What’s Not Being Said About the Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine. “Human Guinea Pigs”?

By F. William Engdahl via Global Research,

Bill Gates is actively financing and promoting new untested vaccines supposed to keep us at least somewhat safe from a ‘ghastly” death from the novel coronavirus and supposedly allow us to resume somewhat “normal” lives. The Pharma giant Pfizer has now announced what they claim were spectacular results in initial human tests. They use an experimental technology known as gene editing, specifically mRNA gene-editing, something never before used in vaccines. Before we rush to get jabbed in hopes of some immunity, we should know more about the radical experimental technology and its lack of precision.

The financial world went ballistic on November 9 when the pharma giant Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, announced in a company press release that it had developed a vaccine for Covid19 that was “90%” effective.

The controversial US head of NIAID, Tony Fauci (right) rushed to greet the news and the EU announced it had purchased 300 million doses of the costly new vaccine. If you believe financial markets, the pandemic is all but past history.

Suspicious events

However it seems Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, doesn’t share the confidence of his own claims. On the day his company issued its press release on the proposed vaccine trials, he sold 62% of his stock in Pfizer, making millions profit in the deal. He made the sell order in a special option in August so it would not appear as “insider selling”, however he also timed it just after the US elections and the mainstream media illegitimately declared Joe Biden President-elect. It seems from appearances that Bourla had a pretty clear conflict of interest in the timing of his press release on the same day.

Bourla lied and denied to the Press that his company had received any funds from the Trump Administration to develop the vaccine when it came out they contracted in summer to deliver 100 million doses to the US Government. Further adding to the suspect actions of Pfizer was the fact the company first informed the team of Joe biden rather than the relevant US government agencies.

But this is far from the only thing alarming about the much-hyped Pfizer announcement.

The German Partner

Pfizer, famous for its Viagra and other drugs, has partnered with a small Mainz, Germany company, BioNTech, which has developed the radical mRNA technique used to produce the new corona vaccine. BioNTech was only founded in 2008. BioNTech signed an agreement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in September, 2019, just before announcement in Wuhan China of the Novel Coronavirus and just before BioNTech made its stock market debut. The agreement involved cooperation on developing new mRNA techniques to treat cancer and HIV. Curiously that press release, “The Gates Foundation sees BioNTech potential to ‘dramatically reduce global HIV and tuberculosis’” 05. September 2019, has now been deleted.

BioNTech also has an agreement with one of the largest drug producers in China, Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (“Fosun Pharma”) to develop a version of its mRNA vaccine for novel coronavirus for the Chinese market. Ai-Min Hui, President of Global R&D of Fosun Pharma said in an August statement, “Dosing the first Chinese subject with BNT162b1 marks a milestone of the global co-development program in China. We are closely working with BioNTech and regulatory authorities to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BNT162b1 and other mRNA vaccine candidates…”

This means that the same German biotech company is behind the covid vaccines being rushed out in China as well as the USA and EU. The vaccine is being rushed through to eventual approval in an alarmingly short time.

Both US and EU authorities and presumably also Chinese, waived the standard animal tests using ferrets or mice and have gone straight to human “guinea pigs.” Human tests began in late July and early August. Three months is unheard of for testing a new vaccine. Several years is the norm. Because of the degree of global panic engendered by WHO over the coronavirus, caution is thrown to the wind. Vaccine makers all have legal indemnity, meaning they can’t be sued if people die or are maimed from the new vaccine. But the most alarming fact about the new Pfizer-BioNTech gene edited vaccine is that the gene edited mRNA for human vaccine application has never before been approved. Notably, two year peer reviewed tests with mice fed genetically modified corn sprayed with Monsanto glyphosate-rich Roundup first showed cancer tumors after nine months as well as liver and other organ damage. Earlier Monsanto company tests ended at three months and claimed no harm. A similar situation exists with the gene edited mRNA vaccines that are being rushed out after less than 90 days human tests.

“Explicitly experimental”

Dr. Michael Yeadon replied in a recent public social media comment to a colleague in the UK; “All vaccines against the SARS-COV-2 virus are by definition novel. No candidate vaccine has been… in development for more than a few months.” Yeadon then went on to declare,

“If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent. This is because there are precisely zero human volunteers for…whom there could possibly be more than a few months past-dose safety information.”

