Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 694

Cheer-Up World: There ARE Effective Treatments for COVID-19

By Chris Lonsdale | 21st Century Wire | July 14, 2021

Since COVID-19 hit the scene at the beginning of 2020, one of the key elements driving the fear around this disease is that there appeared to be no cure. And, for people who got infected with COVID-19, the guidance coming from major global institutions such as the NIH (US National Institutes of Health) and the CDC (US Centres for Disease Control) was basically “do nothing, stay home, and when you turn blue go to the hospital.” This public health policy prescription was usually followed by the qualifying caveat, “this is our only approach until a vaccine arrives.”

This, clearly, has terrified people all around the world. For the majority of the world’s population the belief has been that catching COVID-19 is a veritable death sentence. Which leads us to an important question. How would things change if there were, in fact, effective treatments for COVID-19?

I have just come out of a fascinating 90-minute press conference and Zoom call, delivered by the Malaysian Alliance for Effective COVID Control (MAECC). This was very much a “good news” presentation. The main message? There are very effective treatments for COVID-19.

The essence of the discussion in the MAECC session focused on the drug Ivermectin. The Doctors found it necessary to do a press conference and public presentation because the widespread use of Ivermectin in Malaysia is currently illegal. A doctor prescribing Ivermectin for his COVID-19 patients was recently raided by police!

Malaysian doctors are not doing leading edge research here, but simply trying to care for their patients by working to get a proven treatment officially accepted for use in Malaysia. Ivermectin has already been used very successfully in many places around the world where media hysteria did not get it banned from the shelves. Mexico has used it to great effect, as did Peru. Over the last few weeks, reports coming out of India are demonstrating massive benefits from Ivermectin.

There is already a 97% decline in cases in New Delhi, India. Indeed, four other Indian states that are using Ivermectin now report decreases in cases by 60% to 95%. However, other states that have blocked the use of Ivermectin have increases in cases by several hundred percent – the exponential explosion that everyone is terrified of!

As The Desert Review says in their report, “It is a clear refutation of the WHO, FDA, NIH, and CDC’s policies of ‘wait at home until you turn blue’ before you get treatment.”

Before you buy into the criticism that these are only “observational studies” and haven’t been tested by large scale, randomized control trials approved by the WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA etc. it’s important to realize that the only type of studies that are apparently good enough for such institutions these days are those which are so large and complex that only multi-national pharmaceutical companies are able to run and fund them.

That said, you should know that 56 studies on Ivermectin, 17 of them being Randomized Control Trials, have clearly demonstrated very positive effects from Ivermectin. A site doing real-time meta-analysis of all the Ivermectin studies as they get published summarizes the results as follows: “100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively”.

They also make the point that “The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 56 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000041).”   You can check this information yourself directly on their site (Source: https://ivmmeta.com).

Another effective protocol for prophylaxis and early treatment of COVID-19 is Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with Zinc. As of this writing, 248 trials of HCQ used for treating COVID-19 have been completed, by 3,972 scientists, with 378,812 patients. We can see 66% improvement in 26 early treatment trials, 75% improvement in 11 early treatment mortality results, and 24% improvement in 35 randomized controlled trials. These results are publicly available on a database that is tracking all HCQ studies to date. You can see those studies here at https://c19hcq.com.

There are also a number of other effective treatments for COVID-19 that we don’t have space for here.

What’s important to understand is that these effective treatments have been used since mid-2020. Which raises a very important point. If these treatments are so effective, why haven’t we heard about them?  Why aren’t they being used everywhere? It appears that, for some reason, information about the effectiveness of these treatments is being suppressed.

