The Truth About COVID-19 Book by Dr. Mercola




The Truth About COVID-19 Book by Dr. Joseph Mercola

The Truth — and Madness — of COVID-19 What to Do Now to Reclaim Your Health, Democracy and Freedom

Since early 2020, the world has undergone major upheaval due to a global pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. International closures and domestic lockdowns have led to widespread business closures, economic collapse and massive unemployment. Civil liberties and freedoms have been crushed, all in the name of keeping people safe. Find out why none of this needed to happen, and what you must do now to take control of your health and power.

Regenerative Food and Farming: The Road Forward

My usual response to the question “What is Regenerative Food and Farming?” goes something like this: Regenerative agriculture and animal husbandry are the next and higher stage of organic food and farming, not only free from toxic pesticides, GMOs, chemical fertilizers and factory farm production, and therefore good for human health, but also regenerative in terms of the health of the soil, the environment, the animals, the climate and rural livelihoods as well.

Or, as my fellow steering committee member for Regeneration International, Vandana Shiva, puts it: “Regenerative agriculture provides answers to the soil crisis, the food crisis, the climate crisis, and the crisis of democracy.”1

In 2010 Olaf Christen stated, “Regenerative agriculture is an approach in agriculture that rejects pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and is intended to improve the regeneration of the topsoil, biodiversity and the water cycle.”2,3 This corresponds almost exactly with the stated principles of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) or Organics International.

Since 2014, the Rodale Institute, IFOAM, Dr. Bronner’s, Dr. Mercola, Patagonia, the Real Organic Project, the Biodynamic Movement, the Organic Consumers Association, Regeneration International, Navdanya and others have also been discussing and implementing organic standards, practices and certification, which incorporate regenerative principles. According to Australian regenerative pioneer Christine Jones:

“Agriculture is regenerative if soils, water cycles, vegetation and productivity continuously improve instead of just maintaining the status [quo]. The diversity, quality, vitality and health of the soil, plants, animals and people also improve together.”4

Changing the Conversation: Regenerative Food and Farming

In September 2014 when a group of us, including Vandana Shiva, Andre Leu, Will Allen, Steve Rye, Alexis Baden-Meyer and staff from Dr. Bronner’s, Dr. Mercola, Organic Consumers Association and the Rodale Institute, organized a press conference at the massive climate march in New York City to announce the formation of Regeneration International, we set for ourselves a simple, but what seemed like then ambitious, goal.

We all agreed we needed to fundamentally change the conversation on the climate crisis in the U.S. and around the world — then narrowly focused on renewable energy and energy conservation — so as to incorporate regenerative and organic food, farming and land use as a major solution to global warming, given its proven ability to drawdown and sequester massive amounts of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the soil, forests and plants.

Now, less than a decade later, I believe our growing Regeneration Movement has achieved this goal. Regeneration is now the hottest topic in the natural and organic food and farming sector, while climate activists including the Sunrise Movement and 350.org in the U.S. regularly talk about the role of organic and regenerative practices in reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

More and more people now understand that we can achieve, through enhanced photosynthesis and drawdown, the “Net Zero” emissions goal in 2030 to 2050 that nearly everyone now agrees will be necessary if we are to avoid runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.

Identifying Regenerative and Organic ‘Best Practices’

Inside Regeneration International, which now includes 400 affiliates in more than 60 countries,5 our conversation has shifted to identifying regenerative and organic “best practices” around the globe.

Our goal is to strategize how we can help qualitatively expand and scale up regenerative best practices so that organic and regenerative becomes the norm, rather than just the alternative, for the planet’s now degenerative multitrillion-dollar food, farming and land use system.

Our discussions and strategizing are not just an academic exercise. As most of us now realize, our very survival as a civilization and a species is threatened by a systemic crisis that has degraded climate stability, our food and our environment, along with every major aspect of modern life.

This mega-crisis cannot be resolved by piecemeal reforms or minor adjustments such as slightly cutting our current levels of fossil fuel use, reducing global deforestation, soil degradation and military spending.

Either we move beyond merely treating the symptoms of our planetary degeneration and build instead a new system based upon regenerative food, farming and land use, coupled with renewable energy practices and global cooperation instead of belligerence, or we will soon (likely within 25 years) pass the point of no return.

A big challenge is how do we describe the crisis of global warming and severe climate change in such a way that everyday people understand the problem and grasp the solution that we’re proposing, i.e., renewable energy and regenerative food, farming and land use?

Enhanced Photosynthesis Is All-Important

The bottom line is that humans have put too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases (especially methane and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere (from burning fossil fuels and destructive land use), trapping the sun’s heat from radiating back into space and heating up the planet.

And, unfortunately, because of the destructive food, farming and forestry practices that have degraded a major portion of the Earth’s landscape, we’re not drawing down enough of these CO2 emissions through plant photosynthesis to cool things off.

In a word, there’s too much CO2 and greenhouse gas pollution blanketing the sky (and saturating the oceans) and not enough life-giving carbon in the ground and in our living plants, trees, pastures and rangelands.

Increasing plant and forest photosynthesis (accomplished via enhanced soil fertility and biological life, as well as an adequate amount of water and minerals) is the only practical way that we can draw down a significant amount of the excess CO2 and greenhouse gases in our atmosphere that are heating up the Earth and disrupting our climate.

Through photosynthesis, plants and trees utilize solar energy to break down CO2 from the atmosphere, release oxygen and transform the remaining carbon into plant biomass and liquid carbon.

Photosynthesis basically enables plants to grow above ground and produce biomass, but also stimulates growth below ground as plants transfer a portion of the liquid carbon they produce through photosynthesis into their root systems to feed the soil microorganisms that in turn feed the plant.

From the standpoint of drawing down enough CO2 and greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and sequestering them in our soils and biota to reverse global warming, qualitatively enhanced photosynthesis is all-important.

Agave Power: Greening the Desert

As my contribution to the global expansion of regenerative and organic food and farming practices, I have spent the last several years working with Mexican farmers and ranchers, consumer organizations, elected political officials (mainly at the local and state level), and socially and environmentally-concerned “impact investors.”

Our goal is to develop and qualitatively expand what we believe is a game-changer for much of the 40% of the world’s pasturelands and rangelands that are arid and semi-arid, areas where it is now nearly impossible to grow food crops, and where it is too overgrazed and degraded for proper livestock grazing.

We call this Mexico-based agave and agroforestry/livestock management system Agave Power: Greening the Desert, and are happy to report that its ideas and practices are now starting to spread from the high desert plateau of Guanajuato across much of arid and semi-arid Mexico.

We now are receiving inquiries and requests for information about this agave-based, polyculture/perennial system from desert and semi-desert areas all over the world, including Central America, the Southwestern U.S., Argentina, Chile, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Australia, Myanmar and Oman.

You can learn more about this Agave Power system on the websites of Regeneration International6 and the Organic Consumers Association.7

Primary Drivers of Regeneration and Degeneration

What I and others have learned “on the ground” trying to expand and scale-up regenerative and organic best practices is that there are four basic drivers of regenerative (or conversely degenerative) food, farming and land use.

The first is consumer awareness and market demand. Without an army of conscious consumers and widespread market demand, regenerative practices are unlikely to reach critical mass. Second is farmer, rancher and land stewardship innovation, including the development of value-added products and ecosystem restoration services.

The third driver is policy change and public funding, starting at the local and regional level. And last but not least is regenerative finance — large-scale investing on the part of the private sector, what is now commonly known as “impact investing.”

In order to qualitatively expand organic and regenerative best practices and achieve critical mass sufficient to transform our currently degenerative systems, we need all four of these drivers to be activated and working in synergy.

Let’s look now at four contemporary drivers of degeneration, degenerative food, farming and land use, in order to understand what the forces or drivers are that are holding us back from moving forward to regeneration.

1. Degenerated grassroots consciousness and morale — When literally billions of people, a critical mass of the 99%, are hungry, malnourished, scared and divided, struggling to survive with justice and dignity; when the majority of the global body politic are threatened and assaulted by a toxic environment and food system; when hundreds of millions are overwhelmed by economic stress due to low wages and the high cost of living; when hundreds of millions are weakened by chronic health problems, or battered by floods, droughts and weather extremes, regenerative change — Big Change — will not come easily.

Neither will it happen when seemingly endless wars and land grabs for water, land and strategic resources spiral out of control, or when indentured politicians, corporations, Big Tech and the mass media manipulate crises such as COVID-19 to stamp out freedom of expression and participatory democracy in order to force a “Business-as-Usual” or “Great Reset” paradigm down our throats.

Disempowered, exploited people, overwhelmed by the challenges of everyday survival, usually don’t have the luxury of connecting the dots between the issues that are pressing down on them and focusing on the Big Picture.

It’s the job of regenerators to connect the dots between the climate crisis and people’s everyday concerns such as food, health, jobs and economic justice, to globalize awareness, political mobilization and, most of all, to globalize hope.

It’s the job of regenerators to make the connections between personal and public health and planetary health, to expose the truth about the origins, nature, prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and chronic disease, and to mobilize the public to reject a so-called Great Reset disguised as fundamental reform, but actually a Trojan Horse for a 21st Century Technocracy that is profoundly antidemocratic and authoritarian.

Regenerators have to be able to make the connections between different issues and concerns, identify and support best practitioners and policies and build synergy between social forces, effectively lobby governments (starting at the local level), businesses and investors for change, all the while educating and organizing grassroots alliances and campaigns across communities, constituencies and even national borders.

But this of course will not be easy, nor will it take place overnight. Our profoundly destructive, degenerative, climate-destabilizing food and farming system, primarily based upon industrial agriculture inputs and practices, is held together by a multibillion-dollar system of marketing and advertising that has misled or literally brainwashed a global army of consumers into believing that cheap, artificially flavored, “fast food” is not only acceptable, but “normal” and “natural.”

