“Until an accurate count of COVID-19 cases in the vaccinated and placebo groups has been determined for vaccine efficacy evaluation, we are asking the FDA to stay its decision regarding the emergency use authorization for this vaccine.”
Lee’s request was rejected by the FDA on Dec. 11, the same day the agency approved Pfizer’s vaccine for emergency use. On Feb. 8, Lee filed an amended reply.
In the petition and stay, Lee requested the FDA amend the study design for the late-stage trial of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Specifically, Lee requests:
“Before a EUA or unrestricted license is issued for the Pfizer vaccine, or for other vaccines for which PCR results are the primary evidence of infection, all “endpoints” or COVID-19 cases used to determine vaccine efficacy in Phase 3 or 2/3 trials should have their infection status confirmed by Sanger sequencing, given the high cycle thresholds used in some trials. High cycle thresholds, or Ct values, in RT-qPCR test results, have been widely acknowledged to lead to false positives … All RT-qPCR-positive test results used to categorize the patient as “COVID-19 cases” and used to qualify the trial’s endpoints should be verified by Sanger sequencing to confirm that the tested samples in fact contain a unique SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA.”
The petition makes these requests because the phase 2/3 clinical trial of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine uses a presumptive RT-qPCR (“PCR”) diagnostic test, which is known to generate high rates of false-positive results.
In addition, the Pfizer vaccine trial primarily uses a PCR test that employs cycle thresholds up to 44.9 to identify COVID-19 “cases” despite the fact that “positive” results that require cycle thresholds greater than 30 to 35 are usually false positives, according to Lee.
Lee offered to re-test the residues of tested samples in his laboratory if Pfizer is unable to do so in order to confirm Pfizer’s stated vaccine efficacy rate of 95%.
Lee’s Sanger sequencing-based method for molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 was published in the International Journal of Geriatrics and Rehabilitation.
On Dec. 11, 2020, the same day the FDA granted Pfizer Emergency Use Authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA responded to Lee’s petition and request a stay. The agency “conclude[d] that the petitions do not contain facts demonstrating any reasonable grounds for the requested action” and denied the petitions.
The FDA, among other things, stated that “PCR testing does not need to be followed by Sanger or another sequencing for purposes of clinical diagnosis. Currently, reverse real-time PCR (RT-PCR) tests can both amplify and confirm the identity of viral genetic material in a single reaction, without a separate sequencing step.”
On Feb. 8, Lee, through ICAN’s counsel, submitted a detailed and thoroughly cited reply to the FDA’s denial of his petition and stay. This reply points out the inaccuracies, contradictions, and omissions in the FDA’s denial of the petition.
Lee wrote that the FDA’s letter denying the petition and stay “shows that the FDA has not conducted an adequate evaluation of the Pfizer vaccine’s efficacy, especially concerning issues about the accuracy of RT-qPCR testing of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical specimens.”
“The FDA has misled the public. The key misleading statements are analyzed below point-by-point according to the sequence of their presentation in the Letter but under the following four categories for the convenience of the readers:
“A. Cherry-picking to eviscerate the guidance for the issuance of a EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine.
B. Knowingly promoting inaccurate PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2.
C. Finding excuses for using PCR tests with high false-positive rates for this vaccine trial.
D. Glossing over potential risks of an mRNA vaccine while concealing its true efficacy.”
Lee, ICAN, and others are weighing possible future actions.
‘Miraculous’ Ivermectin Approved for Use in the US for the Treatment of COVID-19
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has upgraded their recommendation for ivermectin, making it an option for use in treating COVID-19 (SHUTTERSTOCK)
BETHESDA, Maryland, January 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) —Following the diligent efforts of physicians associated with a group called Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has upgraded their recommendation for the “miraculous” drug ivermectin, making it an option for use in treating COVID-19 within the United States.
The result comes one week after Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Pierre Kory—founding members of the FLCCC, along with Dr. Andrew Hill, researcher and consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO), presented their data before the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel.
A press release from FLCCC explains the “new designation upgraded the status of ivermectin from ‘against’ [the drug’s use] to ‘neither for nor against,’ which is the same recommendation given to monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma, both widely used across the nation.”
“By no longer recommending against ivermectin use,” the statement said, “doctors should feel more open in prescribing ivermectin as another therapeutic option for the treatment of COVID-19. This may clear its path towards FDA [Food and Drug Administration] emergency use approval.”
“Ivermectin is one of the world’s safest, cheapest and most widely available drugs,” explained Dr. Kory, President of the FLCCC Alliance. “The studies we presented to the NIH revealed high levels of statistical significance showing large magnitude benefit in transmission rates, need for hospitalization, and death. What’s more, the totality of trials data supporting ivermectin is without precedent.”
Forty-six nursing home residents who had received their first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech’s fast-tracked vaccination against COVID-19 at the beginning of January had died by the end of the month, Spanish media have reported.
Staff first reported a coronavirus outbreak at Nuestra Señora del Rosario (Our Lady of the Rosary), a nursing home in the province of Cadiz, Andalusia in Spain on Jan.12, in the wake of a vaccine distribution campaign.
The Ministry of Housing and Families intervened in the private facility which houses up to 145 residents and where local media reported on Feb. 4 that a further 28 of 94 residents as well as 12 staff members had tested positive for COVID-19.
At another nursing home in the same southwestern Spanish province, in Novo Sancti Petri, in Chiclani, 22 elderly residents died and 103 were infected following a vaccination campaign.
Similar outbreaks and death clusters following vaccination have been reported across the globe, including:
24 seniors at a nursing home in Syracuse, NY were reported to have died from COVID-19 as of Jan. 9 despite having been vaccinated beginning Dec. 22.
10 cases of COVID-19 were reported on Jan. 28 among seniors who had received both doses of Pfizer’s vaccine at one care home in Stockholm Sweden. The residents were vaccinated on Dec. 27 and again on Jan.19.
The COVID-19 death toll in the small British enclave of Gibraltar numbered 16 before it launched its Pfizer vaccination campaign on Jan. 10 and then shot up to 53 deaths 10 days later and to 70 seven days after that. According to a Reuters report, the Gibraltar Health Authority declared there was “no evidence at all of any causal link” between 6 of the deaths that were investigated and Pfizer’s vaccine, despite the individuals having tested negative for COVID before vaccination, but positive “in the days immediately after.”
4,500 COVID-19 cases in Israel occurred in patients after they had received one dose of Pfizer’s vaccine and 375 of those vaccinated patients required hospitalization, Israeli news media reported on Jan.12.
Seven adults living in a care home in Saskatoon tested positive for coronavirus a week after residents were vaccinated at the Sherbrooke Community Centre, the CBC reported. There were no positive cases at the time of vaccination.
Seven residents at a Montreal long-term care facility tested positive for COVID- within 28 days of being vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine, prompting the province of Quebec to delay the second Pfizer dose.
Abercorn Care Home in Scotland, which began COVID-19 vaccinations on Dec. 14 was home to an outbreak of the virus by Jan. 10 and the National Health Service for the region refused to comment on whether vaccinated residents were ill. A care home staff group founder told the Scottish Daily Record: “We have had members of our group whose parents have had the vaccine and then two weeks later have tested positive for coronavirus.”
All of the residents at a home in Inverness, Scotland were vaccinated against COVID early in January, but 17 became infected with the virus after the first dose.
The UK Medical Freedom Alliance — a group of doctors, scientists, lawyers, and other professionals who advocate for informed consent in the UK — published an urgent open letter to Nadhim Zahawi, Minister for COVID-19 vaccine deployment; Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; and two vaccine oversight agencies calling for an immediate audit of the deaths following vaccination in the UK.
The group refers to graphs showing a surge in care home deaths and cites data from the Office for National Statistics that residents’ deaths tripled in the two weeks between January 8- 22 at a time when there was a massive increase in the rate of vaccinations in care homes.
Similar graphs for Israel, Ireland, Bahrain, and Jordan show a similar correlation.
The UK Medical Freedom Alliance points to the “statistically insignificant” safety data on elderly people in COVID, who they say were “under-represented” in vaccine clinical trials.
“We postulated that there may be increased vaccine side-effects in this group, which would only become apparent when many thousands of them had received vaccinations,” the letter states.
The World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts updated its recommendations for Moderna’s vaccine administration on Jan. 26 stating that while vaccination is recommended for older persons due to the risks of COVID infection, “very frail older persons with an anticipated life expectancy of fewer than 3 months” should not be automatically vaccinated but should be “individually assessed.”
During the first six weeks of the coronavirus vaccine rollout among U.S. adults, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — notorious for collecting only a tiny fraction of adverse events — received reports of more than 500 post-vaccination deaths and close to 11,000 other injuries.
Internationally renowned molecular genetics expert Dolores Cahill believes that these injuries portend a forthcoming tsunami of crippling and fatal problems. In the coming months, Cahill expects to see successive waves of adverse reactions to the experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) injections ranging from anaphylaxis and other allergic responses to autoimmunity, sepsis, and organ failure.
Notwithstanding these and other credible warnings, U.S. health officials are signaling their intent to rapidly green-light the as-yet unlicensed mRNA vaccines for children.
Already last April — when next to nothing was known about COVID’s epidemiology, and candidate vaccines had barely begun to be studied — Bill Gates set the stage for the pediatric push, declaring that the end goal is to make COVID-19 vaccines “part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.”
We have since learned that 99.997% of young people ages 0-19 survive COVID-19 (with most experiencing either mild symptoms or no symptoms at all). But that does not seem to matter. Nor does a January 2021 study, which confirmed that it is only in a minuscule subset of children — mostly kids with serious underlying medical conditions — that the illness occasionally takes a turn for the worse.
In this low-risk context, public health officials know that they need to come up with different arguments to persuade parents to give the coronavirus vaccines to their offspring. Fortunately for these vaccine functionaries, there is a concept that is readily at hand: herd immunity.
And as Moderna joins Pfizer in conducting vaccine experiments on 12- to 17-year-olds — with additional trials in the works to test the injections in children under-12, including infants as young as six months — the chorus of voices casting herd immunity as “the main driver for COVID-19 child vaccinations” is growing noticeably louder.
Immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D., and others concur that officials enjoy wielding herd immunity “as a trump card to justify any measures, often at odds with the personal freedom of choice, aiming to increase vaccination compliance.”
There’s just one problem with vaccine herd immunity claims, says Handley: “[W]e’ve never come close to achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination, and we never will.”
Having conducted extensive research on the history of vaccine policies (such as mandated vaccines for school attendance), Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President and General Counsel Mary Holland agree, stating that decades of intensive effort “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.”
The theory of herd immunity originated with a health officer working in Chicago in the 1930s. At its inception, the concept “had nothing to do with vaccination.” Instead, the theory reflected the physician’s careful observations “about the process of how a disease works its way through a community and how that community, eventually, naturally builds up a resistance to it as a result.”
As Obukhanych also explains, herd immunity evolved as an epidemiologic rather than an immunologic construct, offering at best a theoretical opportunity to predict successful disease control. As vaccines (and vaccine mandates) became more widespread in the mid-20th century, herd immunity theory underwent a pivotal transformation, based on the “faulty assumption that vaccination elicits in an individual a state equivalent to bona fide immunity,” Obukhanych said. Overlooking the sophistication of the human immune system — the very model of versatility — vaccine scientists adopted the flawed assumption of equivalence and, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, now view vaccination as a superior — even ideal — route to herd immunity.