For instance, “Fact checkers” will tell you that HCQ or Ivermectin aren’t authorized by major institutions like the FDA, CDC, or WHO (as if such organizations are supposed to set and police policy rather than simply providing guidance). They will also try to discount any positive results using ad hominem attacks and smears, such as pointing out that a person using one of these treatments may have at some time in the past, voiced “anti-vaccine sentiments” (whatever that may be). You can see an example here: https://factcheck.afp.com/ivermectin-and-hydroxychloroquine-are-not-proven-covid-19-treatments

The censorship extends to Social Media. A whole list of front-line doctors who have successfully used some of these treatments have had their accounts removed from Social Media platforms, simply because information they provided about their successes was deemed “contrary to guidelines from the WHO” by the various Big Tech platforms. I have personally witnessed the de-platforming of literally dozens of highly respected, professional, front line doctors and researchers.

De-platforming is not the only concern. It appears that in the attempts to discredit effective treatments for COVID-19, anything goes. A study which came out in The Lancet mid-2020 supposedly showing that HCQ was dangerous was subsequently withdrawn due to the study being fraudulent.

Sadly, this withdrawal happened only after the damage was done, and HCQ had been successfully kicked to the curb in many places around the world – even up to the point that in some jurisdictions doctors could be jailed for prescribing it!

You may ask: “How did these studies that were apparently designed to falsify the effects of a widely used drug, pass peer review in the world’s premier medical science journals – The Lancet as well as The New England Journal of Medicine ?” The details of this sordid tale can be found here:
https://ahrp.org/the-lancet-published-a-fraudulent-study-editor-calls-it-department-of-error/

If one digs, it appears that the main reason that we have not heard of these effective treatments is that the WHO and the CDC and other major institutions do not approve of the use of any alternative treatments, unless these are being tested in a clinical trial (which it seems only they can approve of). For instance, the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) guidelines state: “The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) recommends against the use of any drugs for SARS-CoV-2 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), except in a clinical trial (AIII).” See the PDF document here: https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/covid19treatmentguidelines.pdf

This is indeed strange, especially in the middle of a pandemic. One would expect that, in order to save patient lives, doctors would look for and try medicines that might possibly work, as long as there were no safety issues.  When clearly there is evidence of no-harm, and increasingly powerful evidence that certain treatments can save lives, it would be highly unethical for Doctors NOT to start using such treatments. Doctors use medicines for purposes other than those listed on the label all the time!

Since Ivermectin and HCQ are both on the WHO list of essential medicines and have been so for a long time – decades in the case of HCQ – the world knows about the safety and dosage of these medicines. As an example, since 1992, Ivermectin has only been linked to 16 deaths, whereas deaths linked to the COVID-19 vaccines are now in the thousands (information from the Uppsala Drug Monitoring Centre run by the WHO (https://www.who-umc.org) via Prof Paul Marik, Chief of Critical Care & Pulmonary Medicine, EVM, USA).

Clearly, something appears very much out of balance here. There ARE effective treatments for COVID-19, yet the institutions that we rely on for medical guidance appear to be ignoring, or even suppressing these treatments – even though they are known to be safe after many decades of use. Despite their known safety, neither Ivermectin nor HCQ have been able to obtain even an EAU (Emergency Use Authorization)!

At the same time, new creations that have only had very limited testing, and for which the safety cannot be known in such a short period of time, are approved for emergency use.

The world economy is now in dire straits, with entire populations having been essentially under house arrest for the better part of 18 months. People continue to die from (or with) COVID-19 without treatments being available. And we are now seeing important examples of breakout infections in people who have already been vaccinated against COVID-19.  As Reuters reported just a few days ago, “Hundreds of vaccinated Indonesian health workers get COVID-19, dozens in hospital”. This is just one many similar news stories reporting the very same phenomenon.

According to the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves, the current range of emergency use vaccines do not actually provide immunity and only “reduce severe symptoms” of COVID-19. While this issue has yet to be fully resolved, many in the mainstream are still claiming that these vaccines will “inoculate” the recipient against the novel coronavirus. Therefore, these jabs should rightly be categorised as a type of treatment against the disease of COVID-19, and not a vaccine against the said pathogen, the SARSCoV2 coronavirus.