After decades of consuming sugar, salt, carbohydrate-rich and “bad fat”-laden foods from industrial farms, animal factories and chemical manufacturing plants, many consumers have literally become addicted to the artificial flavors and aromas that make super-processed foods and “food-like substances” so popular.

2. Degenerate “conventional” farms, farming and livestock management — Compounding the lack of nutritional education, choice, poverty, inertia and apathy of a large segment of consumers, other major factors driving our degenerative food and farming system include the routine and deeply institutionalized practices of industrial and chemical-intensive farming and land use (monocropping, heavy plowing, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, GMOs, factory farms, deforestation, wetlands destruction) today.

These soil-, climate-, health- and environmentally-destructive practices are especially prevalent on the world’s 50 million large farms, which, in part, are kept in place by global government subsidies totaling $500 billion a year.

Meanwhile, there are few or no subsidies for organic or regenerative farmers, especially small farmers (80% of the world’s farmers are small farmers), nor for farmers and ranchers who seek to make this transition.

Reinforcing these multibillion-dollar subsidies for bad farming practices are a global network of chemical- and agribusiness-controlled agricultural research and teaching institutions, focused on producing cheap food and fiber (no matter what the cost to the environment, climate and public health) and agro-export agricultural commodities (often pesticide-intensive GMO grains).

What we need instead are subsidies, research and technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to produce healthy, organic and regenerative food for local, regional and domestic markets, rewarding farmers with a fair price for producing healthy food and being a steward, rather than a destroyer, of the environment.

Monopoly Control — Another driver of degeneration, holding back farmer adoption of regenerative practices and determining the type of food and crops that are produced, is the monopoly or near-monopoly control by giant agribusiness corporations over much of the food system, especially in industrialized countries, as well as the monopoly or near-monopoly control by giant retail chains such as Walmart and internet giants like Amazon.

The out-of-control “Foodopoly” that dominates our food system is designed to maximize short-term profits and exports for the large transnational corporations, preserve patents and monopoly control over seeds, and uphold international trade agreements (NAFTA, WTO) that favor corporate agribusiness and large farms over small farms; factory farms over traditional grazing and animal husbandry; and agro-exports instead of production for local and regional markets.

Food and farming is the largest industry in the world with consumers spending an estimated $7.5 trillion a year on food. In addition, the largely unacknowledged social, environmental and health costs (i.e., collateral damage) of the industrial food chain amounts to an additional $4.8 trillion a year.8

3. and 4. Degenerate public policy and public and private investments — Agriculture is the largest employer in the world with 570 million farmers and farm laborers supporting 3.5 billion people in rural households and communities.9 In addition to workers on the farm, food chain workers in processing, distribution and retail make up hundreds of millions of other jobs in the world, with over 20 million food chain workers in the U.S. alone (17.5% of the total workforce).

This makes public policy relating to food, farming and land use very important. Unfortunately, thousands of laws and regulations are passed every year, in every country and locality, that basically prop up conventional (i.e., industrial, factory farm, export-oriented, GMO) food and farming, while there is very little legislation passed or resources geared toward promoting organic and regenerative food and farming.

Trillions of dollars have been, and continue to be, invested in the so-called “conventional” food and farming sector, including trillions from the savings and pension funds of many conscious consumers, who would no doubt prefer their savings to be invested in a different manner, if they knew how to do this.

Unfortunately, only a tiny percentage of public or private investment is currently going toward organic, grass fed, free-range and other healthy foods produced by small and medium-sized farms and ranches for local and regional consumption.

Healthy soil, healthy plants, healthy animals, healthy people, healthy climate, healthy societies — our physical and economic health, our very survival as a species, are directly connected to the soil, biodiversity and the health and fertility of our food and farming systems. Regenerative organic farming and land use can move us back into balance, back to a stable climate and a life-supporting environment.

It’s time to move beyond degenerate ethics, farming, land use, energy policies, politics and economics. It’s time to move beyond “too little, too late” mitigation and sustainability strategies. It’s time to inspire and mobilize a mighty global army of Regenerators, before it’s too late.

The Vaccine (Dis)Information War

By C.J. Hopkins

So, good news, folks! It appears that GloboCap’s Genetic Modification Division has come up with a miracle vaccine for Covid! It’s an absolutely safe, non-experimental, messenger-RNA vaccine that teaches your cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response, just like your body’s immune-system response, only better, because it’s made by corporations!

OK, technically, it hasn’t been approved for use — that process normally takes several years — so I guess it’s slightly “experimental,” but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have issued “Emergency Use Authorizations,” and it has been “tested extensively for safety and effectiveness,” according to Facebook’s anonymous “fact checkers,” so there’s absolutely nothing to worry about.

This non-experimental experimental vaccine is truly an historic development, because apart from saving the world from a virus that causes mild to moderate flu-like symptoms (or, more commonly, no symptoms whatsoever) in roughly 95% of those infected, and that over 99% of those infected survive,1 the possibilities for future applications of messenger-RNA technology, and the genetic modification of humans, generally, is virtually unlimited at this point.

Imagine all the diseases we can cure, and all the genetic “mistakes” we can fix, now that we can reprogram people’s genes to do whatever we want — cancer, heart disease, dementia, blindness, not to mention the common cold! We could even cure psychiatric disorders, like “antisocial personality disorder,”2 “oppositional defiant disorder,”3 and other “conduct disorders”4 and “personality disorders.”5

Who knows? In another hundred years, we will probably be able to genetically cleanse the human species of age-old scourges, like racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia, etcetera, by reprogramming everyone’s defective alleles, or implanting some kind of nanotechnological neurosynaptic chips into our brains.

Humans Irrationally Resistant to Corporate Redesign

The only thing standing in our way is people’s totally irrational resistance to letting corporations redesign the human organism, which, clearly, was rather poorly designed, and thus is vulnerable to all these horrible diseases, and emotional and behavioral disorders. But I’m getting a little ahead of myself.

The important thing at the moment is to defeat this common-flu-like pestilence that has no significant effect on age-adjusted death rates,6 and the mortality profile of which is more or less identical to the normal mortality profile,7 but which has nonetheless left the global corporatocracy no choice but to “lock down” the entire planet, plunge millions into desperate poverty, order everyone to wear medical-looking masks, unleash armed goon squads to raid people’s homes, and otherwise transform society into a pathologized-totalitarian nightmare.

And, of course, the only way to do that (i.e., save humanity from a flu-like bug) is to coercively vaccinate every single human being on the planet Earth!8

OK, you’re probably thinking that doesn’t make much sense, this crusade to vaccinate the entire species against a relatively standard respiratory virus, but that’s just because you are still thinking critically. You really need to stop thinking like that. As The New York Times just pointed out, critical thinking isn’t helping.9

In fact, it might be symptomatic of one of those “disorders” I just mentioned above.10 Critical thinking leads to “vaccine hesitancy,” which is why corporations are working with governments to immediately censor any and all content that deviates from the official Covid-19 narrative11 and deplatform the authors of such content,12 or discredit them as “anti-vax disinformationists.”13

For example, Children’s Health Defense14 has been reporting on so-called “adverse events” and deaths in connection with the Covid vaccines, despite the fact that, according to the authorities, “there are no safety problems with the vaccines”15 and “there is no link between Covid-19 vaccines and those who die after receiving them.”16

In fact, according to the “fact-checkers” at Reuters, these purported “reports of adverse events” “may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable”!17

Death Reports Lure People Into ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’

Yes, you’re reading between the lines right. The corporate media can’t come right out and say it, but it appears the “anti-vax disinformationists” are fabricating “adverse events” out of whole cloth and hacking them into the VAERS database18 and other such systems around the world.

Worse, they are somehow infiltrating these made-up stories into the mainstream media in order to lure people into “vaccine hesitancy” and stop us from vaccinating every man, woman, and child in the physical universe,19 repeatedly, on an ongoing basis, for as long as the “medical experts” deem necessary. Here are just a few examples of their handiwork:

In Norway, 23 elderly people died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine.20 However, according to Reuters’ “fact-checkers,” it turns out, old people just die sometimes, especially in nursing homes, from a variety of causes, unless they haven’t been vaccinated, in which case they definitely died of Covid, regardless of what they actually died of.

For example, a 99-year-old man suffering from dementia and emphysema, who tested negative for the virus three times, was added to the “Covid deaths” figures21 because a nursing home doctor “assumed” it was Covid (which GloboCap has expressly instructed22 him to do).

In Germany, 13 of 40 residents of one nursing home died after being vaccinated,23 but this was just a “tragic coincidence,” which had absolutely nothing to do with the vaccine.

In Spain, in another “tragic coincidence,” 46 nursing home residents who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine died within the course of one month.24 A further 28 of the 94 residents and 12 staff members subsequently tested positive.

In Florida, a healthy middle-aged doctor died from an unusual blood disorder two weeks after receiving the vaccine,25 but, according to the experts, the sudden onset of this rare immunological blood disorder (i.e., immune thrombocytopenia) “should not be interpreted as linked to the vaccine,” and was probably just a total coincidence.

In California, a 60-year-old X-ray technologist received a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. A few hours later he had trouble breathing. He was hospitalized and died four days later.26 His widow says she’s not ready at this point to link her husband’s death to the vaccine. “I’m not putting any blame on Pfizer,”27 she said, “or on any other pharmaceutical company.” So, probably just another coincidence.

A 78-year-old woman in California died immediately after being vaccinated,28 but her death was not related to the vaccine, health officials assured the public.

“(She) received an injection of the Covid-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer around noon. While seated in the observation area after the injection, [she] complained of feeling discomfort and while being evaluated by medical personnel she lost consciousness.” Despite the sudden death of his wife, her husband intends to receive a second dose.

A former Detroit news anchor died just one day after receiving the vaccine,29 but it was probably just a coincidental stroke, which the “normal side effects of the vaccine may have masked.”

