These caught my interest. The first one was very fascinating discussion between Michael and Nicholas Veniamin.
[Also on Rumble: https://rumble.com/vjgemb-former-cia-michael-jaco-discusses-florida-condo-project-blue-bean-trump-wit.html]
|(Natural News) The Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) brainwashing psy-op was so effective in the United Kingdom over the past year that the vast majority of Britons still support mask mandates, despite the fact that the plandemic is finished. A YouGov poll found that most Britons support “mandatory” masks while shopping and riding public transport, while 70…|
|(Natural News) Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are gearing up to release their respective mRNA (messenger RNA) “vaccines” into the Australian market, though under different names. Pfizer-BioNTech is calling its Down Under jab “Comirnaty” while Moderna is going with “Spikevax,” which is fitting considering it turns the human body into a spike protein factory. The name changes…|
…Tarot by Janine’s new video where she does a reading looking into the recent wild weather events in the world! Japan! China! USA! How much of these events are natural? Or is this manipulated? And if so, what is the purpose? What is the agenda?
More than a year ago, in February 2020, a group of 27 scientists wrote a letter published in The Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”1
Although The Lancet — like other medical journals — requires contributors to disclose financial or personal interests that might be viewed as possible conflicts of interests with their submissions, the 27 authors declared they had “no competing interests.”
June 21, 2021, The Lancet published an addendum admitting that “some readers have questioned the validity of this disclosure, particularly as it relates to one of the authors, Peter Daszak.”2
As a result, The Lancet asked the 27 signers to “re-evaluate” their competing interests and to declare any “financial and nonfinancial relationships that may be relevant to interpreting the content of their manuscript.” So far, Daszak has updated his previous claim of having no competing interests to include a 416-word disclosure statement clarifying that, indeed, he had several conflicts of interest.
First, he is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that receives funding from a “range of U.S. Government funding agencies and non-governmental sources.”
Second — and most importantly — Daszak also explained that, although its work with China is currently unfunded, he and the Alliance have collaborated with various universities and organizations on research in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Specifically, this work includes studies of bats and viruses, including “the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines.”
The COVID pandemic has brought attention to any number of problems within the academic arena. Disturbingly, we’ve discovered that scientific journals held in high regard for many decades — The Lancet has been around for 198 years — are colluding to censor important facts and stifle scientific debate. The Lancet statement deriding the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory to be ignored is a prime example. As reported by the Daily Mail, June 26, 2021:3
“The Lancet letter, signed by 27 experts, played a key part in silencing scientific, political and media discussion of any idea that this pandemic might have begun with a lab incident rather than spilling over naturally from animals.
It was even reportedly used by Facebook to flag articles exploring the lab leak hypothesis as ‘false information’ … Yet it emerged later that The Lancet statement was covertly drafted by British scientist Peter Daszak — a long-term collaborator with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was carrying out high-risk research on bat coronaviruses and had known safety issues …
Four months later, The Lancet set up a ‘Covid-19 Commission’ to assist governments and scrutinize the origins. It was led by Jeffrey Sachs … Incredibly, he backed Daszak to lead his commission’s 12-person taskforce investigating Covid’s origins — joined by five fellow signatories to The Lancet statement …
Last week The Lancet finally ‘recused’ him from its commission and published an ‘addendum’ to its statement detailing some of his Chinese links. Yet critics say the journal has still failed to admit that six more signatories to that February statement have ties to Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance as directors or partners.
‘It would have been better for The Lancet to have stated that Daszak’s and other signers’ previous declarations were untruthful and to have attached an editorial expression of concern,’ said Richard Ebright, a bio-security expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
Now The Mail on Sunday has learned that The Lancet is set to publish a second statement by these signatories that presses the case that Covid probably emerged through natural ‘zoonotic’ transmission from animals to humans.”
Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet is now being criticized for his long defense and support of the Chinese regime, and is accused of using The Lancet to pursue political causes and stifle scientific debate.4
In January 2021, 14 global experts submitted a letter to The Lancet in which they argued that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded.” Horton rejected the submission, stating it was “not a priority” for the journal.5
Any medical journal worthy of a good reputation needs to be an open platform for wide-ranging debate. Horton’s refusal to publish the other side of the origins argument has without a doubt damaged the credibility and reputation of the journal. Tory MP Bob Seely told the Daily Mail:6
“The claims of a cover-up over the most important scientific issue of our time grow stronger by the day. It is vital we get to the truth over what appears to have been a cover-up on the pandemic origins with the collusion of journals such as The Lancet.”