Yeadon is well qualified to make the critique. As he notes in the comment, “I have a degree in Biochemistry & Toxicology & a research based PhD in pharmacology. I have spent 32 years working in pharmaceutical R&D, mostly in new medicines for disorders of lung & skin. I was a VP at Pfizer & CEO…. of a biotech I founded (Ziarco – acquired by Novartis). I’m knowledgeable about new medicine R&D.” He was formerly with Pfizer at a very senior level.

Human guinea pigs?

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is experimental and far from guaranteed safe, despite the fact that Pfizer, the EU and the notorious Dr Tony Fauci seem ready to roll it out even before year end to hundreds of millions of humans.

The experimental technology is based on a rather new gene manipulation known as gene editing. In a major article in the 2018 New York Council on Foreign Relations magazine, Foreign Affairs, Bill Gates effusively promoted the novel gene editing CRISPR technology as being able to “transform global development.” He noted that his Gates Foundation had been financing gene editing developments for vaccines and other applications for a decade.

But is the technology for breaking and splicing of human genes so absolutely safe that it is worth risking on a novel experimental vaccine never before used on humans? Contrary to what Bill Gates claims, the scientific answer is no, it is not proven so safe.

In a peer reviewed article in the October, 2020 journal Trends in Genetics, the authors conclude that “the range of possible molecular events resulting from genome editing has been underestimated and the technology remains unpredictable on, and away from, the target locus.”

Dr. Romeo Quijano, retired professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, noted some of the dangers of the experimental gene editing when applied to human vaccines. Quijano warns of,

“the danger that the vaccine might actually “enhance” the pathogenicity of the virus, or make it more aggressive possibly due to antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), as what happened with previous studies on test vaccines in animals. If that should happen in a major human trial the outcome could be disastrous. This serious adverse effect may not even be detected by a clinical trial especially in highly biased clinical trials laden with conflicts of interest involving vaccine companies. Even when a serious adverse event is detected, this is usually swept under the rug.”

He cites the case of another Gates mRNA vaccine candidate, Moderna, where “three of the 15 human experimental subjects in the high dose group suffered serious and medically significant symptoms. Moderna, however, concluded that the vaccine was “generally safe and well tolerated,” which the corporate-dominated media dutifully reported, covering-up the real danger…”

He notes,

“Exogenous mRNA is inherently immune-stimulatory, and this feature of mRNA could be beneficial or detrimental. It may provide adjuvant activity and it may inhibit antigen expression and negatively affect the immune response. The paradoxical effects of innate immune sensing on different formats of mRNA vaccines are incompletely understood.” Quijano adds, “A mRNA-based vaccine could also induce potent type I interferon responses, which have been associated not only with inflammation but also potentially with autoimmunity… and may promote blood coagulation and pathological thrombus formation.”

Quijano writes in the extensively documented article,

“among other dangers, the virus-vectored vaccines could undergo recombination with naturally occurring viruses and produce hybrid viruses that could have undesirable properties affecting transmission or virulence. The…possible outcomes of recombination are practically impossible to quantify accurately given existing tools and knowledge. The risks, however, are real, as exemplified by the emergence of mutant types of viruses, enhanced pathogenicity and unexpected serious adverse events (including death) following haphazard mass vaccination campaigns and previous failed attempts to develop chimeric vaccines using genetic engineering technology.”

Bill Gates, the mRNA vaccine makers including Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, and their close allies such as Dr. Tony Fauci of the NIAID are clearly playing fast and loose with human lives in their rush to get these experimental vaccines into our bodies. Notably, the same Dr. Fauci and his NIAID owns the patent on a vaccine for dengue fever known as Dengvaxia, marketed by Sanofi-Pasteur and promoted as an “essential” vaccine by Tedros’ WHO since 2016. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (right) noted that Fauci and NIAID “knew from the clinical trials that there was a problem with paradoxical immune response,” but they gave it to several hundred thousand Filipino kids anyway. It was estimated that as many as 600 vaccinated children died before the government stopped the vaccinations.