Also in Michigan, a 90-year-old man died the day after receiving the vaccine,30 but, again, this was just a tragic coincidence. As Dr. David Gorski explained, “the baseline death rate of 90-year-olds is high because they’re 90 years old,” which makes perfect sense, unless, of course, they died of Covid, in which case their age and underlying conditions make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

In Kentucky, two nuns at a monastery died, and more than two dozen others tested positive, in a sudden “Covid-19 outbreak” that began two days after the nuns were vaccinated.31 The monastery had been completely closed to visitors and Covid-free up to that point, but the nuns were old and had “health issues,” and so on.

In Virginia, a 58-year-old grandmother died within hours after receiving the vaccine,32 but, as Facebook’s “fact checkers” prominently pointed out, it had to be just another coincidence, because the “vaccines have been tested for safety extensively.”

gloucester death
Source: off-guardian.org

And then there are all the people on Facebook sharing their stories of loved ones who have died shortly after receiving the Covid vaccine, who the Facebook “fact checkers” are doing their utmost to discredit with their official-looking “fact-check notices.” For example:

fb post smudged
Source: off-guardian.org

OK, I realize it’s uncomfortable to have to face things like that (i.e., global corporations like Facebook implying that these people are lying or are using the sudden deaths of their loved ones to discourage others from getting vaccinated), especially if you’re just trying to follow orders and parrot official propaganda — even the most fanatical Covidian Cultists33 probably still have a shred of human empathy buried deep in their cold little hearts.

But there’s an information war on, folks!34 You’re either with the Corporatocracy or against it! This is no time to get squeamish, or, you know, publicly exhibit an ounce of compassion. What would your friends and colleagues think of you?!

No, report these anti-vaxxers to the authorities, shout them down on social media, switch off your critical-thinking faculties, and get in line to get your vaccination! The fate of the human species depends on it! And, if you’re lucky, maybe GloboCap will even give you one of these nifty numerical Covid-vaccine tattoos for free!

moderna vaccine tattoo
Source: off-guardian.org

C.J. Hopkins is an award-winning playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volumes I and II of his Consent Factory Essays are published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.

The Billion Agave Project

The Billion Agave Project is a game-changing, ecosystem-regeneration strategy recently adopted by several innovative Mexican farms in the high-desert region of Guanajuato. With your support, we’ve been the primary group to donate to Organic Consumers Association supporting this crucial project that is now proven to green arid regions and provide both food and income for some of the world’s most challenged farmers.

This strategy combines the growing of agave plants and nitrogen-fixing companion tree species (such as mesquite), with holistic rotational grazing of livestock. The result is a high-biomass, high forage-yielding system that works well even on degraded, semi-arid lands. A manifesto on mesquite is available in English1 and Español.2

The system produces large amounts of agave leaf and root stem — up to 1 ton of biomass over the 8- to 10-year life of the plant. When chopped and fermented in closed containers, this plant material produces an excellent, inexpensive (2 cents per pound) animal fodder.

This agroforestry system reduces the pressure to overgraze brittle rangelands and improves soil health and water retention, while drawing down and storing massive amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

The goal of the Billion Agave campaign is to plant 1 billion agaves globally to draw down and store 1 billion tons of climate-destabilizing CO2. The campaign will be funded by donations and public and private investments.

Why Agave?


Climate-Change Solution

Agave plants and nitrogen-fixing trees, densely intercropped and cultivated together, have the capacity to draw down and sequester massive amounts of atmospheric CO2.

They also produce more above-ground and below-ground biomass (and animal fodder) on a continuous year-to-year basis than any other desert or semi-desert species. Agaves alone can draw down and store above ground the dry-weight equivalent of 30 to 60 tons of CO2 per hectare (12 to 24 tons per acre) per year.

Ideal for arid and hot climates, agaves and their companion trees, once established, require no irrigation and are basically impervious to rising global temperatures and drought.

Livestock Feed Source

Agave leaves, full of saponins and lectins, are indigestible for livestock. However, once their massive leaves (high in sugar) are chopped finely via a machine and fermented in closed containers for 30 days, the end product provides a nutritious and inexpensive silage or animal fodder.

This agave/companion tree silage, combined with the restoration of degraded rangelands, can make the difference between survival and grinding poverty for millions of the world’s small farmers and herders.

Drought-Resistant

Agaves require little-to-no irrigation. They thrive even in dry, degraded lands unsuitable for crop production because of their Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) photosynthetic pathway.

The CAM pathway enables agave plants to draw down moisture from the air and store it in their thick leaves at night. During daylight hours, the opening in their leaves (the stomata) closes up, drastically reducing evaporation.

A New Agroforestry Model


A pioneering group of Mexican farmers is transforming their landscape and their livelihoods. How? By densely planting (1,600 to 2,500 per hectare), pruning and intercropping a fast-growing, high-biomass, high forage-yielding species of agaves among preexisting (500 per hectare) deep-rooted, nitrogen-fixing tree species (such as mesquite), or among planted tree seedlings.

When the agaves are 3 years old, and for the following five to seven years, farmers can prune the leaves or pencas, chop them up finely with a machine, and then ferment the agave in closed containers for 30 days, ideally combining the agave leaves with 20% of leguminous pods and branches by volume to give them a higher protein level.

In Guanajuato, mesquite trees start to produce pods that can be harvested in five years. By Year 7, the mesquite and agaves have grown into a fairly dense forest. In Years 8 to 10, the root stem or pina (weighing between 100 and 200 pounds) of the agave is ready for harvesting to produce a distilled liquor called mescal.

Meanwhile the hijuelos (or pups) put out by the mother agave plants are being continuously transplanted back into the agroforestry system, guaranteeing continuous biomass growth (and carbon storage).

In this agroforestry system farmers avoid overgrazing by integrating rotational grazing of their livestock across their rangelands. They feed their animals by supplementing pasture forage with fermented agave silage.

The Modelling-Paper Mafiosi

John Edmunds is on top of the world. He’s one of the modelling-paper mafiosi. The London, U.K., professor is a key government advisor on COVID-19-related policies. Edmunds also was a co-author of one of the primary modelling papers1 that have been used to convince the masses that vigilance against new variant B.1.1.7 should be their top priority.

And Edmunds co-wrote an influential January 21, 2021 report2 that concluded, “There is a realistic possibility that VOC B.1.1.7 is associated with an increased risk of death compared to non-VOC viruses.”

In addition, he speaks often to reporters about the deadliness3 of the new variant.4 Edmunds tells them, for example, that a “disaster”5 would ensue if lockdowns are eased too soon, because what first must be done is to “vaccinate much, much, much more widely than the elderly.”6

Follow the Funds

Edmunds happens to be the spouse of someone who, at least until April 2020, was an employee of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and held shares in the company. (Edmunds doesn’t disclose this in any of his media interviews that I’ve read and watched. He also doesn’t disclose his own stock holdings.)

According to an April 2020 Daily Telegraph7 article,8 Edmunds’s wife is Jeanne Pimenta and she works for GSK. The Daily Telegraph article states Edmunds asserted his partner had recently resigned from GSK. So it’s unclear whether Pimenta currently works there or not.

I did a little digging and found that the only Jeanne Pimenta LinkedIn profile9 indicates she’s currently director of epidemiology at GSK, while Jeanne Pimenta’s ResearchGate profile10 says she’s an epidemiologist at BioMarin Pharmaceutical. (More about Edmunds being married to a present or former Glaxo employee in the next section of this article.)

In any case, GSK’s financial success is skyrocketing. On February 311 the company announced it’s collaborating with mRNA-vaccine company CureVac to spend 150 million euros — approximately $180 million — to make vaccines for the new variants.

That effectively gives them first-entrant advantage in vaccines for the new variants. And that same February 3 news release12 touts the new-variant vaccines as also able to serve as “booster” shots after the initial rounds of vaccination. In addition, GSK joined forces with CureVac to pump out, later this year, 100 million doses of CureVac’s “first-generation” COVID-19 vaccine called “CvnCoV.”13

Not only that: this fall14 GSK together with another international pharmaceutical firm, Sanofi, are scheduled to start producing what could turn out to be up to 1 billion doses of their COVID-19 vaccine annually.15 GSK’s understated February 3 announcement16 of its Q4 2020 financial results said it will “continue to expect meaningful improvement in revenues and margins” because they are “building a high-value biopharma pipeline.”

Note that GSK and other pharma companies17 like Moderna and Pfizer18 are not responsible for damage and compensation payments to people seriously injured and killed by COVID-19 vaccines. Governments19 will pay instead — that is, if those injured and killed and their loved ones are able to beat the long odds20 and get any compensation at all.

And a remarkable February 8, 2021,21 investigative report in the German news outlet Welt Am Sonntag (which translates to World on Sunday) reveals another impetus for the wildly inaccurate modelling governments use to keep populations in a state of fear and control.

The German article shows that in March 2020 government officials enlisted “leading scientists from several research institutes and universities. Together, they were to produce a [mathematical-modelling] paper that would serve as legitimization for further tough political measures.”

These scientists obediently wrote a modelling paper tailored to the government’s instructions. The then-secret paper asserted that if lockdown measures were lifted immediately, up to 1 million Germans would die from COVID-19, some “agonizingly at home, gasping for breath,” after being turned away from overflowing hospitals.

Edmunds Is Deeply Invested in the Vaccine World

There’s still more to the web of money and influence surrounding Edmunds and other modelling-paper mafiosi, including Neil Ferguson.

The first new-variant modelling paper Edmunds co-wrote, which was posted on December 23, 202022 was co-authored with his fellow members of the Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). People in the center’s COVID-19 Working Group also contributed.

The modelling paper was posted on the e-journal medr?iv, which publishes only non-peer-reviewed papers. The journal is the creation of an organization led by Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg and his wife.23 I discuss medr?iv and the Zuckerberg connection in my February 3 article24 on the baselessness for the modelling papers that claim the new variants are very dangerous.

