could administer the drugs even when the kids fought back
  • Most of the children did not have HIV/AIDS, they were just used as guinea pigs to see if they could survive the harsh drug regimen
  • At least 85 kids died as part of these experiments

The graveyard where these children were thrown into a pit, filled with hundreds of coffins sometimes stuffed with multiple children, is buried under an astroturf pit in New York. These are the victims of Fauci’s crimes, says Kennedy.

The Gateway Pundit was able to locate this memorial to the orphan children killed by Dr. Fauci and the NIH in New York State.

01 memorial orphans fauci

The orphans are not forgotten. There are toys and flowers left at the memorial.

02 memorial orphans fauci toys

The names of the orphans are listed on the memorial wall.

04 orphan fauci names

And an angel holds a stuffed Teddy Bear.

05 orphan memorial fauci angel

These photos were taken from Google.

RFK Jr.: Reporter Found Monument To Dead Orphans Tortured And Killed By Monster Fauci (VIDEO)

06 gate of heaven cemetery fauci monument orphans

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. joined The High Wire recently to discuss his best-selling book on monster Dr. Tony Fauci.

During the discussion, RFK Jr. revealed that reporter Cecelia Farber went to the cemetery in New York state where the tortured orphan children were buried. These victims were Fauci’s experimental patients.

The Gateway Pundit reported earlier on this monument and cemetery in New York State.

Fauci has a long history of mass death, barbarism and lies.

In 2004 Dr. Fauci’s NIH was also caught funding experiments on AIDS orphans at a New York City hospital. The Gateway Pundit reported on this dark Fauci chapter in October.

The Fauci NIH approved experiments on hundreds of New York City orphans.  Government agencies and pharmaceutical companies used the orphans in deadly AIDS drug trials.

In 2005, the city of New York hired the VERA Institute to form a final report on the drug trials. VERA was given no access to medical records for any of the children used in trials. Their report was published in 2008.

They reported that twenty-five children died during the drug studies, that an additional fifty-five children died following the studies (in foster care), and, according to Tim Ross, Director of the Child Welfare program at VERA (as of 2009), 29% of the remaining 417 children who were used in drug studies had died (out of a total 532 children that are admitted to have been used). [LINK]

The WIKIPEDIA writers cover up all details, as is expected.

No payment or compensation has been paid to any of the children used in the trials, or to their families.

A hospital nurse later spoke out to reporters about the testing. She reported that children would immediately get sick, break out or throw up during the testing.

They were orphans at the Incarnation Children’s Center in New York City.

On Tuesday The Gateway Pundit reported on Dr. Fauci’s torture and medical murder of at least 85 orphan minority children in New York, children who were vulnerable, could not consent, and who would not be missed.

Ann Rosen at LifeSiteNews wrote a good recap of Fauci’s crimes against children earlier this month.

These children were buried in mass graves at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery in Hawthorne, NY in Westchester County and otherwise forgotten.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says that Anthony Fauci is America’s Joseph Mengele for what he did to poor orphan minority kids in the 1980’s.

These extreme claims are the subject of a new book by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., called “The Real Anthony Fauci.” In Chapter 7, the Kennedy heir lays out “NIAID’s Barbaric and Illegal Experiments on Children”

Kennedy refers to Fauci as America’s homegrown Mengele.’

To be continued?

CNA Nursing Home Whistleblower: Seniors Are DYING LIKE FLIES After COVID Injections! SPEAK OUT!!!

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

James (he gives his last name in the video) is a CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant), and he recorded this video as a whistleblower because he could not keep silent any longer.

James reports that in 2020 very few residents in the nursing home where he works got sick with COVID, and none of them died during the entire year of 2020.

However, shortly after administering the Pfizer experimental mRNA injections, 14 died within two weeks, and he reports that many others are near death.

The video is long (47 minutes), and it is clear that James is suffering from emotional stress, and he admits that he has nothing to gain from going public, and that he will probably lose his job for doing so.

But he makes it very clear that these were patients he knew and cared for (he is also a “lay pastor”), and that after being injected with the mRNA shot, residents who used to walk on their own can no longer walk. Residents who used to carry on an intelligent conversation with him could no longer talk.

And now they are dying. “They’re dropping like flies.”

His superiors are explaining the deaths as being caused by a COVID19 “super-spreader.”

However, the residents who refused to take the injections, are not sick, according to James.

James makes it very clear that as a Christian, he cannot live with his conscience anymore, and that he can no longer remain silent.

He is not anti-vaccine, but just sharing what he knows is true, regarding the people he has cared for in his profession for over 10 years now.

This is a very clear pattern now. Inject the elderly with the mRNA injections, then blame their illnesses and deaths on the COVID virus.

The only reason Big Pharma and their sponsored corporate media are getting away with this, is because more healthcare workers like James are not coming forward to speak up for the helpless.

Even many in the Alternative Media are guilty for not covering this genocide against our seniors, as James states, because people are more concerned with Donald Trump and Joe Biden political news, while people’s grandmother, grandfather, and others are being killed by these injections.

James calls upon other CNAs, nurses, and family members to go public and tell the world what is going on with these experimental mRNA COVID injections.

How many more lives need to be lost before we say something?

If you know what is happening, but are not speaking out, then you are part of the problem.

And shame on you in the Alternative Media who are more concerned about which tyrant should be president than you are about covering the greatest crime of genocide this country has ever seen.

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? (Proverbs 24:11-12)

The video is from our Minds.com account. It should also soon be available on our Bitchute channel, and Rumble account. (Still rendering at time of publication.)

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

James (he gives his last name in the video) is a CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant), and he recorded this video as a whistleblower because he could not keep silent any longer.

James reports that in 2020 very few residents in the nursing home where he works got sick with COVID, and none of them died during the entire year of 2020.

However, shortly after administering the Pfizer experimental mRNA injections, 14 died within two weeks, and he reports that many others are near death.

The video is long (47 minutes), and it is clear that James is suffering from emotional stress, and he admits that he has nothing to gain from going public, and that he will probably lose his job for doing so.

But he makes it very clear that these were patients he knew and cared for (he is also a “lay pastor”), and that after being injected with the mRNA shot, residents who used to walk on their own can no longer walk. Residents who used to carry on an intelligent conversation with him could no longer talk.

And now they are dying. “They’re dropping like flies.”

His superiors are explaining the deaths as being caused by a COVID19 “super-spreader.”

However, the residents who refused to take the injections, are not sick, according to James.

James makes it very clear that as a Christian, he cannot live with his conscience anymore, and that he can no longer remain silent.

He is not anti-vaccine, but just sharing what he knows is true, regarding the people he has cared for in his profession for over 10 years now.

This is a very clear pattern now. Inject the elderly with the mRNA injections, then blame their illnesses and deaths on the COVID virus.

The only reason Big Pharma and their sponsored corporate media are getting away with this, is because more healthcare workers like James are not coming forward to speak up for the helpless.

Even many in the Alternative Media are guilty for not covering this genocide against our seniors, as James states, because people are more concerned with Donald Trump and Joe Biden political news, while people’s grandmother, grandfather, and others are being killed by these injections.

James calls upon other CNAs, nurses, and family members to go public and tell the world what is going on with these experimental mRNA COVID injections.

How many more lives need to be lost before we say something?

If you know what is happening, but are not speaking out, then you are part of the problem.

And shame on you in the Alternative Media who are more concerned about which tyrant should be president than you are about covering the greatest crime of genocide this country has ever seen.

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? (Proverbs 24:11-12)

The video is from our Minds.com account. It should also soon be available on our Bitchute channel, and Rumble account. (Still rendering at time of publication.)

https://www.minds.com/embed/1200901313511268400

Experimental COVID Vaccines: Largest Propaganda Campaign Ever Launched On The Public?