Clearly the well-established Precautionary Principle–if in serious doubt, don’t– is being ignored by Fauci, Pfizer/BioNTech and others in rushing to approve the new mRNA vaccine for coronavirus. Messenger RNA technology has yet to produce an approved medicine, let alone a vaccine.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Total Deaths in the US since 2015

Total Deaths in the US since 2015  
Year Deaths Data Source  
       
2015 2,712,630 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db267.pdf page 5
2016 2,744,248 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db293.pdf page 6
2017 2,813,503 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db328-h.pdf page 6
2018 2,839,205 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db355-h.pdf page 5
2019 2,855,000 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-tables.htm select 2019
2020 2,728,104
Total “Death from All Causes”
Through Month of December 5
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/  
2,818,527
Year-End Projection

Accomplished Pharma Prof Thrown in Psych Hospital after Questioning Official COVID Narrative

By Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent via Life Site News

Early on December 10, Jean-Bernard Fourtillan was taken from his home by a team of French law enforcement officers and forcibly placed in solitary confinement at the psychiatric hospital of Uzès.
Uzès, home of the psychiatric hospital where Jean-Bernard Fourtillan is being held against his will. Begir / Shutterstock.com

LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Early on December 10, Jean-Bernard Fourtillan, a French retired university professor known for his strong opposition to COVID-19 vaccines such as those presently being distributed in the U.K., was taken from his temporary home in the south of France by a team of “gendarmes” — French law enforcement officers under military command — and forcibly placed in solitary confinement at the psychiatric hospital of Uzès. His mobile phones were taken from him, and at the time of writing, he had not been allowed to communicate with the outside world. The order for his internment appears to have been issued by the local “préfet,” the official representative of the French executive.

The systematic use of psychiatric hospitals in order to silence or punish political opponents became widespread under communism, having started shortly after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917. The method developed under Stalin and then expanded as opposition to the “socialist paradise” came to be considered a sign of mental illness. Under the 1966 penal code of the USSR, repression of dissidents openly targeted those who “spread false propaganda defaming the Soviet State and its social system.”

Fourtillan, a longtime critic of vaccines that use dangerous adjuvants such as aluminum (the 11 compulsory vaccines for newborns in France contain 17 times the maximum dose of aluminum defined as toxic by the World Health Organization), has been vocal during the COVID-19 crisis. He offers “alternative” explanations and warnings regarding the apparition of the SARS-COV-2 virus and the ARN vaccines that work by injecting pieces of virus message ARN with nanolipids with the aim of causing human cells to start fabricating viral particles and to thus trigger an immunological reaction.

In particular, Fourtillan has accused the French Institut Pasteur, a private non-profit foundation that specializes in biology, micro-organisms, contagious diseases, and vaccination, of having “fabricated” the SARS-COV-2 virus over several decades and been a party to its “escape” from the Wuhan P4 lab — unbeknownst to the lab’s Chinese authorities — which was built following an agreement between France and China signed in 2004.

Relations between France and China regarding the project cooled over the years as China put its own interests first, but in 2017, France’s then–Interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, joined the official opening ceremony of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 lab, together with Yves Lévy, co-president of the steering committee. Lévy is the husband of Agnès Buzyn, who was France’s health minister when the COVID-19 crisis erupted. She was also responsible for signing the decree that banned over-the-counter sales of hydroxychloroquine in France in January 2020.

Is Jean-Bernard Fourtillan’s accusation true? While the Institut Pasteur has verbally announced that it would sue Fourtillan over the accusation, no judiciary action has been forthcoming on that front, and indeed, Fourtillan himself has since lodged a complaint against a spokesman of the Institute for “libel and lies that are prejudicial to the peoples of the world.”

Fourtillan himself has said he hopes legal proceedings will allow him to produce evidence he has built up: he is in fact anxious to debate the issues at stake. Now that he is in a psychiatric hospital, the possibility of this happening — in the interest of discovering the truth — is becoming more remote.

Among the public documents Fourtillan has analyzed and made public are patents for SARS-COV-1, which contains parts of the malaria virus, dating back to 2003. The patents were used by various labs to develop vaccines. Two thousand eleven saw the Institut Pasteur filing a further patent application for “SARS-COV-2,” which was identical to the previous one, according to Fourtillan, who says this was done because commercial exploitation of the first patent started in 2003 and would expire 20 years later, in 2023. According to Fourtillan, four sequences of the HIV virus — responsible for AIDS — were added to the virus, in view of creating further vaccines.

