More Than 217,000 Americans Killed by the COVID Jab

February 6, 2023

More Than 217,000 Americans Killed by the COVID Jab

more than 217,000 Americans killed by covid jab

According to a December 2021 survey of 2,840 Americans, between 217,330 and 332,608 people died from the COVID jabs in 2021
Survey results also show that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed
Of the respondents, 34% knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22% knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot
51% of the survey respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 13% reported experiencing a “serious” health problem post-jab. Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis, which claimed only 1.2% of trial participants experienced a serious adverse event
In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll, 34% reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and 7% reported major side effects

Visit Mercola Market — **Advertisement**

While it’s clear that the experimental COVID shots have killed a considerable number of people, the total death toll remains elusive, thanks to U.S. health agencies obfuscating, hiding and manipulating data.

That said, the most recent survey

— published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases — puts the death toll from the COVID jabs somewhere between 217,330 and 332,608 in 2021 alone. As noted by Steve Kirsch:

“[We’ve] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million … in just the first year, and the CDC and FDA want to give you more shots … Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.
So the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people … These [data] are consistent with the numbers I’ve been saying for a long time. It’s not a coincidence.”

Now, the slant of this paper is kind of interesting. The primary aim of it was to “identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The author was curious about why 31% of the U.S. population had declined the jab or not completed the primary series by November 2022, nearly two years into a the massively advertised “vaccination” campaign.

Calculating the proportion of fatal events from the jab was secondary. As explained by the author, Mark Skidmore,

Ph.D., an economics professor at Michigan State University:

“A largely unexplored factor is the degree to which serious health problems arising from the COVID-19 illness or the COVID-19 vaccines among family and friends influences the decision to be vaccinated.
Serious illness due to COVID-19 would make vaccination more likely; the perceived benefits of avoiding COVID-19 through inoculation would be higher.
On the other hand, observing major health issues following COVID-19 inoculation within one’s social network would heighten the perceived risks of vaccination. Previous studies have not evaluated the degree to which experiences with the disease and vaccine injury influence vaccine status.
The main aim of this online survey of COVID-19 health experiences is to investigate the degree to which the COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events among friends and family, whether perceived or real, influenced inoculation decisions. The second aim of this work is to estimate the total number of COVID-19 vaccine induced fatalities nationwide from the survey.”

Here’s an excerpt describing the methodology:

“An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted. Information was collected regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, experiences with COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles. Logit regression analyses were carried out to identify factors influencing the likelihood of being vaccinated.”

A total of 2,840 people completed the survey between December 18 and 23, 2021. The mean age was 47, and the gender ratio was 51% women, 49% men. Just over half, 51%, had received one or more COVID jabs.

As Skidmore suspected, results showed that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.

Of the respondents, 34% knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22% knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot. So, as noted by to the author:

“Knowing someone who reported serious health issues either from COVID-19 or from COVID-19 vaccination are important factors for the decision to get vaccinated.”

As for the types of side effects experienced by people within the respondents’ social circles, they included (but were not limited to) the “usual suspects,” such as:

Heart and cardiovascular problems
Severe COVID infection or other respiratory illness
Feeling generally unwell, weak, fatigued and out of breath for weeks
Blood clots and stroke
Death

Based on these survey data, Skidmore estimates:

“… the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95% CI 217,330-332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.”

Were COVID-19 an infection with an extremely high mortality rate, perhaps high rates of death from a vaccine would be acceptable. But COVID-19 has an exceptionally low mortality rate, on par with or lower than influenza, hence the risk associated with the COVID jabs ought to be equally low.

“The global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people.” ~ Steve Kirsch

As it stands, the risks of the shots are very high, while Pfizer’s own trial data, with more than 40,000 participants, show they offer no benefit in terms of your risk of hospitalization and/or death. The absolute risk reduction is so minute as to be inconsequential.

The death toll from the jabs isn’t the only disturbing part of this paper, though. Skidmore’s findings also suggest side effects from the jab may be more common than previously suspected.

As mentioned, 51% of the respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 15% reported experiencing a new health problem post-jab and 13% deemed it “serious.” Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis,

which claimed only 1.2% of trial participants reported a serious adverse event.

Now, as suggested by Kirsch,

“we need to discount that by a factor of two because people report less severe adverse events as adverse events.” Still, that means serious adverse events from the jab are five times higher than what Pfizer reported.

“This is why the FDA never does after-market surveys in the drugs it approves. Because reality hurts,” Kirsch writes.
“It is the FDA that should have discovered this before Mark Skidmore. The FDA is asleep at the wheel and they just believe everything the drug companies tell them, hook, line, and sinker. This is a major miss. Why aren’t they doing surveys like this to see if the reality matches the study?”