Daily we hear and observe a stream of endless propaganda about the miracles of the new generation of Covid vaccines in order to calm fears and increase public compliance.

In unison, editors at the New York Times, Washington Post and the major multimedia networks encourage everyone to be vaccinated as soon as enough vaccines are available.

Anthony Fauci and the captains in the pandemic efforts claim Moderna’s and Pfizer’s vaccines are about 95 percent effective, and the Department of Health and Human Services is convincing us they are safe and effective.

Therefore, we should all be willing to stand in the waiting line.

There is nothing to be concerned about, we are told, except those anti-vaccine heretics, who the World Health Organization has now dubbed among the ten most dangerous risks to global health.

What The Media Blitzkrieg Is Ignoring Are The Very Legitimate And Even Worrisome Unanswered Questions
What the media blitzkrieg is ignoring are the very legitimate and even worrisome unanswered questions on the minds of many citizens.

Aside from concerns over these vaccines’ uncertainties for effectiveness and safety due to quickly being fast-tracked past the usual regulatory analyses and reviews, Moderna’s and Pfizer’s vaccines are largely experimental.

Never before has an mRNA vaccine been distributed en masse to tens of millions of people.

Other suspicions include:

1) the length of time neutralizing antibodies are effective before immunity wanes,
2) what kind of protection the vaccines will actually offer,
3) does the data truly support Moderna and Pfizer claims that their vaccines are 95 percent effective,
4) are vaccine recipients protected from contracting the virus, and if not, can they transmit it to others, and
5) the absence of long-term safety profiles following vaccination that are still pending.

The Pfizer Phase 3 trial lasted less than 4 months. Moderna only completed its COVE trial enrollment on October 22; now two months later people are receiving the vaccine.

Therefore, insufficient time has lapsed to make any realistic clinical determination about either vaccine’s safety following months after vaccination.

Yet despite these questions, over half of Americans believe that being vaccinated will provide complete immunity from infection and therefore their lives will return to normal.

New Discrimination Against Unvaccinated?
Now the most recent narrative we are witnessing is stoking public fear that unless we are vaccinated we will be unable to board a plane or train, will be prevented from attending schools or public events, and may even become victims to more austere and harsh quarantine laws.

There is also the lingering myth of the PCR test as a reliable standard for diagnosing Covid infections.

Due to the widespread abuse of PCR, which was never designed nor intended to be relied upon as a confirmatory diagnostic tool, a growing number of medical experts argue that the US, the UK, Germany and other EU nations are facing a “casedemic” rather than a pandemic due to a pathogenic virus.

Despite PCR’s high rate of misdiagnoses, positive results are still being reported as Covid cases.

How Much Protection Will The New MRNA Covid Vaccines Provide And For How Long?
In early December, the New England Journal of Medicine published a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease analysis of the Moderna vaccine’s length of efficacy based upon neutralizing antibody levels.

This was the first data published of its kind for any of the Covid vaccines.

Although the analysis only included 34 individuals who had received both shots, it found that antibody counts were significant over a 3-month period, averaging between 50-75 percent.

The report stated this was “less than we were hoping for.”

The rate of antibody decline increased among the older trial participants.

This disappointing result should not be a surprise, although even a sharp drop in antibodies may still provide sufficient immunity, at least for some.

The most recent issue of the British Medical Journal reports that natural immunity following infection lasts approximately 6 months.

Yet this study conducted by Oxford University Hospitals likely has serious flaws since it relied upon PCR for diagnosing the data.

Furthermore, Moderna has also been using its mRNA technology for vaccines against several influenza strains.

A similar pattern of antibody decline was noted in their flu vaccines, showing effectiveness for about 6 months and then an antibody drop by as much 90 percent.

So how much protection will the new mRNA Covid vaccines provide and for how long? Only time and further monitoring of vaccine recipients will tell.

Can One Still Be Infected After Vaccination And Can They Transmit The Virus To Others?
Another important question on people’s minds is whether they can still be infected after vaccination and whether they can transmit the virus to others.

In principle, vaccine proponents argue that vaccines prevent both infection and transmission.

But the data does not support this conclusion.

It is well known that persons vaccinated against the flu will frequently contract the virus, become ill and spread it to others.

This is largely because we are dealing with viruses that enter the upper respiratory tract by way of the mucous layer in the nose and throat.

Mucous itself slows down the spread of the virus to the lungs.

However, it is also an obstacle for antibodies and immune cells, such as T-cells, from reaching the multiplying virus.

For this reason, Anthony Fauci has continued to state that vaccinated persons should continue to wear masks and observe social distancing to avoid transmitting the virus.

The World Health Organization has stated that there is no “evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on.”

95 Percent Efficacy?
Back in October, Dr. Peter Doshi, at the time an editor for the British Medical Journal, had already warned that the later vaccine clinical trials were never properly designed to determine whether it would reduce the likelihood of falling ill nor preventing infection.

In a later article Doshi questions the vaccines’ purported 95 percent efficacy based upon how the results are being reported and the ambiguity between “suspected” and “confirmed” Covid cases among the trial participants who received the vaccine.

If the “suspected” cases are included, there is a 20-fold higher number of vaccinated individuals who later contracted the virus.

However, Doshi reminds us that neither Pfizer nor Moderna have provided the raw data for public scrutiny.

Moderna says it will make the data available after the trial is completed, which will be in 2022.

Repeatedly Bill Gates, Fauci and all of the media pundits tell us that unless there is large vaccination compliance, the transmission of Covid will never be interrupted.

However, based upon what we are learning, these new Covid vaccines have always been and remain an unsupported illusion to realistically end the pandemic.

Another important piece of information that is very rarely mentioned is Covid-19’s 4-5 day incubation period. In the event a person is asymptomatically infected with the virus, the CDC states:

mRNA vaccines are not currently recommended for outbreak management or for post-exposure prophylaxis, which is vaccination to prevent the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a person with a specific known exposure.

“Because the median incubation period of SARS-CoV-2 is 4 to 5 days, it is unlikely that the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine would provide an adequate immune response within the incubation period for effective post-exposure prophylaxis. Thus, vaccination is unlikely to be effective in preventing disease following an exposure.”

Reports are already coming in to confirm this.

Recently, hundreds of Israelis became infected with the virus after receiving Pfizer’s Covid vaccine. There may be several reasons for this.

First, were the vaccine recipients already carrying the virus at the time of vaccination?

Second, it takes 8-10 days for immunity to sufficiently increase after receiving the vaccine, and after the first dose there is only about 50 percent efficacy.

This is why the second shot for the mRNA vaccines is so critical in order to reach the magical 95 percent effectiveness.

Serious Adverse Effects
Now that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are being administered throughout the US – 4.6 million recipients since January 4th – and in other nations, we are beginning to read reports about serious adverse effects.

Recently Covid vaccine injuries have started to be reported in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

During a seven-day period, December 15-22, there were 1,158 cases entered. However, this is but a fraction, albeit significant, of the actual number of adverse events.

On December 19, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices convened to review the cases of life-threatening anaphylaxis following mRNA vaccination.


In his presentation to the Working Group, Dr. Thomas Clark presented statistics showing that there was a minimum of 3,150 “health impact events” among 112,807 vaccine recipients (2.7 percent) during only a five-day period (December 14-18).

Moreover, these 3,150 adverse events were tagged as “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from a doctor or health care professional.”

The presentation did not include the number of minor and moderate adverse events which are likely much higher.

Reproductive Issues?
In early October we reported on Covid-19 vaccine risks stated by Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, the former chair of microbiology at the University of Mainz Medical School in Germany.

Among those risks is the possibility of the vaccine’s mRNA contributing to mutogenesis in reproductive cells that may be inherited later by children.

