The time is now. As most readers of this substack are now well aware, this is not just about COVID. The Constitution hangs in the balance. Please help us to get these messages spread far and wide. The 17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists in our organization, who are not financially conflicted and remain committed to the Hippocratic Oath, are doing our part. Now we ask that you help us to help you. We need your help.
Article copied from Childrenshealthdefense.com.
In an interview with Naomi Wolf, former BlackRock investment advisor Edward Dowd explained why Wall Street lost faith in Pfizer and Moderna stocks when Pfizer and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration tried to hide clinical trial data.
In an interview with Naomi Wolf, of the Daily Clout, investment advisor Edward Dowd discussed why investors are dumping COVID-19 vaccine makers’ stocks.
Dowd, a former managing director with BlackRock from 2002 to 2012, grew BlackRock’s growth strategy from $2 billion-$14 billion over 10 years.
Wolf introduced Dowd:
“He’s the extraordinarily kind of courageous, well-informed whistleblower who has come forward to explain to audiences why in his view, Pfizer has committed a fraud.”
Dowd described how his initial caution about taking the experimental COVID vaccine led him to research data related to Pfizer’s clinical trials.
Dowd told Wolf:
“I learned from a friend in the biotech industry that Pfizer had failed its all-cause mortality endpoint in the initial trial … All-cause mortality is the gold standard in any drug trial at the FDA. When you fail that endpoint, the drug is not approved.”
When Big Pharma and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were unwilling to release vaccine safety data, Dowd grew even more skeptical about the vaccines, he said, and was compelled to speak out privately and publicly about what he believed was a major deception:
“I got more loud about fraud when the FDA decided to hide the clinical data for 75 years. I’m an investor, so let me just say how I think about the world. I don’t wait for people to tell me what just happened. My job was to come up with an analysis, mosaic and investment thesis, and then over time I’d be proven right.
“So I don’t wait for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal or The Washington Post to tell me anything. Because by the time that happens, the opportunity to make money is lost. So I started screaming fraud as soon as I saw that — because it’s unprecedented to hide data from the public.”
It was a report from the CEO of a major life insurance company that confirmed Dowd’s doubts:
“If this vaccine was as deadly and injurious as we thought, we’d see the insurance companies and the funeral home results. These are databases that aren’t being hidden from us by the government. So, unfortunately, in early January, a signal was launched by One America.
“The CEO didn’t really know what he was saying or the implications of it — because he didn’t think it was the vaccine, but he got on a Chamber of Commerce call in Indiana, and he said that in the second half of 2021, he was seeing a 40% increase in all-cause mortality — non-COVID. And to put some meat on those bones, a 10% increase he said would be a three-standard deviation [increase], which in math in my world is a big deal.”
Dowd described the impact on the financial world and on his current work:
“Wall Street is listening to me now because they’re nervous and a lot of them are jabbed as well. And if you look at the stocks of Moderna and Pfizer, Moderna is down 70% and Pfizer is down 20 plus percent.
“So my goal has been to raise consciousness across the country and the globe, by pointing out that even though the mainstream media is not going to save us — and it doesn’t seem like the politicians or the regulators are, because they’re in on it — we have to spread the word.”
Wolf asked Dowd about the repercussions of his public position:
“One of the things you’ve said, unequivocally, not mincing words — this is fraud. So if you are not right, that’s actionable, I believe, and Pfizer and Moderna could come at you with a libel suit or a slander suit. But I believe that has not happened yet. Will you speak to that?”
Dowd replied:
“I don’t have a medical license to take away. I don’t have a bar license to take away. I’m an investor. And throughout the history of Wall Street, investors have what we call a thesis. So I present this as a thesis — I’m a hundred percent convinced it’s fraud. I’ve laid out my case and it’s starting to appear, it’s coming to light that it is, but I can say this is freedom of speech. They can sue me if they want. I don’t suspect they will.”
Dowd said he’s been waiting for a “hit piece on me,” but there haven’t been any yet. He said because what he’s presenting is an investment thesis, he’s protected under free speech laws.
“Here’s the problem, Dowd said. “The proof of the fraud is showing up in real-life results. And that is becoming undeniable and impossible to hide.”
Read these related articles:
FDA Advisory Panel Votes 16-2 For No Booster Shots.
Dr. Steve Kirsch Bombshell Testimony at FDA Vaccine Hearing
(via Emerald Robinson) >> It’s official: the new vaccines are killing people. That’s what the data shows. 👇👇https://t.co/EzEiIf8KUi
— Giomerica (on GETTR @Giomerica) ✝️🇺🇸🍊🚛 (@ScottGiorgini) March 18, 2022
It’s always comforting when governments hide death data from the public. That is what I call a tell & prima facie evidence of fraud.