Let’s also remember that The Lancet published an entirely fake study claiming hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. This paper using completely fabricated data made the media rounds and led to countries banning the drug’s use against COVID-19.
This too raises serious questions about the journal’s credibility. How was this fraud not discovered during the peer review process? Could it be that The Lancet allowed it because it would help protect the roll-out of profitable new COVID drugs and “vaccines”?
What could possibly be behind science journals’ decision to silence debate in what appears to be a concerted effort to protect Chinese interests? In a June 18, 2021, article,7 Matt Ridley suggests it might have to do with the fact that “scientific papers have become increasingly dependent on the fees that Chinese scientists pay to publish in them, plus advertisements from Chinese firms and subscriptions from Chinese institutions.”
The Lancet is not alone in its less than objective stance on China. In 2017, the Nature journal admitted it censors articles containing words like “Taiwan,” “Tibet” and “cultural revolution” in its Chinese editions at the request of the Chinese government.8 “In April 2020 Nature ran an editorial apologizing for its ‘error’ in ‘associating the virus with Wuhan’ in its news coverage,” Ridley writes.9
Nature also attached an editorial note to several old articles, saying they were being misused “as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered,” and that “there is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.”
One of those articles, published in 2015, was titled “Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research.” The research being questioned was done by WIV researchers.
For the past year and a half, scientists, doctors, reporters and anyone else who dared point out blatant discrepancies in the natural origins narrative have been attacked and painted as quacks and dangerous conspiracy theorists. They’ve been censored, deplatformed and publicly defamed and shamed. Many a fine career has been ruined or seriously tarnished by baseless personal attacks.
Now that undeniable evidence is finally reaching critical mass, natural origin defenders are playing the victim card. For example, Amy Maxmen, Ph.D., a journalist for Nature for the past 13 years, has been covering the SARS-CoV-2 origin debate. In a May 26, 2021, tweet, she stated the “debate over a lab-leak has become toxic and risky.”10
Angela Rasmussen, Ph.D., a natural origin proponent, responded saying that “the origins debate has become a toxic milieu dominated by opportunists, dilettantes, racist/misogynist assholes, and trolls.”11 Rasmussen claims she’s been personally attacked and abused for trying to explain the natural origin theory.
The irony is that the same people who abused others for talking about the lab leak theory are now getting a taste of their own medicine, and they don’t like it. They’re the ones who have been peddling misinformation all along, and as the masses are catching on to the deceit, they’re catching heat.
To deflect and finger-point yet again, abusers are now playing the victim. Another tactic is to claim that attacks on them are attacks on science itself. Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, has stated this on more than one occasion already.12,13 In a June 2021 MSNBC interview, Fauci said criticizing him was “very dangerous,” and that:14,15
“A lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science because all of the things I have spoken about from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science … If you are trying to get at me as a public health official and scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science.”
His comments didn’t go over well, based on social media responses.16 Reporter Glenn Greenwald’s Tweet will suffice to summarize the general consensus:17
“Beyond the dangerous arrogance and pomposity of proclaiming ‘anyone who criticizes me is attacking Science’ — thus placing himself off-limits from questioning — he *admitted* he purposely issued false, anti-science, politicized claims … Once you *admit* that you made false statements in violation of The Science™, you don’t then get to equate yourself to The Science™ such that attacks on you are attacks on it.”
Another example is that of Dr. Peter Hotez, one of the most shockingly hateful people in the medical field who has publicly stated he wants to “snuff out” vaccine skeptics and has called for cyberwarfare measures to be deployed against me and others who share vaccine safety information. Coincidentally, this public plea was published in the journal Nature.18
This man, who has spewed all sorts of vile language at parents of vaccine-injured children and called for physical harm and imprisonment of people who don’t agree with the one-size-fits-all vaccine agenda is now complaining about getting bombarded with “anti-vaxx hate speech.”19
To circle back to the question of why prominent and previously respected science journals are publishing propaganda and suppressing open discussion, the most likely reason — aside from their dependence on Chinese publishing fees and advertising dollars — is the fact that if SARS-CoV-2 is proven to be a manmade virus that escaped from a lab (regardless of its location), billions of dollars in funding for gain-of-function research and even vaccine research could evaporate.