Subsequently, the University of Miami has reported it is following up on its earlier discovery of the virus present in men’s testicles up to six months after infection.

Now the researchers are investigating whether the vaccine’s Covid genetic information may do likewise and interfere with sperm quality and reproduction.

What About The Precautionary Principle?
The final question is why are we failing to discuss, let alone adhere, to the precautionary principle before this massive undertaking to produce and distribute potentially billions of vaccines to inoculate the global population?

The precautionary principle quite simply states that any new medical intervention with results that are either disputed or unknown should be avoided.

In fact, the principle has frequently been invoked for products or processes that would introduce genetically modified organisms or foods for consumption.

Now we are injecting questionable genetically engineered substances into human bodies, and worse there are voices that want to mandate this enormously expensive experiment long before any reliable medical consensus can be reached on their long-term safety.

If the precautionary principle had been respected and honored during the past 100 years, the US would have prevented untold numbers of life-long injuries and deaths due to the public
If the precautionary principle had been respected and honored during the past 100 years, the US would have prevented untold numbers of life-long injuries and deaths due to the public advertising of smoking, asbestos and DDT poisoning, synthetic hormone replacement, toxic pesticides such as Monsanto’s glyphosate, AZT during the early part of the AIDS epidemic, and the swine flu and Gardasil vaccines that were also rushed to market without proper scientific oversight.

The US Government Has An Atrocious Track Record For Introducing Toxic Chemicals To The American Public Then Denying All Responsibility For Their Adverse Effects
The US government has an atrocious track record for introducing toxic chemicals to the American public then denying all responsibility for their adverse effects and the indescribable suffering that their shortsightedness has caused.

It is only well after the tragedy gains some public attention that a whistleblower or someone “in the know” comes forward to reveal the wrongdoings and corruption behind the companies developing these toxic products.

And how often do we find the government, the regulatory agencies and mainstream media being the primary source to expose these felonies? Rarely ever.

Even when protective laws are enacted, such as the Clean Air, Food, Water and Energy acts, corporate lobbyists and big money apply their trade to buy off legislators and heads of federal agencies to gradually scrub away these laws’ safeguards.

This is part of the corporate cancel culture to erase our protections.

Today’s largest propaganda campaign

These trends that have become ingrained into the government’s politick have led to today’s largest propaganda campaign in the country’s history and is now orchestrated by the CDC and NIH in collusion with the pharmaceutical industrial complex, Bill Gates, many of our leading corporate-funded medical schools and institutions and across the ideological spectrum of the media.

All are heavily invested in the new generations of Covid vaccines and whatever new novel drugs in the pipeline and to invalidate the highly effective and cheap drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine and invermectin, that have been proven to treat Covid infections quickly and safety.

This is the same artifice of corporate scoundrels and their media escorts that have relied on faulty science, fabricate their own research to serve their financial interests, and hide behind a cloak of non-transparency who Fauci now encourages us to openheartedly trust as Covid vaccines reach your local clinics and downtown pharmacies.

Sadly their past track records of colluding and showing favoritism to private interests over public health should top the list of our worries.

Whatever the long term consequences from this massive vaccination campaign, praise, condemnation or even criminal accusations will ultimately rest upon the shoulders of our nation’s Anthony Fauci-s, Bill Gates and Moncef-s.

University Of Miami COVID-19 Researchers: ‘To Protect Fertility, Some Men May Want To Consider Freezing Their Sperm Prior To Vaccination’

Researcher at the University of Miami have recommended men to have a fertility evaluation before receiving the COVID vaccine and to consider to freeze their sperm before vaccination in order to protect their fertility.

The University of Miami is investigating the possible effects of the coronavirus vaccine on male fertility.

Lead researcher Dr. Ranjith Ramasamy, a reproductive urologist with U Health, initiated an earlier study which found the virus was present in the testicles for up to six months following infection.

That spurred his team to question the virus’ effect on sperm and reproduction. His team is now looking at the potential impact of the vaccine as well.

He said that study participants must have a fertility evaluation before receiving the vaccine. To protect fertility, some men may want to consider freezing their sperm prior to vaccination.
https://twitter.com/michellemalkin/status/1342189503016923136/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1342189862728953856%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhumansarefree.com%2F2020%2F12%2Funiversity-of-miami-covid-19-researchers-protect-fertility-men-freezing-their-sperm-prior-to-vaccination.html

We’re evaluating the sperm parameters and quality before the vaccine and after the vaccine. From the biology of the COVID vaccine we believe it shouldn’t affect fertility but we want to do the study to make sure that man who want to have kids in the future to assure them it’s safe to go ahead and get the vaccine,” Ramasamy said.

According to ex-Pfizer CSO, Dr. Mike Yeadon, and his colleague, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, women’s fertility could also be affected: New MRNA Vaccines Could Cause Immune Cells To Attack Placenta Cells, Causing Female Infertility, Miscarriage Or Birth Defects.

Earlier this month, we learned that hospitals were worried that vaccine side effects might cause staff shortages.

And it appears that their worries were warranted. According to a CDC report, 3,150 people who were administered the COVID-19 vaccine [were rendered] “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work and required care from doctor or health care professional.”

As GreatGameIndia reported, a group of researchers in the The Lancet medical journal has warned that Covid-19 vaccines currently in development could increase the risk of acquiring HIV potentially leading to an increase in infections.

Recently Australia scrapped a billion dollar coronavirus vaccine agreement after several trial participants tested HIV positive.

Source: GreatGameIndia.com

The Study The CDC Refused To Do: Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated

COVID-19 has reignited the vaccine debate worldwide as significant portions of the population express their unwillingness or hesitancy to take the experimental vaccine.

A vaccine that was developed in record time with rolled back regulations, limited oversight, as well as a limited scope in the safety trials.

The vaccine manufacturers conducting the trials carefully screened potential volunteers, and carefully selected candidates to help them ensure a passing grade for government regulators and then mass distribution.

The Study The Cdc Refused To Do Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated

In this interview, Spiro is joined by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler who recently co-authored a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

A study the CDC has refused to perform despite four different congressional bills which would have obligated them to conduct. All four bills failed.

The fact that all four bills failed may not come as a surprise, considering Big Pharma is the largest lobby in DC. But the key findings of the study, may indeed surprise you.

The study was independently conducted, peer reviewed and publicly funded.

Source: YouTube.com. BitChute version is available here as a back-up if the fascists at YouTube take down the above video.

The Great Reset: Elites Pushing Globalism And Fascism Under A New World Order

We were told initially that the premise for lockdown was to ‘flatten the curve’ and therefore protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.

It is clear that at no point was the National Health Service (NHS) in any danger of being overwhelmed, and since May 2020 covid wards have been largely empty; and crucially the death toll from covid has remained extremely low.

We now have hundreds of thousands of so-called ‘cases’, ‘infections’ and ‘positive tests’ but hardly any sick people. Recall that four-fifths (80%) of ‘infections’ are asymptomatic Covid wards have been by and large empty throughout June, July, August, and September 2020.

Most importantly covid deaths are at an all-time low. It is clear that these ‘cases’ are in fact not ‘cases’ but rather they are normal healthy people.

So-called asymptomatic cases have never in the history of respiratory disease been the driver for the spread of infection. Rather it is symptomatic people who spread respiratory infections – not asymptomatic people.

It is also abundantly clear that the ‘pandemic’ is basically over and has been since June 2020.

We have very highly likely reached herd immunity and therefore have no need for a vaccine.

We have safe and very effective treatments and preventative treatments for covid, we, therefore, call for an immediate end to all lockdown measures, social distancing, mask-wearing, testing of healthy individuals, track and trace, immunity passports, the vaccination program, and so on.