For additional comparison, here are the findings of several other investigations:

Rasmussen Reports
— In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll — taken one year after Skidmore’s survey — 34% reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and 7% reported major side effects.
CDC’s V-Safe data
— In October 2022, ICAN obtained the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe data. This is a voluntary program to monitor adverse vaccine reactions. Of the 10.1 million COVID jab recipients who used the app, 7.7% had to seek medical care post-jab.
Kirsch-funded survey
— A June 2022 U.S. survey by the market research company Pollfish found that 16.3% of COVID jabbed respondents experienced an injury, and 9.7% required medical care.

The graphic below, which visually compares Skidmore’s findings to the findings of the Rasmussen, V-Safe and Pollfish surveys, was created by InfoGame on Substack.

As noted by InfoGame:

“Skidmore’s article serves as another sign that the rate of COVID-19 side effects is extremely high and that the COVID-19 vaccines are an unprecedently risky medical product.”

While we’re on the topic of reported side effects, several surveys have also focused on the frequency of abnormal menses in women who got the jab, which could be indicative of reproductive harm. For example:

A British survey published in early December 2021 found 20% of women experienced menstrual disturbances following their jab.
A study published in Science Advances in mid-July 2022 found 66% of “fully vaccinated” postmenopausal women experienced abnormal breakthrough bleeding. In total, 42.1% reported heavier menstrual flow post-jab (this included women of all ages, as well as transgenders on hormone treatments).
An Italian peer-reviewed study published in March 2022 found that “50-60% of reproductive-age women who received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reported menstrual cycle irregularities, regardless of the type of administered vaccine.” After the second dose, abnormal menses were reported by 60% to 70%.

Not surprisingly, people in high places are already trying to force a retraction of the paper. A special notice from the editor, dated just two days post-publication, states, “Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review.” As noted by Kirsch:

“They are actively trying to get the paper retracted because it destroys the narrative. I’m certain they will succeed because journals are under intense pressure to censor any anti-narrative paper. The problem is that Mark’s survey was entirely consistent with my surveys.
If they want to have the paper retracted they need to show us THEIR surveys. But of course, they don’t have any surveys because they are too afraid of the results.
So they will use hand-waving arguments like “I don’t like the methodology” or some nonsense like that instead of gathering their own data. They will NEVER show us survey data that supports their narrative because it isn’t there.
That’s why there are no success anecdotes. NOBODY can give me the name of a US geriatric practice where all-cause deaths plummeted after the vaccines rolled out. In every case, they went the wrong way. The narrative is unraveling at an accelerated pace but the medical community is still fighting the truth.”

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

February 6, 2023February 11, 2023

Daily Chemicals That Are Severely Disrupting Your Hormones

A rapid decline in men’s sperm concentration and count is occurring worldwide
While the rate of sperm decline was just over 1% a year beginning in the 1970s, by 2000 the rate of decline more than doubled to 2.64% a year
One class of chemicals appears to be particularly detrimental to sperm — endocrine disruptors, such as phthalates and bisphenols
Much of the damage occurs in early pregnancy during crucial developmental windows; the damage can be passed on to future generations
Beyond phthalates and bisphenols, pesticides have also been shown to lower sperm count, even down to zero in adult men
For those interested in protecting their own fertility — and that of future generations — as much as possible, avoiding hormone-disrupting chemicals is essential

Shanna Swan, Ph.D., a reproductive epidemiologist with the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, has been studying declining sperm counts for decades. In 2017, she and colleagues published a study that went viral because it predicted an impending fertility crisis.

Men experienced a 50% to 60% decline in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011, the 2017 study found, amounting to a decline of over 1% per year over the last 50 years.

The team then expanded the study, adding seven years of data and an expanded geographical range. The new study, published in Human Reproduction Update in November 2022,

includes data from six continents and 53 countries, including years 2011 to 2018

— but the results reveal an equally disturbing trend.

The original 2017 study included men from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand but was criticized because it didn’t include global data. “At that time, there were too few studies with data from South/Central America-Asia-Africa (SAA) to reliably estimate trends among men from these continents,” the research team explained.

In the time that elapsed since their first study, however, more research was published, enough to show a clear significant decline in sperm concentration and count in men in Asia, Africa and South America. This means the decline is worldwide.

The rate of decline also changed when more recent data was added in. While the decline was just over 1% a year beginning in the 1970s, by 2000 the rate of decline more than doubled to 2.64% a year.

“That is very fast and very unusual, given that this was only in the last 18 years, from 2000 to 2018,” Swan said. “Extremely rapid decline.”

The pertinent question is what’s triggering this rapid decline in sperm counts and concentration. Genetics comes to mind, but Swan has ruled this out because the steep decline took place over just two generations — much too rapid of a change to be caused by genetics.

“That leaves us with environment,” she says, breaking it down into two categories — lifestyle and chemicals.