The World Health Organization goes even further, omitting any reference to natural infection and defining herd immunity solely as “a concept used for vaccination.” Ironically, even as medical facilities report “an uptick in the recording of [COVID-19 vaccine] side effects” — not to mention disruptive “health impact events” — the Mayo Clinic asserts that vaccination “create[s] immunity without causing illness or resulting complications.”
The moving herd immunity target
Dr. Anthony Fauci — Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is 50% owner of the royalty-generating Moderna vaccine patent — has declared that herd immunity cannot be achieved and life cannot “return to some kind of normal” unless 85% to 90% of the entire U.S. population gets a coronavirus vaccine, children included. Today, Fauci told ProPublica children as young as first-graders may be authorized to get the coronavirus vaccine by the time school starts in September.
Children (ages 0-17) make up 22% of the U.S. population. In late December, Fauci breezily admitted to the New York Times that he “nudged” the herd immunity target up to 90% (from a prior estimate of 70%) after he saw polls indicating a growing public willingness to get a vaccine.
Educators have been quick to reinforce Fauci’s message that young people should get the shots, stating that vaccinating students is “a crucial step in the return-to-normal for schools.” Conversely, Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recently asserted that teachers don’t need to be vaccinated to reopen schools safely.
Two French scientists at the Pasteur Institute published a slightly more scientific discussion of COVID-19 herd immunity goals last September. While still promoting vaccination as the pathway of choice, they acknowledged that herd immunity calculations necessarily must account for variables such as susceptibility and transmission. They also noted that “children, particularly those younger than 10, maybe less susceptible and contagious than adults, in which case they may be partially omitted from the computation of herd immunity.”
Although American officials admit that “kids do not generally suffer from severe COVID-19” and are unlikely to directly benefit from the injections, they have no intention of following the French authors’ advice to exclude children from their herd immunity calculus. Instead, framing their ethically shaky and scientifically doubtful argument in the conditional tense, they claim that “inoculating [children] could reduce the spread to people at higher risk.”
In short, public health leaders say, parents, must “vaccinate the young to protect the old.” Given the federal government’s estimate that one vaccine injury results from every 39 vaccines administered, it seems clear that officials expect children to shoulder 100% of the risks of COVID vaccination in exchange for zero benefits.
Natural immunity and COVID
Interestingly, the experts issuing sweeping statements about the need for 90% vaccine coverage and protection of the elderly make no mention of the many Americans who have already had COVID-19, even though a growing number of studies point to “persistent [natural] immunity” in recovered individuals (see here and here).
Rep.Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), an MIT-trained scientist and inventor who had COVID early on in the pandemic, scrutinized data from the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials and ascertained that neither vaccine offers any benefit to those with naturally acquired immunity.
However, Massie discovered that the CDC not only was advising previously infected individuals to get vaccinated but continued to do so even after Massie alerted them to their propagation of “false and incorrect science.”
A phenomenon known as pathogenic priming (also called “disease enhancement”) represents another important reason to question the advisability of recommending that adults and children who have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection get a COVID vaccine.
A pivotal April paper by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler explained how exposure to specific peptides (components of proteins) through infection may “prime” some individuals “for increased risk of enhanced pathogenicity during future exposure” — including subsequent exposure in the form of vaccination.
In December, Lyons-Weiler and CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. noted that the clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines “did not rule out pathogenic priming in any way.” Reports of post-COVID-vaccine deaths filed with VAERS (searchable at medalerts.org) indicate that some of the deceased had previously experienced COVID illness, including seniors who were a couple of weeks “post COVID” and then died within minutes or hours of receiving their injections.
A multi-country serological analysis published in Nature estimated (Table S4) that by the beginning of September, 14% of Americans had been infected — a conservative estimate given that serology (antibody) testing provides only a partial picture, assessing what is called “humoral immunity.” As the two Pasteur Institute authors observed in their fall paper, humoral immunity (which is the type of immunity induced by vaccination) “does not capture the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 protective immunity.”
Also in September, Dr. Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal), drew attention to studies showing mobilization of memory T cells against SARS-CoV-2 “in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus.” The scientists quoted by Doshi in his article attribute this to prior exposure to the common cold and other coronaviruses — and wonder whether “there is more immunity out there” than meets the eye.
In fact, memory T cells are some of the immune system’s busiest white blood cells, and Doshi notes that they “are known for their ability to affect the clinical severity and susceptibility to future infection.” He suggests, therefore, that they could help elucidate “mysteries of COVID-19, such as why children have been surprisingly spared the brunt of the pandemic. . . and the high rate of asymptomatic infections in children and young adults.”
However, vaccine-centric scientists (and their mainstream media promoters) are not exploring these mysteries, instead of ignoring T cells while maintaining their narrow focus on antibodies. Piggy-backing on Doshi’s questions, another writer asks: “Is [the lack of research attention to T cells] because vaccines are good at provoking antibody responses but not so great at generating T-cells?”
Protecting the young
Over many decades, the far-from-uncommon phenomenon of vaccine failure in fully vaccinated individuals has made it abundantly clear that antibody responses are inadequate as a guarantor of real immunity. For children, an even bigger problem is that, before their immune system has even had a chance to develop, a pile-up of vaccinations aggressively overstimulates them into a state of artificial immunity. Immune dysfunction and chronic illness are the not-infrequent outcomes.
The pediatric study that recently identified underlying medical conditions as the strongest risk factor responsible for COVID-19 deaths in children cited conditions such as “asthma, autoimmune disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, GI/liver disease, hypertension, immune suppression, metabolic disease, neurologic disease, obesity, and renal disease.” Coincidentally or not, these are among the nearly 400 adverse reactions identified in package inserts as being potentially associated with vaccination.
As Lyons-Weiler reminded us several years before COVID, “The determination of the benefit of widespread vaccination for any vaccine must consider not only the ability to protect those at risk but also the downstream costs due to vaccine injuries.”
Instead of absurdly arguing (as some are doing) that rushing risky mRNA vaccines into children is what is needed not just to achieve an arbitrary level of herd immunity but to “fully revive the economy,” let’s heed Handley’s words: “Until we are honest in our assessment of both the safety and efficacy of vaccines, kids will continue to be hurt, rights will continue to be trampled, and mythology will continue to trump science.”
Parents should not be lulled into the false notion that vaccines (or any medical procedure) are all benefit and no risk.
Stroke Victims to Be Given Psychedelic Drug DMT in First-Ever US Clinical Trials
The hallucinogenic drug DMT (dimethyltryptamine) could provide crucial aid to stroke victims by minimizing the damage inflicted on victims’ brains as they are rushed to the hospital, according to researchers.
Canadian company Algernon Pharmaceuticals has laid out plans to microdose participants in the first clinical trial of its kind in hopes to help stroke victims’ brains recover faster through a “rewiring” process, reports Metro.
A stroke occurs when blood supplies to a part of the brain are drastically reduced or interrupted, starving the vital organ of fresh oxygen and nutrients and setting in motion the death of crucial nerve cells. In some cases, stroke can even lead to death. About 795,000 people suffer from strokes annually in the U.S.
However, researchers at Algernon argue that DMT could play a key role in staving off the worst effects of stroke by sparking the growth of new neurons, effectively turbo-charging the healing process.
In the first-ever clinical trials of this kind in the U.S., DMT will soon be administered to stroke patients in the back of ambulances. While the doses will be far too small to trigger any sort of hallucinations, scientists are claiming that the microdoses will still be sufficient for conferring benefits.
The Phase 1 trials could begin as soon as next month if they receive a green light from authorities. It could still take years before the drug receives approval for human use.
Algernon CEO Christopher Moreau is hopeful that the drug will prove its ability to help heal the brains of those who suffer from a stroke.
“Since we’re dealing with stroke patients, we will be using the sub-hallucinogenic dose, which in pre-clinical studies has still shown to improve neuroplasticity,” Moreau explained.
It will help the brain heal even though patients aren’t having the psychedelic experience, and we really don’t want that if your patient has just had a stroke,” he continued. “The sooner you can start to treat post-injury the better.”
However, the drug could likely have its limits.
“DMT may not benefit hemorrhagic (stroke victims), we don’t know, but we’re hoping it won’t cause them any problems because then we don’t have to wait for the CT scan, we can treat in the ambulance,” Moreau added.
DMT – also known as the “spirit molecule” for its extremely potent hallucinogenic properties – is one of the main psychoactive compounds found in ayahuasca, a brew consumed in shamanistic rituals that have been used for centuries in South America before finding its way into North America and Europe as a recreational drug popular at music festivals.
Experts and users of DMT have said that the drug has a similar impact to other psychedelic drugs as LSD and psilocybin or “magic” mushrooms. However, the psychedelic experience or so-called “trip” from DMT is much shorter in duration than either of the other psychedelic drugs.
Studies of DMT have shown that it does have the ability to improve motor functions, and in tests, on brain-damaged rats, it helped trigger the formation of new brain cells.
Moreau claims that studies have shown that within hours of a stroke, the brain attempts to rewire itself – and that DMT may potentially accelerate the process.
At present, patients have little recourse in the immediate aftermath of a stroke because doctors seldom know what type of stroke someone may be suffering from. While ischemic strokes involving blood clots require blood thinner as treatment, hemorrhagic strokes require more invasive treatment.
However, the wrong type of treatment for a stroke could be fatal for patients.
Algernon hopes that if the first phase of trials proves successful, regulators will approve the more widespread usage of the treatment. In the second and third phases of the trial, Algernon hopes to continue DMT treatments over the short and long term to prove the efficacy of the treatment.
During 2020, Sweden, under the guidance of chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, did not universally lockdown, shutter small businesses, close schools, or implement mask mandates
Seniors and other high-risk individuals were asked to stay home, social distance and mask up, while all others were free to live much as they normally would
According to the Imperial College of London model, Sweden would have been looking at a death toll of 80,000 by the end of June 2020 if it didn’t lockdown. The true number, by mid-September 2020, after no lockdowns at all, still stood at only 5,880, a vast majority of whom were elderly with comorbidities
Swedish data show teachers are among the professions that have the lowest risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19
Pandemic lethality has been oversold across the globe, as total mortality for 2020 has not spiked above norms
The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly been the most traumatic period of time in many people’s lives. The devastation wrought is incalculable when you take into account things that aren’t easily measured, such as mental health, physical abuse, and food insecurity.
The harsh truth, however, is that virtually none of it was necessary. The real damage occurred as a result of the decisions made by global, national, and local health and government officials, acting in concert according to some predetermined plan.
The Swedish ‘Just Enough’ Way
The featured 45-minute documentary, “COVID, Tango, and The Lagom Way,” won the Outstanding Achievement Award in the Los Angeles International Indie Short Fest film festival in January 2021.
The film was made by filmmaker, relationship counselor, and tango aficionado Claudia Nye, an Argentinian living in the U.K., who “trapped in lockdown between the two extremes of coronavirus deniers and lockdown orthodoxy,” became intrigued by the approach adopted in Sweden.
During 2020, Sweden, at the resolute guidance of chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, did not universally lockdown, shutter small businesses, close schools, or implement mask mandates. Nye and photo-journalist Sean Spencer decided to investigate the country’s chosen strategy.