There has been a catalog of unscientific, non-sensical policies enacted which infringe our inalienable rights, such as – freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. These draconian totalitarian measures must never be repeated.

The Great Reset IS the New World Order

https://youtu.be/hB8srK9jT24

Ultimate Proof: Covid-19 Was Planned To Usher In The New World Order
LOCKDOWN
Covid has proved less deadly than previous influenza seasons – There were 50,100 flu deaths from December 2017 to March 2018 in England and Wales. There were 80,000 flu deaths in 1969. To date, we have circa 42,000 covid related deaths in the UK.
We have never locked down society for a respiratory virus before.
The basis for the lockdown was a mathematical model by Professor Neil Ferguson. His modeling which predicted half a million deaths in the UK has been roundly condemned as being not fit for purpose. His estimated death figures were clearly wrong by a factor of 10 or 12 times.
Professor Ferguson’s modeling was not even peer-reviewed before being acted upon by several nations. Eminent epidemiologists such as Professor Gupta from Oxford University were ignored, they estimated the death count would be far lower in the UK.
Professor Ferguson has a long track record of woeful modeling he was entirely wrong about sars, mers, mad cow’s disease (CJD), and swine flu. Why did the world listen to him again?
Countries that did not lock down Sweden, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Belarus have all done significantly better than us in terms of the percentage of population deaths. They also have herd immunity and intact economies.

Lockdown did not save lives, and this has been published in the Lancet ‘….in our analysis, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.’
The vast majority of deaths occurred in elderly and very elderly people
The vast majority of deaths occurred in people with severe pre-existing health issues such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s, diabetes etc.
Covid poses virtually zero risks to the under 45’s who have more chance of being struck by lightning than dying from covid.
Covid poses a very small risk for healthy under 60-year-olds who have a greater chance of accidental drowning than dying from covid.
The entire nation was essentially placed under house arrest. We have never isolated the healthy before.
Isolating the sick and those who are immunocompromised makes sense. Isolating the healthy has hampered the establishment of herd immunity and makes no sense.
To put it into perspective we had 115,000 smoking related deaths in the UK in 2015 compared to the 42,000 deaths from covid.
We usually have around 600,000 deaths every year in the UK, roughly 1600 deaths per day.
COLLATERAL DAMAGE THE CURE IS WORSE THAN THE VIRUS
Placing the public under virtual house arrest has caused untold damage to both physical and mental health.
Ventilating patients instead of oxygenating patients proved to be a deadly policy and an unwarranted failure. Ventilation resulted in many unnecessary deaths.
Sending infected people from hospitals to care homes placed the elderly and frail under unnecessary risk and resulted in many unnecessary deaths.
Blanket Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders were imposed on thousands of people without their consent nor the consent of their families – this is both unlawful and immoral and leads to unnecessary deaths in care homes.
Hospitals became essentially ‘covid only’ centers vast numbers of patients were wilfully neglected, resulting in many thousands of unnecessary deaths.
The government’s own report estimates that some two hundred thousand (200,000) people will die as a direct result of lockdown – not the virus. Hospitals being closed, suicide and poverty will result in more deaths than the virus.
The cure is worse than the disease!

DEATH CERTIFICATES
The majority of people who died had significant comorbidities, such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.
Counting death certificates with a ‘mention’ of covid as being a death caused by covid is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and has vastly over-exaggerated the death toll.
The rules for the signing of death certificates have been changed solely for covid by the Coronavirus 2020 Act.
Doctors do not even need to have physically seen the patient in order to sign death certificates.
The Act has removed the need for a confirmatory medical certificate for cremations.
Autopsies have virtually been banned, no doubt leading to misdiagnosis of the true cause of deaths, and also reducing our understanding of the disease itself.
Worse still, care home staff who largely have no medical training are able to give a statement as to the cause of death.
Covid was put on death certificates merely on the ‘suspicion’ of people having covid. This may well be unlawful since it is a crime to falsify death certificates.
People who die within 28 days of a positive PCR test are deemed to have died from covid, even if they die in a car crash or from a heart attack; clearly over-inflating the death toll
ECONOMIC RUIN
Reports now estimate that as many as six and a half million (6,500,000) people in the UK will lose their jobs as a result of lockdown.
It is well known that poverty directly adversely affects health, we can expect to see many people suffering from poor health and resulting in many premature deaths, as a direct result of lockdown.
CENSORSHIP
The government has acted maliciously in censoring doctors, nurses, and NHS staff. The people have the perfect right to hear what is going on in hospitals, and the medical profession has a duty to look after the public and to reassure them.
The medical profession has not been allowed to let the public know that covid wards have been empty for months, nor that covid deaths have reached an all-time low for months, and this has unnecessarily added to the public’s distress and anxiety.
Doctors and scientists with views that differ from the government narrative have had their videos and articles removed from the internet
TESTING – FALSE POSITIVES
PCR tests cannot be verified for accuracy as there is no ‘gold standard’ against which to check them. The virus has not been purified.
PCR tests cannot detect viral loads and are prone to false positives.
A positive PCR test does not mean that an individual is infected nor infective.
In fact, approximately 90% of the PCR positive ‘cases’ are false positives. We, therefore, have no second wave and no pandemic.
The government’s report estimates a false positive rate of between 0.8 to 4.0 % using data from other viral infections – not from covid
Viral fragments may remain in people’s bodies for several weeks following recovery from infection.
The crisis will never end if we are waiting for zero positive tests. Everyone has probably had a cold caused by a coronavirus and will likely have a few viral fragments matching those of the cousin SARS-CoV-2 virus
Testing healthy asymptomatic individuals is non-sensical, unscientific and a colossal waste of money. The government’s moon shot daily testing program will cost £100 Billion roughly two-thirds of the annual NHS budget.
Antibody testing is not the gold standard as many people have T-cell immunity, and antibodies may not circulate following recovery from infection.


HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE

The controversial drug Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been unfairly smeared, by the WHO, CDC, NIH, and the media.
However HCQ has very firm support from, amongst others: Professor Harvey Risch epidemiologist from Yale, The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), American Frontline Doctors, the Henry Ford Health System, and Professor Didier Raoult microbiologist and infectious disease specialist – to name but a few.
The Lancet was even forced to retract a study on HCQ after it was revealed by the Guardian newspaper that they had been completely fabricated and written by a sci-fi writer and a porn star. Even following this astounding revelation HCQ was still banned in most countries.
HCQ according to AAPS has a ninety percent (90%) cure rate when given early and alongside zinc
HCQ is safer than many over the counter drugs such as aspirin, Benadryl, and Tylenol.
The AAPS also points out that there has never been a vaccine as safe as HCQ.
HCQ has been licensed for over sixty years and has been safely used by billions of people worldwide. There is a very small risk of arrhythmia which is easily monitored.
Why was HCQ banned then? Could it be that there are no huge profits to be made from this out-of-patent drug?
HCQ was used to great effect in the Sars1 outbreak of 2005
In short, had HCQ been available then there would not have been a pandemic!


PREVENTION

Preventative measures such as hydroxychloroquine or vitamin D, vitamin C, and zinc should have been recommended for the public.
Early calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D) treatment to hospitalized COVID-19 patients significantly reduced intensive care unit admissions
Vit D reduces the severity of covid.
Voluntary isolation of the frail – should they so choose; in combination with preventative measures would have been a far better strategy. The rest of society could and should have continued as normal.