As a publisher of research, it makes sense that journals would be willing to protect the research industry as a whole, and provide a platform for chosen spokespeople — such as Hotez — who shamelessly promote the official narrative, no matter how tenuous or unscientific it might be, or how clear the conflicts of interest.
Here’s another case in point: June 28, 2021, Bloomberg tweeted out a short video featuring Danielle Anderson, an Australian WIV virologist who left Wuhan shortly before the pandemic broke out. Anderson says she “does not believe” the virus is manmade. In response, Hotez tweeted:20
“And we’re in agreement: SARS-2 coronavirus has natural origins, was not produced through GOF [gain-of-function] research, and probably has nothing to do with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Coincidentally, Anderson is also on The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission,21 the same Commission that Daszak was on. Her Lancet Commission bio22 says nothing about her work at the WIV, only that she is a senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Why is that? Is Anderson’s link to the WIV yet another “random coincidence” that has no bearing on her message? Or is it part of a pattern?
I believe the engineering of viruses and other pathogens is one of the greatest threats to life on earth at this point. We lucked out with SARS-CoV-2, as it turned out to be far less lethal than initially predicted. The next time we might not be so lucky.
As reported in July 2020, China has plans to erect high-security biolabs in all of its 23 provinces, despite concerns about leakage risks.23 Worldwide, there are hundreds of laboratories where this kind of research is taking place on a daily basis. Considering the history of lab leaks, it’s only a matter of time before something truly nasty gets out.
This is why we must get to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from. We must know if it was manmade because, if so, we need to ban gain-of-function research aimed at making pathogens more dangerous to humans.
Yes, there are harmless gain-of-function experiments, and that’s not what we’re talking about here, although, harmless experiments can, of course, be steps in a process that ultimately results in a dangerous bioweapon. Overall, I think we need to seriously reconsider the need and value of genetic manipulation of viruses and the creation of synthetic ones.
In the early months of 2019, the pharmaceutical industry was under fire from legislators and the media about the exorbitant prices being charged in the U.S. for drugs. According to one poll reported by Ars Technica,1 58% of people in the U.S. held a negative view of the industry.
The price hike on one life-saving medication — EpiPen — rose from $50 in 2007 for a single autoinjector to $600 in 2018 for a pack of two.2 One reason the price rose so dramatically was that the maker, Mylan, began selling the injectors in two packs only — leaving the door open to charge whatever they felt like for that double-dose package.3
The move subsequently led to a class action lawsuit alleging “the two-pack sale of EpiPens is a pretense for charging unconscionable prices” and that Mylan is “misstating the science of EpiPen dosage in order to purportedly justify its price gouging,’ in violation of various state deceptive and unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws,” according to MarketWatch.
Profits for the drug company rose to $1.1 billion each year for the drug since it is next to impossible for people with severe allergic reactions to go without an EpiPen. But just when it looked like governmental agencies and legislators were considering looking at pricing policies, the pharmaceutical industry used the 2020 pandemic to reverse their public image when they were called upon to develop a vaccine for a viral infection at “Warp Speed.”4
Now, despite the fact the industry holds no responsibility for adverse events associated with the vaccine,5 including death, 2020 gave Big Pharma the needed impetus to overcome their lowest reputation score since public opinion of the industry began being measured in 2001.6
During 2020, Big Pharma as a whole worked hard to portray itself as a benevolent industry that poured billions of dollars into the creation of drugs and vaccines with the intent of protecting public health. As part of that group, biotech giant Gilead Sciences is no different.
The company manufactures remdesivir,7 which is the antiviral drug favored by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the chief medical adviser to the president. However, while the chief medical officer of the U.S. promotes remdesivir, scientific evidence demonstrates the drug has a dark side, and it is not effective.
The FDA fully approved remdesivir October 22, 2020, for use in adults and children in the treatment of COVID-19.8 This came after the emergency use authorization was issued May 1, 2020, for remdesivir in patients who had “suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19.”