It goes without saying that the wide availability of cheap and effective drug treatments for COVID would severely undermine the widely touted mainstream claim that mass-vaccinations are the only solution to slowing down or ‘defeating’ a supposed global pandemic.

Clearly, effective treatments are absolutely required at this point. The good news is that there are such treatments available.

With effective treatments in hand, the global COVID-19 situation could end in as little as a few weeks. The world CAN return to normal. Sadly, there seem to be forces at work blocking such an outcome.

We need to ask: why are these effective treatments not being allowed in so many places? Why is information about these treatments being suppressed?

[…]

Via https://21stcenturywire.com/2021/07/14/cheer-up-world-there-are-effective-treatments-for-covid-19/

The Hidden History of the Balfour Declaration and the State of Israel

The Hidden History of How the US Was Used to Create the State of Israel

Allison Weir (2014)

Film Review

This 2014 talk addresses two main topics: the obscenely biased MSM coverage of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the role of the US Zionist lobby in embroiling the US in World War I.

Weir provides a detailed breakdown of Israeli and Palestinian deaths over the period 2000-2015. In every case Palestinian deaths from Israeli Defense Force bombing and shelling exceeds Israeli deaths by 200-fold or more.

One of the most interesting tables she displays relates to Israeli military actions against Gaza in 2001, which was five years before Hamas was elected or a single rocket fired. She also shows slides from her 2001 visit to Gaza. Together they provided a horrifying glimpse of the damage recent Israeli military strikes have wreaked on Palestinian buildings and homes, as well as olive and date orchards.

Her expose of the role the US Zionist lobby played in embroiling the US in World War I begins at 29.25min.

She begins by describing the demography of Palestine in the late 1800s when Zionist groups first began began organizing in the US. In 1900, Palestine was 80% Muslim, 15% Christian and 5% Jewish. Owing to concerns it would displace Palestinian Muslims and Christians, there was strong global opposition during this period to the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson’s close friend Louis Brandeis became chief of the world Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs. Although he stepped down in 1916 when Wilson appointed him to the Supreme Court, he continued to play a major role in a secret Zionist group called the Parushim. In 1915, the latter had launched a major campaign to win Western support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

According to Weir, a number of scholarly Israeli sources credit Brandeis with convincing Wilson to enter World War I (as a British ally) in return for a formal British commitment (known as the Balfour Declaration*) to establish a Jewish state in Israel.

Prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, a preponderance of US statesmen and diplomat opposed the displacement of Palestine’s Arab population to establish a Jewish state. Dean Acheson** predicted it would endanger all Western interests in the Middle East. The CIA predicted it would lead to massive “bloodshed and chaos.”

*When the Balfour Declaration was written in November 1917, Palestine was still under control of the Ottoman Empire (who had entered World War I on the side of Germany). Palestine would become a British protectorate under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. The Balfour Declaration was actually a a letter British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour wrote to prominent Zionist Lionel Walter Rothschild promising British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

**Dean Acheson was Undersecretary in Truman’s State Department from 1945 to 1949, when he became Secretary of State.

 

 

 

 

Brian Hooker’s Latest Study on Vaccines and Kids

By Children’s Health Defense Team

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., co-authored a new study that found unvaccinated children have fewer cases of chronic disease than vaccinated children. He talks about that and more on the “Right on Point Podcast” with host Wayne Rohde.

On the “Right on Point Podcast” with Wayne Rohde, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University, discusses a new study he co-authored. The study found partially or fully vaccinated children are more likely to suffer from chronic disease than their unvaccinated counterparts.

Published in the Journal of Translational Science, the paper looked at the vaccine status of 1,500 children and found that vaccinated children were more likely to have autism, asthma, allergies, reoccurring ear infections, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and gastrointestinal issues than unvaccinated kids.