— Ed ☯️Free Thinker & Oracle (@DowdEdward) March 18, 2022
For those still in the matrix be sure to double up your mask, get your 4th booster & go march this weekend to virtue signal your support for 🇺🇦!
When NIAID was refused patents for mRNA "Vaccines"! What Did They Do?
How to Create a Pandemic. The Next Big Idea.
Con Job Definition - noun informal. an act or instance of duping or swindling. an act or instance of lying or talking glibly to convince others or get one's way.
When Dr. Kory testified before the U.S. Senate on December 8, 2020, the message was clear: Ivermectin might well be able to bring the COVID-19 virus to a spectacular halt. Studies were cited that should have convinced experts and laymen alike. Dr. Kory's testimony appeared on YouTube, but—no surprise—it was soon removed by the platform for being "dangerous and misleading". So why did the pharmaceutical industry, the NIH, CDC, NIAID and FDA ignore Dr. Kory?
Everyone knows why, or at least the obvious reason why: a cheap, safe and effective treatment would torpedo Big Pharma's plans to make $$$illions from their rushed-to-market experimental mRNA treatments. The problem, not buried in the fine print, but nonetheless not widely trumpeted at the time: An Emergency Use Authorization for a medical product, such as the EUA sought by Big Pharma for mRNA gene therapy, cannot be granted if there exists a viable and safe treatment for the disease that the experimental product has targeted:
"FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products...when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."
There it is: Ivermectin accepted as a treatment, no EUA for mRNA, no Big Bucks for Big Pharma. As a truly humanitarian gesture, the Senate Committee could have insisted, or at least recommended that an EUA be immediately issued for Ivermectin, but nooooo. A behind-the-scenes eight-hundred-pound gorilla effect?
If one refers back to a 2004 article in the New York Review of Books by Marcia Angell, formerly editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, (New York Review of Books JULY 15, 2004 ISSUE) we clearly see a few key facts about Big Pharma that provide important background for understanding the present Big Pharma Phiasco. (Bold type emphasis added in the following excerpt.)
"Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.
"What does the eight-hundred-pound gorilla do? Anything it wants to.
"What’s true of the eight-hundred-pound gorilla is true of the colossus that is the pharmaceutical industry. It is used to doing pretty much what it wants to do. The watershed year was 1980. Before then, it was a good business, but afterward, it was a stupendous one. From 1960 to 1980, prescription drug sales were fairly static as a percent of US gross domestic product, but from 1980 to 2000, they tripled. They now stand at more than $200 billion a year. Of the many events that contributed to the industry’s great and good fortune, none had to do with the quality of the drugs the companies were selling.
"As their profits skyrocketed during the 1980s and 1990s, so did the political power of drug companies. By 1990, the industry had assumed its present contours as a business with unprecedented control over its own fortunes. For example, if it didn’t like something about the FDA, the federal agency that is supposed to regulate the industry, it could change it through direct pressure or through its friends in Congress.
"When I say this is a profitable industry, I mean really profitable. It is difficult to conceive of how awash in money big pharma is. Drug industry expenditures for research and development, while large, were consistently far less than profits. For the top ten companies, they amounted to only 11 percent of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent in 2000. The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called “marketing and administration”—a name that varies slightly from company to company. In 1990, a staggering 36 percent of sales revenues went into this category, and that proportion remained about the same for over a decade. Note that this is two and a half times the expenditures for R&D.
"[But] the industry [now] faces ... problems. It happens that, by chance, some of the top- selling drugs—with combined sales of around $35 billion a year—are scheduled to go off patent within a few years of one another. This drop over the cliff began in 2001, with the expiration of Eli Lilly’s patent on its blockbuster antidepressant Prozac. In the same year, AstraZeneca lost its patent on Prilosec, the original “purple pill” for heartburn, which at its peak brought in a stunning $6 billion a year. Bristol-Myers Squibb lost its best-selling diabetes drug, Glucophage. The unusual cluster of expirations will continue for another couple of years. While it represents a huge loss to the industry as a whole, for some companies it’s a disaster. Schering-Plough’s blockbuster allergy drug, Claritin, brought in fully a third of that company’s revenues before its patent expired in 2002. Claritin is now sold over the counter for much less than its prescription price. So far, the company has been unable to make up for the loss by trying to switch Claritin users to Clarinex—a drug that is virtually identical but has the advantage of still being on patent.
"Even worse is the fact that there are very few drugs in the pipeline ready to take the place of blockbusters going off patent. In fact, that is the biggest problem facing the industry today, and its darkest secret. All the public relations about innovation is meant to obscure precisely this fact. The stream of new drugs has slowed to a trickle, and few of them are innovative in any sense of that word. Instead, the great majority are variations of oldies but goodies—“me- too” drugs.
"Of the seventy-eight drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only seventeen contained new active ingredients, and only seven of these were classified by the FDA as improvements over older drugs. The other seventy-one drugs approved that year were variations of old drugs or deemed no better than drugs already on the market. In other words, they were me-too drugs. Seven of seventy-eight is not much of a yield. Furthermore, of those seven, not one came from a major US drug company.