Edmunds also is dean of the LSHTM’s Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health. I contacted the institution’s media-relations department to request an interview with one of the December 23, 2020, modelling paper’s authors. I didn’t receive a response.

In a February 2017 video interview,25 Edmunds enthused that the LSHTM specializes in every aspect of vaccine development, from basic science to large-scale clinical trials.

In the video he also touts using mathematical modelling as a good way to show that vaccines protect individuals and society. (And among other things he describes his group’s efforts in giving children flu vaccines and — in conjunction with Public Health England — promoting human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccines for girls and boys.)

In addition, Edmunds is a key member of the UK Vaccine Network26 (which until recently was known as the UK Vaccines Network — the URL for the organization has “UK Vaccines Network”27 in it).

And he’s a member of the U.K. government’s Science Advisory Group for Emergencies28 (SAGE), which provides COVID-measure advice — much of it related to the unprecedentedly forceful push for mass vaccination — to U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson and his cabinet.

On top of that, Edmunds is a member of the U.K. government’s New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG).29 It works hand in hand with SAGE, and it also heavily promotes vaccination.

And as mentioned earlier, Edmunds is married to a current or former GSK employee. A 2015 article that Edmunds co-authored states under “Competing interests” for Edmunds that “My partner works for GSK.”30 Similarly, on the NERVTAG website’s conflict-disclosure pages — which for some reason haven’t been updated since October 201731 — it reveals that Edmunds’s spouse works for GSK.

As a quick other note, the “Author Contributions and Acknowledgements” section of the PDF of the December 23 modelling analysis32 of B.1.1.7 (pages 15 and 16) shows that almost all of the paper’s authors and members of the modelling center’s COVID-19 Working Group receive funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and/or Wellcome Trust. (By the way, a search for Wellcome Trust yields the Wellcome website.33)

And there’s more to the Edmunds story. Among other of my finds: he’s also on the Scientific Advisory Board34 for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI).35 CEPI was created primarily by the BMGF, the World Economic Forum and the major pharma company Wellcome.

CEPI’s website states36 it was “launched in Davos [at the meeting of the World Economic Forum in January] 2017 to develop vaccines to stop future epidemics. Our mission is to accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable equitable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks.”

Investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley last year wrote a must-read two-part37 analysis of the ties between the key individuals, institutions, companies and funders of the UK’s COVID-19 response. She mentioned that GSK is working with CEPI to develop COVID-19 vaccines. This alliance is still going strong38 today.

Note also that the LSHTM’s Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, which Edmunds heads, is primarily funded by the BMGF and the Gavi alliance. (Gavi promotes mass vaccination of people around the world — including by quarterbacking the COVAX program.

Gavi’s biggest funders include the BMGF. Doctors Without Borders has criticized Gavi39 for being “aimed more at supporting drug-industry desires to promote new products than at finding the most efficient and sustainable means for fighting the diseases of poverty.”)

BMGF funding for the LSHTM’s Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health is growing very fast. For example, BMGF’s new grants to the faculty rose from $4.9 million in 2013-2014 (see page 14 [p. 9 in the PDF] of the LSHTM’s 2014 annual report40) to $13.19 million in 2015-2016 (see page 14 [p. 9 in the PDF] of the LSHTM’s 2016 annual report41) (top new research grants to each faculty at the LSHTM stopped being reported in the annual reports after 2017).

Funding from the BMGF to the LSHTM as a whole was 30.2 million pounds ($40.2 million) in 2017-2018 (see page 9 [p. 6 in the PDF] in the school’s 2018 annual report42). By the way, the LSHTM also has a Vaccines Manufacturing Innovation Centre.43 It develops, tests and commercializes vaccines. (I couldn’t find any information on where the vaccines center’s funding comes from.)

The vaccines center also performs affiliated activities like combating “vaccine hesitancy.” The latter includes the Vaccine Confidence Project.44 The project’s stated purpose is,45 among other things, “to provide analysis and guidance for early response and engagement with the public to ensure sustained confidence in vaccines and immunisation.”

The Vaccine Confidence Project’s director is LSHTM professor Heidi Larson.46 For more than a decade she’s been researching how to combat vaccine hesitancy. LSHTM47 underpins the project, which also is a member of the WHO’s Vaccine Safety Net.48

More Modelling Mafiosi

Here’s information about two other members of this club:

Public Health England (PHE) issued its first detailed report on the new variant in late December 202049 and continues to provide updates.50 None of their reports are peer-reviewed. One of the highest-profile co-authors of the PHE reports is PHE director Susan Hopkins.51 She’s also a professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College London.52 The college receives tens of millions of dollars a year from the BMGF.

See for example this grant,53 this one,54 this one55 and this one.56 (I emailed PHE media relations to request an interview about PHE’s new-variants reports. PHE communications person Zahra Vindhani responded, “Dr. Hopkins won’t have the capacity for this in the upcoming weeks, and we aren’t able to confirm anyone else for this either.”)

PHE is guided in its approach to vaccination by PHE’s “Strategic Priority 1” for combating infectious diseases in 2020 to 2025. It is to “Optimise vaccine provision and reduce vaccine preventable diseases in England” (see p. 9 of PHE’s Infectious Disease Strategy 2020-202557).

Neil Ferguson is a co-author of the PHE reports and also of a widely quoted December 31 modelling paper58 on the dangerousness of B.1.1.7. He’s acting director of the Imperial College London-based Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium.59

Ferguson’s modelling has been extremely faulty again over the years. This has been thoroughly documented. For example, as investigative journalist Beeley wrote in Part One60 of a two-part investigative report in April-May 2020, Ferguson’s modelling over-estimated by about 3 million-fold the death toll from the bird flu, also known as H5N1.

As a result, a lot of money was made by bird-flu-vaccine manufacturers, ranging from Roche (for its now-infamous, ineffective Tamiflu61) to Sanofi,62 and they were used widely.63

Ferguson also grossly overestimated the effects of swine flu, or H1N1. As a result, millions of people were needlessly given GSK’s Pandemrix.64 It caused brain damage, primarily narcolepsy65 and cataplexy, in hundreds if not thousands of vaccine recipients, mostly children. The pharma giant was granted no fault in any damage claims.66

Therefore the British government paid more than 60 million pounds (approximately $80 million at 2017 conversion rates) to victims.67 (And as mentioned earlier in this article, GSK and other pharma companies68 are similarly protected from having to pay damages to people injured or killed by their COVID-19 vaccines.)

Ferguson also is a member, together with Edmunds and others, of SAGE.69

Another group he’s a member of is the highly influential NERVTAG.70 It’s the group that issued the January 21, 202171 warning, mentioned earlier in this article, that B.1.1.7 is deadly.

Ferguson is a NERVTAG member even though he was reported to have resigned last spring72 after being caught visiting with his married lover when everyone in England was supposed to only be having contact with members of their own households (based in large part on Ferguson’s modelling and his urging the government to lock the country down).

Ferguson also is a member73 of the UK Vaccines Network,74 along with Edmunds and others such as the Network chair Chris Whitty, who’s also the U.K. government’s top COVID-19 adviser.

The network’s focus, according to its website, “to support the [U.K.] government to identify and shortlist targeted investment opportunities for the most promising vaccines and vaccine technologies that will help combat infectious diseases with epidemic potential, and to address structural issues related to the UK’s broader vaccine infrastructure.”

These ties bind Edmunds, Ferguson and Hopkins — along with the rest of the modelling-paper mafiosi — to the bidding of governments, Big Pharma, Bill Gates and other powerful players. They present an image of being fully devoted to the public good, while in fact actively helping to destroy it.

Editor’s Note: This is a reprint of an article by Rosemary Frei. She has a master of science in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary and was a freelance medical journalist for 22 years. She is now an independent investigative journalist in Canada.

Shameless Manipulation of Positive PCR Tests

Hospitalization rates1 associated with COVID have dropped from a high of 132,500 Americans on January 6, 2021, to 71,500 on February 12, 2021. The U.S. had 920,000 staffed hospital beds in 2019,2 of which 14.4% harbored a COVID case in January 2021, and 7.8% do so far in February 2021.

This tremendous drop was predicted. Every hospitalized patient is tested for COVID, often repeatedly, using PCR tests with high false positive rates. False positives are due in considerable part to exorbitant cycle thresholds. This refers to the maximum number of doublings that are allowed during the test.

The problem caused by excessive cycle thresholds was well described in an August 2020 New York Times article,3 but has otherwise been ignored by the mass media. Dr. Sin Hang Lee, director of Connecticut-based Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, challenged4 the FDA’s reliance on exorbitant cycle thresholds in its acceptance of efficacy claims for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in early December 2020. He and FDA remain engaged in this debate.

The WHO instructed PCR test users and manufacturers on December 14, 2020,5 and again on January 20, 2021,6 that PCR cycle thresholds needed to come down. The December 14 guidance stated WHO’s concern regarding “an elevated risk for false SARS-CoV-2 results” and pointed to “background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold value result being [incorrectly] interpreted as a positive result.”

The first instruction7 has been superseded by the second, which additionally advises on clinical use of the test:8 If the “test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested …”

While this implies that the test should only be performed in those with symptoms, and its results should be interpreted with the clinical context in mind, most PCR tests in the U.S. are used very differently: to screen asymptomatics at work, at colleges and universities and to permit border crossings.

No Caution Is Applied to the Results

One single positive test defines someone as a COVID case. Yet, it is well known,9 and was acknowledged in WHO’s January 2021 guidance, that screening in low COVID prevalence situations, such as in the screening of asymptomatics, increases the risk of false positives.

And, the risk increases as the prevalence of disease drops, such that in situations of low disease prevalence, it is common to find that most positives are actually false positives. For example, see this [referenced] BMJ chart and then the real-life example in the comment below it.10

Everyone in the field knew that the PCR test results were bogus. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted11 in July 2020 that cycle thresholds above 35 were not measuring virus, and furthermore that virus could not be cultured from samples that required a high number of cycles to show positivity.