VACCINE

A rushed vaccine is clearly not in the public’s best interest
Indemnifying vaccine manufacturers against all liability is also clearly not in the public’s best interest

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Chief Scientific Officer Sir Patrick Vallance has £600,000 worth of shares in GSK Glaxo Smith Klein. He has in recent years sold £5 million of shares in GSK which he ‘earned’ whilst chief of GSK
Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer UK, accepted over £30 million in funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to study malaria vaccines.
It has become clear that members of SAGE, Public Health England (PHE), World Health Organisation (WHO), Centre for Disease Control (CDC), National Institute for Health (NIH), etc have many conflicts of interest. They all accept very large ‘donations’ from the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry. These conflicts of interests may well have effectively corrupted their integrity.
It is also clear that governments are heavily lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry and the vaccine industry, again this may have compromised their integrity.


CUI BONO? WHO BENEFITS?


Vaccine manufacturers will make trillions from this, as will track and trace manufacturers, and the pharmaceutical industry stand to make trillions from covid testing.
Prime minister Boris Johnson announced the new ‘moon shot’ testing will cost £100 Billion, approximately two thirds of the annual NHS budget.
Surely these vast sums would be far better spent on treating all of the neglected patients who have been wilfully neglected during lockdown and who now face huge waiting lists.


CONCLUSIONS

We have effective and safe treatments and preventative medications for covid, therefore there is no need for any lockdown restrictions and associated measures. The pandemic is essentially over as can be seen by the consistent low death rate and hospital admissions over the past four months.

We demand the immediate and permanent ceasing of all lockdown measures.

Lockdowns do not save lives, that is why they have never been used before. Civil liberties and fundamental freedoms have been unnecessarily removed from the public and this must never happen again.

Preventative measures such as Hydroxychloroquine, vitamin C, Vitamin D and zinc must be made readily available to the public.

Isolation must be voluntary. People are perfectly capable of making their own assessment of the risks and must be free to go about their lives as they so choose. People must have the right to choose whether to isolate or not.

Likewise, businesses must have the right to remain open if they so choose.

We demand that doctors, nurses, scientists and healthcare professionals must be permitted free speech and never be censored again.

Professor Mark Woolhouse epidemiologist and specialist in infectious diseases, Edinburgh University Member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours, that advises the Government stated that –

‘…Lockdown was a monumental disaster on a global scale. The cure was worse than the disease.’

‘I never want to see national lockdown again. It was always a temporary measure that simply delayed the stage of the epidemic we see now. It was never going to change anything fundamentally, however low we drove down the number of cases,’

‘We absolutely should never return to a position where children cannot play or go to school.’

I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by Covid-19.’

The World Doctors Alliance agree fully with Prof Woolhouse’s assertions, he is right! We must never lockdown again!

Lockdowns And Social Distancing: SUICIDE Claimed More Lives In October Than 10 Months Of COVID-19 In Japan

Early in the coronavirus pandemic, scientists warned that economic lockdowns could cause serious mental health repercussions.

“Secondary consequences of social distancing may increase the risk of suicide,” researchers noted in an April 10 paper published by the American Medical Association. “It is important to consider changes in a variety of economic, psycho-social, and health-associated risk factors.”

Japan Lockdowns Empty Streets

Also read: U.S. Professors Say Lockdowns ‘Had Little Effect On The Spread Of The Coronavirus’

Essentially, researchers warned, forced isolation could prove to be “a perfect storm” for suicide.

Seven months later, new evidence is emerging to suggest these researchers were right.

“Far more Japanese people are dying of suicide, likely exacerbated by the economic and social repercussions of the pandemic, than of the COVID-19 disease itself,” CBS News reports.

“While Japan has managed its coronavirus epidemic far better than many nations, keeping deaths below 2,000 nationwide, provisional statistics from the National Police Agency show suicides surged to 2,153 in October alone, marking the fourth straight month of increase.”

For years in Japan, suicides had been on the decline. But the arrival of COVID-19 and strict regulations designed to curb transmission of the virus have changed that trend.

The 2,153 suicides reported last month are about 600 more than the previous year, CBS reports, with the largest gains coming in women, who saw an 80 percent surge in suicide.

“We need to seriously confront reality,” said Katsunobu Kato, Japan’s chief government spokesman, adding that new efforts to counsel potential victims are being made.

Unlike Japan, the United States has yet to publish national figures on suicide. But anecdotal evidence suggests the US might be struggling with its own suicide epidemic.

Prior to the arrival of the coronavirus, suicide was the tenth leading cause of death in America, claiming between 42,000 and 49,000 lives annually in recent years.

Though we don’t yet know what 2020’s toll will be, surveys show more than half of Americans say they’ve suffered mentally during the pandemic, which has seen the widespread use of lockdowns and social isolation to combat the virus.

Meanwhile, some localities have reported sharp upticks in suicide.

These include Dane County, Wisconsin — the second largest county in the Badger State — which saw suicides in young people nearly double so far in 2020, as well John Muir Medical Center, a health care service headquartered in Walnut Creek, California, which in May reported an “unprecedented” surge in suicide.

“We’ve never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time,” Dr. Michael deBoisblanc told an ABC affiliate.

“I mean we’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.” (Some studies have shown relatively stable suicide rates, it should be pointed out.)

We don’t yet know what the final toll of suicides in the US will be, but the sad truth is the US may very well see an increase similar to that of Japan.

As the researchers cited at the beginning of this article observed in their study, social isolation is closely linked to suicide.

“Leading theories of suicide emphasize the key role that social connections play in suicide prevention. Individuals experiencing suicidal ideation may lack connections to other people and often disconnect from others as suicide risk rises,” the researchers noted.

“Suicidal thoughts and behaviors are associated with social isolation and loneliness.”

This is one of the many reasons that sweeping interventions that enforce social distancing are so dangerous. Unfortunately, human connection is nothing that can be achieved through phone calls and Zoom meetings, at least not in the same way.

Moreover, an abundance of research shows that suicide is not the only deadly consequence of social isolation.

As The New York Times reported in 2016, social isolation adversely affects human health in myriad ways.

A wave of new research suggests social separation is bad for us. Individuals with less social connection have disruptedsleep patterns, alteredimmune systems, moreinflammation and higher levels ofstress hormones.One recent study found that isolation increases the risk of heart disease by 29 percent and stroke by 32 percent.

Another analysis that pooled data from 70 studies and 3.4 million people found that socially isolated individuals had a 30 percent higher risk of dying in the next seven years, and that this effect was largest in middle age.

Loneliness canaccelerate cognitive decline in older adults, and isolated individuals aretwice as likely to die prematurely as those with more robust social interactions.

These effects start early:Socially isolated children have significantly poorer health 20 years later, even after controlling for other factors. All told, loneliness is as important a risk factor for early death as obesity and smoking.

Policy makers who continue to push lockdowns as a serious solution to the coronavirus choose to ignore these realities, the same way we’ve seen the catastrophic economic effects of the lockdowns overlooked.

These unintended consequences are too serious to ignore, however. Lockdowns come with serious costs to mental health and threaten to thrust tens of millions of people into extreme poverty.

Meanwhile, the actual benefits of the lockdowns remain elusive.

It’s time that policymakers owned up to an inconvenient truth: their policies cannot save lives, they can only trade lives, as economist Ant Davies and political scientist James Harrigan noted early in the pandemic.

In times of crisis, people want someone to do something, and don’t want to hear about tradeoffs. This is the breeding ground for grand policies driven by the mantra, “if it saves just one life.”

New York Governor Andrew Cuomoinvoked the mantra to defend his closure policies. The mantra has echoed across the country fromcounty councils tomayors toschool boards topolice toclergy as justification for closures, curfews, and enforced social distancing.

Rational people understand this isn’t how the world works. Regardless of whether we acknowledge them, tradeoffs exist.

This is an economic reality. What’s tragic is that the tradeoffs increasingly look worse and worse, despite the refusal of many politicians and experts to acknowledge it.