"For the first time, in just a few short years, the gigantic pharmaceutical industry is finding itself in serious difficulty. It is facing, as one industry spokesman put it, “a perfect storm.” To be sure, profits are still beyond anything most other industries could hope for, but they have recently fallen, and for some companies they fell a lot. And that is what matters to investors...
"...Nevertheless, the industry keeps promising a bright new day. It bases its reassurances on the notion that the mapping of the human genome and the accompanying burst in genetic research will yield a cornucopia of important new drugs.
"The industry is also being hit with a tidal wave of government investigations and civil and criminal lawsuits. The litany of charges includes illegally overcharging Medicaid and Medicare, paying kickbacks to doctors, engaging in anticompetitive practices, colluding with generic companies to keep generic drugs off the market, illegally promoting drugs for unapproved uses, engaging in misleading direct-to-consumer advertising, and, of course, covering up evidence. Some of the settlements have been huge. TAP Pharmaceuticals, for instance, paid $875 million to settle civil and criminal charges of Medicaid and Medicare fraud in the marketing of its prostate cancer drug, Lupron. All of these efforts could be summed up as increasingly desperate marketing and patent games, activities that always skirted the edge of legality but now are sometimes well on the other side.
"How is the pharmaceutical industry responding to its difficulties? One could hope drug companies would decide to make some changes—trim their prices, or at least make them more equitable, and put more of their money into trying to discover genuinely innovative drugs, instead of just talking about it. But that is not what is happening. Instead, drug companies are doing more of what got them into this situation. They are marketing their me-too drugs even more relentlessly. They are pushing even harder to extend their monopolies on top-selling drugs. And they are pouring more money into lobbying and political campaigns. As for innovation, they are still waiting for Godot.
"This is an industry that in some ways is like the Wizard of Oz—still full of bluster but now being exposed as something far different from its image. Instead of being an engine of innovation, it is a vast marketing machine. Instead of being a free market success story, it lives off government-funded research and monopoly rights. Yet this industry occupies an essential role in the American health care system, and it performs a valuable function, if not in discovering important new drugs at least in developing them and bringing them to market. But big pharma is extravagantly rewarded for its relatively modest functions. We get nowhere near our money’s worth.
"Clearly, the pharmaceutical industry is due for fundamental reform. Reform will have to extend beyond the industry to the agencies and institutions it has co-opted, including the FDA and the medical profession and its teaching centers." [end of excerpt, posted without permission under the "Fair Use" rulings regarding the 1976 Copyright Act for NON-profit academic, research, and general information purposes.]
And clearly, the evidence so diligently exposed by Marcia Angell demonstrates that the pharmaceutical industry—even by the turn of the century—had itself become a systemic chronic disease typical of the capitalist extreme, needing a cure that the patient resists at every turn for there is only one way to cure such a disease. "Reform"? It is a lesson as old as capitalism itself: when an industry grows and grows beyond all reasonable bounds, acquires the means to control its future through big money, bribes, kickbacks, dirty tricks, cheating, murder, crimes against humanity ...and then unforseen circumstances begin to erode the cash-flow.... I need hardly say what the cure is.
All that exposed in 2004! What, then, is the situation today?
Let's go back to the original topic here: already in the early years of the century the pharmaceutical industry was in trouble, looking for "new ways" to keep the big bucks flowing. And now we see Dr. David Martin's patent research evidence, showing that Big Pharma was patenting everything they could dream up, why not? They all surely have big teams of patent lawyers et al., and who knows, if they came to own every conceivable new idea from medical—especially genetic—research, it might all fall into place. "It"?
Patents for mRNA technology, COVID viruses and modifications such as "gain-of-function"—as revealed by Dr. David Martin—were amassed by Big Pharma through the Noughties and Teenies, including patents on the spike protein itself, and eventually arrived to the attempt to patent a general-purpose accepted-by-all remedy for avoiding seasonal flu if not the entire range of such possible viruses. As Marcia Angell notes, vaccines, whether they be classic ones, or the new mRNA techolgy-based injections (technically they are not "vaccines"), remain one of the biggest money-makers for Big Pharma. So we can deduce the mRNA technique was supposed to finally save the industry and restore growth and profitability.
But, disaster!, Tony Fauci and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) were refused patents for mRNA "vaccines"! Oh dear me! What to do?
Read the Fauci Dossier
Tony and his Big Pharma pals were enraged they couldn’t get a patent on an all-purpose-general-use-mRNA-flu-shot, to be accepted by all good little boys and girls the world over so they wouldn't get the sniffles for Christmas and give a possibly fatal dose to grandma. A "remedy" not only for the sniffles and grandma but for big pharma too—the key to continue to maintain/expand their profits with a new, (patented) revolutionary miracle technique. So the light-bulb pops above Tony’s head as in a Beavis & Butthead classic, “Hey Beavis! Those fart-knockers won't give us a patent? Let’s INTRODUCE the disease we need to get such a vaccine launched. Yeah! he-he-he, huh-huh-huh. Cool!"