But the drumbeat from the Coronavirus Task Force12 and some academics13 and others14 was “test all, test often” — despite the inordinate numbers of false positives and negatives. Congress repeatedly15 allocated16 many billions of dollars for testing (often free for the person being tested) and so testing quickly mushroomed.

Nearly 2 million COVID tests a day17 were recorded in the U.S. between November 20, 2020, and January 19, 2021. Most of these have been PCR tests that, despite their problems, are still considered the most accurate. Most of the remaining tests performed were rapid antigen tests. These tests too suffer from high false positive rates, as the FDA warned in November 2020.18

While daily deaths have only dropped about 15% since January 12, 2021, there have been dramatic drops during the month in new cases19 (down 60% from 250,000 new cases a day to 100,000) and, as noted, in hospitalizations20 (down 46%). Reports claim more than 486,000 Americans have died from COVID as of February 16, 2021.21

However, none of these numbers is reliable. In addition to inaccurate PCR results, a variety of other measures have skewed the reported number of deaths from COVID. While CDC electronically codes other causes of death, it has chosen to hand code every COVID death,22 and explains:

“It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80% of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded by a person, which takes an average of 7 days.”

CDC Treating COVID Deaths Differently

I am waiting for CDC to answer my Freedom of Information Act query, which requested the protocol CDC’s coders use for coding COVID-19 as a cause of death. Why is CDC treating COVID deaths differently from deaths due to other conditions?

CDC changed the way it coded death certificates for a COVID-caused death in March 2020, to include everyone for whom COVID is in any way contributory to the death. By placing different parts of the instructions about coding on different web pages, CDC successfully hid what it was doing.

On one page, the guidance23 states, “If COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it should be reported on the death certificate.” On a different webpage, CDC states: “When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19.”24

CDC has encouraged providers to be generous with COVID designations.25 And the COVID death definition appears to be a moving target,26 variable across states. CDC attempts to explain27 why its mortality numbers do not add up, and includes this excuse: “Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths.” But it is CDC that chose not to issue uniform guidelines.

COVID Diagnosis Liberally Applied

Anyone with a positive COVID test who dies within 30 days of the test is counted as a death due to COVID, even if COVID is not mentioned on the death certificate in Nevada.28 Colorado coroners are being forced to list gunshot wound deaths as due to COVID29,30 if the victim had a positive recent test. Oregon’s health agency reported in August 2020:31

“We consider COVID-19 deaths to be: Deaths in which a patient hospitalized for any reason within 14 days of a positive COVID-19 test result dies in the hospital or within the 60 days following discharge. Deaths in which COVID-19 is listed as a primary or contributing cause of death on a death certificate.”

CDC guesstimates that many deaths, perhaps half, which list generic pneumonia as the cause of death are actually COVID deaths, and redesignates them as COVID-caused deaths.

CDC created a new statistical category for deaths, titled “Pneumonia, Influenza and COVID-19,” or PIC,32,33 to facilitate this redesignation.

CDC admitted:34

“Weekly mortality surveillance data include a combination of machine coded and manually coded causes of death collected from death certificates. Prior to week 4 (the week ending January 30, 2021), the percentages of deaths due to PIC were higher among manually coded records than more rapidly available machine coded records.

Improvements have been made to the machine coding process that allow for more COVID-19 related deaths to be machine coded, and going forward, the percentage of PIC deaths among machine coded and manually coded data are expected to be more similar.

The data presented are preliminary and expected to change as more data are received and processed, but the amount of change in the percentage of deaths due to PIC should be lower going forward. Weeks for which the largest changes in the percentage of deaths due to PIC may occur are highlighted in gray in the figure below and should be interpreted with caution.”

Percentage of PIC deaths

CDC applies several statistical techniques to deal with anomalous data before publishing its cause of death results. The raw death data are not made available to the public.

If COVID is listed as one contributor to a death on the death certificate, even if the death is caused by cancer or heart attack, CDC relabels it a death caused by COVID.

Because hospitals are paid several times more by Medicare for patients who have been given a COVID diagnosis, and a positive COVID test is not required, it is assumed that the diagnosis of COVID is applied liberally in hospitalized patients.

By changing the methods by which it performs its calculations, CDC has made it impossible to compare prior year statistics with the period since the onset of COVID.

Physician and former Minnesota state legislator Scott Jensen described an audit35 of death certificates attributed to COVID in Minnesota. The death certificates listing COVID as the underlying cause of death totaled 2,715, but the deaths attributed to COVID included an extra 878 deaths, a 32% increase.

The Public Is in the Dark

By accepting excessive cycle thresholds for COVID PCR tests, CDC considerably expanded the numbers of COVID-positive cases, hospitalizations and deaths. By using a variety of idiosyncratic and changing statistical measures, CDC was able to control and further increase the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19.

I do not mean to imply that the PCR tests, whose manufacturers may have recently reduced their cycle thresholds, are now accurate. Over 200 different PCR tests have been “authorized” under emergency rules36 by the FDA, which so far has not standardized or formally approved them.

The public is in the dark as to whether and how each individual test may have changed in response to WHO’s instruction, and we remain uninformed about the accuracy of each test. In fact, it has been established37 by the American College of Pathology that COVID-19 PCR test results are not reproducible.

By hand-coding each death due to COVID, CDC gave itself the power to determine how many COVID deaths would be counted at any particular time. And by creating excessively loose case definitions38 for COVID, several of which did not require a single sign of illness, just a positive test, CDC was able to calibrate the number of COVID-positive cases by the rate at which it rolled out tests to the nation.

Today, the media are telling us to rejoice. Maryland has just gotten its percentage of positive COVID tests below 5%,39 when a month ago the rate was 8.76%. In my state of Maine, a reduction in the percentage of test results that are positive has turned all counties “green,” allowing schools to be open.40 How much of this is due to dialing down the cycle thresholds?

We Are Being Lied Into the Abyss

Things are worse, things are better. Wear no mask41 — no, wear a mask — hey, wear two masks.42 New variants with even more infectivity are coming! But they are no more lethal, and SARS-CoV-2 is quite infectious already, so will the new strains make an appreciable difference?

It seems that despite having recovered from COVID, you can be reinfected with the new viral strains. But how common is that? Does it simply mean you can have a positive PCR test, but be otherwise asymptomatic? I found only a single case report43 of a person becoming severely ill from a new strain after having recovered from original COVID.

  • The point is to keep us begging for the latest vaccine as soon as we have received the last, but no-longer-effective, vaccine.
  • The point is to keep coming up with narratives to justify locking us up and reducing productivity.
  • The point is to keep us frightened and confused and unable to use our wits.
  • The point is to stop us looking deeply and clearly into what is happening, while the media blares COVID hysteria nonstop.

Our families are being torn apart. Our small businesses are going bankrupt. Our countries, and probably we ourselves, are being scooped up by the banks, as borrowing on an unheard-of scale persists at a dizzying pace. Who will pay these debts? What will be the price? Can you see that the looting and crashing of our economies is intentional, buttressed by lie after lie?

We are being lied into the abyss. Our so-called leaders are tossing us and especially our children and grandchildren over a cliff. They threw away our Constitution long ago. Now, they have stolen and sold our future.

Please calm down. Turn off all the “news” and ponder what has been happening. We can fix this mess, once enough of us understand it. Give it the time and focus it deserves. Our leaders won’t save us. Only WE can.

Pfizer Admits Vaccine Does Not Prevent COVID

People have asked why I was not blogging about the Covid vaccines. To be honest, I felt there was not enough information for me to be decisive, and I was waiting for more information to become available. However, someone called me and told me about a lot of allergic reactions, including one anaphylactic reaction, at a local hospital after 30 doses were given. Staff were instructed to keep this quiet.

Then I watched a nine-minute Ben Swann video1 about the vaccines, in which he read the “declination form” that must be signed by EMTs in Maine who refuse the vaccine. It contained false and misleading statements, and I realized I should no longer delay discussing what I know about the vaccines.

1. Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are made from messenger RNA and lipid nanoparticles containing polyethylene glycol (PEG).

a. Messenger RNA (or any RNA) can potentially be converted to DNA in the presence of reverse transcriptase. That DNA potentially, or bits of it, could become linked to your native DNA.

While I have no idea how likely this is, I began to take the possibility seriously only after two members of FDA’s advisory committee (the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, or VRBPAC) asked about it during their meeting to approve the Pfizer vaccine on December 10.2

I watched the entire meeting and took copious notes. Virologists tell us that much of our DNA is, in fact, originally viral DNA that found its way into ours.3 I now consider the potential for vaccine RNA to be converted to DNA and permanently inserted in my DNA a remote possibility — but one that I would like proven wrong before being vaccinated.

b. 70% of Americans have pre-existing antibodies to PEG. FDA suspects that these PEG antibodies may be the cause of anaphylaxis post vaccination. The U.K. recommends against people with severe allergic conditions receiving the mRNA vaccines.

The CDC, however, recommends people receive it regardless of their allergy history, only asking that those with severe allergies wait an additional 15 minutes (total of 30 minutes) in the clinic in case they need to be resuscitated.

Anaphylaxis is occurring at about 1 in 45,000 doses,4 or 17 times the rate CDC has determined it occurs after other vaccines (1.3 episodes per million vaccinations5). Therefore, getting the shot in a drugstore or anywhere that trained physicians are not close by to perform a resuscitation seems like a bad idea.

According to the American College of Allergy, “The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine should be administered in a health care setting where anaphylaxis can be treated.”6 California has temporarily halted use of a lot of Moderna’s vaccine due to a high rate of anaphylaxis.7

2. No vaccines made from messenger RNA nor this type of lipid nanoparticles have ever been used in humans. We have no idea about their long-term side effects. The clinical trials followed subjects for only two months after two doses of vaccine at the time the vaccines were authorized for use.