Lifestyle factors such as smoking, drinking alcohol, stress, diet and exercise all affect sperm. So, too, do chemicals in the environment via our air, drinking water, household dust, food and more.

While there are many factors contributing to this reproductive calamity, Swan believes one class of chemicals to be particularly detrimental to sperm decline — endocrine disruptors.

Sperm are germ cells produced by the reproductive system. “The production of germ cells is governed by hormones,” Swan explains.

And sex hormones are altered by these chemicals, including phthalates, which lower testosterone levels, and bisphenols, including not only BPA but also BPF, BPS and other variants that have been used to replace BPA. Where are these toxic chemicals found? All over the place:

Plastics
Canned food liners
Epoxy adhesives
Cash register receipts
Toys
Caulks and adhesives
Vinyl flooring
Flexible PVC pipes
Food packaging
Teething toys
Personal care products
Sports equipment

Beyond phthalates and bisphenols, pesticides have also been shown to lower sperm count, even down to zero in adult men, according to Swan.

A man’s sperm count can recover from pesticide exposure in about three months, provided he stops being exposed. But if a pregnant woman is exposed to pesticides, her unborn son can be affected — and his sperm count will not recover.

Grandchildren are also affected, as the changes are passed through generations.

Research by Swan and colleagues found that women’s exposure to phthalates during pregnancy is also linked to male babies’ anogenital distance (AGD) — the distance from the anus to the base of the penis — with higher exposure associated with shortened AGD.

Later in life, shorter AGD is linked with a smaller penis

and poorer semen quality, such that Swan believes AGD at birth is predictive of adult reproductive function.

The more testosterone exposure in utero, the greater the AGD distance. If there’s not enough testosterone exposure, or if it comes at the wrong time, Swan says, then that genetic male will have an AGD that’s smaller than it should be:

“There are consequences. And it turns out that if a young man has a shorter than expected AGD for his body size, then he’ll have a lower sperm count and he’ll be more likely to be infertile. So this is undoubtedly part of the picture of declining sperm count.”

During critical phases of development in early pregnancy, if phthalates occupy the testosterone receptors in the fetus, it signals its body to not produce enough testosterone on its own.

At that point, the AGD stops growing and the boy will be under-masculinized, Swan says. “That also affects the germ cells that will go on to become sperm when he’s a young man. And so they are impaired by this as well. So when he goes on to … try and have a child, he won’t do as well. His sperm count will be lower and he won’t be able to do the job.”

While much of the damage occurs in early pregnancy during crucial developmental windows, when the fetus is first forming and cells are rapidly dividing, exposure then continues, accumulating throughout life. Worse still, the damage that occurs can be passed on to future generations, and it’s not only boys that are affected.

“A female fetus, in utero,” Swan explained, “is growing the eggs that she will use to have her own children. These chemicals can make their way to those germ cells, too.”

A PLOS Genetics study also demonstrated generational effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals, with effects worsening with each subsequent generation until, by the third generations, some of the animals could not produce any sperm.

Swan’s book, “Count Down,” goes into detail about how the modern world not only is threatening sperm counts but also altering reproductive development in males and females,

and in so doing “imperiling the future of the human race.”

In terms of reproductive consequences, this means it’s going to be harder to conceive a child, a trend that’s already becoming apparent. Since 1996, U.S. births that occurred via assisted reproductive technology are up more than threefold.

This may also have consequences, Swan says, as research suggests boys born through couples that have gone through assisted reproductive techniques have lower sperm counts themselves.

Meanwhile, men with lower sperm counts tend to die younger than men with higher counts. “Sperm count tells us not just about ability to conceive, but it also tells us something about longevity, which is pretty important.”

Overall, when the fertility rate goes down it means fewer children are being born.

While some believe that’s a good thing, Swan says, the data suggest the world’s population will continue to increase until about 2040 or 2050. At that point, it’s predicted that it will drop “and it will never come back.” This means there will be fewer young people around to support older people. “This is a social problem that’s growing” and already being felt in Japan, China and other Asian countries.

Swan warned in 2021 that if the curve of declining sperm counts from the 2017 study continues, by 2045 the median sperm count will be zero. “It is speculative to extrapolate, but there is also no evidence that it is tapering off. This means that most couples may have to use assisted reproduction,” she said.

Further, now we know declining sperm counts have not tapered off but actually accelerated.

Swan’s findings have implications for the whole of humanity. But in the immediacy, she shared advice for people interested in starting a family in the near future:

“They should think about what they’re allowing into their bodies, even right now, in terms of the kind of food, the kind of drinks, the kind of air, the kind of products they use in their house, the cosmetics they use. Mostly just be aware that it all matters … And then, I would say, men should bank a semen sample. Why not? It’s not difficult. It’s not particularly expensive. Now you can do it at home with a mail-in sample …
If you want to conceive a child in the next 10 years, why not have a sample that’s probably OK. By the same measure, I would say that every man should have his sperm tested. If it’s not great quality, he can think about what to do to improve that in terms of his lifestyle, exposures and so on.”