My reference here might be thought crude and insulting, but while there are surely many very clever people involved in the Big Pharma Phiasco, scientists, directors, politicians, et al., there appear to be few, if any, who might be thought of as wise. Under the circumstances, the clever be damned.
Now, it seems settled that the research that led to COVID-19 was bioweapon-oriented. But that does not prove it was released (also a near-certainty) intentionally as a bioweapon. That may have happened a little later, as a side-line of the big-money project when Big Pharma chatted with the Pentagon, and it was thought a cool idea to infect some Iranian leaders. Primarily, COVID was released so that Fauci, NIAID & Big Pharma could then demand an EUA and get eventual patents on all such mRNA treatments. But for COVID these people had research indicating they knew the spike protein that was generated by the injection did not remain localized but spread to many organs in the body. What if that should cause "spike protein disease"? It was probably thought that the problem would be minor, and if enough pressure and propaganda be applied, success in "vaccinating the world" could still be achieved, and collateral damage ignored. Unfortunately the spike protein complication resulted in a great many deaths and serious injuries, far, far outnumbering such negative outcomes which in previous incidences of introduction of vaccines, were sufficient to immediately force a withdrawal of the product from further testing.
But the push for world vaccination continues, with such force that one begins, or rather continues to wonder why. Some see a conspiracy to reduce world population. I'd need at least some extensive whistleblower hard data before I'd credit the long list of perpetrators as being that competent, to have planned this thing from the get-go. So far I have to see the whole thing as a Colossal Con Job for Big Bucks turned into a Colossal SNAFU for which the perps are trying very hard to cover their dorsal protuberances. The whole affair is typical of very clever but very unwise participants. Indeed, as a sequel to The Sting, it has been a rip-roaring success, one that you should be embarrassed for having fallen for. As a plan to reduce population, that's strictly sci-fi. If that's the case, the SNAFU is even bigger since the populations dying off most successfully seem to be we Westerners. But Indians, Mexicans, S. Americans... citizens of nations and regions taking the Ivermectin/HCQ route? Apparently they would be the preponderant survivors.
So now that everyone knows we have been mightily deceived, wouldn't there be some better course of action for Big Pharma, the NIH, CDC, NIAID and FDA that could admit error, preserve profit, avoid criminal charges, avoid all sorts of horrible (for Big Pharma) outcomes, and actually benefit society by combining everything we surely now know....
Well, since there is not the least hint from them that they know we know they have been caught out, perhaps we are in store for the next big thing—oh so clever!—whether dreamed up well in advance, or perhaps just recently appearing on the drawing boards: the next medical product that will seal the fate of humanity in partnership with an ever-expanding BIG PHARMA presence and profits-spree. If spike protein has caused problems, why not introduce (after a maximum have been mRNA'd of course) a spike protein cleaner-upper, a scavenger of spike protein residues in the body that will solve all the residual post-vaccination and post-COVID-19 disease problems. Come one, come all! One dose of this miracle oil will Hoover up all harmful COVID residues! Take a third mortgage on your house if necessary! Is such a drug possible? If so, you can bet your bottom dollar on it being even more expensive than Remdesivir, and available only for the privileged, the heavily insured, and third mortgagees.
As Yogi Berra once quipped, "Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future". However, I would certainly be surprised if the Big Pharma Phiasco is not destined for several more entertaining chapters. Be ready. Don't participate ! Stay well !!
Military Documents About Gain of Function Contradict Fauci Testimony Under Oath.
Military documents state that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018 seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the gain of function research moratorium.
REJECTION OF DEFUSE PROJECT PROPOSAL
BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT PREventing EMerging Pathogenic Threats(PREEMPT)
U.S. Marine Corp Major Joseph Murphy's Report to Inspector General of DoD
The main report regarding the EcoHealth Alliance proposal leaked on the internet a couple of months ago, it has remained unverified until now. Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.
“The proposal does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research,” a direct quote from the DARPA rejection letter.
Project Veritas has obtained startling never-before-seen documents regarding the origins of COVID-19, gain of function research, vaccines, potential treatments which have been suppressed, and the government’s effort to conceal all of this.
The documents in question stem from a report at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA, which were hidden in a top secret shared drive.
DARPA is an agency under the U.S. Department of Defense in charge of facilitating research in technology with potential military applications.
Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.
The report states that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018, seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the basis gain of function research moratorium.
According to the documents, NIAID, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, went ahead with the research in Wuhan, China and at several sites across the U.S.