“The Lagom Way” refers to the Swedish notion that keeping to the “middle of the road” is best and extremes are to be avoided. Put another way, it’s the principle of “just enough” — not too much and not too little. It’s about being “reasonable.” “We don’t want to hurt anyone unnecessarily,” Tegnell says, “but we want to have a good effect as possible.”
Hence, only some schools were closed during certain periods of time, and only office workers were asked to work from home to minimize crowding in public transportation. Retail shops, gyms, and restaurants remained open, some recommending social distancing and masks, but not as a strict rule.
So, while residents in many other parts of the world were told to stay home or face fines or jail time, Swedes were tango dancing in Stockholm, and people were simply asked to take “common sense” precautions based on their individual circumstances.
Seniors and other high-risk individuals were asked to stay home, social distance, and mask up, while all others were free to live much as they normally would. As noted by Tegnell, “In Sweden, we have chosen a voluntary way and it’s proven to be sustainable and effective.”
Tegnell on the Swedish Approach
Nye says that whenever she would bring up the Swedish approach on social media, she was told it was a “right-wing” strategy or that it is irrelevant because Sweden is so sparsely populated.
When asked to comment on these retorts, Tegnell denies both, saying the strategy chosen was completely apolitical, and while Sweden may be slightly less densely populated than some countries, overall, many areas are very densely populated, such as the capital of Stockholm. Hence, that cannot account for their lower death toll.
According to the Imperial College of London model (which has repeatedly been proven to be fantastically incorrect), Sweden would have been looking at a death toll of 80,000 by the end of June 2020 if it didn’t lockdown.
Alas, the true number, by mid-September 2020, after no lockdowns at all, still only stood at 5,880, a vast majority of whom were elderly with comorbidities. In fact, of those, only 872 were a direct result of COVID-19. The rest had one or more conditions that contributed to their death.
When asked about how she feels about the idea of locking down entire societies to protect the vulnerable, like herself, an elderly lady shakes her head, saying it must be like “torture.” She doesn’t see how anyone would think it a good idea.
Global data also raises questions about the effectiveness of lockdowns and other measures. Nye presents a number of graphs and charts demonstrating that pandemic lethality has been oversold, as total mortality for 2020 has not spiked above norms.
Interestingly, Tegnell also points out that teachers have turned out to be among the professions that have the lowest risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19. They have quite a bit of data on this, since most schools remained open for face-to-face teaching, and masks were not required.
In fact, teachers appear to be protected by being around children and young adults in the school setting, Tegnell says. It has not put them at risk. He also correctly points out that COVID-19 is a disease that primarily affects the very old and those in ill health. The risk for everyone else, particularly children, is very low, he says.
This finding is in stark contrast to the fear displayed by teachers in many other countries, In the U.S. and U.K. in particular, many teachers are still terrified of reentering the classroom and want closures to continue. As noted in New York Magazine,1 remote learning has been a catastrophe in more ways than one, and teachers’ unions share a big part of the blame for robbing children of their education and parents of their livelihood.
Freefall Economy — Was COVID-19 Responsible?
While small businesses in tourist areas did suffer economically due to travel bans imposed by other countries into Sweden, most retailers have stayed afloat. This too is in stark contrast to many other countries that forced businesses to shut. Nye points to headlines stating that coronavirus is responsible for putting the global economy into freefall, but she questions whether the pandemic was the real cause.
Six months before COVID-19 hit, the World Economic Forum announced that China was taking a leading role in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is part and parcel of the Great Reset agenda. At the time, it was reported that China was dumping the world market prices, sending the global stock markets into a tailspin. So, might the pandemic be a cover for an already crumbling financial system?
She notes that as COVID-19 spread around the world, it remained concentrated in the G-20s, the 20 largest economies of the world. Was that coincidental? Was it unintentional that the world’s largest corporations boomed, raking in enormous profits during the pandemic, while small businesses were faltering and being driven into bankruptcy? All things considered, it sure doesn’t seem accidental.
A relationship counselor herself, Nye explains how and why many world leaders have fundamentally failed in their management of this crisis, and why Tegnell’s approach works. While some European media have claimed Swedes are “more responsible” than, say the British, Nye dismisses such notions. In reality, it’s about basic psychology.
She goes on to explain what’s called “transactional analysis,” which is based on the premise that we all have three ego modes: parent, adult, and child. We’ve all been children, we’ve all been parented and, hopefully, have grown into sensible adults.
A relationship is healthy when communication between two individuals occurs on the parallel. Adult to adult, two people can make joint plans, for example. Parent to Parent, we can buy a home and raise a family. Child to child, we can dance and play together. “Trouble ensues when the relationship becomes crossed,” Nye explains.
Tegnell’s communication with the Swedish people is one of adult to adult, and by encouraging self-responsibility, he builds a relationship of trust. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s draconian lockdown edicts, however, are that of parent to child, triggering people to respond either as the fearful child or the rebellious child. It’s a dysfunctional relationship based on intimidation that breeds fear and distrust.
Speaking of the intricacies of tango dancing, but alluding to the art of leadership in general, Nye says: “When a leader doesn’t listen, abruptly changing his moves without warning or care, unaware of the group, bumping into people, he will be instilling confusion and fear in his partner. The dance falls apart …”
Another Round of Fearmongering
Clearly, many world leaders are either unaware of how to generate trust, or that simply isn’t one of their priorities. Perhaps the instilling of fear really is the primary goal. At least it seems that way, judging by recent media headlines. They now warn a new SARS-CoV-2 strain in South Africa appears resistant to antibodies from the original virus.2
The Novavax and Johnson & Johnson vaccines don’t work as well against this South African variant, or against the mutated variant circulating in the U.K.3,4 WebMD warn “COVID-19 may hide in brains and cause relapses.”5 In other words, the invisible enemy is still at large, and unless you remain hypervigilant, it will get you, one way or another. There’s simply no safety to be had.
It’s not surprising then to “learn” that we have to mask up even if vaccinated.6 One of several reasons for this is because “it would be difficult to know if people without masks have actually gotten vaccinated. They could be an anti-masker,” Medivizor writes.7 Yes, god forbid we can’t immediately determine whether someone is out of compliance with an illogical rule.
In a poorly disguised effort to make compliance with the absurd more “hip,” The New York Times put out an article promoting double-masking as a fashion statement. “Single masks are out; singles masks are in. Well-fitted, two- and three-layer masks are in; whatever you had before is out,” NYT reporter Tara Parker-Pope writes.8
Not content to stop there, some “experts” are promoting the use of three9 or even four10 masks. Tripling and quadrupling recommendations sparked a mild backlash, however, with other experts encouraging the return to common sense, as breathing is an important life function as well.
As detailed in “The Fog of COVID War,” pandemic responses in the U.S. and elsewhere have seesawed back and forth, from one extreme to the next, leaving nothing but confusion in its wake. In March 2020, we were told face masks offered no protection against the new virus and only symptomatic individuals should use them. In June, everyone had to wear them because there may be asymptomatic super-spreaders among us.
Interestingly enough, that same month, the World Health Organization admitted that asymptomatic transmission was “very rare.” If that’s true, then why was everyone told to wear face masks to prevent asymptomatic spread?
Not long thereafter, research involving nearly 9.9 million individuals revealed not a single case of COVID-19 could be traced to an asymptomatic individual who had tested positive, effectively destroying the asymptomatic spread narrative.
Yet the calls for double, triple, and quadruple masking came after it was established that, unless you have symptoms, you’re of no risk to anyone. Similarly, renewed calls for lockdowns of healthy populations continued as well.
All of this is what Nye refers to when she talks about what happens when leaders don’t listen, abruptly change their moves, and remain unaware of group dynamics. It instills confusion and fear, and the dance of social cohesion falls apart.
Are We Dealing With Bad Leadership or a Planned Coup?
The question is, is this done on purpose? Or are world leaders just bad leaders? Many believe it’s the former, and have presented evidence to support their theories.
Among them is financial guru Catherine Austin Fitts,11 who in an interview for the documentary “Planet Lockdown” describes the plan to use this crisis to engineer a total remake of world currencies and our entire way of life.
Comparing the move to herding sheep to a slaughterhouse, Fitts explains how the pandemic is lining people up to depend on their governments for protection from an invisible enemy (COVID-19) and then using fear to keep people from living what once was considered a normal life.
The herd mentality includes encouraging debt entrapment to the point that people become desperate for any type of cash flow that can help them meet their day-to-day living expenses until they willingly give up their rights in exchange for any relief offered to them.
The bottom line is that a slavery system, steeped in the ideologies of transhumanism and technocracy, is being created right under the noses of the people of the world — and the current lockdowns, the closing of small businesses, and the redefinition of “normal” are all part of a planned global governance system that will end sovereignty and individual rights.
The emotional response allowing this global takeover to bulldoze forward is fear. The remedy, therefore, is fearlessness. As noted by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko who, like Fitts, has become convinced that we’re in the middle of a hostile takeover by a global elite that aims to enslave us, psychologically, financially, and physically:
“It’s unbelievable the crime that’s been done on the human psyche. I’m screaming to humanity: Don’t be scared! Be cautious. Be smart. Use common sense. But don’t be scared. Return back to life. Reengage in life.”
The reason you don’t need to live in fear is manifold. First of all, the lethality of COVID-19 is on par with influenza, unless you’re very old or chronically ill.12 Ninety-four percent of those who have died in the U.S. died with SARS-CoV-2, not from it.13
Secondly, we now know of several treatments that work. Importantly, we know that if treated early enough (within the first five days of symptoms), the risk of hospitalization and death is extremely low. Early treatment also appears to eliminate the risk of “long-haul” symptoms, according to Zelenko.
Part of releasing fear is getting clarity and not being in a state of constant confusion. Educating yourself about the facts, first-hand, is the best way to achieve clarity within your own mind. As noted by Zelenko:
“I see the world now with such clarity … It’s no longer confusing. It’s a binary choice. It’s very clear who’s on what side. And here are the teams: There are those who want to live a life of God, conscious … No one has the right to enslave another human being. That’s one approach. The other is [internment] … an attempt to enslave the world population …
If you look at the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, they have a 30-year plan … That’s all spelled out in their charter. Just look at it … There’s myriad of politicians calling for the Great Reset …
What we’re really fighting for is the soul of man … Every person is being asked one simple question: Either bow down to God and have the divine presence protect you or you’re going to bow down to Bill Gates.”
Temperature Scans Are Unreliable in Detecting COVID
Scanning for fever at public events is likely not a reliable method of determining if a person is sick since the temperature can fluctuate based on exercise, ambient temperature, alcohol intake, blood pressure, and more
Not all people with mild COVID-19 have a fever. Studies vary ranging from 11% of people without fever, to 11.6% of people with fever
A normal temperature reading of 98.6 degrees F was established in the mid-1800s and may currently be as low as 97.54 degrees F; symptoms of fever also include body aches, headache, and chills
You have several options to take a temperature at home using a digital thermometer in the mouth, rectum, or under the arm, tympanic (ear) thermometer, or infrared scanner over the temporal artery
An early sign of many infections is a fever or an increase in your core temperature that your body uses to help fight pathogens. Researchers have found the no-contact forehead thermometers commonly used to screen for fever in public places are an ineffective and unreliable means of detecting COVID-19.1
Thermoregulation is an important part of maintaining a homeostatic environment in the body. Homeostasis is a physiological state in which an organism seeks stability or equilibrium between interdependent systems. Your body temperature is integral to creating equilibrium for other systems to optimally function. The entire system is complex and sometimes may seem counterintuitive.2
Your body can use negative and positive feedback loops3 to help regulate your core temperature within a narrow range, irrespective of the external environment.4 Infection is another reason your body’s core temperature can rise. The primary virus of interest in 2020 has been SARS-CoV-2 that triggers COVID-19 infection.