DC Bill Will Allow Kids As Young As 11 To Be Vaccinated Without Parental Knowledge Or Consent

On Oct. 7, 2020, during a hastily scheduled virtual meeting,1 four District of Columbia Council members making up the Health Committee2 amended and unanimously passed a minor consent bill, B23-0171.3

The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents’ knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated.

On Oct. 20, 2020,4 the entire DC Council voted in favor of the bill 12:15 on the first reading in yet another virtual online meeting6 with no public testimony.

11 Year Old Vaccine

It was announced that the second reading, which will be the final vote, will take place on Nov. 10, 2020.7

Committee Chair And Bill Sponsor Admit “Imminent” COVID-19 Vaccine Is Reason For Sudden Push To Eliminate Parental Rights

NVIC issued an alert8 through the online NVIC Advocacy Portal when the bill had it’s first public hearing in June of 2019 advising opposition to the bill, which violated parental medical informed consent rights.

Testimony was taken,9 and NVIC submitted testimony against the bill.10 B23-0171 then sat for over a year untouched and unmoved.

In a revealing statement Vincent C. Gray (D-Ward 7), the chair of the DC Health Committee which passed the bill, explained why the bill was all suddenly being revived and pushed through so quickly.

Gray was quoted in The Washington Post as saying, “the hope of an imminent corona­virus vaccine gave the bill new urgency.”11

Primary sponsor of this bill, DC Council Member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), emphasized that coronavirus vaccines were her the main reason why she wants to remove parents from the process of vaccinating children. Advocating for passage of her bill, she stated:

“And given our ongoing pandemic and the incredible work being done to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, it’s more important than ever I think that we reduce any and all barriers to these treatments and this legislation aims to do just that by increasing access to vaccines for minors who choose to get vaccinated but have not been able to do so.”12

If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents’ back once it is available and added by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to the childhood vaccine schedule recommended by the U,S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Violation Of The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act And Parental Rights

B23-0171 permits minor children 11 years and older to consent to any vaccine recommended by ACIP without a parent’s knowledge or consent (bill lines 27-30).

Federal legislative history provides evidence that Congress never intended for a minor child to make decisions to get a vaccine without parents’ knowledge or consent.

When the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 198613 was passed, the Act clearly stated that before the administration of vaccines14 to a child, a health care provider shall give a copy of the CDC’s vaccine information materials to the, “parent or legal representative of any child to whom the provider intends to administer such vaccine…”

The CDC confirms that there is a requirement that their Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) is provided to the parent/legal guardian prior to vaccination of a minor child on their VIS Q&A page.15

Under the question, “Is there a requirement to verify that parents/legal representatives have actually received and reviewed the VIS,” the answer is a clear “YES”.

These requirements under federal law for a parent to be educated with CDC materials prior to their minor child being vaccinated will not be met if a child is allowed to make these decisions on their own.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the right of parents to be an active and integral part of their children’s lives as “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the Supreme] Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000)16

B23-0171 Endangers The Health And Well Being Of Children

A minor child is far less likely than an adult parent to understand personal and family medical history, including vaccine reactions, allergies, and autoimmune or neurological disorders.

Children do not have the same kind of critical thinking skills or emotional maturity required to make a well-informed vaccine benefit-risk decision compared to an adult.

Vaccines can cause injury and death as evidenced by the creation of a federally operated Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which has paid out over $4.4 billion dollars to vaccine victims.17

If a child consents to vaccination without their parent knowledge and has a reaction, the parent may not recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and the reason for their child’s sudden personality change and decline in physical, mental or emotional health, and this lack of knowledge could be life threatening for the child.

The parent’s lack of knowledge about the fact that their child was given vaccines that carry a risk of injury or death may well prevent the parent from seeking immediate medical care.

Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act18 Congress gave partial liability protection to vaccine manufacturers in 1986 and then added an amendment giving vaccine administrators liability protection from vaccine injury lawsuits in 1987.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court judges in Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth et al19 affirmed that government licensed and recommended childhood vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe” and effectively removed all remaining liability from vaccine manufacturers.

Today, pharmaceutical companies making and selling vaccines and doctors and other vaccine administrators have no legal accountability or financial liability in civil court when a mandated vaccine causes permanent injury or death.

There is no justification for the state to eliminate a parent’s legal and moral right to make an informed benefit and risk decision about vaccination on behalf of a minor child, especially when doctors and other vaccine providers have no liability or accountability for what happens to the child after vaccination.

Violates Family Educational Rights And Privacy Act (FERPA)20

B23-0171 compels schools (bill lines 52-54) to conceal vaccine administration from parents, whose children give consent to receive vaccinations on their own, even when their parents have already declined one or more vaccines for health risk reasons or have filed a religious vaccine exemption.

FERPA, 34 CFR § 99.1021, guarantees parents the right to have access to their children’s education records. The definition of “education records” include health and vaccine records at the K-12 level22.

While B23-0171 blocks parents from getting access to their child’s vaccination status, the bill does permit schools to share the child’s vaccination record with the DC Department of Health or the school-based health center (bill lines 53-54).

This is also in conflict with FERPA because 34 CFR §99.30 requires prior written parental consent before personally identifiable information (PII) is disclosed to others and requires schools to provide copies of those records disclosed.23

While FERPA does allow for release of PII under the health and safety emergency exception, the release of information that personally identifies the student is extremely limited.24

Bill Conflicts With Religious Exemption, Requires Falsification Of Records

Section 5300.11 of the DC Municipal Regulations states:

“The immunization requirements subject to this Chapter, shall not apply to any student whose parent or guardian objects in writing to the immunization on grounds that the medical treatment or medical test is forbidden by their religion or religious beliefs and practices25.”

Granting vaccine providers the ability to vaccinate children in the absence of parental consent conflicts with the already codified religious exemption rights of parents.

There are other serious legal issues creating the potential for criminal violations and civil liability lawsuits: the bill requires vaccine providers and insurers to conceal the fact that the child was vaccinated and it requires the falsification of official medical records by vaccine administrators.

The bill (lines 37-41) requires providers to seek reimbursement from the parent’s insurance company but prohibits insurers from sending an Explanation of Benefits.

Lines 48-52 requires a health care provider to leave part of the immunization record blank concealing from the parent the fact that their own child was given vaccines.

DC Vaccine Bill Part Of The Dangerous Agenda To Remove Parents From Vaccination Decisions For Minor Children

Congress held two vaccine hearings on Feb. 2726 and Mar. 5, 2019.27 The hearings, which focused on vaccine hesitancy, pitted children against their parents.

Veteran vaccine safety and informed consent advocates with decades of experience, including time spent serving as consumer representatives on federal advisory committees, were denied the ability to testify.

However, a teenager, who had no expertise in the area of vaccine safety and law and whose only experience related to the subject being discussed was recently criticizing his mother on social media28 for not vaccinating him, was invited to testify.29

After the hearing, the mainstream media published multiple similar articles promoting the ill-conceived concept of doctors being given the power to convince minor children to receive vaccines without their parents’ consent, often quoting the teen’s testimony as justification for why parents should be cut out of the vaccination process for their minor children.30

Medical trade groups representing liability-free vaccine administrators also endorsed the concept of giving children liability free vaccines without parental consent.

Doctors, who are frustrated with having to spend time talking with educated parents about vaccines, have identified minor consent as a way to coerce children into consenting to vaccines on their own.

Pre-adolescents and teenagers are vulnerable to peer and authority-figure persuasion.

An opinion piece expressing support for removing parental informed consent rights was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 31 and the American Medical Association passed a resolution supporting state laws to allow minors to consent to vaccination.32

This coordinated effort resulted in 13 minor consent bills being introduced in state legislatures in 2019, and there was a big jump to 21 similar bills being introduced in 2020.