Dr. Fauci has repeatedly maintained, under oath, that the NIH and NAIAD have not been involved in gain of function research with the EcoHealth Alliance program. But according to the documents obtained by Project Veritas which outline why EcoHealth Alliance’s proposal was rejected, DARPA certainly classified the research as gain of function.
“The proposal does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research,” a direct quote from the DARPA rejection letter.
Major Murphy’s report goes on to detail great concern over the COVID-19 gain of function program, the concealment of documents, the suppression of potential curatives, like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, and the mRNA vaccines.
Project Veritas reached out to DARPA for comment regarding the hidden documents and spoke with the Chief of Communications, Jared Adams, who said, “It doesn’t sound normal to me,” when asked about the way the documents were shrouded in secrecy. “If something resides in a classified setting, then it should be appropriately marked,” Adams said. “I’m not at all familiar with unmarked documents that reside in a classified space, no.”
In a video breaking this story published on Monday night, Project Veritas CEO, James O’Keefe, asked a foundational question to DARPA:
“Who at DARPA made the decision to bury the original report? They could have raised red flags to the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress, which may have prevented this entire pandemic that has led to the deaths of 5.4 million people worldwide and caused much pain and suffering to many millions more.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci has not yet responded to a request for comment on this story.
“NIH confirmed that EcoHealth violated the terms of their grant by concealing data on dangerous C.Virus experiments in Wuhan. Even worse, NIH Dir. Collins & Dr. Fauci potentially misled the Committee & the Amer. people about its knowledge of this cover-up"https://t.co/D6xtbhUNHk
— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) October 21, 2021
NIH removes definition of Gain of Function from website pic.twitter.com/fS5XgBrbbw
— Kathie (@TheCrimsonWorm) November 2, 2021
🚨🚨🚨
— FoiaFan (@15poundstogo) November 2, 2021
Foia News.
Here is NIH’s response as to why it removed the definition of “Gain of Function” from it’s website. pic.twitter.com/8r0OH1TMhl
You've changed the definition of Gain-Of-Function to try to cover your ass
I gave Fauci another chance today to come clean about the NIH's involvement in gain-of-function research and he chose to lie instead.
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) November 4, 2021
His failures to do anything to help us get to the bottom of why the pandemic happened is why I believe he should resign. https://t.co/8swITZSlBH
“NIH confirmed that EcoHealth violated the terms of their grant by concealing data on dangerous C.Virus experiments in Wuhan. Even worse, NIH Dir. Collins & Dr. Fauci potentially misled the Committee & the Amer. people about its knowledge of this cover-up"https://t.co/D6xtbhUNHk
— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) October 21, 2021
Fauci committed perjury.
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 21, 2021
“Dr Death” must face a war crimes tribunal immediately. https://t.co/b4ZWXG4JY7
NIH corrects untruthful assertions by NIH Director Collins and NIAID Director Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
— Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) October 20, 2021
NIH states that EcoHealth Alliance violated Terms and Conditions of NIH grant AI110964. pic.twitter.com/cFOtJlRoWl
“This is a pattern that Senator Paul has been doing now at multiple hearings, based on no reality … I have never lied, certainly not before Congress. Case closed.”
— The Recount (@therecount) July 20, 2021
— Dr. Fauci ends back-and-forth with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). pic.twitter.com/WjGjQUFE0d
Dr. Bryan Ardis - misinformation or.... pic.twitter.com/ehCJsXg4Mk
— Wittgenstein (@Kukicat7) October 12, 2021
Rogan pressed Gupta on why CNN lied about him taking a “horse dewormer,” and Gupta couldn’t provide any real answer. That’s because he couldn’t say the honest fact: It serves our political narrative that we were pushing. Gupta said he didn’t know why the network did it, and didn’t bother to question that. Rogan said he was prescribed ivermectin by a doctor, which has been used, beneficially, by people around the world. While there’s a veterinary version of the drug, that’s not what Rogan took and ivermectin is a drug people use.
Rogan just exposed how empty and false Gupta and CNN were with all this.
But you wouldn’t know it, if you listened to the spin that CNN subsequently gave about the interview.
CNN’s Don Lemon tried to smooth things over for Gupta and justify the lies that CNN had told about Rogan.
The problem with this effort at spin, they said that Rogan took the horse dewormer, which is demonstrably false and they leave out that yes, it’s a “people drug” that has been used by billions and even won a Nobel Prize for the guy who discovered it for the benefit to human medicine. It’s been used all over the world.
Here’s a sample where not only does CNN’s Jim Acosta lie about what Joe Rogan said, but the chyron lies as well, saying that Rogan said he took the “horse dewormer.”