Remdesivir is an antiviral drug that is a nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor. It was tested in primates as a treatment for Ebola and found to have some effectiveness against the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2002 and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak in 2012.9
Before this, Gilead had produced a remarkably similar drug called tenofovir for HIV.10 Remdesivir is nearly a copy of Gilead’s HIV drug and is also a reverse transcriptase inhibitor. According to a paper published in Molecules, “Reverse transcriptase is an enzyme in the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and many retroviruses that convert the RNA template to DNA.”11
The enzyme helps to synthesize a strand of DNA that complements the RNA template. Several nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are anti-HIV agents.12 This may support the hypothesis that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a chimera.
The term chimera comes from mythology and describes an organism or individual in which the body has cells from genetically distinct organisms. In Greek mythology,13 a chimera was a fire-breathing monster that had the face of a lion, the tail of a snake and the wings of a dragon. In a review of the use of remdesivir for COVID-19, one research team wrote:14
“Other clinically approved nucleoside/nucleotide analogues, such as the hepatitis C drug sofosbuvir and HIV drugs alovudine and zidovudine, have also been shown to be active against the SARS RdRp [RNA dependent RNA polymerase] in in vitro biochemical assays and might have the potential to be repurposed against COVID-19.”
The Mountain View Voice15 reports Fauci believes the remdesivir trials were reminiscent of research that had been conducted nearly 34 years ago when he and his colleagues were analyzing the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
The relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and human retroviruses is complex. To date, there are three retroviruses that scientists have identified that infect humans. Retroviruses are RNA genetic material that changes the host DNA. In 2019, the three known retroviruses that may cause human illness were HIV and types 1 and 2 human T-cell lymphotropic viruses.16
In “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health,” you can watch my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., where we discuss one of the more dangerous parts of SARS-CoV-2 — the spike protein envelope, common in retroviruses, that causes many of the disease challenges doctors are fighting from COVID-19.
Pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences was given at least $70.5 million in taxpayer money to develop remdesivir, and that number may be higher.17 The recommended treatment dose for remdesivir spans five to 10 days, all of which must be administered in the hospital.18
Gilead Sciences charges the government $2,340 and private insurance $3,120,19 which is well above the drug maker’s estimated cost for production, which is between $10 and $600 for a 10-day course.20
But the price tag does not reflect the effectiveness of the drug. There were several negative trial results, and yet the FDA approved the drug anyway. A few trials were stopped early when participants experienced significant side effects. Some scientists believed the data suggested the drug could shorten recovery time.21
However, the drug has not produced adequate results or proved to reduce the potential for death in those with severe disease. Worse yet, the treatment comes with an added price tag of potential kidney damage.22
While Fauci called the results of studies that had not been peer-reviewed from a pharmaceutical-sponsored clinical trial “highly significant” and referred to remdesivir as the “new standard of care,”23 the World Health Organization had a different recommendation. Based on evidence from the SOLIDARITY trial, the WHO conditionally recommended against using remdesivir in hospitalized patients.24
Fauci’s support of an antiviral drug that hasn’t lived up to the hype helped support the company’s falling revenues. During the first quarter of 2021, remdesivir grossed $1.5 billion in sales, helping boost Gilead’s total bottom line of $6.4 billion in revenue during that same quarter — a 16% increase over the first quarter of 2020. But when revenue for remdesivir was excluded, revenue actually plummeted 11%, at a disappointing $4.9 billion.25
The data from science trials for remdesivir have been disappointing. One study published in The New England Journal of Medicine26 concluded that the drug worked better than a placebo and so was stopped early for benefit. However, as Peter Gotzsche from The Institute for Scientific Freedom wrote, this benefit was not a reduction in mortality from COVID-19, but rather shortened hospital days.27
The placebo-controlled study demonstrated the drug could reduce hospital stays from 15 days to 11 days. Yet, other physicians were finding the drug was keeping people in the hospital longer. Although Dr. George Ralls with Orlando Health reported they saw positive benefits with the drug, he also attributed it to longer hospital stays in order to complete the course of treatment.28
As I reported in “The New COVID-19 Medication Isn’t Backed by Results,” in the middle of the study (April 20, 2020), the researchers changed the primary outcome measures so patients only had to meet three of an original eight categories,29 and none of the three included measurement of mortality.