The research showed vaccinated kids were:

5x more likely to have autism4x more likely to have allergies13.8x more likely to have gastrointestinal issues17.6x more likely to have asthma20.8x more likely to have ADHD27.8x more likely to have chronic ear infections

The analysis also included the health impacts of breastfeeding and whether the children were born vaginally or via Cesarean section.

Children breastfed for at least six months had fewer cases of allergies, asthma and gastrointestinal issues. Children born vaginally had fewer cases of allergies, especially food allergies, said Hooker.

Overall, the healthiest children were those who were unvaccinated, breastfed for at least six months and born vaginally, Hooker said.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/right-on-point-podcast-wayne-rohde-brian-hooker-cdc-vaccine-safety-datalink-kids/

Experts Warn of ‘Huge Risk’ as Moderna Launches COVID Vaccine Trials for Pregnant Women

By Megan Redshaw

The vaccine maker is launching a clinical trial to assess safety of its vaccine in pregnant women, despite 133,000 pregnant women having already received a COVID vaccine prior to trials.

Moderna will begin studying its COVID vaccine in pregnant women, according to a posting on ClinicalTrials.gov. The observational study, expected to begin July 22, will enroll about 1,000 females over age 18 who will be studied over a 21-month period.

Women who received a Moderna vaccine during the 28 days prior to their last menstrual period, or at any time during pregnancy, are eligible.

The brief summary of the trial states the main goal is “to evaluate the outcomes of pregnancy in females exposed to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) during pregnancy.”

The study will measure the number of participants who have infants with suspected major and minor congenital malformations, the number of participants with any pregnancy complications, the number of participants with any pregnancy outcomes and the number of participants with infant outcomes, Fox Business reported.

Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says pregnant women can get a COVID vaccine. But the CDC also acknowledges there is limited data available about the safety of COVID vaccines for people who are pregnant.

The CDC website states:

“No evidence exists of risk to the fetus from vaccinating pregnant people with non-replicating vaccines in general. However, the potential risks of COVID-19 vaccines to the pregnant person and the fetus are unknown, because these vaccines have not been extensively studied in pregnant people.”

According to the CDC’s website, as of June 29, data collected from the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) safety monitoring systems had not identified “any safety concerns for pregnant people who were vaccinated or their babies,” but the agencies stressed findings are preliminary.

Experts urge caution

“Pregnant women are taking what may be a huge risk with the COVID vaccine,” said Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., author of “Your Baby, Your Way.”

Margulis told The Defender in an email:

“We have no long-term studies showing it’s safe. We made this mistake with diethylstilbestrol — a synthetic estrogen thought to be safe during pregnancy that was later found to cause aggressive (and sometimes lethal) cancer in the genitals of young teenagers whose moms had been prescribed it.”

Margulis believes it is irresponsible, and even unethical, to assert that we know the Moderna vaccine is safe for pregnancy.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/moderna-covid-vaccine-clinical-trials-pregnant-women/

US vaccine-related deaths increasing rapidly—Swiss Policy Research

Brian Peckford

Published: July 11, 2021 (upd.)

The latest weekly US VAERS update added a shocking 2,083 post-vaccination deaths.

The latest weekly US VAERS update added a shocking 2,083 post-vaccination deaths – by far the largest weekly increase to date – raising the total of reported post-vaccination deaths to 9,048. Not all of these 2,083 deaths occurred within a week, as there is a very significant reporting backlog.

In total, close to 1,000 post-vaccination miscarriages, more than 3,000 heart attacks, about 7,500 disabilities, close to 20,000 severe allergic reactions, and close to 1,000 cases of heart muscle inflammation in people under 25 have already been reported to VAERS.

A recent analysis by researchers at Queen Mary University in London found that even in senior citizens, about 85% of deaths reported to VAERS were definitively, likely or possibly caused by the vaccine. Moreover, due to significant under-reporting, the true number of vaccine-related deaths may already be significantly higher, possibly in the range of 10,000 to 50,000 deaths in the US alone.