Joe Rogan asks Sanjay Gupta if it bothers him that CNN outright lied about Rogan taking horse dewormer to recover from covid. This is fantastic: pic.twitter.com/PEgJqIXhSD
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) October 14, 2021
Watch this. https://t.co/sV9NHPrtKR
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) October 15, 2021
Dr. Fauci tells @Acosta that disinformation, like that being spread by Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan, is, "one of the enemies of public health." pic.twitter.com/4A3gUB3rWZ
— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) September 5, 2021
A group of virologists in February 2020 published a letter in The Lancet stating they “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.” Twenty-six of them had ties to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is at the heart of the controversy over its gain-of-function research using bat coronaviruses.
Story at-a-glance:
In February 2020, a group of virologists published a letter in The Lancet, stating they “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” and calling the lab leak theory a conspiracy.
Twenty-six of them had ties to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is at the heart of the controversy over its gain-of-function (GOF) research using bat coronaviruses.
The heavy conflicts were revealed by an investigation by The Daily Telegraph newspaper and confirm the questions many experts have raised over the paper’s credibility and motives.
Signatory Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance president, is a name that comes up often, because Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance funded controversial GOF research at the WIV.
Signatory Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, published work with the head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, George Gao, Ph.D., who he refers to as an “old friend.”
John Mackenzie, a tropical infectious disease expert at Curtin University in Perth, Australia, was a signatory on The Lancet paper, but he did not disclose that he was also a committee member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases.
Several of The Lancet paper’s original signatories have reversed their positions and are now calling for a full investigation into COVID-19’s origins.
Where did SARS-CoV-2 come from?
It’s one of the most relevant and hotly debated questions of our time, yet investigations that may reveal its answer appear to have been doomed from the start.
In February 2020, a group of virologists published a letter in The Lancet, stating they “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” and calling the lab leak theory a conspiracy, adding, “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”
The Lancet paper was instrumental in stymying open debate about whether SAR-Cov-2 leaked from a lab and resulted in those who challenged the natural origin theory being labeled as conspiracy theorists.
“All debate into whether COVID-19 had man-made origins or leaked from the lab in Wuhan — the Chinese city that was ground-zero for the virus — was effectively shut down by the letter,” the Daily Mail reported. The letter, however, was not the result of independent investigation but, rather, a heavily conflicted PR attempt.
26 of 27 authors of Lancet paper had ties to Chinese lab
Twenty-seven scientists are listed as authors of The Lancet paper, “Statement in Support of the Scientists, Public Health Professionals, and Medical Professionals of China Combatting COVID-19.”
Twenty-six of them had ties to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is at the heart of the controversy over its GOF research using bat coronaviruses.
The heavy conflicts were revealed by an investigation by The Daily Telegraph newspaper and confirm the questions many experts have raised over the paper’s credibility and motives.
If you look at The Lancet letter, Dr. Richard Muller, Professor Emeritus of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, stated during his testimony at the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Select Coronavirus Crisis hearing, held June 29, they say you can dismiss a lab origin because China identified the host animal and even went so far as to praise China for its openness.
“This paper, The Lancet, does not read well when we look at it 16 months later,” Muller said, noting that a host animal hasn’t been found.
Investigation details Lancet paper’s 26 conflicted scientists
Ronald Corley, Ph.D., a professor of microbiology at Boston University, is the only scientist that was not found to have ties to WIV. A sampling of the more than two dozen other scientists that do have links — uncovered by The Telegraph investigation — are revealed below:
Peter Daszak — Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance president, is a name that comes up often, because Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance funded controversial GOF research at WIV. Further, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, gave funding to the EcoHealth Alliance, which then funneled it to WIV.
Daszak was also made a commissioner of The Lancet Commission on COVID-19, but once his extreme conflict of interest was been made public, he was recused from the commission. The investigation revealed that five other signatories also worked for the Lancet Commission on COVID-19.9
Daszak declared no competing interests in The Lancet paper, but in an update published June 21, The Lancet stated, “Some readers have questioned the validity of this disclosure, particularly as it relates to one of the authors, Peter Daszak.” The journal invited the authors to “reevaluate their competing interests,” and Daszak suddenly had much more to say about his collaborations with China.
In an email revealed by a FOIA request, Daszak stated that he composed The Lancet paper after his “collaborators” in China asked for a “show of support.” Daszak is also the treasurer of the Global Virome Project, which is partnered with EcoHealth Alliance. Its goal is to identify potential zoonotic viral threats, taking over from the former Predict project.
Daily Mail noted, “The Predict project was also found to have part-funded contentious work by Wuhan researchers on bat coronaviruses, which were altered to see if they could infect humans. The funds for the research were provided by the EcoHealth Alliance.”
Jeremy Farrar — Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, has a position on the U.K.’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, which advises the government on COVID-19, as well as a board seat with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which gave $1 billion to COVID-19 vaccine development.