I believe electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are another significant factor for the observed decrease in male sperm count. Writing in Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine, researchers noted that many in vivo and in vitro studies have revealed the EMF exposure can alter reproductive function, including sperm motility, with effects varying according to the frequency, duration of exposure and strength of EMFs.

For those interested in protecting their own fertility — and that of future generations — as much as possible, reducing your EMF exposure and avoiding hormone-disrupting chemicals are essential. Swan also recommends some simple solutions like eating unprocessed foods that you cook yourself as much as possible to reduce your exposure to plastic food packaging, and using only simple, unscented personal care and household products.

One silver lining is that phthalates leave your body quickly, in a matter of hours, after exposure. They’re nonpersistent chemicals — unlike other toxins like dioxin, PCBs or lead, so if people stop taking them in, the damage done to fertility would stop — at least from this class of chemicals.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

February 6, 2023

The Fauci Files

Dr. Anthony Fauci has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, but has yet to come out with the “Big One” — a vaccine or infectious disease treatment that will allow him to retire with a victory under his belt
Fauci has flip-flopped on the use of masks, first mocking people for wearing them, and then insisting they should. In mid-July, he suddenly urged governments to “be as forceful as possible” on mask rules
While Fauci still claims there’s only anecdotal evidence supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine, and that the drug doesn’t work for COVID-19, the scientific support for it goes as far back as 2005
In April, Fauci praised the NIAID-sponsored drug Remdesivir, saying it “has a clear-cut and significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery.” Overall, the improvement rate for the drug was 31%
Research now shows hydroxychloroquine reduced mortality by 50% when given early, and many doctors anecdotally claim survival rates close to 100%. Despite such excellent results, Fauci continues to disparage and cast doubt on hydroxychloroquine

ℹ️ From Dr. Joseph Mercola
Since COVID-19 first entered the scene, exchange of ideas has basically been outlawed. By sharing my views and those from various experts throughout the pandemic on COVID treatments and the experimental COVID jabs, I became a main target of the White House, the political establishment and the global cabal.
Propaganda and pervasive censorship have been deployed to seize control over every part of your life, including your health, finances and food supply. The major media are key players and have been instrumental in creating and fueling fear.
I am republishing this article in its original form so that you can see how the progression unfolded.

Originally published: September 1, 2020

At 79 years old, Dr. Anthony Fauci — who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984 — has yet to come out with the “Big One” — a vaccine or infectious disease treatment that will allow him to retire with a victory under his belt.

He failed to create a successful vaccine for AIDS, SARS, MERS and Ebola. A COVID-19 vaccine is essentially his last chance to go out in a blaze of glory. As evidenced by his history, he will stop at nothing to protect Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine and Gilead’s antiviral Remdesivir.

He even threw tried and true pandemic protocols out the window when COVID-19 hit, turning into an unquestioning spokesman for draconian liberty-stripping measures instead. To echo a question asked by Dr. Sal Martingano in his article,

“Dr. Fauci: ‘Expert’ or Co-Conspirator,” why are we not questioning this so-called expert?

The risk we take when listening to Fauci is that, so far, he’s been wrong about most things. In a July 14, 2020, “Opposing View” editorial in USA Today, White House adviser Peter Navarro, director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, stated that Fauci “has been wrong about everything that I have interacted with him on.”

According to Navarro, Fauci’s errors in judgment include:

Opposing the ban on incoming flights from China in late January 2020.
Telling the American people the novel virus outbreak was nothing to worry about well into February.
Flip-flopping on the use of masks — first mocking people for wearing them, and then insisting they should. In fact, mid-July, he suddenly urged governments to “be as forceful as possible” on mask rules.
Claiming there was only anecdotal evidence supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine, when the scientific grounds for it go as far back as 2005, when the study,
“Chloroquine Is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread,” was published in the Virology Journal.
Fauci should have been well aware of this publication. According to that study,
“Chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage,” the study authors said. In other words, the drug worked both for prevention and treatment.
As noted by Navarro, more recent research found hydroxychloroquine reduced the mortality rate among COVID-19 patients by 50% when used early.
Interestingly, in a March 24, 2020, interview
with Chris Stigall, Fauci did say that — were he to speak strictly as a doctor treating patients — he would certainly prescribe chloroquine to COVID-19 patients, particularly if there were no other options.
Then, in August, he flipped back to insisting hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work,
even though by that time, there were several studies demonstrating its effectiveness against COVID-19 specifically.
So, it appears Fauci has had a hard time making up his mind on this issue as well, on the one hand dismissing the drug as either untested or ineffective against COVID-19, and on the other admitting it would be wise to use, seeing how the options are so limited.