3. Neither the Moderna nor the Pfizer trial enrolled many frail elderly subjects. Since both vaccines entered general use less than one month ago, we have heard tales of nursing home residents catching Covid or dying in higher numbers after receiving the vaccines.

But we do not know if this is a random event or a reaction to vaccination, since reliable data are not yet available. The elderly often fail to mount an immune response to a vaccine; if this is the case, they should not receive the vaccine, because they will be subject to the side effects without the benefit.

UPDATE: Norway has recorded 23 deaths after the vaccinations. Thirteen have been investigated, autopsied and occurred in the frail elderly. Norway has now decided to recommend the obvious: “‘If you are very frail, you should probably not be vaccinated,’ Steinar Madsen at the Norwegian Medicines Agency said at a webinar on corona vaccine for journalists …”8

On January 15 from Bloomberg, “Norway said Covid-19 vaccines may be too risky for the very old and terminally ill, the most cautious statement yet from a European health authority as countries assess the real-world side effects of the first shots to gain approval.”9

4. Public health officials have said over and over that they do not know if the vaccines prevent spread. Pfizer’s lead representative to the VRBPAC meeting, Kathrin Jansen, Ph.D., said that Pfizer did not test human subjects to see if those vaccinated could get and spread the infection.

But Jansen admitted that Pfizer did test primates — and found that vaccinated monkeys did get Covid infections despite being vaccinated. Their duration of infection was shorter than in the unvaccinated monkeys.10

You can watch Jansen first claim that primates did not get infection in the lung but then admit they did get infections, of shorter duration than unvaccinated primates — at 7 hours 30 minutes into the meeting.11 By the way, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin do exactly the same thing — reduce duration of viral carriage — as shown in a new review article by Didier Raoult.12

5. Are the data from the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials reliable, especially the claim that both yield 95% efficacy?

a. Members of the VRBPAC advisory committee wanted more information. Two of them asked to be given the results between November 14 (the date the data collection ended) and December 10 (the date of the meeting). Separately, at two different times, both FDA and Pfizer refused to provide this to the committee.

b. There were relatively few Covid-19 cases in Pfizer’s trial (under 200) despite 40,000 enrollees. Peter Doshi, blogging for the British Medical journal,13 noted that 20 times as many subjects had Covid-like symptoms as those who were diagnosed positive using PCR tests, but the much larger group had negative PCR tests.

We now know there are large numbers of false positives and negatives with PCR tests. Cycle threshold information was not supplied. No sequencing was done to assure that PCR positive individuals actually had Covid. I don’t trust these data.

c. Both Moderna and Pfizer provided rudimentary information to the FDA to apply for Emergency Use Authorizations14 — much less than is required to issue a vaccine license, according to US law15 — despite what Drs. Stephen Hahn and Peter Marks at FDA may have claimed to sooth the public.

d. FDA made the incomprehensible decision to NOT perform inspections of the manufacturing facilities of the Covid vaccine manufacturers.16 What did FDA not want to find? FDA misled its advisory committee by claiming to have reviewed all the manufacturing paperwork supplied to it. That is a far cry from inspecting the facility.

6. No one knows how long immunity lasts, if in fact the vaccines do provide some degree of immunity. (Should it be called immunity if you can still catch and spread the virus?)

For every known vaccine, the immunity it provides is less robust and long-lasting than the immunity obtained from having had the infection. People who have had Covid really have no business getting vaccinated — they get all the risk and none of the benefit. It is said that Israelis who had Covid are not being vaccinated.17

The Maine EMT Declination Document

This is a document designed to force EMTs to take the vaccine by using false information and veiled threats. For example, the document claims with certainty that one can asymptomatically spread Covid, even up to 10 days. That has not been shown to be true.

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci was recorded18 as saying that asymptomatic spread has never driven an epidemic, although it might occur rarely. We still don’t know with certainty how much asymptomatic spread contributes to cases, but probably very little. CDC made a claim that asymptomatic spread could contribute to 59% of cases.19

CDC, however, made this claim based on its own researchers using modelling and estimates alone. CDC loves to publish its models of illness, cases and spread, instead of providing real data. Models can be easily manipulated to support whatever narrative is desired, as we have seen with the Neil Ferguson and University of Washington/BMGF models of the pandemic.

The declination document20 claims that the clinical trials were rigorous. I doubt few who read the trial documents would agree with that. The trials are still in progress. And FDA explicitly said these two vaccines have not been approved. They have instead been “authorized.”

But the most pernicious thing about the EMT document was that it was intended to make the decliner feel awful for letting down the team and the community. In fact, based on the monkey data, the only data we have, you can probably still spread the virus even after being vaccinated.

So the declination was built on a lie. And, lying document that it is, it is not signed. You don’t know who wrote it. Why are EMTs being made to sign it, and initial every paragraph? Here is just one of its passages:

“The consequences of my refusal to be vaccinated could have life-threatening consequences for my health and the health of everyone with whom I am in contact, including my co-workers, my family, and members of the community I serve.”

When a product is good for you, there is no need to scare or threaten people into taking it. If you are being coerced to do something, that should be a strong clue to avoid it.

If you become injured by one of these experimental vaccines, the chance of receiving any financial benefit is tiny.21 The U.S. government has waived the liability of everyone involved, from manufacturers to vaccinators. Luckily, the drugs and vitamins/supplements that are effective for Covid are safe and have been used for many decades. See earlier blog posts for details.

UPDATE: 1/13/21 from FiercePharma:22 “Aside from J&J, coronavirus vaccines from Novavax and AstraZeneca are in late-stage trials, and a host of other companies are in various stages of research. At a Fierce JPM Week panel, experts said there will be plenty of need for a “second wave” of coronavirus vaccines.”

UPDATE: 1/14/21 First, both mRNA vaccines are comprised of mRNA that codes for the spike proteins. However, the spike itself may have inherent toxicity and cause serious Covid symptoms, according to a very thoughtful review of the literature23 sent to FDA by Dr. Patrick Whelan, Ph.D. at UCLA.

Second, an article published by Kanduc and Shoenfeld in September 2020 termed “Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoproteins and mammalian proteomes: implications for the vaccines”24 showed that “a massive heptapeptide sharing exists between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and human proteins.”

The sharing of peptides between SARS-CoV-2 and humans also occurred with mice but no other animals, and other human coronaviruses lacked this commonality of peptide sequences with humans. What does this mean?

“A massive peptide commonality is present with humans and mice, i.e, organisms that undergo pathologic consequences following SARS-CoV-2 infection.” The authors suggest molecular mimicry as a reason for the massive autoimmune phenomena that occur in late-stage Covid-19. The paper concludes:

“Finally, this study once more reiterates the concept that only vaccines based on minimal immune determinants, unique to pathogens and absent in the human proteome, might offer the possibility of safe and efficacious vaccines.”

In other words, vaccines need to eliminate the regions of the spike protein that mimic human proteins in order to avoid triggering autoimmunity. Whether this paper provides evidence that SARS-CoV-2 may have been grown in humanized mice, or designed to deliberately mimic human peptide sequences to induce autoimmunity in humans, I leave to the imagination.

Global Initiative for COVID-19 Vaccine Records

Tech giants with deep ties to the U.S. national security state — Microsoft, Oracle and the MITRE Corporation — announced that they had partnered with several health care companies to create the Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI) to advance the implementation of digital COVID-19 vaccination records.

According to a Reuters report, the VCI “aims to help people get encrypted digital copies of their immunization records stored in a digital wallet of their choice” because the “current system [of vaccination records] does not readily support convenient access and sharing of verifiable vaccination records.”1

The initiative, on its website,2 notes that the VCI is a public-private partnership “committed to empowering individuals with digital vaccination records” so that participants can “protect and improve their health” and “demonstrate their health status to safely return to travel, work, school and life while protecting their data privacy.”

The initiative is essentially built on a common framework of digital vaccination “wallets” called SMART Health Cards that are meant to “work across organizational and jurisdictional boundaries”3 as part of a new global vaccination-record infrastructure.

The host of the VCI website and one of the initiative’s key backers is the Commons Project Foundation. That foundation, in partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF), runs the Common Trust Network,4 which has three goals that are analogous to those of VCI.

As listed on the WEF website, the network’s goals are (1) to empower individuals by providing digital access to their health information; (2) to make it easier for individuals to understand and comply with each destination’s requirements; and (3) to help ensure that only verifiable lab results and vaccination records from trusted sources are presented for the purposes of cross-border travel and commerce.

To advance these goals, the Common Trust Network is powered by “a global registry of trusted laboratory and vaccination data sources” as well as “standard formats for lab results and vaccination records and standard tools to make those results and records digitally accessible.”

Another, and related, Commons Project Foundation and WEF partnership is CommonPass. CommonPass, which is also supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, is both a framework and an app that “will allow individuals to access their lab results and vaccination records, and consent to have that information used to validate their COVID status without revealing any other underlying personal health information.”

Current members5 of CommonPass, including JetBlue, Lufthansa, Swiss International Airlines, United Airlines and Virgin Atlantic, are also members of the Common Trust Network. This overlap between the Commons Project Foundation/WEF partnerships and the VCI illustrates that the WEF itself is involved with the VCI, albeit indirectly through their partners at the Commons Project Foundation.

The Commons Project Foundation itself is worth exploring, as its cofounders, Paul Meyer and Bradley Perkins, have long-standing ties to the RAND Corporation, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the International Rescue Committee, as noted by MintPress News.6

The IRC, currently run by Tony Blair protégé David Milliband, is developing7 a biometric ID and vaccination-record system for refugees in Myanmar in cooperation with the ID2020 Alliance, which is partnered with CommonPass backer, the Rockefeller Foundation. In addition, the ID2020 Alliance funds the Commons Project Foundation and is also backed by Microsoft, one of the key companies behind the VCI.