This point was also raised in France last April by Prof. Luc Montagnier, who won the 2008 Nobel Prize for medicine for having discovered HIV in 1983 together with another French scientist, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi. Last April, Montagnier stated that the SARS-COV-2 virus was the result of a human manipulation. He was ridiculed by the mainstream media, but in August, an Italian microbiologist reached the same conclusion: Prof. Joseph Tritto published a book calling the Wuhan virus a “chimera.”

Montagnier, who had worked with a mathematician, described his findings through an analogy. Imagine the coronavirus as a “puzzle” with 30,000 pieces, and then consider several other 9,000-piece puzzles representing HIV-1, HIV-2, and SIV (another retrovirus close to the AIDS virus but targeting monkeys). If three pieces coming from each one of these smaller puzzles were to be found next to each other in the 30,000-piece puzzle, the probability of this having happened naturally would be nil. This is analogous to the presence of parts of the HIV sequence in SARS-COV-2, according to Montagnier.

According to Fourtillan, the present virus causing COVID-19 is this artificial virus. Fourtillan — as well as other researchers of the present crisis — considers this indisputable evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic was planned. He believes that on October 13, 2015, a patent application was filed for a COVID-19 test; this was followed by commercialization in the whole world in 2017 for a whopping 10 billion dollars.

These claims are disputed on the grounds that the reference to the 2015 patent is only part of the later May 2020 patent, also filed by one Richard A. Rothschild, but was quoted as related to the remote diagnosis of COVID-19, enhancing the original patent as it were for the particular case of COVID-19.

Who is right? A sincere, public assessment and debate would lift any confusion or error, voluntary or not, but Fourtillan is now being treated as if he were both dangerous and insane.

Fourtillan gained widespread publicity when a recent film by Pierre Barnérias, giving a voice to critics of the official narrative, became viral in France. In Hold-Up, Fourtillan spoke of his concern that the COVID-19 crisis was fabricated and is being used to impose a dangerous vaccine on the world population.

Fourtillan is himself familiar with patenting procedures, as his résumé shows, having personally filed some 400 patents in the medical field. The French internet medium France Soir described him as follows: “Jean-Bernard FOURTILLAN, Ph.D., Chemical Engineer, Pharmacist, Hospital Pharmacist, Professor of Therapeutic Chemistry and Pharmacokinetics at the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacology of the University of Poitiers, Expert Pharmacologist Toxicologist, specialized in Pharmacokinetics.”

Fourtillan’s forced internment made no mention of the COVID-19 controversy, which to date has led to no judicial proceedings, instead being officially linked to a lawsuit that has been opened against him for illegal practice of medicine because of his work on a hormonal patch against neuro-degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and others affecting motricity, balance, and memory, as well as sleep disorders.

His theory is that pollution, adjuvants such as aluminum in vaccines, and electro-magnetic interference destroy dark matter in the brain through lack of hormones, and he has — successfully, he claims — tested the administration of a hormone patch of valentonin and 6-Méthoxy-Harmalan (sleep and waking hormones), to compensate the damage, on 402 adults, himself included, who accepted the procedure under their sole responsibility and who were warned that the patch was not a drug, but a “technical sample, not for human use.” The procedure costs only a fraction of the price of newly developed drugs for these conditions.

Fourtillan had had a good rapport with the judge charged with the preliminary investigation of the case, Brigitte Jolivet of Poitiers. During his first interrogations at the end of 2019, she appeared to be convinced by his arguments, and the case was proceeding normally.

Last month, Fourtillan, who was staying in the south of France with his wife, was visited by four gendarmes coming from Marseille, who entered his rented cottage and asked for his computers. Although they had no search warrant, Fourtillan handed them over, saying he had nothing to hide, and that on the contrary, he was anxious to have his documents and methods assessed.

He saw the gendarmes leave and hand over his computers to a man in plain clothes in a car nearby.

Days later, his bank accounts and credit cards were suddenly blocked by an authority whose identity was not revealed to him. His pensions were also blocked.

Fourtillan had been summoned to a hearing in the lawsuit concerning his valentonin “treatment” on December 4 in Paris. He did not go, invoking the fact that he now had no way of paying for a train ticket to the French capital.