The first confirmed case in the U.S. occurred January 21, 2020, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a Washington state resident who had recently returned from Wuhan, China, was infected.5 By January 23, 2020, Wuhan was under quarantine, and shortly thereafter the U.S. declared a public health emergency.
The early unfolding events of the COVID-19 pandemic included recommended measures to help reduce the spread of an unknown virus. These included social distancing, sheltering in place, mask-wearing, and temperature taking.
Skin Temperature Can Change Independent of Core Temperature
The body maintains an internal temperature that varies less than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) throughout the day, depending on your physical activity, foods you’ve eaten, or emotional state.6
A change in core body temperature outside this range can happen during an illness or when the conditions in the external environment are more than your body is able to handle, such as extreme heat or extreme cold. In high heat, the body will shunt blood to the skin to increase sweat production and release heat, which assists in thermoregulation.
This variability in skin temperature independent of your core body temperature is one reason the no-contact forehead scanners are unreliable. While fever is a common symptom of COVID-19, the scanners can result in false negatives and false positives.
Researchers in physiology are suggesting that using the same scanners to assess a person’s temperature at the fingertip and eye would offer more reliable readings.7 The study was published in Experimental Physiology and co-led by physiologist and expert in thermoregulation, Michael J. Tipton, Ph.D., who is also editor-in-chief of the same journal.8
While reviewing the science behind temperature taking, the writers suggested infrared thermography forehead scanners were of limited use for mass screening.9 As outlined in a press release from the Physiological Society, the paper determined four key factors that relate to using the scanners:10
Not all people who have the virus have a fever, so temperature alone is not a good indicator.
Skin temperature can vary from body core temperature and therefore is not an accurate estimate, and a direct measure of core temperature is impractical.
Not every person with a fever, even an accurate core body temperature, has COVID-19.
Using temperature assessments from the finger and the eye may offer more reliable information of an increase in body core temperature.
In their review of early data, the researchers found the most common symptom in 55,924 patients with confirmed cases who presented in China through February 22, 2020, was fever. In this group, at least 11% did not have a fever and fewer than half with the suspected disease who were admitted to the hospital had a fever.11
The press release cites a 2005 study in which forehead temperatures were compared across three infrared forehead thermometers in 1,000 participants. The measurements varied by as much as 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C).
In another study with 500 participants, more than 80% of the infrared measurements produced a false negative result. There is a range of reasons that thermometers can produce false-negative results, including:12
Adipose levels in the body
Distance from the scanner
Tipton commented on the results of the study and how the information could be used, saying:
“If scanners are not giving an accurate reading, we run the risk of falsely excluding people from places they may want, or need, to go, and we also risk allowing people with the virus to spread the undetected infection they have. Using a surface temperature scanner to obtain a single surface temperature, usually the forehead, is an unreliable method to detect the fever associated with COVID-19.
Too many factors make the measurement of a skin temperature a poor surrogate for deep body temperature; skin temperature can change independently of deep body temperature for lots of reasons. Even if such a single measure did reflect deep body temperature reliably, other things, such as exercise can raise deep body temperature.
We think we can improve the identification of the presence of fever using the same kit but looking at the difference between eye and finger temperature – it’s not perfect, but it is potentially better and more reliable.”
Not All People With COVID-19 Have a Fever
As Tipton pointed out from data gathered early in the pandemic through February 2020, not all people who have COVID-19 will have a fever. As more data have been gathered throughout 2020, the number of people who may have an infection, but present without fever, has grown. Your body produces a fever with infection since most viruses and bacteria find it harder to survive in higher temperatures.13
As with other types of infection, people may experience a range of mild to severe disease. The CDC lists several symptoms associated with COVID-19 that may appear within two to 14 days after being exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Among these are fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, and a new loss of taste or smell.14
The difference in the symptoms a person may experience is also related to whether they have a mild, moderate, or severe infection. To date, there has not been a definitive study on the prevalence of individuals with COVID-19 who will also present with a fever.
Research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association offers a clue that a fever is not as common with mild illness as was originally believed.15 The researchers evaluated the symptoms of 202 participants who completed the study. They found that an alteration in taste or smell was one of the first symptoms reported in patients who had a mild or asymptomatic disease.
They cautioned that the sample was geographically limited and patients with severe disease were not included. A second later study from South Korea showed in 213 people with confirmed cases of COVID-19, the most common symptom was a cough followed by a loss of taste and smell.16 In this group, fever was only recorded in 11.6% of the individuals.
Normal Temperatures Have Dropped Below 98.6
German doctor Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich collected data from 2,500 people, amounting to millions of temperatures.17 Whether people were sick or healthy, he recorded their body temperatures and then analyzed and published the data in the mid-1800s. This data helped establish a normal temperature of 98.6 Fahrenheit (37 Celsius), which medicine uses as one factor in a health evaluation.
However, research published in 2020 found that human core body temperatures in the U.S. have been declining through the Industrial Revolution.18 Dr. Julie Parsonnet from the Stanford University department of medicine and her team gathered more than 677,000 temperature measurements from nearly 190,000 people collected from 1862 to 2017.
The data were split into three chronological groups and analyzed, leading the team to conclude that body temperatures have dropped an average of 1.06 F in men and 0.58 F in women over a 200-year time period.19 To minimize potential measurement bias, the scientists also compared temperature readings within a specific population. Commenting on the results of the study, Parsonnet said:20
“Our temperature’s not what people think it is. What everybody grew up learning, which is that our normal temperature is 98.6, is wrong. Physiologically, we’re just different from what we were in the past.
The environment that we’re living in has changed, including the temperature in our homes, our contact with microorganisms and the food that we have access to. All these things mean that although we think of human beings as if we’re monomorphic and have been the same for all of human evolution, we’re not the same. We’re actually changing physiologically.”
While the results are interesting, Kenneth Welch, Ph.D., who was not involved in the study, believes it will not make a difference in the day-to-day life of individuals.21 Even infections that trigger a small rise in body temperature normally also trigger body aches, chills, or headaches commonly associated with a fever. Rising temperatures from other environmental factors or even allergies do not usually trigger the same experience.
How to Take an Accurate Temperature
When you have a cold, flu, or other infectious condition, such as COVID-19, it is always best to steer clear of others and reduce the spread of infection. After all, no one really enjoys being sick.
Other than body aches, chills, and generally feeling miserable, you have several options for determining if you have a fever at home.22 A digital thermometer can be used in the mouth, rectum, or under the arm. Purchase disposable protective sleeves to help keep the thermometer clean and make sure you’re not passing germs from one person to another.
If you plan to use both oral and rectal temperatures, use separate thermometers for each and be sure they’re labeled accordingly. When taking an oral temperature, wait at least 15 minutes after you’ve eaten or drunk anything to avoid an inaccurate reading.
A tympanic (ear) thermometer takes a digital reading from inside the ear canal and must be positioned correctly to get an accurate reading. Ear wax and small ear canals can interfere with accuracy. To use an infrared scanner, the thermometer must be placed over the temporal artery to get an accurate reading.
The type of thermometer you choose may not be as important as following the directions to achieve accurate measurement and ensure you don’t pass germs with each use. It is crucial you do not rely strictly on temperature to determine the severity of an illness. Additional symptoms, such as dehydration, lethargy, and confusion, are strong indicators of illness and must be considered.
By referring to COVID-19 vaccines as “vaccines” rather than gene therapies, the U.S. government is violating its 15 U.S. Code Section 41, which regulates deceptive practices in medical claims
The mRNA injections are gene therapies that do not fulfill a single criterion or definition of a vaccine
COVID-19 “vaccines” do not impart immunity or inhibit the transmissibility of the disease. They only are designed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you get infected. As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine
Since a vast majority of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, they’ve not even been able to establish a causal link between the virus and the clinical disease
By calling this experimental gene therapy technology a “vaccine,” they are circumventing liability for damages that would otherwise apply
Did you know that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines aren’t vaccines in the medical and legal definition of a vaccine? They do not prevent you from getting the infection, nor do they prevent its spread. They’re really experimental gene therapies.
I discussed this troubling fact in a recent interview with molecular biologist Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. While the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots are labeled as “vaccines,” and news agencies and health policy leaders call them that, the actual patents for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s injections more truthfully describe them as “gene therapy,” not vaccines.
Definition of ‘Vaccine’
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,1 a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”
Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claims this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.” In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they will not even test for immunity.
Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nano lipid carrier compound, the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.
They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit the transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.
As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine, and as noted by David Martin, Ph.D., in the video above, “The legal ramifications of this deception are immense.”
15 U.S. Code Section 41
As explained by Martin, 15 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act2 is the law that governs advertising of medical practices. This law, which dictates what you may and may not do in terms of promotion, has for many years been routinely used to shut down alternative health practitioners and companies.
“If this law can be used to shut down people of good will, who are trying to help others,” Martin says, “it certainly should be equally applied when we know deceptive medical practices are being done in the name of public health.”
Per this law, it is unlawful to advertise:
“… that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”3
What Constitutes ‘The Greater Good’?
Martin points to the 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts,4 which essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit. To put it bluntly, it argued that it’s acceptable for individuals to be harmed by public health directives provided it benefits the collective.
Now, if vaccination is a public health measure that is supposed to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to a) ensure that the individual who is vaccinated is rendered immune from the disease in question; and b) that the vaccine inhibits transmission of the disease.
Only if these two outcomes can be scientifically proven can you say that vaccination protects and benefits the collective — the population as a whole. This is where we run into problems with the mRNA “vaccines.”
Moderna’s SEC filings, which Martin claims to have carefully reviewed, specifies and stresses that its technology is a “gene therapy technology.” Originally, its technology was set up to be a cancer treatment, so more specifically, it’s a chemotherapy gene therapy technology.
As noted by Martin, who would raise their hand to receive prophylactic chemotherapy gene therapy for cancer you do not have and may never be at risk for? In all likelihood, few would jump at such an offer, and for good reason.
Moreover, states and employers would not be able to mandate individuals to receive chemotherapy gene therapy for cancer they do not have. It simply would not be legal. Yet, they’re proposing that all of humanity be forced to get gene therapy for COVID-19.
COVID-19 Vaccines — A Case of False Advertising
Now, if the COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine, why are they calling it that? While the CDC provides a definition of “vaccine,” the CDC is not the actual law. It’s an agency empowered by the law, but it does not create law itself. Interestingly enough, it’s more difficult to find a legal definition of “vaccine,” but there have been a few cases. Martin provides the following examples:
•Iowa code — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.” Again, the COVID-19 vaccines make no claim of providing immunity. They are only designed to lessen symptoms if and when you get infected.
•Washington state code — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” Since Moderna and Pfizer are using synthetic RNA, they clearly do not meet this definition.
Being a manmade synthetic, the RNA used is not derived from anything that has at one point been alive, be it a whole microorganism or a fraction thereof. The statute continues to specify that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”
So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the endpoints specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary endpoint in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.