Wearable IDs for Your Health and Your Wallet

Overlap between digital vaccination records, promoted via initiatives such as CommonPass and VCI, and the push for a new global digital-identity system is no coincidence. Indeed, the developer of VCI’s SMART Health Cards framework at Microsoft Health, Josh C. Mandel, noted in his overview presentation8 on that framework that digital identity is integral to the digital vaccination-record effort.

SMART Health Cards, as of now, are expected to include a person’s complete name, gender, birth date, mobile phone number and email address in addition to vaccination information, though it is possible and likely that more personal information will be required as the initiative advances, given that VCI states that these identifiers are merely a starting point.9

While advertised as digital vaccination records, SMART Health Cards are clearly intended to be used for much more. For instance, public information on the framework notes that SMART Health Cards are “building blocks that can be used across health care,” including managing a complete immunization record that goes far beyond COVID-19 vaccines, sharing data with public health agencies and communication with health care providers.

Yet, this framework will not be limited to health care information, as Mandel has said. In his presentation, he notes the application of SMART Health Cards could soon be used as IDs for commercial activity, such as renting a car. The VCI framework’s use of the term “digital wallet” to refer to its digital vaccination record is also suggestive of future connectivity to economic activity.

Efforts to link digital identity, not just to economic activity but also to health data, have recently escalated, for example with the piloting of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (aka GAVI)–Mastercard–Trust Stamp partnership in Africa.10

That program, first launched in 2018, links Trust Stamp’s digital-identity platform with the GAVI-Mastercard Wellness Pass, a digital vaccination record, and Mastercard’s click-to-pay system run on AI technology called NuData. Mastercard and GAVI are both partnered with the ID2020 Alliance, which includes VCI member Microsoft.

Given the reasonable speculation that such platforms would utilize digital currency, specifically cryptocurrency, for financial activity, it is worth noting that VCI member Microsoft filed a patent in 201911 that would allow “human body activity,” including brain waves and body heat, to mine (i.e., generate) cryptocurrency. This, of course, would link biometrics to financial activity, among other things.

Such a system, as laid out in the Microsoft patent, would likely require the introduction of wearables in order to be implemented. Notably, numerous wearables for contactless identity, digital travel passes and payment devices have recently been launched.

Examples include DigitalDNA,12 Proxy,13 and FlyWallet.14 FlyWallet is particularly notable as their latest product, Keyble,15 is a wearable that combines digital identity through fingerprint authentication, which enables both contactless payments and health applications such as vital-sign monitoring and data sharing with insurance companies and health care providers.

Sponsored by Spooks and Silicon Valley

The SMART Health Cards framework was developed by a team led by the chief architect of Microsoft Healthcare, Josh Mandel, who was previously16 the Health IT Ecosystem lead for Verily, formerly Google Life Sciences.

Verily is currently heavily involved in COVID-19 testing17 throughout the U.S., particularly in California, and links test recipients’ results to their Google accounts.18 Their other COVID-19 initiatives have been criticized due to still-unresolved privacy concerns,19 something that has also plagued several of Verily’s other efforts20 pre-COVID-19, including those involving Mandel.

Of particular concern is that Verily, and by extension Google, created Project Baseline, which has been collecting21 “actionable genetic information” with a focus on “population health” from participants since 2017. Yet, during the COVID-19 process, Project Baseline has become an important component22 of Verily’s COVID-19 testing efforts, raising the unsettling possibility that Verily has been obtaining Americans’ DNA data through its COVID-19 testing activities.

While Verily has not addressed this possibility directly, it is worth noting that Google has been heavily involved in amassing genomic data for several years. For instance, in 2013, Google Genomics was founded23 with the goal of storing and analyzing DNA data on Google Cloud servers.

Now known as Cloud Life Sciences, the Google subsidiary has since developed AI algorithms24 that can “build your genome sequence” and “identify all the mutations that an individual inherits from their parents.” Google also has close ties with the best-known DNA testing companies in the U.S., such as Ancestry.com.

Ancestry, recently purchased by private-equity behemoth Blackstone, shares data with a secretive Google subsidiary25 that uses genomic data to develop lifespan-extending therapies. In addition, the wife of Google cofounder Sergey Brin, Anne Wojcicki, is the cofounder and CEO of DNA testing company 23andMe. Wojcicki is also the sister of the CEO of Google-owned YouTube, Susan Wojcicki.

Google and the majority of VCI’s backers — Microsoft, Salesforce, Cerner, Epic, the Mayo Clinic, and MITRE Corporation, Change Healthcare — are also prominent members of the MITRE-run COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.26

Other members of that coalition include the CIA’s In-Q-Tel and the CIA-linked data-mining firm Palantir,27 as well as a myriad of health care and health-record companies. The coalition fits well with the ambitions of Google and like-minded companies that have sought to gain access to troves of American health data under the guise of combating COVID-19.

The COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition describes itself28 as a public-private partnership that has enabled “the critical infrastructure to enable collaboration and shared analytics” on COVID-19 through the sharing of health-care and COVID-19 data among members.

That this coalition and VCI are intimately involved with MITRE Corporation is significant, given that MITRE is a well-known, yet secretive, contractor for the U.S. government, specifically the CIA and other intelligence agencies, which has developed29 Orwellian surveillance and biometric technologies, including several now focused on COVID-19.

Just three days before the public announcement of VCI’s establishment, Microsoft Healthcare and Google’s Verily announced a partnership30 along with MIT and Harvard’s Broad Institute to share the companies’ cloud data and AI technologies with a “global network of more than 168,000 health and life sciences partners” to accelerate the Terra platform.31

Terra, originally developed by the Broad Institute and Verily, is an “open data ecosystem” focused on biomedical research, specifically the fields of cancer genomics, population genetics and viral genomics. The biomedical data32 Terra amasses includes not only genetic data but also medical-imaging, biometric signals and electronic health records.

Google, through its partnership with the Pentagon, which was announced last September, has moved to utilize the analysis of such data in order to “predictively diagnose”33 diseases such as cancer and COVID-19. U.S. military contractors, such as Advanced Technology International,34 have been developing wearables that would apply that AI-driven predictive diagnosis technology to COVID-19 diagnoses.

Predictive COVID-19 diagnosis is also an ambition of another company that backs VCI, Salesforce. Salesforce is one of three companies that created COVID 360,35 which Salesforce senior vice president Bob Vanstraelen describes as36 a “free full Coronavirus treatment solution for patients and citizens at risk” that is hosted on Salesforce Health Cloud and was by Deloitte’s Israel branch and the Israeli intelligence-linked AI firm Diagnostic Robotics.37

COVID 360 uses the Diagnostic Robotics clinical-predictions platform and applies it to COVID-19 so that “government agencies or caretakers” can identify individuals “in proximity to a potential positive coronavirus case” and mandate coronavirus testing and/or treatment regimes, based on a risk profile generated by COVID 360. Diagnostic Robotics and Salesforce are both members of the MITRE-run COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.

Salesforce founder, chair, and CEO Marc Benioff was previously a vice president at Oracle. Oracle, another VCI backer, was created as a spin-off of a CIA project38 of the same name, and its top executives have close ties to the outgoing Trump administration and also to Israel’s government. While Benioff’s pre-Salesforce history to a CIA-linked company like Oracle is significant, Benioff’s close ties to the World Economic Forum39 also deserve greater scrutiny.

Benioff is not only a member of the WEF’s board of trustees, but he is also the inaugural chair of the forum’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a “revolution” that its architect and WEF founder Klaus Schwab defines40 as a merging of humans’ physical, digital and biological identities. Benioff is also the owner and co-chair41 of Time magazine, which recently ran an entire issue42 focused on promoting the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the WEF-backed Great Reset.

Benioff also serves on the Council for Inclusive Capitalism,43 a collaboration between the Vatican and oligarchs to create a “more inclusive, sustainable and trusted economic system” for the 21st century.

Alongside Benioff on the council are well-known figures such as Lynn Forester de Rothschild (close associate of Jeffrey Epstein and the Clintons44), Mark Carney (UN special envoy for Climate Action and former governor of the Bank of England), and William Lauder (executive chairman of Estée Lauder, nephew of Mega Group45 member Ronald Lauder) as well as the top executives of MasterCard, Visa, Dupont, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, BP and Bank of America. Also present are the heads of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.

Benioff and others mentioned in this article are perfect examples of the cross-pollination between groups of oligarchs and their associated foundations and organizations and how these networks are working together to pursue a common agenda.

While the push for combining digital identity with vaccination records and economic activity appears, superficially, to be the effort of various organizations and groups, the same individuals and entities appear time and again, pointing to a coordinated push to not only implement such a system but manufacture consent for such a system among the global population.

The effort to manufacture consent for an all-encompassing digital identification system is notable given that its main selling point thus far has been coercion. We have been told that without such a system we will never be able to return to work or school, never be able to travel or never be allowed to participate normally in the economy.

While this system is being introduced in this way, it is essential to point out that coercion is a built-in part of this infrastructure and, if implemented, will be used to modify human behavior to great effect, reaching far beyond just the issue of COVID-19 vaccines.

‘Gain-of-Function’ Experiments Lie at Root of the Pandemic

“Gain-of-function” studies are, according to the U.S. Department Health and Human Services,1 research that involves increasing the capacity of a pathogen to cause illness. The method is controversial because it can also risk new viruses leaking out of laboratories and into the population.

In the period 2014 to 2018, this type of research was prohibited in the U.S., but in December 2017, American authorities announced that these kinds of studies would again be allowed.2,3

Despite an ongoing cover-up by government authorities, the biotech industry, the military industrial complex and the mass media, there is growing scientific consensus4 that the COVID-19 virus was created and (most likely accidentally) leaked from a dual-use military/civilian lab5 in Wuhan, China.

The ensuing pandemic (currently with 14 million infected and 585,000 dead,6 which has precipitated a global economic meltdown) is the predictable, yet preventable, collateral damage of a reckless, decades-long and accident-prone biodefense/biowarfare program carried out by the U.S., China, Russia and other highly industrialized and militarized nations.