Legislators listened to parents and rejected a total of 33 minor consent bills filed in 2019 and 2020. The DC minor consent bill in is the only one moving.33

What Happens If The Bill Passes On November 10th?

If the bill passes a second reading in the City Council, it goes to the DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has up to 10 days to sign the bill, let it go into effect without her signature, or veto it.

If Mayor Bowser vetoes the bill, the City Council can override the veto by a two-thirds vote.

The final step before becoming law is the bill must be sent to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for a period of 30 days before becoming effective as law.

During this period of review, the U.S. Congress may enact into law a joint resolution disapproving and negating the legislation.

If, during the review period, the President of the United States approves a joint resolution by Congress disapproving the DC legislation, it will be prevented from becoming law.

If, however, upon the expiration of the congressional review period, no joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act has been approved by the President, the bill finally becomes a law and is assigned a law number.34

Litigation is also likely if the DC Council passes B23-0171.

In an Oct. 21, 2020 update by ParentalRights.org, “DC Council Would Discard Constitution, End Parents’ Rights,” Executive Director Michael Ramey asserts this bill is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and lays out existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent to back this up.

He says, “For nearly 100 years, consistent Supreme Court precedent has held that parents have both the duty and the right to direct the care, custody, and control of their minor children.”35

What Can People Do To Help Defeat This Legislation?

Families living or sending their children to school in the District of Columbia should contact all thirteen members of the DC Council36 and tell them to Vote NO on B23-0171 in the second and final reading.

Specific directions, talking points, and contact information is published in the alert on the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Everyone else can help get this information to people they know in DC. NVIC anticipates that there will be similar minor consent bills filed in other states in 2021.

Registered users of the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal will receive action alerts with talking points when vaccine related bills like this one are introduced in 2021 so they can take action in their own states to protect their informed consent rights.

By Dawn Richardson / References:

Advisory Committee on Immunization PracticesAmerican Medical AssociationB23-0171Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth et alCDCCenters for Disease Control and PreventioncoronavirusCOVID-19Dawn RichardsonDistrict of Columbia CouncilMary ChehNational Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986National Vaccine Information CenterNew England Journal of MedicineNVICNVIC Advocacy Portalpersonally identifiable informationPIIThe Vaccine ReactinThe Vaccine ReactionThe Washington PostTroxel v. GranvilleVaccine Information StatementVincent C. GrayVIS

A Doctor Has 100% Cure Rate For Over 1700 COVID Patients Using Hydroxychloroquine

While the media continues pushing hype around the coronavirus, actual medical experts say we already have the tools we need to combat the virus.

One America’s Pearson Sharp spoke with Brian Tyson, a doctor in Southern California who has successfully treated over 1,700 patients with the drug hydroxychloroquine.

Ca Doctor Has 100% Cure Rate For Over 1700 Covid Patients Using Hydroxychloroquine

Doctors on the “front lines” treating COVID patients continue to try and speak out regarding the fact that there is a 100% cure rate for COVID by using hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Brian Tyson from Southern California is one of the latest doctors to grant an interview talking about his experience in treating over 1700 COVID patients using hydroxychloroquine. None of his patients have died, and only one had to be admitted to the hospital.

This continues to be the biggest scandal of the COVID plandemic, and perhaps the largest scandal in medical history, where so many people are dying needlessly based on a positive COVID test and fear, as this information is censored in the corporate media as well as Big Tech social media platforms.

Even President Trump, who originally promoted hydroxychloroquine and allegedly was taking it himself, has now turned his back on the Front Line doctors who continue to successfully use hydroxychloroquine.

With his own alleged COVID diagnosis last week, President Trump instead chose to use and promote two new drugs that are being fast-tracked and are without a history of successful treatment yet.

Researchers: 100% Covid-19 Cure Rate Using Intravenous Chlorine Dioxide

Watch the interview on OAN:

‘Rogue’ Chinese Virologist Publishes ‘Smoking Gun’ Evidence COVID-19 Created In Lab

On Saturday we reported that Dr. Li-Meng Yan – a Chinese virologist (MD, PhD) who fled the country, leaving her job at a prestigious Hong Kong university – appeared last week on British television where she claimed SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, was created by Chinese scientists in a lab.

On Sunday, Li-Meng joined Twitter – and on Monday, just hours ago, she tweeted a link to a paper she co-authored with three other Chinese scientists titled:

Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route

Dr. Li Meng Yan

She also posted a link to her credentials on Research Gate, revealing her (prior?) affiliation with The University of Hong Kong and 13 publications which have been cited 557 times.

Cutting to the chase:

The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months.”

Here is the extended punchline:

The receptor-binding motif of SARS-CoV-2 Spike cannot be born from nature and should have been created through genetic engineering.

The Spike proteins decorate the exterior of the coronavirus particles. They play an important role in infection as they mediate the interaction with host cell receptors and thereby help determine the host range and tissue tropism of the virus.

The Spike protein is split into two halves (Figure 3). The front or N-terminal half is named S1, which is fully responsible for binding the host receptor.

In both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections, the host cell receptor is hACE2. Within S1, a segment of around 70 amino acids makes direct contacts with hACE2 and is correspondingly named the receptor-binding motif (RBM) (Figure 3C).

In SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, the RBM fully determines the interaction with hACE2. The C-terminal half of the Spike protein is named S2.

The main function of S2 includes maintaining trimer formation and, upon successive protease cleavages at the S1/S2 junction and a downstream S2’ position, mediating membrane fusion to enable cellular entry of the virus.

Coronavirus Lab Made

Similar to what is observed for other viral proteins, S2 of SARS-CoV-2 shares a high sequence identity (95%) with S2 of ZC45/ZXC21.

In stark contrast, between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21, the S1 protein, which dictates which host (human or bat) the virus can infect, is much less conserved with the amino acid sequence identity being only 69%.

Figure 4 shows the sequence alignment of the Spike proteins from six β coronaviruses. Two are viruses isolated from the current pandemic (Wuhan-Hu-1, 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1); two are the suspected template viruses (Bat_CoV_ZC45, Bat_CoV_ZXC21); two are SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GZ02, SARS).

The RBM is highlighted in between two orange lines.

Clearly, despite the high sequence identity for the overall genomes, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 differs significantly from those of ZC45 and ZXC21.

Intriguingly, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 resembles, on a great deal, the RBM of SARS Spike.

Although this is not an exact “copy and paste”, careful examination of the Spike-hACE2 structures37,38 reveals that all residues essential for either hACE2 binding or protein folding (orange sticks in Figure 3C and what is highlighted by red short lines in Figure 4) are “kept”.

Most of these essential residues are precisely preserved, including those involved in disulfide bond formation (C467, C474) and electrostatic interactions (R444, E452, R453, D454), which are pivotal for the structural integrity of the RBM (Figure 3C and 4).

The few changes within the group of essential residues are almost exclusively hydrophobic “substitutions” (I428àL, L443àF, F460àY, L472àF, Y484àQ), which should not affect either protein folding or the hACE2-interaction.

At the same time, majority of the amino acid residues that are non-essential have “mutated” (Figure 4, RBM residues not labeled with short red lines).

Judging from this sequence analysis alone, we were convinced early on that not only would the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein bind hACE2 but also the binding would resemble, precisely, that between the original SARS Spike protein and hACE223. Recent structural work has confirmed our prediction.

Yan Fig 2

As elaborated below, the way that SARS-CoV-2 RBM resembles SARS-CoV RBM and the overall sequence conservation pattern between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual.

Collectively, this suggests that portions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have not been derived from natural quasi-species viral particle evolution.

The paper then makes two critical observations for those who claim that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin: its RBM could have only been acquired in one of the two possible routes:

1) an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution or

2) a natural recombination event that occurred fairly recently.