There Are More Problems Than One
But there’s another problem. Martin points out that “COVID-19 disease” has been defined as a series of clinical symptoms. Moreover, there’s no causal link between SARS-CoV-2, the virus, and the set of symptoms known as COVID-19.
How is that, you might ask? It’s simple, really. Since a vast majority of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, they’ve not been able to establish a causal link between the virus and the clinical disease.
Here’s yet another problem: The primary endpoint in the COVID-19 vaccine trials is not an actual vaccine trial endpoint because, again, vaccine trial endpoints have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those was measured.
What’re more, key secondary endpoints in Moderna’s trial include “Prevention of severe COVID-19 disease and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2.” However, by its own admission, Moderna did not actually measure infection, stating that it was too “impractical” to do so.
That means there’s no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence … substantiating that the claims are true.”
Why Are They Calling Them Vaccines?
As noted by Martin, you cannot have a vaccine that does not meet a single definition of a vaccine. So, again, what would motivate these companies, U.S. health agencies, and public health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci to lie and claim that these gene therapies are in fact vaccines when, clearly, they are not?
If they actually called it what it is, namely “gene therapy chemotherapy,” most people would — wisely — refuse to take it. Perhaps that’s one reason for their false categorization as vaccines. But there may be other reasons as well.
Here, Martin strays into conjecture, as we have no proof of their intentions. He speculates that the reason they’re calling this experimental gene therapy technology a “vaccine” is that by doing so, they can circumvent liability for damages.
As long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like PCR tests and COVID-19 “vaccines” are allowed under emergency use authorization. And as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these experimental gene therapies are not financially liable for any harm that comes from their use.
That is, provided they’re “vaccines.” If these injections are NOT vaccines, then the liability shield falls away, because there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy.
So, by maintaining the illusion that COVID-19 is a state of emergency when in reality it is not, government leaders are providing cover for these gene therapy companies so that they can get immunity from liability.
Under the Cover of ‘Emergency’
As noted by Martin, if state governors were to lift the state of emergency, all of a sudden the use of RT PCR testing would be in violation of the 15 U.S. Code FTC Act, as PCR tests are not an approved diagnostic test.
“You cannot diagnose a thing [with something] that cannot diagnose a thing,” Martin says. “That a misrepresentation. That is a deceptive practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. And they’re liable for deceptive practices.”
Importantly, there’s no waiver of liability under deceptive practices — even in a state of emergency. This would also apply to experimental gene therapies. The only way for these gene therapies to enjoy liability shielding is if they are vaccines developed in response to a public health emergency. There is no such thing as immunity from liability for gene therapies.
Propaganda and Vaccine Rollout Run by Same Company
Martin brings up yet another curious point. The middleman in Operation Warp Speed is a North Carolina defense contractor called ATI. It controls the rollout of the vaccine. But ATI also has another type of contract with the Department of Defense, namely managing propaganda and combating misinformation.
So, the same company in charge of manipulating the media to propagate government propaganda and censor counterviews is the same company in charge of the rollout of “vaccines” that are being unlawfully promoted.
“Listen,” Martin says. “This is a pretty straight-forward situation. You’re being lied to. Your own government is violating its own laws … They have thrown this book [15 U.S. Code Section 41] on more people than we can count.
They have shut down practitioners around the country, time and time again, for violating what are called ‘deceptive practices in medical claims’ … Guess what? They’re doing exactly that thing.”
Martin urges listeners to forward his video to your state attorney, governor, representatives, and anyone else that might be in a position to take affirmative action to address and correct this fraud.
Defense contractors are violating FTC law, and gene therapy companies — not vaccine manufacturers — are conducting experimental trials under deceptive medical practices. They’re making claims of being “vaccines” without clinical proof and must be held accountable for their deceptive marketing and medical practices.
CDC Owns Coronavirus Patents
On a side note, the CDC appears to be neck-deep in this scam pandemic and is therefore wholly unsuitable to investigate the side effects of these experimental COVID-19 therapies. As noted by Martin, it’s like having a bank robber investigate its own crime.
Details about this came out in the documentary “Plandemic,” in which Martin explained how the CDC has broken the law — in one way or another — related to its patenting of the 2003 SARS virus.
Martin is a national intelligence analyst and founder of IQ100 Index, which developed linguistic genomics, a platform capable of determining the intent of communications. In 1999, IBM digitized 1 million U.S. patents, which allowed Martin’s company to conduct a review of all these patents, sending him down a proverbial “rabbit trail” of corruption.
In 2003, Asia experienced an outbreak of SARS. Almost immediately, scientists began racing to patent the virus. Ultimately, the CDC nabbed ownership of SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) isolated from humans.
So, the CDC actually owns the entire genetic content of that SARS virus. It’s patented under U.S. patent 7776521. They also own patents for detection methods, and for a kit to measure the virus.
U.S. patent 7279327,5 filed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, describes methods for producing recombinant coronaviruses. Ralph Baric, Ph.D., a professor of microbiology and immunology who is famous for his chimeric coronavirus research, is listed as one of the three inventors, along with Kristopher Curtis and Boyd Yount.
According to Martin, Fauci, Baric and the CDC “are at the hub” of the whole COVID-19 story. “In 2002, coronaviruses were recognized as an exploitable mechanism for both good and ill,” Martin says, and “Between 2003 and 2017, they [Fauci, Baric and CDC] controlled 100% of the cash flow to build the empire around the industrial complex of coronavirus.”
How the CDC Broke the Law
The key take-home message Martin delivers in “Plandemic” is that there’s a distinct problem with the CDC’s patent on SARS-CoV isolated from humans, because, by law, naturally occurring DNA segments are prohibited from being patented.
The law clearly states that such segments are “not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” So, either SARS-CoV was manmade, which would render the patent legal, or it’s natural, thus rendering the patent on it illegal.
However, if the virus was manufactured, then it was created in violation of biological weapons treaties and laws. This includes the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, passed unanimously by both houses of Congress and signed into law by George Bush Sr., which states:6
“Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.”
So, as noted by Martin in the documentary, regardless of which scenario turns out to be true, the CDC has broken the law one way or another, either by violating biological weapons laws or by filing an illegal patent. Even more egregious, on May 14, 2007, the CDC filed a petition with the patent office to keep their coronavirus patent confidential.
Now, because the CDC owns the patent on SARS-CoV, it has control over who has the ability to make inquiries into the coronavirus. Unless authorized, you cannot look at the virus, you cannot measure it or make tests for it since they own the entire genome and all the rest.
“By obtaining the patents that restrained anyone from using it, they had the means, the motive, and most of all, they had the monetary gain from turning coronavirus from a pathogen to a profit,” Martin says.
In the lecture above, Dr. Simone Gold — founder of America’s Frontline Doctors, which has been trying to counter the false narrative surrounding hydroxychloroquine — reviews the dangers discovered during previous coronavirus vaccine trials, and the hazards of current mRNA gene therapies, including antibody-dependent immune enhancement.
Antibody-dependent immune enhancement results in more severe disease when you’re exposed to the wild virus and increases your risk of death. The synthetic RNA and the nano lipid it encased in may also have other, more direct side effects. As explained by Mikovits in our recent interview:
“Normally, messenger RNA is not free in your body because it’s a danger signal. The central dogma of molecular biology is that our genetic code, DNA, is transcribed, written, into the messenger RNA. That messenger RNA is translated into protein, or used in a regulatory capacity … to regulate gene expression in cells.
So, taking a synthetic messenger RNA and making it thermostable — making it not break down — [is problematic]. We have lots of enzymes (RNAses and DNAses) that degrade free RNA and DNA because, again, those are danger signals to your immune system. They literally drive inflammatory diseases.
Now you’ve got PEG, PEGylated and polyethylene glycol, and a lipid nanoparticle that will allow it to enter every cell of the body and change the regulation of our own genes with this synthetic RNA, part of which actually is the message for the gene syncytin …
Syncytin is the endogenous gammaretrovirus envelope that’s encoded in the human genome … We know that if syncytin … is expressed aberrantly in the body, for instance in the brain, which these lipid nanoparticles will go into, then you’ve got multiple sclerosis.
The expression of that gene alone enrages microglia — literally inflames and dysregulates the communication between the brain microglia — which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain and the communication with astrocytes.
It dysregulates not only the immune system, but also the endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation. We’ve already seen multiple sclerosis as an adverse event in the clinical trials … We also see myalgic encephalomyelitis. Inflammation of the brain and the spinal cord …”
Making matters worse, the synthetic mRNA also has an HIV envelope expressed in it, which can cause immune dysregulation. As we discussed in previous interviews, SARS-CoV-2 has been engineered in the lab with gain-of-function research that included introducing the HIV envelope into the spike protein.
Are You in a High-Risk Group for Side Effects?
Mikovits’ hypothesis is that those who are most susceptible to severe neurological side effects and death from the COVID-19 vaccines are those who have previously been injected with XMRVs, borrelia, babesia, or mycoplasma through contaminated vaccines, resulting in chronic disease, as well as anyone with an inflammatory disease like rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s disease or chronic Lyme disease, for example, and anyone with an acquired immune deficiency from any pathogens and environmental toxins.
The chart below lists 35 diseases that are likely to render you more susceptible to severe side effects or death from COVID-19 gene therapy injections.
Many of the symptoms now being reported are suggestive of neurological damage. They have severe dyskinesia (impairment of voluntary movement), ataxia (lack of muscle control), and intermittent or chronic seizures. Many cases detailed in personal videos on social media are quite shocking. According to Mikovits, these side effects are due to neuroinflammation, a dysregulated innate immune response, and/or a disrupted endocannabinoid system.
Another common side effect from the vaccine we’re seeing is allergic reactions, including anaphylactic shock. A likely culprit in this is PEG (polyethylene glycol), which an estimated 70% of Americans are allergic to.
Experimental Gene Therapy Is a Bad Idea
Circling back to where we began, COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines. They are experimental gene therapies that are falsely marketed as vaccines, likely to circumvent liability. World governments and global and national health organizations are all complicit in this illegal deception and must be held accountable.
Ask yourself the question Martin asked in his video: Would you agree to take an experimental chemotherapy gene therapy for cancer you do not have? If the answer is no, then why would you even consider lining up for experimental gene therapy for COVID-19 — a set of clinical symptoms that haven’t even been causally linked to SARS-CoV-2?
These injections are not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, they do not render you immune, and they do not prevent transmission of the disease. Instead, they alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. What’s happening here is a medical fraud of unprecedented magnitude, and it really needs to be stopped before it’s too late for a majority of people.
Immunologist: Pfizer, Moderna Vaccines Could Cause Long-Term Chronic Illness
Back in 1999, leading U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official Dr. Peter Patriarca contended that modern advances in vaccine technology were rapidly “outpacing researchers’ ability to predict potential vaccine-related adverse events.” Patriarca mused that this could lead to “a situation of unforeseen and unpredictable vaccine outcomes.”
In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”
For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road.
Classen’s study establishes the potential for the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna to activate human proteins to take on “pathologic configurations” — configurations associated with chronic degenerative neurological diseases. Although his specific interest is in prion diseases (conditions associated with misfolded versions of normal proteins), Classen also outlines a handful of other mechanisms whereby RNA-based vaccines could give rise to “multiple other potential fatal adverse events.”