Scientists Are Weaponizing Viruses

Unbeknownst to the public, a shadowy international network of thousands of virologists, gene engineers, military scientists and biotech entrepreneurs are weaponizing viruses and microorganisms in civilian and military labs under the euphemism of gain-of-function research. They hide behind the guise of “biodefense” and “biomedicine.”

But as investigative reporter and bioweapons expert Sam Husseini writes,7 gain-of-function/biowarfare scientists in labs such as Wuhan, China or Fort Detrick, Maryland, are deliberately and recklessly evading international law:

“Governments that participate in such biological weapon research generally distinguish between ‘biowarfare’ and ‘biodefense,’ as if to paint such ‘defense’ programs as necessary. But this is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; the two concepts are largely indistinguishable.

‘Biodefense’ implies tacit biowarfare, breeding more dangerous pathogens for the alleged purpose of finding a way to fight them. While this work appears to have succeeded in creating deadly and infectious agents, including deadlier flu strains, such ‘defense’ research is impotent in its ability to defend us from this pandemic.”

A growing arsenal of Frankenstein viruses and microorganisms have been created, despite U.S. and international laws supposedly banning biowarfare weapons and experimentation.8 A disturbing number of these so-called “dual-use” biowarfare/biodefense labs have experienced leaks,9 accidents, thefts and even deliberate releases like the 2001 anthrax attacks over the past three decades.

The creation of COVID-19, engineered by repeatedly “passaging” a bat virus through animal and human cells and/or genetic engineering or splicing specific genetic sequences into the virus, violated a ban on gain-of-function experiments10 called for by many of the world’s top scientists.11

These experiments also violated the precautionary principle of a Global Biowarfare Convention,12 designed to prevent the accidental or deliberate release of biological weapons of mass destruction.

Was COVID-19 Caused by a Lab Leak?

Despite the 24/7 story — that the virus jumped accidentally from bats into humans — relentlessly peddled by the Chinese government, the World Health Organization (which was supposedly monitoring the Wuhan Lab), the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which provided funding for the Wuhan gain-of-function experiments, global military and intelligence agencies, government- and corporate-funded entities such as the EcoHealth Alliance and the mass media, there is mounting evidence that COVID-19 was caused not by an accident in nature but by a lab escape or leak.

Fortunately, some media outlets aren’t afraid to question this carefully orchestrated narrative. Here are a few examples:

GM Watch, “Lab Escape Theory of SARS-CoV-2 Origin Gaining Scientific Support,” May 28, 202013

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, “Did the SARS-CoV-2 Virus Arise from a Bat Coronavirus Research Program in a Chinese Laboratory? Very Possibly,” June 4, 202014

The Times (UK), “Revealed: Seven-Year Coronavirus Trail from Mine Deaths to a Wuhan Lab,” July 4, 202015

Newsweek, “Scientists Shouldn’t Rule Out Lab As Source of Coronavirus, New Study Says,” May 17, 202016

Independent Science News, “The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin,” June 2, 202017

Taiwan News, “Norwegian virologist claims coronavirus is ‘chimera’ Made in Chinese Lab,” June 10, 202018

Scientists Manipulate Bat Coronavirus to Infect Human Cells

Gain-of-function experiments on bat viruses aren’t new. Going back decades, these types of experiments have been publicly documented in a series of peer-reviewed scientific papers co-authored by the director of the Wuhan lab, Dr. Zhengli Shi, popularly known as the “Bat Woman.”

Published papers reveal that researchers have been collecting samples and carrying out experiments to manipulate the bat coronavirus so that it can readily infect human cells.

For example, in a 2008 article in the Journal of Virology,19 Zi Sheng Li and other scientists report on how Chinese and U.S. scientists have genetically engineered SARS-like viruses from horseshoe bats, to enable the viruses to gain entry into human cells.

These highly controversial gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab were funded in large part by the NIH, the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID, under the direction20 of Dr. Anthony Fauci) and the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance, led by Peter Daszak, who’s become a ubiquitous spokesperson for the “it evolved in nature and jumped to humans” story.21

Fauci, who since 1984 has held government positions under six presidents, both Republican and Democrat, has been a strong advocate for U.S. government funding of gain-of-function experimentation.

Fauci claims, with little or no justification, that risky gain-of-function research can help develop new vaccines for pandemics, despite the fact that 30 years of these dangerous experiments have not delivered any tangible benefits, such as cures or safe vaccines.

In 2014, following a series of lab accidents, and responding to a petition22 signed by more than 300 global scientists, a temporary, albeit partial “pause” on funding gain-of-function experiments was declared in the U.S.23 Exemptions to this “pause,” eventually reviewed by a secret government panel, were nonetheless allowed to go forward.

The ban was lifted in 2017. Yet between 2014 and 2016, the NIH and Fauci-led NIAID continued funding gain-of-function research overseas at the Wuhan lab, via Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance.

Not surprisingly both Fauchi and Daszak have been staunch defenders of the official Chinese government story that the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) “naturally” evolved from bats and/or other host species to infect humans.

Gain-of-Function Research Could Seed a Pandemic

In 2017, the “funding pause” on risky gain-of-function projects was officially reversed.24 A government panel was instituted to review each research project. Only those lab experiments that were supposedly 1) scientifically sound; 2) conducted in a high-security lab; 3) intended to produce knowledge that benefits humans; and 4) without a safer alternative, would be funded.

As the New York Times reported,25 many scientists protested the decision, correctly pointing out that gain-of-function researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic.

Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist and bioweapons expert at Rutgers University, told the Times that he applauded the requirement for review panels.26 However, he said the NIH should have created clearer minimum safety standards and a mandate that the benefits “outweigh” the risks instead of merely “justifying” them.

Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist who directs the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard School of Public Health, told the Times that recent disease-enhancing experiments “have given us some modest scientific knowledge and done almost nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemics, and yet risked creating an accidental pandemic.”27 Lipsitch said hoped the panels would turn down such work.

Though the ban was overturned in December 2017, it wasn’t until February 2019 — when news of the first approved studies was leaked to Science Magazine28 — that the public learned that the reviews of grant proposals involving gain-of-function research — funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars — were to be conducted in secret.

Names of the expert-panel members have been kept secret, along with the panel’s reviews of gain-of-function and other virus and pathogen experiment proposals.

US Government Funds Risky, Secret Experiments

The idea of the U.S. government, under any administration, funding dangerous experiments29 it doesn’t want you to know about became a literal public relations time bomb in January 2020, when the emergence of a new, highly contagious virus in China hit the news.

For damage control, the White House and the NIH convened a meeting of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB),30 the panel that had previously written the rules for reviewing gain-of-function research, with the intent of getting the NSABB on board with keeping everything secret.

At that meeting, the man who chairs the committee that decides which gain-of-function research can be funded by the government revealed himself.

Christian Hassell, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense, Senior Science Adviser to the Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response — and chair of the secret NSABB gain-of-function risk review committee — acted as a government spokesperson.

Hassell cautioned that disclosing the names of the government (likely including military) scientists who sat on his committee could “chill” people from serving. He claimed that the administration was “committed to enhancing transparency,” but warned that this would probably require new action by Congress.

Time for a Permanent Ban on Lab Creation of Deadly Viruses

It’s time for a permanent ban on the lab creation of deadly viruses. Newsweek recently reported some of the details31 relating to the funding for scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses:

“In 2019, with the backing of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 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.”

In April 2020, NIH aid to Wuhan for gain-of-function research was cut off32 as COVID-19 ravaged the globe. EcoHealth Alliance President Daszak said that he and his team were merely studying how coronaviruses spread from bats to humans and claimed not to understand the rationale behind the decision to yank his grant.

But Daszak and his collaborators at the Wuhan Institute of Virology33 weren’t just studying how coronavirus spread from bats to humans, they were actually making coronavirus capable of spreading from bats to humans. They were the first to create34 a bat coronavirus capable of directly infecting humans (rather than first needing to evolve in an intermediate animal host).

EcoHealth Alliance has since funded additional gain-of-function research that Daszak has championed — without acknowledging his connection. Gain-of-function research funded by EcoHealth Alliance included the 2015 coronavirus-SARS chimaera, created by a team that included the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This research has been widely criticized35 by fellow scientists.

In 2015, a team of researchers, including scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus36 from a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China, and a virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome).

Their chimaera infected human airway cells, proving that the surface protein of SHC014 had the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them.

Concerned Scientists Sounded the Alarms

In 2015, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, told Nature magazine37 that researchers had created a novel virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory.” Wain-Hobson disapproved of the study because it provided little benefit and revealed little about the risk that the wild SHC014 virus in bats posed to humans.

Richard Ebright, a biodefense expert from Rutgers University, spoke out about the same research, saying, “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk.” But Daszak spoke out in favor of the research, saying the study’s findings “move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger.”

Daszak’s statement is odd, as it seems obvious that it was the research itself that made the virus a clear and present danger, and that couldn’t be what he meant. Nature failed to mention that EcoHealth Alliance had funded the research with a U.S. grant.38

Even the creators of the coronavirus-SARS chimaera questioned the wisdom of tinkering with viruses to make them more dangerous to humans. As Nature reported, in their paper the study authors conceded that funders may think twice about allowing such experiments in the future.

“Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue,” they write, adding that discussion is needed as to “whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved.”

It’s time for the U.S. government, and all the governments of the world, to demonstrate their compliance with a global ban on chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, dropping the dangerous pretense that lab-created viruses and microorganisms constitute valid biomedical and biodefense research.

We need a total U.S. and global ban on dangerous gain-of-function experimentation, and we need it now, before the next pandemic escapes or is deliberately released. Please join thousands of other concerned citizens and sign our petition here.

Ronnie Cummins is co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Regeneration International, and the author of “Grassroots Rising: A Call to Action on Food, Farming, Climate and a Green New Deal.” Alexis Baden-Mayer is OCA’s political director. To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here.