Navarro continues:

“Now Fauci says a falling mortality rate doesn’t matter when it is the single most important statistic to help guide the pace of our economic reopening. The lower the mortality rate, the faster and more we can open. So when you ask me whether I listen to Dr. Fauci’s advice, my answer is: only with skepticism and caution.”

While Fauci claims to be exasperated by how political the pandemic has become,

before Instagram banned him from the platform and took the post down,

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pointed out in an August 2, 2020, Instagram post

that Fauci himself is, at least in part, part of the problem, as his double standards on hydroxychloroquine have done much to polarize and divide the nation:

“Fauci insists he will not approve HCQ for COVID until its efficacy is proven in ‘randomized, double blind placebo studies.’ To date, Dr. Fauci has never advocated such studies for any of the 72 vaccine doses added to the mandatory childhood schedule since he took over NIAID in 1984. Nor is he requiring them for the COVID vaccines currently racing for approval.
Why should chloroquine be the only remedy required to cross this high hurdle? HCQ is less in need of randomized placebo studies than any of these vaccines since its safety is well established after 60 years of use and decades on WHO’s listed of ‘essential medicines.’
Fauci’s peculiar hostility towards HCQ is consistent with his half century bias favoring vaccines and patent medicines. Dr. Fauci’s double standards create confusion, mistrust and polarization.”

In a June 10, 2020, article,

Global Research also questioned Fauci’s many attempts to disparage the drug for no apparently valid reason; even promoting the fake (and ultimately retracted) Lancet study that claimed to show hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. At the end of the day, who benefits? Well, certainly it benefits the drug and vaccine industries, which seems to be where Fauci’s loyalties lie.

While Fauci is not named on the patents of either Moderna’s vaccine or Remdesivir, the NIH does have a 50% stake in Moderna’s vaccine,

and the recognition that would come with a successful vaccine launch would certainly include Fauci.

He also has lots to lose — if nothing else, his pride — if Remdesivir doesn’t become a blockbuster, as his NIAID is sponsoring the clinical trials.

The NIAID also supported the original research into Remdesivir, when it was aimed at treating Ebola.

His bias here is clear for anyone to see. April 29, 2020, he stated

Remdesivir “has a clear-cut and significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery.” How good is that? Patients on the drug recovered in 11 days, on average, compared to 15 days among those receiving a placebo. Overall, the improvement rate for the drug was 31%.

Meanwhile, research

now shows hydroxychloroquine reduced mortality by 50% when given early, and many doctors anecdotally claim survival rates close to 100%. This still isn’t good enough for Fauci, who continues insisting hydroxychloroquine is a bust.

His stance on these two drugs certainly doesn’t make sense based on the data alone. But it does make sense if he wants (or has been instructed) to protect the profits of Remdesivir.

As director of NIAID, which has been part of Remdesivir’s development from the start, why wouldn’t he want to see it become a moneymaker for the agency he dedicated his career to? It also makes sense when you consider his primary job is to raise funds for biodefense research, primarily vaccines but also diagnostics and drug therapies.

Early in August 2020, Russia announced they would begin vaccinating citizens with its own COVID-19 vaccine, despite not finishing large-scale human trials.

The announcement drew skepticism from American infectious disease specialists, including Fauci, who said he has “serious doubts” that Russia’s COVID-19 vaccine is actually safe and effective.

“Fauci conveniently ignores the many failed attempts to create other coronavirus vaccines over the past two decades, including vaccines against SARS and MERS.”

He’s probably right on that point. It’s hard to imagine you can prove safety and effectiveness in a mere two months of trials. But the fast-tracked vaccine efforts of the U.S. and EU are hardly bound to be significantly better, considering the many shortcuts that are being taken.

Despite being in a position to know better, Fauci conveniently ignores the many failed attempts to create other coronavirus vaccines over the past two decades, including vaccines against SARS and MERS. A paper

by Eriko Padron-Regalado, “Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2: Lessons From Other Coronavirus Strains” reviews some of these past experiences. As noted in the Conservative Review:

“Since their emergence in 2003 and 2012 respectively, no safe and efficacious human vaccines for either SARS-Cov1 or MERS have been developed.
Moreover, experimental non-human (animal model) evaluations of four SARS-Cov1 candidate vaccine types, revealed that despite conferring some protection against infection with SARS-Cov1, each also caused serious lung injury, caused by an overreaction of the immune system, upon viral challenge.
Identical ‘hypersensitive-type’ lung injury occurred
when mice were administered a candidate MERS-Cov vaccine, then challenged with infectious virus, negating the ostensible benefit achieved by their development of promising … ‘antibodies’ … which might have provided immunity to MERS-Cov.
These disappointing experimental observations must serve as a cautionary tale for SARS-Cov2 vaccination programs to control epidemic COVID-19 disease.”