Indeed, despite very few covid deaths, there continues to be unexplained excess all-cause mortality in all US age groups below the age of 75, with all-cause mortality having reached record levels in age groups below 45 since the beginning of the vaccination campaign. In people over 75, potential vaccine-related mortality may be masked by post-winter wave negative excess mortality.

There has been much discussion recently about an ultimately retracted paper that claimed covid vaccines kill 2 people for every 3 people they save. The two major points of criticism were that the paper underestimated vaccine protection by considering only a three-week period, and that the paper overestimated vaccine-related deaths by counting all reported post-vaccination deaths.

The first point is valid: vaccine protection should be estimated based on a near-100% population infection rate, not just a three-week window. But the second point is misguided: due to under-reporting, reported deaths are a lower bound, not an upper bound, of vaccine-related deaths.

Yet there is an even more important point to be considered: age-based risk-stratification. Below a certain age, covid-related mortality is so low that covid vaccines are bound to kill or severely injure more healthy people than they save. In the US, this age threshold may be close to 40 years, while in some Western European countries, it may be as high as 60 years (for healthy people).

It has been argued that vaccination against covid may at least prevent “long covid” or multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS) in children and young adults; however, new reports from Israel and the US indicate that, to the contrary, covid vaccines may themselves cause MIS as well as “long covid”-like conditions, often lasting for months or possibly even longer (see video below).

Going forward, three covid vaccine-related potential risks should be kept in mind:

In addition to immediate adverse events (such as strokes and heart attacks), are covid vaccines causing cardiovascular damage that will become apparent only later?In the face of new immune-escape coronavirus variants, such as the Indian and Peruvian variants (delta and lambda), how long will vaccine protection last, especially in senior citizens?Once new coronavirus variants achieve full immune escape, will the very high levels of vaccine-induced, non-neutralizing antibodies cause antibody-dependent disease enhancement (ADE)?Via https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/us-vaccine-related-deaths-increasing-rapidly-swiss-policy-research-highlights/

Nancy and Paul Pelosi Making Millions in Stock Trades in Companies She Actively Regulates

U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (L) and businessman Paul Pelosi attend the Clive Davis and Recording Academy Pre-GRAMMY Gala and GRAMMY Salute to Industry Icons Honoring Jay-Z on January 27, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Nicholas Hunt/Getty Images)

By Glenn Greenwald

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is the sixth-richest member of Congress, according to the most recent financial disclosure statements filed in 2019. As the California Democrat has risen through party ranks and obtained more and more political power, her personal wealth has risen right along with it. Pelosi “has seen her wealth increase to nearly $115 million from $41 million in 2004,” reports the transparency non-profit group Open Secrets. Even by the standards of wealth that define that legislative body — “more than half of those in Congress are millionaires” — the wealth and lifestyle of the long-time liberal politician and most powerful lawmaker in Washington are lavish.

And ever since ascending to the top spot in the House, Pelosi and her husband, Paul, keep getting richer and richer. Much of their added wealth is due to extremely lucrative and “lucky” decisions about when to buy and sell stocks and options in the very industries and companies over which Pelosi, as House Speaker, exercises enormous and direct influence.

The sector in which the Pelosis most frequently buy and sell stocks is, by far, the Silicon Valley tech industry. Close to 75% of the Pelosis’ stock trading over the last two years has been in Big Tech: more than $33 million worth of trading. That has happened as major legislation is pending before the House, controlled by the Committees Pelosi oversees, which could radically reshape the industry and laws that govern the very companies in which she and her husband most aggressively trade.

Data compiled by HouseStockWatcher.com, 2020-2021

To underscore the towering conflict of interest at the heart of Speaker Pelosi’s self-enrichment, consider the company in which the Pelosis traded most often: Apple. Buying and selling in that one company accounted for 17.7% of the Pelosis’ overall trading volume. And yet, during this same period, Pelosi held at least one private conversation with Apple CEO Tim Cook about the state of Apple and possible effects on the company from various pending bills to reform Silicon Valley.