Ensuring that patients clearly understand risks — including known risks as well as potential unknown risks — is an important component of the informed consent process. This is all the more true when the intervention is experimental and lacks long-term safety data, as is the case with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines against COVID-19. The FDA authorized the two vaccines for widespread emergency use based on just two months of clinical trial data.
Unfortunately, it is not unusual for researchers’ communication of risks to be perfunctory. In October, researchers at New York University and Tulane reported that the information communicated to participants in the coronavirus clinical trials about a worrisome problem known as pathogenic priming was “sufficiently obscured” as to make “adequate patient comprehension” of risks “unlikely.”
It would be interesting to know what those researchers would say about Classen’s blunt conclusion that “Approving a vaccine, utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is extremely dangerous.”
Those contemplating COVID injections may be ignoring potential risks at their own peril.
U.S. State Department Admits Signs Point To C0VlD Created in Wuhan Lab
Watch THIS bombshell videowith Ben Swann. A since-deleted statement by the U.S. State Department admits that not only does the U.S. not know for certain where C0VlD originated, but that many signs point to the likelihood that it actually first appeared in the Wuhan Virology Lab months before the Chinese Government admits. Ben Swann reports.
The 193-page paper published January 29th is titled “A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory-derived.”
“The purpose of the analysis was to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Beginning with a likelihood of 98.2% that it was a zoonotic jump from nature with only a 1.2% probability it was a laboratory escape, twenty-six different, independent facts and evidence were examined systematically. The final conclusion is that it is a 99.8% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory and only a 0.2% likelihood it came from nature,” a summary notes.
The author, Dr. Steven Quay, has 360+ published medical studies and has been cited over 10,000 times, placing him in the top one percent of scientists worldwide.
What’s more, Quay, who recently appeared on War Room: Pandemic to discuss the study, holds nearly 90 US patents and has invented seven FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.
“By taking only publicly available, scientific evidence about SARS-CoV-2 and using highly conservative estimates in my analysis, I nonetheless conclude that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a laboratory. The additional evidence of what appears to be adenovirus vaccine genetic sequences in specimens from five patients from December 2019 and sequenced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology requires an explanation. You would see this kind of data in a vaccine challenge trial, for example. Hopefully, the WHO team can get answers to these questions,” he adds.
NY Doctor Proved Everyone Wrong About Hydroxychloroquine
As early as March 2020, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko boasted a near-100% success rate treating COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin, and zinc sulfate for five days
Zelenko has now treated 3,000 patients with COVID-19 symptoms and only three high-risk patients have died
Misinformation and outright lies were spun about HCQ, including fabricated research, in an apparent effort to suppress and prevent widespread use
Early treatment is crucial. During the first five days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the viral load remains fairly steady. Around Day 5, it exponentially increases, potentially overwhelming your immune system. To prevent complications, treatment needs to begin within the first five days of symptom onset
Early treatment is also crucial to prevent “long-haul” symptoms after recovery. None of Zelenko’s patients who started their treatment within the first five days went on to develop long-haul symptoms
Many doctors around the world started using the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) early on in the COVID-19 pandemic. Among them is Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a practicing physician in a Jewish community in Monroe County, New York.
He garnered national attention in March 2020 when he told radio host Sean Hannity that he’d had a near-100% success rate treating COVID-19 patients with HCQ, azithromycin, and zinc sulfate for five days.1 “I’ve seen remarkable results; it really prevents progression of the disease, and patients get better,” he said at the time.
In response, county health officials said Zelenko’s claims were “unsubstantiated” and urged residents to listen to public health officials.2 In this interview, he explains how HCQ works against COVID-19, and discusses the lies spun about the drug to suppress its widespread use. Zelenko had a very active Twitter account and would get millions of views on his tweets, and like many other truth-tellers in this crazy pandemic, he was censored and recently removed from Twitter.
“When we have a large population of people that need to be treated, it has to be oral, cheap, safe and effective,” he says. “By the way, this is not new. This information was known in 2005 — even before.
There are papers with [Dr. Anthony] Fauci’s name on it, calling [HCQ] a miracle drug. Fauci called HCQ a vaccine. There’s a paper in which he called it an absolute dream treatment and vaccine. So, it’s conveniently forgotten but that’s what it is. It’s a matter of scientific record.”
What is most impressive to me is that he, through deep research and trial and error in the trenches, determined an incredibly effective protocol, and he did this under enormous personal health challenges. During the spring of last year, he was diagnosed with a type of pulmonary sarcoma that is typically considered terminal, and although improved, he continues to be under treatment for this condition.
Finding Solutions to Avoid a Death Trap
As the SARS-CoV-2 swept through his tight-knit Jewish community, Zelenko was seeing anywhere from 50 to 250 patients per day. At this point, he’s treated more than 3,000 patients with COVID-19-related symptoms. Only one-third of them actually received the triple-drug regimen. The remaining two-thirds were in low-risk categories and did not need drug treatment.
In all, Zelenko has only had 15 patients who ended up requiring hospitalization, four of whom were intubated. All were eventually successfully extubated and recovered. The remaining 11 were admitted for intravenous antibiotics for pneumonia. In all, only three of his high-risk patients died from COVID-19, which puts the mortality rate for this treatment at just 0.3%.
“You cannot ignore that. That’s not even counting the risk stratification patients, which I chose not to treat. In other words, I was able to tell these patients, ‘I know you’re going to be fine. Go home, and you’ll be fine.’ And that has value.
If you include those, the mortality rate is even less. And this has been reproduced. You don’t have to listen to me. You can call it anecdotal all you want, but there are now Harvard professors of virology with 4,000 patient experiences.
Dr. George Fareed, for example, or Dr. Harvey Risch from Yale School of Epidemiology, who has shown that it’s absolutely statistically proven that HCQ used in the prehospital setting is absolutely effective. It’s impossible for it to be a mistake,” he says.
Zelenko tells the story of how he got started treating COVID-19 patients with HCQ:
“Hospitals were near capacity and all the outpatient services were closed. Half my staff was sick and all of a sudden I had a war zone. I basically started learning triage medicine, trying to save as many people as possible.
At that time, the whole world had been focusing on building respirators and hospital capacity [instead of putting] emphasis on prehospital care. I found that bizarre because that’s never what we do in medicine. We [use] common sense and intervene in the earliest stages.
It’s much easier to fix a small problem than a large problem. For example, someone has cancer, we don’t wait for it to become metastatic disease. We treat as soon as possible. Someone has a small infection. We put the infection out.
If you look at the CDC, they recommend starting the treatment of influenza with antiviral drugs within the first 48 hours, not the week, except when it came to COVID-19. We were told to send patients home, and when they get sicker, send them to the hospital, where there was a good chance they were going to get intubated, especially in March and April.
At that point, in the city, they had mortality rates above 80%. So, it was a death sentence. None of that made sense to me at all. So, I quickly started to brush up on my virology.
I wanted to understand how this virus works and more importantly, what I can do about it. A series on YouTube called MedCram, Episode 34, saved the world. It explains the biology behind how zinc inhibits RNA polymerase, and the fact that zinc can’t get into the cell. So, it needs help.”
Zelenko goes on to describe how he settled on HCQ, a so-called zinc ionophore, meaning it shuttles zinc into the cell. He decided to treat high-risk patients as early as possible, and this turned out to be key. Early treatment really saves lives when it comes to COVID-19. This is not a situation where the wait-and-see strategy is well-advised.
According to Zelenko, during the first five days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the viral load remains fairly steady. Around Day 5, it exponentially increases, potentially overwhelming the immune system. This also meant he could not afford to wait for test results, which took about five days. By then, most patients would already have progressed too far.
So, if a patient exhibited symptoms, especially if they reported the loss of taste or smell as well, he’d start treatment immediately. In hindsight, about 90% of the tests of people experiencing symptoms had a positive test.
The Synergy of HCQ and Zinc
Zelenko likens HCQ and zinc to a gun and a bullet. HCQ is the gun that shoots the zinc into the cell. Zinc is the silver bullet that kills the virus by inhibiting an enzyme associated with viral replication inside the cell. The antibiotic azithromycin is given to prevent bacterial pneumonia and other secondary bacterial infections that are common in COVID-19.
Today, we have even more information, of course, which means there are more tools available besides HCQ, zinc, and antibiotics. Ivermectin, for example, appears very useful, especially for prevention, as do steroids and blood thinners. So, Zelenko will now tweak the treatment of individual patients based on their symptoms.
“It’s not a cookie cutter approach, but what is absolutely the same is that high-risk patients must be treated as soon as possible, within the first five days from onset of symptoms, and they all survive,” he says.
The Psychological Operation Against HCQ
Unfortunately, as discussed by Zelenko, there was essentially a “psychological operation” put into place to scare people away from HCQ. A big part of that was turning it into a political issue. From the start, doctors who used the drug were threatened with the loss of their medical license, which is unheard of for a drug with such a long history of safe use.
The U.S. government made matters worse by only issuing emergency use authorization for in-hospital use and not for outpatient settings. Meanwhile, HCQ has been used for about 60 years in people with chronic conditions such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
“So, the hypocrisy, the loss of common sense, the outright indoctrination killed a lot of people,” Zelenko says. “The root cause of it is the way we educate people. It used to be that higher education was about teaching critical thought and deductive reasoning, analytical analysis.
Now we indoctrinate people into responding to stimuli like dogs, like automatons, like robots. Common sense no longer matters. That’s my critique of higher education and why I think many physicians fell into the trap. Also, this country was traumatized. Even if a doctor was willing to give it, patients were afraid to take it.”
The biggest reason for the fear was unfortunately due to falsified studies and trials using toxic doses. It’s difficult to not suspect an ulterior motive in light of those facts. As noted by Zelenko, the main component of the pandemic response, namely prehospital or outpatient treatment, was suppressed.
The question is why? One obvious reason was that it was a presidential election year, and then-president Trump came out in support of HCQ in March 2020. His announcement sparked an immediate backlash from a chronically hostile media. “There were plenty of people willing to use every possible way to vilify the president and to discredit anything that might give him a win,” Zelenko says.
Then, of course, there were financial interests at play. Millions of dollars were being invested into new drugs like remdesivir, for example — a drug that costs more than $3,000 per treatment and is only for in-hospital use.
Hospitals were also paid tens of thousands of dollars more for COVID-19 patients, so there was no lack of incentive to get people into the hospital and keep them there either. Meanwhile, Zelenko’s early outpatient treatment costs about $20.
Fraudulent Studies Fueled Distrust
As for the fraudulent and misleading studies, the first to raise alarm was a VA study in Virginia, which found HCQ didn’t prevent death. However, they only used it on late-stage patients who were already on ventilators. From there, they incorrectly extrapolated that it would not be helpful in earlier stages, which simply isn’t true. Other trials simply used the wrong dosage.
While doctors reporting success with the drug are using standard doses around 200 mg to 400 mg per day for either a few days or maybe a couple of weeks, studies such as the Bill & Melinda Gates-funded3 Recovery Trial used 2,400 mg of hydroxychloroquine during the first 24 hours — three to six times higher than the daily dosage recommended4 — followed by 400 mg every 12 hours for nine more days for a cumulative dose of 9,200 mg over 10 days.