When recently asked for a rebuttal to criticism of his leadership during the pandemic, Fauci replied, “I think you can trust me,” citing his long record of service in government medicine. However, that long service record is fraught with ethics and safety lapses.

For example, in 2005, NPR reported

the NIH tested novel AIDS drugs on hundreds of HIV-positive children in state foster care during the late 1980s and90s without assigning patient advocates to monitor the children’s health, as is required by law in most states.

Fauci was appointed director of the NIAID in 1984. The AIDS research was part of his research portfolio, and the AIDS research division reported directly to him, so these violations occurred on his watch.

In 2008, two NIH biomedical ethicists published a paper on the controversial practice of using wards of the state as guinea pigs, noting:

“Enrolling wards of the state in research raises two major concerns: the possibility that an unfair share of the burdens of research might fall on wards, and the need to ensure interests of individual wards are accounted for … Having special protections only for some categories is misguided. Furthermore, some of the existing protections ought to be strengthened.”

Under Fauci, the NIAID became the largest funder of HIV/AIDS in the world.

Despite that, numerous articles over the years have discussed how AIDS activists have been less than satisfied with Fauci and the NIAID.

A 1986 article stated:

“If Fauci were less intent on amassing power within the federal health bureaucracy … he would have left AIDS treatment research with the NCI, where it began, relying on that institute’s proven expertise in organizing large, multisite clinical trials for cancer therapies.”

A July 23, 2020, article in Just the News lists several other safety and ethics problems that Fauci has been involved in through the years, including conflict of interest violations in vaccine research.

Just the News also interviewed NIAID chief of ethics and regulatory compliance Dr. Jonathan Fishbein, whom the NIAID was forced to reinstate in 2005 after it was determined that Fishbein had been wrongly fired in retaliation for raising concerns about lack of safety in some of the agency’s research:

“Fishbein said … Fauci failed to take responsibility for the managers and researchers working below him when signs of trouble emerged, allowing problems to persist until others intervened. ‘Fauci is all about Fauci,’ Fishbein said. ‘He loves being the headline. It’s his ego.’”

By now, you probably also know that the NIAID funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As reported by Newsweek:

“In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.”

This money was not given directly, but rather funneled to the Wuhan lab via the EcoHealth Alliance. According to a recent report by The Wall Street Journal,

the NIH is now insisting EcoHealth Alliance submit all information and materials from the Wuhan lab before it’s allowed to resume funding.

Fauci is a longtime proponent of dangerous gain-of-function research. In 2003, he wrote an article

published in the journal Nature on how “the world needs new and creative ways to counter bioterrorism.”

“We will pursue innovative approaches for modulating innate immunity to induce and enhance protection against many biological pathogens, as well as simple and rapid molecularly based diagnostics to detect, characterize and quantify infectious threats,” Fauci wrote.
“These are lofty goals that may take many years to accomplish — but we must aspire to them. Third, we must enormously strengthen our interactions with the private sector, including biotechnology companies and large pharmaceutical corporations.
Many biodefence-related products that we are pursuing do not provide sufficient incentives for industry — the potential profit margin for companies is tenuous, and there is no guarantee that products would be used.
Therefore, we will seek non-traditional collaborations with industry, for example guaranteeing that products will be purchased if companies sign up … so that we can quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments …”

With that, there can be little question about which team Fauci is on. He’s on the side of drug and vaccine makers, and has been for decades. There’s no money to be made by either the agency or its private collaborators from natural products such as vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin or its drug equivalent, hydroxychloroquine. All of these are dirt-cheap and off patent.

Fauci’s predictions for COVID-19 mortality have also turned out to be as inaccurate as all of his previous predictions. In 1987, he predicted heterosexual infection of HIV/AIDS would rise to 10% by 1991. It never rose above 4%.

He predicted the bird flu would result in 2 million to 7 million deaths. In the end, the avian H5N1 flu killed 440 worldwide. He sought billions of dollars to combat the threat of Zika, a virus that fizzled without making much of an impact anywhere.

When you look at his track record, you realize he’s predicted “nightmare” scenarios for decades, none of which have materialized. Last but not least, Dr. Fauci serves on Bill Gates leadership council.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

February 6, 2023

Some things never change: Documentary reveals similarities between 1930s pre-Holocaust and 2020s COVID propaganda

(Natural News) A documentary film revealed similarities between pre-Holocaust propaganda during the 1930s and Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) propaganda during the 2020s.