On June 22, The New York Times reported on “a forceful and wide-ranging pushback by the tech industry since the [antitrust reform] proposals were announced this month.” In particular, “executives, lobbyists, and more than a dozen think tanks and advocacy groups paid by tech companies have swarmed Capitol offices, called and emailed lawmakers and their staff members, and written letters arguing there will be dire consequences for the industry and the country if the ideas become law.” But one of the most important steps taken against these bills was a personal call placed by Apple’s CEO directly to Pelosi:

In the days after lawmakers introduced legislation that could break the dominance of tech companies, Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook, called Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress to deliver a warning. . . . When Mr. Cook asked for a delay in the Judiciary Committee’s process of considering the bills, Ms. Pelosi pushed him to identify specific policy objections to the measures, said one of the people.

Sources who refused to be identified tried to convince the Times’ reporters that “Ms. Pelosi pushed back on Mr. Cook’s concerns about the bills.” But in doing so, they confirmed the rather crucial fact that Pelosi was having personal, private conversations with the CEO of a company in which she and her husband were heavily invested and off of which they were making millions of dollars in personal wealth. And Pelosi, according to the report, asked Cook what changes were needed to avoid harming Apple and other Silicon Valley giants. Can even the hardest-core Democratic partisan loyalist justify this blatant conflict of interest and self-dealing?

[…]

Via https://greenwald.substack.com/p/nancy-and-paul-pelosi-making-millions

Twenty-year genetic trail behind Covid’s creation

By Neville Hodgkinson | The Conservative Woman | July 13, 2021

A 20-YEAR trail of patent applications concerning the virus responsible for Covid-19 proves it is neither new nor the result of a jump from animals to humans, an inquiry has been told.

Instead, the patents show that a natural virus, harmless to humans, was subjected to numerous laboratory modifications which ‘weaponised’ it, such that it could become the basis of a marketing campaign for tests and vaccines which are of questionable value to the public health, but which have proved to be a financial bonanza for drug companies.

A dossier of evidence supporting these claims has been presented to the international Corona Investigative Committee headed by Reiner Fuellmich, a senior German lawyer specialising in exposing corporate swindles. The committee has been taking testimony from scientists and other experts since July last year.

The dossier was submitted last week by Dr David Martin, who heads M-CAM International, a US company which monitors innovations relevant to financial interests.

First made public more than a year ago, Martin’s allegations were widely dismissed as ‘conspiracy’ by so-called fact-checkers, who at the time were promoting the view fostered by the scientific establishment that the virus had a natural origin.

That view has become seen as in itself based on a conspiracy to mislead involving British scientist Dr Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance, which has received tens of millions of US dollars for investigating coronaviruses, but who was appointed by the Lancet medical journal to head an inquiry into the virus’s origins.

Last month Daszak ‘recused himself’ without explanation from the inquiry. He played a leading role in a similar investigation by the World Health Organisation, widely dismissed as a whitewash when published on March 30.

On Friday last week Martin gave a two-hour, live-streamed interview to Fuellmich and his team in which he spelled out the patent data that led to his explosive conclusions; you can watch it here.)

He said that ‘somebody knew something in 2015 and 2016 which gave rise to my favourite quote of this entire pandemic’. This was a statement made by Peter Daszak in 2015, and reported in the National Academies Press on February 12, 2016, in which he declared:

‘We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical counter-measures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.’

Of his own company, Martin said: ‘We have since 1998 been the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. Our underwriting systems include the entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, e-government records, etc. We have the ability to track not only what is happening, and who is involved in what’s happening, but we monitor a series of thematic interests for a variety of organisations and individuals as well as for our own commercial use.