This information was given to LifeSite by a person who works with Fourtillan on the website http://verite-covid19.com/ and who knows him well — well enough to state that he “is certainly not insane,” having spent time with him recently.

Six days later, on Thursday morning, gendarmes once more came to Fourtillan’s home and asked him to accompany them in order to answer questions about his refusal to join the December 4 hearing in Paris.

Fourtillan agreed readily.

However, from the moment he left his home with the law enforcement officers, he was not able to communicate with his family. One of his lawyers, Marc Fribourg — who has since gone on record saying that Fourtillan is a “conspiracy theorist” — revealed that he was taken to the Uzès psychiatric hospital of Le Mas Careiron, where he has been held since. His other lawyer, who previously commended Fourtillan for the efficiency of his hormonal patches, was not reachable today.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.

Vaccination by Pfizer a Myth

Let us suppose you need to vaccinate 100,000,000 individuals and you have 100 hospitals that are keeping the vaccine and each hospital can vaccinate 20 individuals at the same time. Vaccinating one person takes 10 min. 100,000,000 / 100 / 20 * 10 = 500,000 min. Due to administration, vaccination can only be applied and registered 8 hours/day allowing 83++ Holidays (generally there are 260 working days/year), giving as a result 4 years. 500,000 divided by 60 = 8,334 hours. Divided by 8 = 1,042 days. Divided by 260 = 4 years.

Applying the inverse logic, one could have in those 100 hospitals more than 20 nurses working in parallel injecting the vaccine. But then you will have to deal with the infrastructure problem and maintaining approx 10K people in each hospital (waiting list of 1 hour). Clearly this is not feasible even within a year and this is why the vaccine is not the solution for a return to normal.

Furthermore, according to media reports, the Pfizer vaccine lasts only 4 – 5 months. By the time 25,000,000 people are vaccinated, the process of vaccinating  of those already vaccinated has to be renewed.

The Sputnik V vaccine, developed by Russia’s Gamaleya Research Institute, will likely provide immunity from COVID-19 for two years, while the inoculation developed by Pfizer will shield for 4-5 months, said the institute’s director Alexander Gintsburg. Gintsburg emphasised, however, that this data needs to be checked during experiments.

“The method used in Sputnik V was used in the vaccine against Ebola and experimental data has proved that it provides immunity from the disease for a minimum of two years, but it could be more. I don’t know how long Pfizer’s vaccine will protect from infection”, Gintsburg said.

The director of Gamaleya Research Institute also said there is a 96 percent chance that people who have received the Sputnik V jab won’t get sick with COVID-19. Only 4 percent of people who got the vaccine might get sick, Gintsburg said, but stressed that this would be a mild case of the disease that will not affect the lungs. Most likely an individual will have a cough, sniffles, and minor temperature.

Knowing this and knowing the Pfizer vaccine will be effective only 4 – 5 months, inoculating  the  population is pointless, it will NEVER be able to achieve the goal (Sisyphus myth).

Flawed Paper Behind Covid-19 Testing to be Retracted, After Scientists Expose its Ten Fatal Problems

By Peter Andrews, Irish science journalist and writer based in London. He has a background in the life sciences, and graduated from the University of Glasgow with a degree in genetics

A publisher admitted it is urgently re-investigating research, following revelations that the PCR test it extols is defective, giving too many false-positives. The news comes as a new group plans a legal challenge over the checks.

Last week I reported on an astonishing review conducted by a group of senior scientists on a paper on which most Covid testing is based. It comprehensively debunked the science behind the Corman-Drosten paper, which described a protocol for using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique to detect Covid, finding 10 fatal flaws, including major failings in the operating procedure and potential conflicts of interest among its authors.

The team behind the review demanded that Eurosurveillance, the journal that published the original research, retract it at once, as in their view it clearly failed to meet proper standards. This is of vital importance because the Corman-Drosten paper laid the path for mass PCR testing as the main source of data on the coronavirus. Almost all case numbers, infection rates and even deaths attributed to Covid are based on PCR tests (and all the attendant lockdowns and restrictions on people), and a huge amount of them use the method set out in the Corman-Drosten paper.

But now, the organisation Retraction Watch have reported that Eurosurveillance is considering retracting the paper. In a statement, Eurosurveillance said that they were “seeking further expert advice and discussing the current correspondence in detail. We will, according to our existing procedures, evaluate the claims and make a decision as soon as we have investigated in full.’’ So no retraction yet, but it would not be surprising if one came soon.