The first part of the five-part documentary titled “Never Again,” directed by Holocaust survivor and health freedom activist Vera Sharav, debuted on Jan. 30. Among the individuals interviewed in the film was Michoel Green, a Jewish Orthodox rabbi from Massachusetts. Green, which the Times of Israel smeared as an “anti-vaccine rabbi,” was fired by the Jewish Chabad movement for discouraging his followers from getting the dangerous injections.

According to Green, there was a striking resemblance between how the Nazis demonized the Jews back then and how medical authorities demonized the unvaccinated now. He said: “What we’re clearly seeing here is a reply of the same telltale signs of what precipitated the Holocaust in the 1930s.”

The rabbi continued that during the Nazi regime in Germany and the COVID-19 pandemic, authorities engaged in “the marginalization of that minority” and identification of the said minority “as a threat to public health or a public health risk.”

“There is nothing more morally reprehensible than government or authority of any kind declaring other innocent human beings as a public health risk. And it doesn’t matter if these people claim to be doing so innocently, for the greater good, because that’s what Nazis did as well.”

One clear example of this dehumanization came in the form of a poster that said “Jews are lice; they cause typhus” in the Polish language. According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the poster was “designed to link Jews and typhus closely together in the minds of non-Jewish Poles.” It continued: “Medical professionals repeatedly pushed the false claim that Jews were responsible for outbreaks of typhus – a deadly contagious disease spread by lice.”

“That was right out of the Nazi playbook,” the rabbi commented, adding that it was exactly what Joseph Goebbels – chief propagandist for the Nazi party – would have done. “But that doesn’t justify marginalization, persecution and apartheid.” (Related: ‘Right out of the Nazi playbook’: Chabad Rabbi defends Marjorie Greene’s comparison of vaccine mandates to yellow stars in Germany.)

Green: Medical authorities have become modern-day purveyors of tyranny

The rabbi also mentioned that the discrimination the Jews faced was similar to how those who refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine were barred from entering many establishments. He cited one instance involving a Jewish Holocaust survivor being invited by an orthodox Jewish college to speak. However, the Holocaust survivor’s speaking engagement was eventually canceled “because she could not show her vaccine papers.”

“What we’re seeing nowadays is precisely that,” Green said. He added that the medical authorities of today “have become the modern-day purveyors of tyranny, persecution and marginalization of the minority.”

Green also blasted the “genocide” done in the name of safety perpetrated in places like the city of Shanghai in China, which aligned with the Chinese Communist Party’s zero-COVID policy.

“People are literally being left to die. They’re being locked into their homes; they’re being denied nutrition, hydration [and] access to medical care in the name of combating an invisible, amorphous disease. That’s exactly what the Nazis were doing.”

The rabbi also walked the walk when it came to freedom, as he resolutely kept his synagogue open despite then-Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker deeming public worship “not essential” and ordering that houses of worship be closed.

“I decided right then and there, [and] told my wife: ‘We are not shutting the doors of our synagogue for one day.’ My wife said: ‘Well, what if someone gets sick? What if we get sick and die?’ [I replied:] ‘We have to be ready to die. We have to be ready to die before we allow the government to shut down our religious observances, our right to live and [to] live freely.’”

Green ultimately remarked that such injustices can only take place when safety and security are elevated as the highest values of society. He argued that the two must be subordinated to freedom, “a value worth dying for.”

Watch Michoel Green discuss COVID-19 vaccine mandates and medical tyranny with “The Sentinel Report” host Alex Newman below.

This video is from The New American channel on Brighteon.com.

Project Veritas temporarily locked out of Twitter after posting video asking YouTube exec about censorship

(Natural News) Twitter temporarily locked Project Veritas out of its account Friday, Feb. 3.

This was after the investigative journalism outfit posted a video confronting a YouTube executive for censoring the organization’s video that involved a Pfizer executive.

The video in question features Project Veritas senior reporter Christian Hartsock asking YouTube’s Global Head of Trust and Safety Matt Halprin why the video hosting platform banned the videos with Project Veritas questioning Pfizer’s director. Hartsock alleged that Halprin was colluding with Pfizer to run cover for the Big Pharma company. (Related: MEMORY HOLED: YouTube CENSORS Project Veritas documentary exposing Pfizer’s plan to direct COVID-19 mutations.)

Journalist Alex Lorusso of Newsmax broke the story, writing on his personal Twitter account: “What’s going on?” He included a picture reading that the organization was “temporarily limited” from some of its account features.

Twitter claims this lockout occurred because Project Veritas violated site rules against abuse and harassment.

“Project Veritas was surprised to learn of this temporary lockout,” said Project Veritas media relations manager Mario Balaban. He noted that he believes the organization was locked out for “conducting journalism as we always do – by asking questions to powerful people. In this case, a YouTube executive.”

“We have appealed and look forward to Elon Musk clearing this situation up,” he added.

Project Veritas’ account was reinstated shortly after the lockout, indicating that a Twitter executive may have intervened on the organization’s behalf.