Similarly, the Solidarity Trial,5 led by the World Health Organization, used 2,000 mg on the first day, and a cumulative dose of 8,800 mg over 10 days. These doses are simply too high. More is not necessarily better. Too much, and guess what? You might kill the patient. As noted by Zelenko, these doses are “enough to kill an elephant.”
It’s really unclear as to why these studies used such enormous doses, seeing how the dosages this drug is normally prescribed in, for a range of conditions, never go that high. “All those studies did was prove that if you poison someone with lethal doses of a drug, they’re going to die,” Zelenko says.
Then there was the famous Lancet study that the World Health Organization used to justify essentially banning HCQ. This study was withdrawn when it was discovered that the data had been completely and utterly fabricated with falsely generated data from a fly-by-night company. It was supposed to be a meta-analysis of about 90,000 patients, which showed HCQ had lethal effects.
Unfortunately, before it was withdrawn, this fake study resulted in the WHO (or to quote Zelenko, the “world homicide organization”) putting a moratorium on the use of HCQ, which didn’t improve public trust in the drug. Even more egregious, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration used that fake paper as one of its justifications for removing the emergency use authorization for HCQ, even though the study had already been retracted.
Suppression of HCQ Needlessly Killed Tens of Thousands
According to Zelenko, “HCQ is the safest medication in the history of medicine, azithromycin is one of the most common antibiotics used in medicine, and zinc is a mineral that’s well-known and well-tolerated. These drugs were affordable and available to take at home, which was very important. And they worked.”
June 30, 2020, Zelenko and two co-authors published a study,6 showing that treating COVID-19 patients who had confirmed positive test results “as early as possible after symptom onset” with zinc, low dose HCQ, and azithromycin reduced odds of hospitalization by 84% and all-cause death by 500% compared to no treatment at all.
Crazy enough, even though Zelenko went to great lengths to share his clinical findings with the White House and the National Institutes of Health, he received no support and was told they had no use for it.
“What’s happened over the last 20 years is that the academic elite and pharmaceutical industry have bred a monopoly on medical truth,” he says.
“They feel only data generated through randomized control trials, pharmaceutical sponsored trials, or those that are coming out of major academic institutions are to be viewed as truth. Anything coming from a frontline country doctor must be anecdotal.
That’s the crime here. And they created artificial barriers that prevented the flow of common sense and lifesaving information. You know which countries did take it seriously? See, this is a disease of affluence because the rich countries could afford the waste of money. The poor countries like Honduras … they had no options.
They couldn’t afford respirators. They didn’t have enough hospital capacity. So, they gravitated towards the cheap generic approaches. And those are the ones that have the best outcomes.”
Zelenko highlights Uganda, which has a population of about 50 million people, yet has recorded just 325 deaths.7 “I think this was a genocide against the elderly and a crime against humanity,” he says. “There are plenty of people who have blood on their hands, including the media.”
Coordinated Effort to Cause Harm
He also stresses that the pandemic response, including the suppression of HCQ, has clearly been a global coordinated effort.
“You have to ask yourself, who benefits from a destabilized world? Who benefits from chaos on the streets, from anarchy, from financial despair, from psychological trauma? … In some parts of this country, suicide rates are up 600%.
I speak to my colleagues in emergency rooms — the amount of child abuse and spousal abuse they’ve seen is absolutely ridiculous. The amount of collateral damage from preventable illnesses, like heart disease and cancer that are skyrocketing because people are not getting access to routine care.
A lot of people weren’t getting elective surgeries on time. So, there’s been a lot of collateral damage. The shutdown is killing more people than the virus. The virus is not dangerous if you approach it correctly. If you treat it in the right timeframe, it’s no different than a bad flu. You can deal with it. You don’t have to shut down the world.”
The True Agenda Coming Into Plain Sight
Indeed, the world is becoming increasingly black and white and it’s becoming easier and easier to see that global and national systems are not benefiting but, rather, enslaving the population, and how they’re doing it. As noted by Zelenko:
“I see the world now with such clarity … It’s no longer confusing. It’s a binary choice. It’s very clear who’s on what side. And here are the teams: There are those who want to live a life of God, conscious … Our lives have sanctity. They’re priceless and they should be preserved at all costs. And no one has the right to enslave another human being. That’s one approach.
The other is [internment] … an attempt to enslave, psychologically, and even more so physically, the world population. Do you want to know what’s coming? Look at Justin Trudeau statements. Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada, just announced that anyone who tests positive will be quarantined in a government-run facility, until the government deems you safe to return back to society.
That’s [also] what Cuomo wants to do in New York. And I’ll tell you what I think. For what I’m about to say, I’m going to be labeled as a conspiracy theorist. But you know what? I don’t care because, eventually, the truth will come out and history will prove it right.
If you look at the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, they have a plan. They have a 30-year plan, they have 100-year plan. That’s all spelled out in their charter. Just look at it.
So there’s a plan called the 2030 plan. You can go to the World Economic Forum and look at their own words. It’s being run by Klaus Schwab and his group. He wrote a book called ‘The Great Reset.’ That’s where the term comes from.
Now, all the governments are quoting him, like Justin Trudeau, Prince Charles, the Australian prime minister. There’s a myriad of other politicians calling for the great reset. So, what is the great reset? What are they asking for?
No. 1, I mean it’s absolutely ridiculous, but they’re saying, ‘You will own nothing and you will be happy.’ That is their mission. No. 2, America will no longer be a superpower. No. 3, there will be a small group of nations that determine the direction of where the world goes. No. 4, you won’t eat meat except as an occasional treat.
No. 5, there’ll be a global tax on fossil fuels to eradicate the reliance on oil. No. 6, a billion refugees will be displaced [and] we’re going to have to incorporate them and absorb them into our society. These are their stated goals.
Now, how do you take the world’s biggest country, most powerful country, richest country and make it no longer a world superpower? Well, that’s exactly what they’re doing. The economy is in shambles.
You’ve put in a government now that is passing foreign relief aid to China, Russia, Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority. They’re sending billions of dollars now to financially support these countries. So, you have to ask yourself, what is going on here?
This all started many years ago, but when Trump went to Davos, in the first few years of his presidency, he said, ‘I’m not part of your globalist agenda. I’m going to put my national interest first.’ That was a poke in the eye of the globalists. That’s the point when George Soros came out and said that Trump is one of the most dangerous people on the planet and he needs to be brought down.
He was dangerous to their agenda. So, what we’re really fighting for is the soul of man. God is testing us, in my opinion. Every person is being asked one simple question, either bow down to God and have the divine presence protect you or you’re going to bow down to Bill Gates … I’m calling for Nuremberg 2.0. These people need to be brought to justice.”
There’s No Rational Justification for COVID-19 Vaccines
Zelenko also shares his views on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. He points out that while Gates is pushing COVID-19 vaccines, ostensibly to save lives, he’s on record saying he feels the world population needs to be reduced.
“If someone was a eugenicist and feels that the world population needs to be reduced, why would I take his vaccine for my health?” he asks. “The logical inconsistencies here are absolutely perverse.
I’m so pro-vaccine you can’t imagine. I’ve given tens of thousands of patients vaccinations. I give it to myself and to my children. However, I’m not COVID-19 vaccine positive. And I’ll tell you why: Because the majority of patients under the age of 45 have a near-100% recovery rate with a mild, runny nose from COVID-19. Why would I vaccinate someone with an experimental vaccine? The answer is not for medical reasons.
Another question, why would I give someone a vaccine, even if they are at high risk, if I can give them prophylaxis and/or early prehospital treatment and have a 100% recovery rate? Not for medical reasons.
Another question: Why would I give a vaccine to someone who’s already had COVID-19 and has antibodies? Not for medical reasons. And why would I give a very specific vaccine to someone who is going to be exposed to a ton of different variants and strains and mutations?
I wouldn’t. What I would use is an approach that inhibits RNA replication of RNA viruses, which works for all the strains, including, potentially, influenza. That’s the big dirty secret here.”
It’s Safe to Stop Living in Fear
Zelenko, who was born in a communist country and whose family suffered under communist and fascist rule, is quite sensitive to the signs of these authoritarian regimes. He recounts a story told in the book “The Gulag Archipelago” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
Stalin wanted to dig a canal from Moscow to St. Petersburg. The work, done in the middle of winter, led to the death of 400,000 prison workers, as they weren’t given the appropriate clothes or tools. The bodies were thrown into the cement and became a permanent part of the canal.
“No ship ever used the canal because it was too shallow. So, the question was, why was this canal built? And the answer is: So that 400,000 people would die,” Zelenko says.
“I’m not attacking the vaccine. I’m attacking the need for the vaccine. I have not enough information to say it’s good or bad. And I don’t like to guess. But what I can tell you is that I know for a fact that 99.98% of young and healthy people under the age of 45 recover, with no treatment.
I also know for a fact, from my own real-world battle-tested evidence, which has been reproduced now on hundreds of thousands of patients, that if you intervene early, you essentially eliminate hospitalization and death. And, I’ve now treated two waves. I have not seen one patient who’s had COVID-19 in the first wave, get it again …
So, the need for the vaccine doesn’t exist. It’s … been artificially conflated … offering people an artificial false hope solution in order to enslave them to be codependent on government. You know why my approach is so dangerous? Because not only does it treat COVID-19, [but] it treats anxiety. It tells people you don’t need to worry.
My statement to the American people or whoever’s listening is: Return to normal living. You do not need to worry. And by the way, there are nonprescription options … that can replace HCQ if your government or doctor are too stupid or vicious to give it to you. So, you don’t have to rely on them. You can buy over-the-counter things that will save your own life. So, my point is, return back to normal life …
It’s unbelievable the crime that’s been done on the human psyche. I’m screaming to humanity: Don’t be scared! Be cautious. Be smart. Use common sense. But don’t be scared. Return back to life. Reengage in life.”
HCQ Mechanisms of Action and Alternatives
Over-the-counter alternatives to HCQ include EGCG (green tea extract) and quercetin, both of which are zinc ionophores and therefore work much as HCQ does. Quercetin works best when taken in conjunction with vitamin C, however, as the vitamin C helps activate it. Zelenko recommends taking 1,000 milligrams of vitamin C with it.
Now, HCQ does have other mechanisms of action besides being a zinc ionophore, so it’s a better choice, but if you simply cannot get it, EGCG or quercetin are viable stand-ins. Additional benefits of HCQ include:
Inhibiting viral entry into the cytoplasm, in part by changing the pH
Inhibiting cytokine storms through anti-inflammatory properties
Stabilizing red blood cells, which improves oxygenation
“Since it has four different mechanisms of action, it’s a very effective drug, and it has a half-life of 50 days in plasma,” Zelenko says. “But if you can’t get it, you can’t get it. So, I’ll take quercetin or EGCG.”
The caveat here is you must implement this treatment within the right timeframe. It can be helpful to recognize we are in essence dealing with two diseases, or stages of the disease, here.
First, there’s the viral infection, and second, there’s the immune over-response that leads to the release of inflammatory cytokines and agents that can cause blood clots. The key is to prevent the progression from the first stage to the second.
Prescription Help Is Available
Like many others who have dared run the gauntlet that is HCQ promotion, Zelenko has been attacked from several angles. His character has been assassinated in the press, his medical credentials questioned and threatened, and his online presence silenced.