She first dismisses option 1:

“this convergent evolution process would also result in the accumulation of a large amount of mutations in other parts of the genome, rendering the overall sequence identity relatively low.

“The high sequence identity between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 on various proteins (94-100% identity) do not support this scenario and, therefore, clearly indicates that SARS-CoV- 2 carrying such an RBM cannot come from a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus through this convergent evolutionary route.”

She then dismisses option 2:

In the second scenario, the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would have to have recently recombined and swapped its RBM with another coronavirus that had successfully adapted to bind an animal ACE2 highly homologous to hACE2.

The likelihood of such an event depends, in part, on the general requirements of natural recombination:

1) that the two different viruses share significant sequence similarity;

2) that they must co-infect and be present in the same cell of the same animal;

3) that the recombinant virus would not be cleared by the host or make the host extinct;

4) that the recombinant virus eventually would have to become stable and transmissible within the host species.

In regard to this recent recombination scenario, the animal reservoir could not be bats because the ACE2 proteins in bats are not homologous enough to hACE2 and therefore the adaption would not be able to yield an RBM sequence as seen in SARS-CoV-2.

This animal reservoir also could not be humans as the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would not be able to infect humans.

In addition, there has been no evidence of any SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2-like virus circulating in the human population prior to late 2019.

Intriguingly, according to a recent bioinformatics study, SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak.

Which leaves just one option:

Only one other possibility of natural evolution remains, which is that the ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM could have recombined in an intermediate host where the ACE2 protein is homologous to hACE2.

Several laboratories have reported that some of the Sunda pangolins smuggled into China from Malaysia carried coronaviruses, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of which is almost identical to that of SARS-CoV-227-29,31.

They then went on to suggest that pangolins are the likely intermediate host for SARS-CoV-227-29,31.

However, recent independent reports have found significant flaws in this data40-42. Furthermore, contrary to these reports27-29,31, no coronaviruses have been detected in Sunda pangolin samples collected for over a decade in Malaysia and Sabah between 2009 and 201943.

A recent study also showed that the RBD, which is shared between SARS-CoV-2 and the reported pangolin coronaviruses, binds to hACE2 ten times stronger than to the pangolin ACE22, further dismissing pangolins as the possible intermediate host.

Finally, an in silico study, while echoing the notion that pangolins are not likely an intermediate host, also indicated that none of the animal ACE2 proteins examined in their study exhibited more favorable binding potential to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein than hACE2 did.

This last study virtually exempted all animals from their suspected roles as an intermediate host, which is consistent with the observation that SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans from the start of the outbreak.

This is significant because these findings collectively suggest that no intermediate host seems to exist for SARS-CoV-2, which at the very least diminishes the possibility of a recombinant event occurring in an intermediate host.

Fast-forwarding to the smoking gun:

Given that RBM fully dictates hACE2-binding and that the SARS RBM-hACE2 binding was fully characterized by high-resolution structures (Figure 3)37,38, this RBM-only swap would not be any riskier than the full Spike swap.

In fact, the feasibility of this RBM-swap strategy has been proven. In 2008, Dr. Zhengli Shi’s group swapped a SARS RBM into the Spike proteins of several SARS-like bat coronaviruses after introducing a restriction site into a codon-optimized spike gene (Figure 5C). They then validated the binding of the resulted chimeric Spike proteins with hACE2.

Furthermore, in a recent publication, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 was swapped into the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARSCoV, resulting in a chimeric RBD fully functional in binding hACE2 (Figure 5C)39.

Strikingly, in both cases, the manipulated RBM segments resemble almost exactly the RBM defined by the positions of the EcoRI and BstEII sites (Figure 5C).

Although cloning details are lacking in both publications39,47, it is conceivable that the actual restriction sites may vary depending on the spike gene receiving the RBM insertion as well as the convenience in introducing unique restriction site(s) in regions of interest.

It is noteworthy that the corresponding author of this recent publication, Dr. Fang Li, has been an active collaborator of Dr. Zhengli Shi since 201049-53.

Dr. Li was the first person in the world to have structurally elucidated the binding between SARS-CoV RBD and hACE238 and has been the leading expert in the structural understanding of Spike-ACE2 interactions.

The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence.

Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation.”

It gets better, because the Chinese scientists then presciently tried to cover their tracks:

Although it may be convenient to copy the exact sequence of SARS RBM, it would be too clear a sign of artificial design and manipulation. The more deceiving approach would be to change a few nonessential residues, while preserving the ones critical for binding.

This design could be well-guided by the high-resolution structures (Figure 3)37,38. This way, when the overall sequence of the RBM would appear to be more distinct from that of the SARS RBM, the hACE2-binding ability would be well-preserved.

We believe that all of the crucial residues (residues labeled with red sticks in Figure 4, which are the same residues shown in sticks in Figure 3C) should have been “kept”.

As described earlier, while some should be direct preservation, some should have been switched to residues with similar properties, which would not disrupt hACE2-binding and may even strengthen the association further [ZH: i.e., the virus was weaponized and enchanced].

Importantly, changes might have been made intentionally at non-essential sites, making it less like a “copy and paste” of the SARS RBM.

Yan also discusses the infamous furin-cleavage site:

… a close examination of the nucleotide sequence of the furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 spike has revealed that the two consecutive Arg residues within the inserted sequence (- PRRA-) are both coded by the rare codon CGG (least used codon for Arg in SARS-CoV-2) (Figure 7).

Faul

In fact, this CGGCGG arrangement is the only instance found in the SARS-CoV-2 genome where this rare codon is used in tandem. This observation strongly suggests that this furin-cleavage site should be a result of genetic engineering.

Adding to the suspicion, a FauI restriction site is formulated by the codon choices here, suggesting the possibility that the restriction fragment length polymorphism, a technique that a WIV lab is proficient at, could have been involved.

There, the fragmentation pattern resulted from FauI digestion could be used to monitor the preservation of the furin-cleavage site in Spike as this furin-cleavage site is prone to deletions in vitro.

Specifically, RT-PCR on the spike gene of the recovered viruses from cell cultures or laboratory animals could be carried out, the product of which would be subjected to FauI digestion.

Viruses retaining or losing the furin-cleavage site would then yield distinct patterns, allowing convenient tracking of the virus(es) of interest.

And another critical allegation: once again, the Wuhan Researchers were doing everything in their power to weaponize and boost the “enhancement of the infectivity and pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus“:

The evidence collectively suggests that the furin-cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein may not have come from nature and could be the result of genetic manipulation.

The purpose of this manipulation could have been to assess any potential enhancement of the infectivity and pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus.

Summarizing the above:

Evidence presented in this part reveals that certain aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 genome are extremely difficult to reconcile to being a result of natural evolution.

The alternative theory we suggest is that the virus may have been created by using ZC45/ZXC21 bat coronavirus(es) as the backbone and/or template.

The Spike protein, especially the RBM within it, should have been artificially manipulated, upon which the virus has acquired the ability to bind hACE2 and infect humans.

This is supported by the finding of a unique restriction enzyme digestion site at either end of the RBM.

An unusual furin-cleavage site may have been introduced and inserted at the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein, which contributes to the increased virulence and pathogenicity of the virus.

These transformations have then staged the SARS CoV-2 virus to eventually become a highly-transmissible, onset-hidden, lethal, sequelae-unclear, and massively disruptive pathogen.

Evidently, the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 could have been created through gain-of-function manipulations at the WIV is significant and should be investigated thoroughly and independently.

Finally, those curious how the virus could have been created synthetically in Wuhan, here is a diagram proposed by Dr. Yan explaining all the required steps:

How Virus Was Created