Call up Guinness World Records

One of the 10 fatal flaws in the original Corman-Drosten paper was that it was unclear whether it had ever been subjected to proper peer review – before, that is, the panel of experts took it upon themselves to do so. The paper had been submitted on January 22 and published the very next day. Peer review, when it takes place, is normally a long, drawn out process with plenty of back-and-forth, even when it is being rushed as much as possible. That it could be done in a single day beggars belief.

But that is what the authors are asking us to believe, as they are still claiming that their article was “peer-reviewed by two experts on whose recommendation the decision to publish was made.’’ Eurosurveillance may want to consider submitting this feat to Guinness World Records as the fastest peer review of all time – it may not be too late to get into the 2021 edition.

Taking the government to court

It is clear that the wars over PCR tests are hotting up, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. A new organisation in the UK, calling itself PCR Claims, has been set up to challenge in the courts the British government’s handling of PCR testing for Covid-19.

The organisation describes itself as a pro bono network of lawyers, life scientists, and business advisers led by Jo Rogers, a lawyer who runs Navistar Legal.

Rogers told RT.com: “The intention is to expose the controversy of the inappropriate use of PCR in the context of pillar 2 community testing and private sector lighthouse labs.

“PCR was not designed for mass testing because of the sensitivity and risk of contamination. There are serious flaws in many of the protocols employed, which were hurriedly put together, some without peer review. The operational false positive rate is unknown and therefore every positive test could be false, unless accompanied by clinical examination.”

As an example of errors with PCR, the group points to a recent case from Cambridge University. “Our first priority is to gather evidence of the harms from restrictions to life whose policies were driven by PCR test modelling and/or ‘case’ results,” Rogers said. “We believe the cases are a pseudo epidemic, as seen in other places around the world using PCR testing.

“Legal action is progressing and further instances will follow as we receive the evidence of harms. The gathering of that evidence is ongoing nationwide, as well as our raising awareness of errors and negligence.”

As someone who shares their deep concerns over these PCR tests, this is good news. At last, there is somewhere to go for expert legal counsel on the government’s persecution of free-born citizens. And thank heavens also for the stellar work of the entire peer review team for holding this bad science to account. If indeed it is retracted, it will be a major victory for those of us who can see through what Dr Mike Yeadon, one of the paper’s debunkers, rightly calls a “false positive pseudo-epidemic.”

Professor Perronne and the Vaccine: “We Do Not Want to Become, Like Tomatoes or Corn Transgenic GMOs ”

BY PUTSCH, DECEMBER 2, 2020. — Translated from French

Letter from Christian Perronne, head of the infectious and Tropical Diseases Department of the Garches Hospital (92) – France.

Dear Friends,

France, which has been living a nightmare for months, is waking up. In many cities of our beautiful country, the people are marching to regain their freedom, to demand the return of democracy. As a physician, a specialist in infectious diseases, and having served as president of many public health bodies or councils, including on vaccines, every day I measure the uncertainties generating the growing fear and dismay of our fellow citizens.

“I take the risk of being called a “conspiracy theorist” or better, “covidiot,” again, terms referring to those who criticize or challenge the Party line”

I take the risk of being called a “conspiracy theorist” or better, “covidiot,” again, terms referring to those who criticize or challenge the Party line. I’ve ended up being proud of these names, as my words expressing the truth have never changed since the outbreak began. I therefore consider it my responsibility to express myself again today on the entire medical aspect of Covid-19 and in particular on the subject of vaccination, now the central and almost the sole element of the state’s health policy.

Many French people have been mesmerized by the politics of fear. Since September 2020, we have been warned there would be a second terrible wave of the epidemic, worse than the first. The Minister of Health, Dr Olivier Véran, the president of the Scientific Council of the Elysée, Professor Jean François Delfraissy, the Director General of Health, Professor Jérôme Salomon, the Institut Pasteur, have all predicted catastrophic figures with an exponential increase in the number of deaths. Hospitals were bound to be overcrowded and overwhelmed.