Farrar has also published work with the head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, George Gao, Ph.D., who he refers to as an “old friend.” Gao helped launch the Global Virome Project and has been linked to Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “batwoman,” who has been studying bat-borne viruses since 2004, including SARS-like coronaviruses. Daily Mail reported:
“Her team discovered a virus in 2013, which is the closest ever previously found to Sars-Cov-2 – the virus that causes Covid-19. Two other signatories — Dr Josie Golding and Professor Mike Turner — are known to have current or past connections with the Wellcome Trust. Dr Golding is the Trust’s Epidemics lead, while Prof. Turner is a Parasitology expert at the University of Glasgow, and formerly worked with the Trust.”
Linda Saif — Linda Saif, a microbiology expert at Ohio State University, was a speaker at a May 2017 workshop in Wuhan, that was organized in part by WIV. Other speakers at the workshop included Shi and Gao. Saif spoke on the topic of animal coronaviruses.
John Mackenzie — John Mackenzie, a tropical infectious disease expert at Curtin University in Perth, Australia, was a signatory on The Lancet paper, but he did not disclose that he was also a committee member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases.
Kanta Subbarao — Kanta Subbarao, a virology expert from the University of Melbourne, Australia, former chief of NIAID’s Emerging Respiratory Viruses Section, spoke at a 2016 Wuhan conference about emerging diseases. The conference was organized, in part, by WIV.
Ralph Baric — Five of The Lancet paper’s signatories have published articles with Ralph Baric, whose name was omitted from the paper, but who has a significant tie to it nonetheless. Baric, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, developed humanized mice used in GOF research by WIV.
Baric worked closely with Zhengli and COVID-19 vaccine maker Moderna, and together with NIAID, sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Dec.12, 2019 — prior to the pandemic, raising significant red flags.
At the time The Lancet statement was released in February 2020, Daszak had advised Baric against adding his signature because he wanted to “put it out in a way that doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.”
Several signatories have reversed their positions
After publicly suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 came from a natural origin — and any talk to the contrary a conspiracy theory — several of The Lancet paper’s original signatories have reversed their positions and are now calling for a full investigation into COVID-19’s origins.
This includes Peter Palese of the Icahn School of Medicine in New York, who told MailOnline in June 2021, “’I believe a thorough investigation about the origin of the COVID-19 virus is needed. A lot of disturbing information has surfaced since the Lancet letter I signed, so I want to see answers covering all questions.”
Signatory Stanley Perlman from the University of Iowa similarly said, “It is difficult to eliminate a possible lab leak as part of the process, so this still needs to be considered.”
Bernard Roizman, a microbiology expert at the University of Chicago, who also signed the paper has since stated he believes SARS-CoV-2 was “released by ‘sloppy’ scientists.”
Yet, the signatories have not come clean about their own conflicts of interest. When The Lancet published its June addendum disclosing Daszak’s conflicts, it invited the other signatories to also update their competing interests. Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist with Rutgers University, told The Telegraph:
“Incredibly, only Daszak appears to have done so. Conflicts of interest were not reported for any of the other 26 signers of the letter — not even those with obviously material undisclosed conflicts such as EcoHealth employees and Predict contractors.”
An orchestrated campaign to control the narrative
The Lancet paper was just one piece of the campaign to control the narrative around COVID-19’s origins. Another one of the major pieces of propaganda is “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,”27 a paper published in Nature Medicine in March 2020 that became the preeminent “proof” that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin and couldn’t possibly have come from a lab.
It was later revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIAID director, Farrar and Dr. Francis Collins, National Institutes of Health director, had a hand in the paper, as one of its authors wrote a March 6, 2020, email to the trio and colleagues, thanking them for their “advice and leadership.”
According to Charles Rixey, a COVID-19 analyst who combed through 100,000 pages of FOIA documents and reviewed more than 1,000 research articles, however, the five editors of the Nature Medicine paper, who he refers to as “the Proximals,” were aware of the existence of a furin cleavage site on the virus as early as Feb.1, 2020, the day a conference call was organized by Farrar and Fauci “to address several aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 genome that pointed towards an artificial origin, by means of generating adaptive changes through passaging and/or direct manipulation of the genome.”
After the Feb. 1, 2020, conference call, a Feb. 3 meeting was held by Fauci, presidential science adviser Kelvin Droegemeier, Chris Hassell, senior science adviser for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and National Academies’ policy director Alexander Pope, during which the “group slapped the table on what the narrative was going to be — not what the science indicated.” Rixey wrote:
“Therefore, the signal was sent to all scientists that pursuing the lab origins angle meant career death (no academy membership), no funding (via Fauci or Ross or Farrar), no publication in the big 4 journals during the historic pandemic (NEJM, Science, The Lancet & Nature [by virtue of their publishing of the tone-setting pieces]), no executive patronage for things like generic drugs, etc.”
Many have stated that we’ll never truly know the origin of SARS-CoV-2, short of China confessing or a whistleblower coming forward, but as Muller stated during his testimony, “We have a whistleblower, the virus itself.”