“I had had zero media experience before March 2020. I am of a quiet doctor who was taking care of his patients, living a serene life. All of a sudden, this all exploded on me …
I was on Twitter, getting 10 million impressions per tweet. They shut me down last month for platform manipulation. I’m not even sure what that means. So, I had to develop my own website. It’s free and has my protocols in 20 different languages.”
To learn more about Zelenko’s protocol, be sure to visit his website, vladimirzelenkomd.com. There, you’ll find protocols not only for early treatment but also prophylaxis, along with studies that document the rationale for each of the treatment components and patient testimonials.
His website also includes access to telemedicine via “Speak With an MD,” which can overnight your medication. “So, if you live in a state that’s tyrannical, you can have a consultation with Dr. Fields,” Zelenko says. “I had to develop this because there were patients around the country who didn’t have access [to HCQ].”
HCQ should be available to most people in the U.S. at this point, but you do need a prescription, and some doctors are still unwilling or resistant to prescribe it. Other times, pharmacies can create roadblocks. “It may take some diligence but none of my patients goes without the medication written for them,” he says.
Early Treatment Prevents ‘Long Haul’ Side Effects
In closing, it’s worth noting that when you treat early, your risk of developing long-term side effects, commonly referred to as “long-haulers,” is virtually nil. Not a single one of Zelenko’s patients who received treatment within the first five days of symptom onset went on to develop long-haul symptoms afterward.
“I had patients that were long-haulers, but they came to me after that window, and they were already advanced in the inflammatory process. At that point, the cytokine storm had already taken hold. They had developed blood clots, some of them had pulmonary infarct, or strokes actually.
Others developed ARDS or catastrophic lung damage and pneumonias, and others just are not themselves. I don’t know how to describe it, but it ate away part of their souls. They’re not the same people. There’s depression, there’s lack of energy. There’s a psychological impact as well.
So, it’s not that I don’t deal with long-haulers, I do. But the way to prevent the long-hauler syndrome is to intervene within the first five days, with appropriate antiviral medication in high-risk patients. That is 100% successful,” he says.
The Light of Truth Will Prevail
Zelenko refers to the COVID-19 pandemic and everything surrounding it as an information war, a propaganda war, and his primary objective and agenda in this war are to educate and speak the truth.
“There’s a lot of false narrative being pumped into the heads of people, to create fear,” he says. “In the Psalms of David, it says, ‘With crooked people, you have to deal crookedly.’ It also says you should learn from a thief.
So, I learned from the enemy, and I use their tactics to counter them. The main tactic is to spread truth. By the way, it’s no longer dependent on me. I have second and third and fourth generation leaders that have taken on the mission and are really spreading the knowledge worldwide.
It’s unstoppable. They could try to slow it down, and they are. But the truth will come out. The truth is coming out. And when the truth will be revealed, the people that try to obstruct it and use lies to slaughter, will be destroyed by it, God willing.
I am now more optimistic than I’ve ever been, simply because there’s no more confusion. Life was very confusing. You didn’t know what was good, what was bad. Now, it’s very clear. There’s much more bad, that’s true. But I know where it is. I know where the enemy is. And I know where the good is. And a little light pushes away a lot of darkness.”
The Covid Vaccine on Trail: If You Only Knew (FREE Webinar on Feb 10 with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and World Renowned Experts)
VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before confirmation can be made that an adverse event was linked to a vaccine.
As of Jan. 29, about 35 million people in the U.S. had received one or both doses of a COVID vaccine. So far, only the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been granted Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). By the FDA’s own definition, the vaccines are still considered experimental until fully licensed.
According to the latest data, 453 of the 501 reported deaths were in the U.S. Fifty-three percent of those who died were male, 43% were female, the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased. The average age of those who died was 77, the youngest reported death was of a 23-year-old. The Pfizer vaccine was taken by 59% of those who died, while the Moderna vaccine was taken by 41%.
The latest data also included 690 reports of anaphylactic reactions to either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Of those, the Pfizer vaccine accounted for 76% of the reactions, and the Moderna vaccine for 24%.
As The Defender reported today, a 56-year-old woman in Virginia died Jan. 30, hours after receiving her first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Doctors told Drene Keyes’ daughter that her mother died of flash pulmonary edema likely caused by anaphylaxis. The death is under investigation by Virginia’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the CDC.
Last week, the CDC told USA TODAY that based on “early safety data from the first month” of COVID-19 vaccination the vaccines are “as safe as the studies suggested they’d be” and that “everyone who had experienced an allergic response has been treated successfully, and no other serious problems have turned up among the first 22 million people vaccinated.
The Moderna vaccine lot numbers associated with the highest number of deaths were: 025L20A (20 deaths), 037K20A (21 deaths), and 011J2A (16 deaths), 025J20A (16 deaths). For Pfizer, the lot numbers associated with the most reports of deaths were: EK5730 (10 deaths), EJ1685 (23 deaths), EL0140 (19 deaths), EK 9231 (17 deaths), and EL1284 (13 deaths). For 135 of the reported deaths, the lot numbers were unknown.
While the VAERS database numbers are sobering, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, the actual number of adverse events is likely significantly higher. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that relies on the willingness of individuals to submit reports voluntarily.
According to the VAERS website, healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS:
Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccination
An adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses of the vaccine
The CDC says healthcare providers are strongly encouraged to report:
Any adverse event that occurs after the administration of a vaccine licensed in the United States, whether or not it is clear that a vaccine caused the adverse event
Vaccine administration errors
However, “within the specified time” means that reactions occurring outside that timeframe may not be reported, in addition to reactions suffered hours or days later by people who don’t report those reactions to their healthcare provider.
Vaccine manufacturers are required to report to VAERS “all adverse events that come to their attention.”
Historically, fewer than 1% of adverse events have ever been reported to VAERS, a system that Children’s Health Defense has previously referred to as an “abject failure,” including in a December 2020 letter to Dr. David Kessler, former FDA director and now co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and President Biden’s version of Operation Warp Speed.
A critic familiar with VAERS’ shortcomings bluntly condemned VAERS in The BMJ as “nothing more than window dressing, and a part of U.S. authorities’ systematic effort to reassure/deceive us about vaccine safety.”
CHD is calling for complete transparency. The children’s health organization is asking Kessler and the federal government to release all of the data from the clinical trials and suspend COVID-19 vaccine use in any group not adequately represented in the clinical trials, including the elderly, frail, and anyone with comorbidities.
CHD is also asking for full transparency in post-marketing data that reports all health outcomes, including new diagnoses of autoimmune disorders, adverse events, and deaths from COVID vaccines.
Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.
Respected Doctor and Bioweapons Researcher Believes COVID Vaccines are a Form of ‘Weaponized Medicine’
An award-winning spinal surgeon and former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons believes that current coronavirus vaccines are dangerous bioweapons being deployed against the people.
Dr. Lee Merritt, who previously studied bioweapons while serving as an orthopedic surgeon in the United States Navy for 9 years, sat on the board of the Arizona Medical Association, and has published numerous peer-reviewed papers, believes that mRNA-altering coronavirus vaccines currently being distributed in the United States are rewriting our genetic code to make us vulnerable to a second virus later on.
“I believed early on in February that this was a biologically manipulated bioweapon because the minute that anybody popped up with data suggesting that they were censored,” she said in an interview last month with The New America.
Based on her time spent in bioweapons research, Merrit believes that we live in an era of ‘fifth-generational warfare’ where instead of using weapons on the battlefield, covert biological agents, economic warfare, and propaganda are most effective in turning the tables of power between nations.
“We had a lot of bioweapons over the years and the one I was very worried about was smallpox. But most of these bioweapons were either hard to distribute or there was treatment for them,” she said. “I think that there is a host of evidence that shows coronavirus is a naturally occurring very benign virus that doesn’t even give most people the cold but at the most, it’ll give you a common cold.”
Vaccines are most effective when used against an untreatable and deadly virus, she says. While diseases like smallpox and polio were effectively treated with immunizations, scientists have discovered promising treatments for coronavirus since the pandemic began such as Hydroxychloroquine and Intravenous Vitamin C.
“If we are at biowarfare right now as a part of this multi-dimensional warfare, if you have a treatment in your back pocket they cannot terrorize you with viruses and that’s important because… [the vaccine] doesn’t prevent transmission by their own admission.” ~Dr. Lee Merritt
Although prevention and treatment reduce the need for a vaccine, such information is routinely censored by social media companies and demonized by the mainstream media. Even Sharyl Attkisson, a tenured former CBS journalist, had one of her reports removed from YouTube for relaying information that ran counter to the official position of the World Health Organization (WHO).
“We have vaccines because we didn’t have treatment for smallpox and it was a very deadly disease. That made sense to have a vaccine. We didn’t have treatment for polio so it made sense to have a vaccine, but this? Even without doing anything, this disease has a 99.991% chance of survival… as opposed to a standard viral flu season it’s 99.992%.” ~Dr. Lee Merritt
Coronavirus numbers are widely disputed, however, scores of doctors and scientists have been speaking out for the better part of a year about the disproportionate amount of harm done by lockdowns and forced mask-wearing. One Canadian researcher estimates that the long-term cost of lockdowns will far exceed that of the virus itself by as much as ten times.
Merritt explains the difference between coronavirus vaccines and regular immunizations:
“[Coronavirus vaccines] are not giving you a pathogen … what they are doing is programming mRNA. mRNA is like DNA but it’s the messenger RNA. It’s what makes proteins in the body. It’s kind of like a computer chip that you put into a 3D printer and then you tell it what you want it to make and it prints it out. We have that in engineering and this is the biological equivalent.
Well, in this case they’ve made a piece of this mRNA to create, in every cell of your body, that spike protein (or at least part of it) and you’re actually creating the pathogen in your body.” ~Dr. Lee Merritt
When you go to get your coronavirus vaccine, you are actually not getting a vaccine as we have always known them. Instead, messenger RNA is injected into your body which then alters your genetic code to begin producing its own modified version of the coronavirus, which your immune system then theoretically learns to combat.
According to Merritt, no long-term studies to verify the safety of this form of vaccination in humans have been completed and animal studies have resulted in what she refers to as ‘antibody-dependent enhancement’ where the virus enters into the body undetected because the immune system now views it as belonging to the body, ultimately causing near-immediate death.
“We have never made it through an animal study successfully for this type of virus. We have never done this in humans before,” she says. “The longest that they’ve really followed people after the vaccine is two months. Well you see, that’s not enough time to know that we won’t have that antibody enhancement problem.” ~Dr. Lee Merritt
Merritt speculates that this type of procedure is exactly what a foreign adversary would use if they wanted to wage clandestine biowarfare without having the process traced back to them.
“This is a perfect binary weapon. There’s no way I know exactly what that mRNA is programmed to and neither do you and neither do most doctors. The doctors can’t get at that data. That’s for the guys at the very top of this project… If I were China and I wanted to take down our military, I’d just make an mRNA that I know it doesn’t exist in nature so nobody’s going to die from a vaccine and then two years later I release whatever it is that I made… and it causes this immune enhancement death.” ~Dr. Lee Merritt
Although Dr. Merritt does not recommend whether or not one should take the vaccine, she does give one uplifting piece of advice.
“If you want to get out of the pandemic right now it’s really easy. You turn off your TV, you take off your mask, you reopen your business, and you live your life.”
Watch this recent interview with Dr. Lee Merrit and Alex Newman of The New Americanhere, and please send an email to email@example.com if you notice that this video has been removed.