Even the president of the Republic, during a recent televised address announcing the new lockdown, predicted no fewer than 400,000 deaths, adding to the 200,000 deaths estimated shortly before by Pr. Arnaud Fontanet de Pasteur. These unrealistic figures had only one purpose, to stoke the public’s fear in order to keep us confined, wisely masked. Yet the widespread use of masks in the general population has not been scientifically demonstrated to be of any value in curbing the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. The people who should wear masks are those who are ill and the people who are close to them, in contact with them (especially if they are at risk themselves), and caregivers.

“Even the president of the Republic, during a recent televised address announcing the new lockdown, predicted no fewer than 400,000 deaths, adding to the 200,000 deaths estimated shortly before by Pr. Arnaud Fontanet de Pasteur. These unrealistic figures had only one purpose, to stoke the public’s fear in order to keep us confined, wisely masked.”

But the epidemic is waning and has not led to any apocalypse. For weeks, the shape of the curve has followed the typical profile of a seasonal epidemic rebound that is observed with certain viruses, once the real epidemic wave is over. This testifies to the adaptation of the virus to humans and it also reflects the collective immunity that is growing in the population and that protects us naturally.

The virus strains that are currently circulating have lost their virulence. The authorities cannot claim that this is thanks to the lockdown, because the downward trend had already begun, even before it was put in place. The epidemic had already begun to ebb in some towns before the curfew was even introduced.

Unfortunately, there are still deaths occuring among the very old, the very obese, or people with severe diabetes, severe high blood pressure, or already disabling cardiorespiratory or kidney diseases. These people who are at risk are readily identified. Health measures should therefore be aimed at protecting, screening and treating them as early as possible from the onset of symptoms, with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, whose efficacy and safety are widely confirmed when treatment is given early.

Many deaths could have been prevented. GPs and geriatricians have been discouraged from providing treatment. Considering this, continuing to persecute our children by making them wear masks is simply incomprehensible.

All these measures have been taken in oreder to make the French people demand a vaccine. But what is the benefit of a generalized vaccine for a disease whose mortality is close to 0.05%? None. This mass vaccination is useless. In addition, the risks of vaccination may be greater than the benefits.

The most worrisome thing is that many countries, including France, say they are ready to start vaccinating in the coming weeks, while these products have been developed and evaluated very hastily, and to date, no results have been published showing how effective – or dangerous – these vaccines are. We’ve only been shown the press releases from industrial manufacturers, who have seen their shares soar on the stock exchange.

“The first ‘vaccines’ we are being offered are not vaccines, but gene therapy products. We’re going to inject nucleic acids that will cause our own cells to make elements of the virus”

The worst thing is that the first “vaccines” we are being offered are not vaccines, but gene therapy products. We’re going to inject nucleic acids that will cause our own cells to make elements of the virus. We absolutely do not know the consequences of this injection, because it is a first in humans. What if the cells of some of the people who get “vaccinated” produce too many viral elements, causing uncontrollable reactions in our body ?

The first gene therapies will be RNA, but there are projects in the works using DNA. Normally, in our cells, the message is from DNA to RNA, but the reverse is possible under certain circumstances. Since the dawn of time our human cells have contained so-called “endogenous” retroviruses integrated into the DNA of our chromosomes. These “domesticated” retroviruses that inhabit us are usually harmless (unlike HIV, AIDS retroviruses for example), but they can produce an enzyme, reverse transcriptase, that is able to reverse transcribe RNA into DNA.

So an RNA that is foreign to our body and administered by injection could code for DNA that is just as foreign, which can then integrate into our chromosomes. There is a real risk of transforming our genes permanently. There is also the possibility, through the modification of the nucleic acids of our eggs or spermatozoa, to transmit these genetic modifications to our children. The people who promote these gene therapies, falsely called “vaccines,” are sorcerer’s apprentices and are treating the French (and more generally the citizens of the world) like guinea pigs.

“The people who promote these gene therapies, falsely called “vaccines,” are sorcerer’s apprentices and are treating the French (and more generally the citizens of the world) like guinea pigs”

We do not want to become transgenic GMOs (genetically modified organisms), like tomatoes or corn. A medical official at one of the pharmaceutical manufacturers said a few days ago that he hoped for an individual protective effect, but that one should not expect to see too much impact on the transmission of the virus, and therefore on the dynamics of the epidemic. This is a disguised admission that it is not a vaccine. This is a very serious matter.