In the last update to Clinical Trials30 before publication, the researchers had one primary outcome measurement — time to recovery. The idea for the drug was to keep people from dying, but the researchers stopped measuring that important outcome.
In another study published in The Lancet,31 researchers evaluated remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint measurement was how long it took for clinical improvement. The drug was stopped early because 12% of the patients experienced adverse events and researchers found there were no statistically significant clinical benefits.
Just before the release of the studies in The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, Bloomberg32 reported the WHO accidentally posted results of a third study. The summary was removed, but details showed “the drug wasn’t associated with patients getting better more quickly; and 13.9% of patients getting the drug died, versus 12.8% getting standard care.”
While researchers using remdesivir struggle to identify and prove the drug is effective against COVID-19, data clearly show ivermectin can prevent it and when used early can keep people from progressing to the hyper inflammatory phase of the disease.
In fact, ivermectin can even be used late in the disease to help critically ill patients recover. The drug has a long history of use as an antiparasitic33 and has a known safety profile as compared to remdesivir, which has a short history of use.
In the early months of COVID-19, a group of physicians formed the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).34 The collaboration of the five founding physicians in the group resulted in a protocol that can be used in the hospital and another that can be used as an outpatient. Each of the five founding members has treated critical illness for decades.
The two protocols are available for download on the FLCCC alliance website in multiple languages.35,36 Ivermectin was added to the outpatient and inpatient protocols. Although many of the drugs used in the protocols are now accepted standards of care in many places, the same is not true of ivermectin.
It is important to remember that as others clamor for randomized controlled trials to demonstrate that ivermectin is effective, these become more or less unethical when you can see from clinical evidence that something is working, and you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death.
In fact, this is the same argument vaccine makers are using now to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.
While the WHO recommended that remdesivir not be used in hospitalized patients based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of pooled data from four randomized trials, the evidence37 they used to recommend that ivermectin not be used in patients with COVID-19 except in clinical trials is based on what they admit is a “high degree of uncertainty.”38
You can read more about the benefits of using ivermectin and how this information is being purposefully suppressed in “COVID, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century.” In the article is a video from DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., in which he interviews Dr. Pierre Kory about the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 and the shameful censoring of information about ivermectin.
It’s no small irony, then, that YouTube deleted this interview, which is why I embedded a Bitchute version. How this interview could possibly be labeled as misinformation is a mystery, considering the entire conversation is about published research and they are both credentialed medical science experts.
As I’ve discussed, fear is contagious and is being used to control your behavior. One strategy initially used to funnel the public into vaccination programs revolved around using PCR testing to demonstrate a rising number of cases. However, as I’ve written several times, PCR testing does not accurately diagnose an active infection.
During lockdown, many people put on pandemic pounds that contribute to increasing your risk of getting sick. Instead of depending on drugs and vaccines, I recommend you proactively work to support your immune system using strategies that evidence demonstrates reduces your risk of severe disease.
It has become evident that optimizing your vitamin D level may be the least expensive, easiest and most beneficial strategy to minimize your risk. Making simple lifestyle changes to normalize your blood sugar levels can also help reduce your risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and viral infections such as COVID-19 and flu.
Comorbid conditions that are related to severe disease with COVID-19 include cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. In “Nearly Half of American Adults Have Cardiovascular Disease,” I summarize strategies that improve the microcirculation in your heart as well as mitochondrial function and insulin resistance, which are related to strong heart health.
It is difficult to control Type 2 diabetes when you rely strictly on medication and do not change the underlying lifestyle factors that have caused the problem. If properly addressed, Type 2 diabetes can be entirely reversible in most people. In “Diabetes Can Increase the Complications of COVID-19,” I discuss some of those dietary and lifestyle choices and offer suggestions for change.
|(Natural News) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is actively conspiring with Big Pharma to restrict consumer access to dietary supplements. Under the guise of protecting the public against “dangerous” vitamins, the FDA wants to create a “mandatory product listing and registration” scheme for dietary supplements that would require them all to be tracked…|