Even as scientists who have worked closely on GOF research with WIV have tried to shut down investigations into the lab leak theory, the virus may ultimately reveal the truth.
SARS-CoV-2 has a unique trigger on the surface called a furin cleavage site and a unique code in the genes for that site called a CGG-CGG dimer — these markers do not exist in natural coronaviruses but are known to have been used in GOF research.
Dr. Steven Quay, who holds 87 patents across 22 different fields of medicine and invented seven FDA-approved medicines, believes that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory in China.
His Bayesian analysis of SARS-CoV-2 origins revealed that finding a CGG-CGG codon pair in the furin site of SARS-CoV-2 is “a highly improbable event,” and this can be used to adjust the likelihood that SARS-CoV-2 is of zoonotic origin to only 0.5%, while the likelihood of laboratory origin is 99.5%.
Originally published by Mercola.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.
Thousands of doctors, now more than 5,200 doctors and scientists have signed the “The Physicians Declaration,” condemning policymakers for authoritarian approaches of forcing a “one-size-fits-all” COVID treatment strategy which is resulting in “needless illness and death.”
An international alliance of physicians and medical scientists met in Rome, Italy on September 12 - 14 for a three-day Global COVID Summit to speak “truth to power about COVID pandemic research and treatment.” The summit presented an opportunity for the medical professionals to compare studies and assess the efficacy of the various treatments for the Coronavirus that have been developed in hospitals, doctors’ offices and research labs throughout the world.
However, many of these medical professionals have experienced career threats, character assassination, censorship of research papers, clinical trials and patient observations, their professional history and accomplishments altered or omitted in academic and mainstream media because of them providing life-saving treatments for COVID patients.
Dr. Robert Malone, who discovered in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection and invented mRNA vaccines while he was at the Salk Institute in 1988, read the Declaration at the summit.
“The Physicians Declaration” states:
“We the physicians of the world, united and loyal to the Hippocratic Oath, recognizing the profession of medicine as we know it is at a crossroad, are compelled to declare the following;
WHEREAS, it is our utmost responsibility and duty to uphold and restore the dignity, integrity, art and science of medicine;
WHEREAS, there is an unprecedented assault on our ability to care for our patients;
WHEREAS, public policy makers have chosen to force a “one size fits all” treatment strategy, resulting in needless illness and death, rather than upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized, personalized approach to patient care which is proven to be safe and more effective;
WHEREAS, physicians and other health care providers working on the front lines, utilizing their knowledge of epidemiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, are often first to identify new, potentially life saving treatments;
WHEREAS, physicians are increasingly being discouraged from engaging in open professional discourse and the exchange of ideas about new and emerging diseases, not only endangering the essence of the medical profession, but more importantly, more tragically, the lives of our patients;
WHEREAS, thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, as a result of barriers put up by pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies, rendering the vast majority of healthcare providers helpless to protect their patients in the face of disease. Physicians are now advising their patients to simply go home (allowing the virus to replicate) and return when their disease worsens, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat;
WHEREAS, this is not medicine. This is not care. These policies may actually constitute crimes against humanity.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS:
RESOLVED, that the physician-patient relationship must be restored. The very heart of medicine is this relationship, which allows physicians to best understand their patients and their illnesses, to formulate treatments that give the best chance for success, while the patient is an active participant in their care.
RESOLVED, that the political intrusion into the practice of medicine and the physician/patient relationship must end. Physicians, and all health care providers, must be free to practice the art and science of medicine without fear of retribution, censorship, slander, or disciplinary action, including possible loss of licensure and hospital privileges, loss of insurance contracts and interference from government entities and organizations – which further prevent us from caring for patients in need. More than ever, the right and ability to exchange objective scientific findings, which further our understanding of disease, must be protected.
RESOLVED, that physicians must defend their right to prescribe treatment, observing the tenet FIRST, DO NO HARM. Physicians shall not be restricted from prescribing safe and effective treatments. These restrictions continue to cause unnecessary sickness and death. The rights of patients, after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of each option, must be restored to receive those treatments.
RESOLVED, that we invite physicians of the world and all health care providers to join us in this noble cause as we endeavor to restore trust, integrity and professionalism to the practice of medicine.
RESOLVED, that we invite the scientists of the world, who are skilled in biomedical research and uphold the highest ethical and moral standards, to insist on their ability to conduct and publish objective, empirical research without fear of reprisal upon their careers, reputations and livelihoods.
RESOLVED, that we invite patients, who believe in the importance of the physician-patient relationship and the ability to be active participants in their care, to demand access to science-based medical care.”
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “These medical professionals have been censored and threatened for simply upholding the Hippocratic Oath to ‘do no harm.’ Throughout history, many breakthrough discoveries that have now become accepted science were initially censored. It’s past time to end medical censorship and allow doctors and scientific experts the freedom they rightfully deserve.”