Project Veritas’ presence on social media platforms being scrubbed

Despite getting its Twitter account back, the campaign against Project Veritas is still ongoing.

The first culprit was YouTube, which took down Project Veritas’ video and gave the channel a “strike” from the service, restricting its ability to upload new videos for a week.

Google has also prevented people from looking up the Project Veritas website on its search engine, with the website not appearing in the first page of results. But on DuckDuckGo, an alternative search engine that has fewer algorithmic nudges than Google, the Project Veritas website comes in first or second when similar search terms are used.

Furthermore, anybody who attempts to search for the organization’s video with the Pfizer executive will instead be redirected to so-called more “reliable sources,” including Pfizer’s website, which has a statement claiming that the company “has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research.”

“Working with collaborators, we have conducted research where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern,” the statement reads. “Most of this work is conducted using computer simulations or mutations of the main protease – a non-infectious part of the virus.”

“Sadly, the censorship is unlikely to stop with Google,” wrote C. Douglas Golden for the Western Journal. “Project Veritas may be back on Twitter, thanks to new ownership, but the rest of Big Tech is willing to get in bed with Big Pharma and Big Government at any opportunity.”

Learn more instances of Big Tech censorship at Censorship.news.

Watch this episode of the “Health Ranger Report” as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, discusses how mainstream media and Big Tech are coordinating to scrub Project Veritas’ video from the internet.

This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.

DEAD RISING: AI-powered ChatGPT to connect the living and the dead

(Natural News) Artur Sychov, founder and CEO of Somnium Space, has claimed that an artificial intelligence chatbot will soon allow the living to converse with people who already died.

Somnium Space is a virtual reality world and open-source platform where players can buy land, build, explore and trade.

In an interview with Motherboard, Sychov said a user has already started to integrate OpenAI’s chatbot into his metaverse, creating a virtual assistant that offers a faster pathway for the development of “Live Forever” mode, which is Sychov’s project that aims to allow grieving humans to engage with their loved ones in a realistic way after they die.

If you save your voice, movement patterns and personality traits onto “Live Forever” mode, an AI chatbot will allow your surviving relatives to have a conversation with you in the metaverse after your death.

Artific, a user who has built various worlds in Somnium Space and rents out some of his space to other people who are developing their own online experiences, was the user who put ChatGPT in play within the virtual world.

ChatGPT, or Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, is a chatbot launched by OpenAI in November 2022. It is built on top of OpenAI’s GPT-3 family of large language models and is fine-tuned with both supervised and reinforcement learning techniques.

The moment of revelation came when Artific asked ChatGPT how it could integrate the AI bot into Somnium Space. The virtual robot then provided a rough plan of attack. Artific then tweaked and finalized the plan.

During a recent Zoom call, Sychov had a conversation with an avatar powered by AI in front of a Motherboard reporter. Some of the virtual robot’s answers were rather mechanical such as “Hello there, I’m doing well. How can I help you today?” However, the bot was also able to describe where “the lobby of the OMG Multiverse was and what it saw at the metaverse at the time of the conversation. It said, “Around me, I can see a variety of people exploring the lobby, a bar, some arcade games, a wide selection of drivable vehicles and a beautiful view of Earth from Space.” And when Sychov asked the robot how his avatar looked, the robot responded, “Your avatar looks absolutely amazing. You look fashionable.”

Sychov: Chatbots have short-term memory and their personalities can be altered

Sychov said AI is progressing extremely fast – way faster than anticipated.

However, the tech expert admitted that their work is far from complete. The online bots are able to learn contextually through conversation and then retain the information, but Sychov noted that chatbots have some version of “short-term memory.”

So, the next step will be working on how to adequately store all the data recordings, Sychov stated. This is needed in order for the virtual AI robots to have a conversation at a speed that feels natural to humans while they are sorting through the data they have compiled in their memory. But the tech chief is positive that the implementation of artificial intelligence could be easier in the metaverse than in the real world because, according to him, there is a massive amount of data available for the robots to ingest.

“It’s a perfect condition for AI because it can learn from every digital object instantly,” Sychov said.

The integration of AI into Somnium Space extends beyond talking to dead people. Both the tech chief and the platform user claimed that there is also the potential to alter the AI robot’s personality. They said a user can change the chatbot’s behavior into an optimistic robot or to someone with a dry sense of humor.

Moreover, in the near future, people will be able to ask a question to the bots and complete a task such as building or painting a wall. They will hop to it immediately with no digital request necessary. (Related: Top 4 realms where technology has been used to chronically DAMAGE humanity: Television, AI, social media, mRNA.)

Watch this video of a user engaging ChatGPT and its subsequent responses, both intelligent and nonsensical.

This video is from the Open Scroll channel on Brighteon.com.

Day: February 6, 2023