‘We have reviewed over 4,000 patents issued around SARS-coronavirus and done a very comprehensive review of the financing of all the manipulation of coronavirus which gave rise to SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome).

‘We took the actual genetic sequences that were reportedly novel, and reviewed those against the patent records available as of the spring of 2020. What we found, as you’ll see in this report, are over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was entirely a fallacy. There was no novel coronavirus. There are countless, very subtle modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded. But there was no single identifiable novel coronavirus at all.

[…]

So, based on patent filings more than two decades old, neither the coronavirus concept of a vaccine, nor the principle of the coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest with regard to the spike protein’s behaviour, were ‘anything novel at all’.

Even more problematic, the patent record showed that in 1999 Anthony Fauci, head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), found the ‘malleability’ of the coronavirus made it a potential candidate for vaccines against HIV (the purported cause of AIDS, for which US taxpayers have contributed more than $300billion in research and treatment over the past 35 years).

‘Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, specifically to create – and you cannot help but lament what I am about to read, because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19, 2002 – “an infectious replication defective coronavirus”.’

This virus was specifically targeted to invade human lung epithelia, the protective cells lining the lungs, Martin said.

‘In other words, we made SARS.* Before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia, which as you know followed that by several months.

‘That patent, issued as US patent 7279327, clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we know that the . . . ACE-2 binding domain [a protein on the surface of many cell types, through which both SARS-CoV-2 and the original SARS coronavirus enter host cells], the S1 spike protein, and other elements of what we have come to know as this scourge pathogen, was not only engineered but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory, using nothing more than gene sequencing technologies taking computer code, and turning it into a pathogen.

‘And the technology was funded exclusively in the early days as a means by which we could harness coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine.’

Martin went on: ‘It gets worse.’ M-CAM International was asked to monitor biological and chemical weapons treaty violations, and was part of an investigation into events in October 2001, in which letters containing anthrax spores were sent to several news media offices and two senators.

‘Throughout the fall of 2001 we began monitoring an enormous number of bacterial and viral pathogens that were being patented through the National Institutes of Health, NIAID, USAMRIID [the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases], and a number of other agencies internationally that collaborated with them.

‘Our concern was that coronavirus was being seen not only as a potential manipulable agent for potential use as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate.

[…]

That first SARS event gave rise to a ‘very problematic’ April 2003 patent filing by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It was for the entire SARS gene sequence, and for a series of derivative patents covering means of detection, including the PCR test [widely used today purportedly to diagnose cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection].

‘The reason why that is a problem is that if you both own the patent on the gene itself, and on its detection, you have a cunning advantage to being able to control 100 per cent of the provenance of not only the virus itself, but also its detection. Meaning, you have the entire scientific and message control.’

The CDC’s public relations team sought to justify the application on the grounds that it would enable everyone to be free to research coronavirus.

That was a lie, Martin said. The US Patent Office twice rejected the application for the entire SARS sequence, on the grounds that it was already recorded in the public domain, but the CDC started a process to override this rejection. After repeated applications, and paying an appeal fine, they got the patent approved in 2007. They also paid an additional fee to keep the application private. ‘So every public statement the CDC has made that said this was in the public interest is falsifiable by their own, paid bribe to the Patent Office.’

[…]

Via https://alethonews.com/2021/07/14/twenty-year-genetic-trail-behind-covids-creation/

*The SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Virus) caused the SARS outbreak in 2003-04.

Woman With ‘Life-Altering’ Injuries After COVID Vaccine Teams Up With US Senators to Demand Answers

By  Megan Redshaw

Brianne Dressen, who accumulated more than $250,000 in medical bills after participating in AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine clinical trial, is collaborating with two U.S. Senators to get help for others injured by COVID vaccines.

A Utah woman and two U.S. senators are teaming up to get answers from federal health agencies about life-altering injuries people have experienced after receiving a COVID vaccine.

Brianne Dressen is a preschool teacher from Utah who was injured after participating in AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine clinical trial in November 2020. She has accumulated more than $250,000 in medical bills as a result of injuries she believes were caused by the vaccine.

Dressen said within one hour of being vaccinated she had tingling down her arm. By the time she got home her vision was blurry and doubled. Her sensitivity became so severe that she had to wear earmuffs and sunglasses all the time.

That’s when things took a turn for the worse. “Things progressed quickly,” Dressen said. She experienced neurological decline, but no one could explain why. After a neurological scan, doctors said it looked as if she had multiple sclerosis (MS).

According to Mayo Clinic, MS is a potentially disabling disease of the brain and spinal cord where the immune system attacks the protective sheath (myelin) that covers nerve fibers and causes communication problems between the brain and the rest of the body.

Dressen lost the use of her legs, as her symptoms worsened. After running several MRI’s, CT scans and lumbar punctures, doctors still had no answers, ABC4 News reported.

Dressen said she spent months teaching herself how to walk, eat and form sentences again — all while she traveled in search of answers.

“The hospital didn’t know what was going on … none of the neurologists that I saw knew what was going on,” Dressen said. “I called the test clinic several times and they had no idea what was going on.”

Dressen spoke with others who are dealing with the same symptoms after getting vaccinated, and she wants people injured by COVID vaccines to get help.

“I want the CDC to do the right thing and communicate with the medical community so these people can get help,” Dressen said. “I want the public to be able to have the full picture so they can make an informed decision.”

Senators demand answers from CDC, FDA and vaccine makers

Dressen, along with other people who said they were injured by vaccines but “repeatedly ignored” by the medical community, participated late last month in a news conference held by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

[…]Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/brianne-dressen-injuries-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-senators-demand-answer/

D-dimer tests show at least 62 percent of mRNA “vaccinated” patients have microscopic blood clots

After doing D-dimer tests on his mRNA vaccinated patients, Dr Hoffe discovered 62% already had microscopic blood clots consistent with a blood clotting disorder.

Adara Press

ALERT: Doctor says mRNA vaccines “will kill most people” through heart failure, 62% of vaccinated people already show microscopic blood clots

As a result, these patients have ‘Reduced Effort Tolerance’ (RET), which means that they have shortness of breath. In his video, Dr Hoffe explained that this is because the blood vessels in their lungs are now clogged up. This forces the heart to work harder to keep up against a greater resistance to get blood through to the lungs

This is known as pulmonary artery hypertension – high blood pressure in the lungs because blood cannot effectively get through. Those who have this condition often die of heart failure within a few short years.

 

Excerpt:

“We now know that only 25 percent of the ‘vaccine’ injected into a person’s arm actually stays in your arm,” Dr. Hoffe explains one his blog.

“The other 75 percent is collected…

View original post 630 more words

New Evidence Reveals Georgia Audit Fraud and Massive Errors

My big question is who falsified the tally sheets and will they be prosecuted?

Mining Awareness +

This is especially damning since Garland Favorito is member of neither the Republican nor “Democrat” Party. Biden’s alleged margin of victory in Georgia was only around 12,800 votes. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/19/joe-biden-president-georgia-recount

“Press Release Contact: Garland Favorito July 13, 2021 garlandf@VoterGA.net http://www.VoterGA.org

New Evidence Reveals GA Audit Fraud and Massive Errors

ATLANTA GA – Petitioners in a lawsuit organized by VoterGA to inspect Fulton County ballots have added stunning claims in their amended complaint [1] and provided new evidence from public records that show Fulton County’s hand count audit [2] of the November 3rd 2020 election was riddled with massive errors and provable fraud.

Most new allegations and evidence are based on a VoterGA data team’s analysis of Fulton’s November 2020 mail-in ballot images made public after petitioners won a court order on April 13th and VoterGA lobbying efforts led the Georgia General Assembly to make all images public under Open Records…

View original post 467 more words