I am all the more horrified, given that I have always been in favor of vaccines and I have chaired vaccine policy forums for years. Today we must say stop to this extremely disturbing plan. Louis Pasteur must be spinning in his grave.

Science, medical ethics and above all common sense must regain the upper hand.

Christian PERRONNE

Coronavirus Lockdown, Save the Earth Mantra ? – No, It’s a Cover for Peak Oil

bY SRSROCCO via SRSROCCO REPORT

According to the Washington Post article published yesterday, Denmark was the first major oil-producing country to announce a deadline to end oil extraction. While this may sound like a “Victory” for the Green Energy Movement, there’s a catch. While Denmark announced that it would end all oil extraction by 2050, the country will likely run out of oil reserves well before that date.

I find this quite hilarious because all anyone has to do is look at a bit of data, and you can find out that Denmark’s oil-producing days are quickly coming to an end… WITH OR WITHOUT GREEN ENERGY.

The Washington Post article titled, Denmark becomes first major oil-producing nation to set deadline to end extraction, stated the following:

The decision was applauded by some environmental activists, with Greenpeace celebrating it as a “watershed moment,” although other groups had hoped for a faster timeline.

Denmark’s new rules mean companies will be barred from receiving new licenses to search for and extract oil and gas resources. Previously issued licenses will remain valid until 2050.

Denmark is the top oil producer in the European Union, but it has come under mounting pressure as the E.U. aims to become carbon-neutral within the next 30 years.

“It’s a historic decision for Denmark,” Dan Jørgensen, the Danish climate and energy minister, told The Washington Post in an interview Friday.

Please note the BOLDED text in the quote from the article above. What a laugh indeed. “The decision was applauded by some environmental activists??” Are you kidding me?? Even Greenpeace celebrated it as a “WATERSHED MOMENT.” Listen, I really admire some of the work being done by Greenpeace, but this is pure BOLLOCKS.

And what is even more hilarious is the Danish climate and energy minister, stating that it was a “HISTORIC DECISION.” Seriously, what are these leaders smoking nowadays? This is nothing more but worthless political pandering.

Why? Let’s look at the data. First, here is Denmark’s oil production from 2005 to Aug 2020.

In 2005, Denmark was producing 380,000 barrels per day (bd), but it was down to 68,000 bd in August of this year. Part of the decline could be covid related, but as we can see, production has been steadily declining. While Denmark’s oil consumption has also been declining, the country became a net importer in 2015, if we look at the chart below.

In 2015, Denmark produced 158,000 bd but consumed 161,000 bd. In August this year, Denmark was a net importer of 80,000 bd (148,000-68,000 bd). What else can we take away from this besides the Denmark energy and climate minister being totally disingenuous in looking at this data? I tweeted about this yesterday:

And, if we go by the 2020 BP Statistical Review, Denmark’s total oil reserves are about 400 million barrels. Thus, if Denmark produces 100,000 bd, that equals about 36 million barrels in a year. This means the 400 million barrels of reserves may last 12-13 years. If production declines, they might be able to stretch it to 2050… RIGHT WHEN THEY PLAN TO EXIT ALL OIL EXTRACTION… LOL.

Again… SERIOUSLY, you can’t make this SHYTE up.

Lastly, I am all for doing what’s best for the planet, humans, animals, and the climate. However, the GREEN MOVEMENT is a total joke. It’s not doing anything to fix the problems that it says it wants to fix. Actually, the GREEN ENERGY movement is doing more harm than good.

The US Air Force’s Research Lab is Testing SignalFrame

Authored by Jack Rasmus via Counterpunch.org,

If you’re worried about the capability of government to conduct surveillance of citizens engaged in political assembly and protest, or even just personal activity, then you should be aware the technological capability of government surveillance is about to expand exponentially.

The US Air Force’s Research Lab (yes, it has its own lab) has recently signed a contract to test new software of a company called SignalFrame, a Washington DC wireless tech company. The company’s new software is able to access smartphones, and from your phone jump off to access any other wireless or bluetooth device in the near vicinity. To quote from the article today in the Wall St. Journal, the smartphone is used “as a window onto usage of hundreds of millions of computers,s routers, fitness trackers, modern automobiles and other networked devices, known collectively as the ‘Internet of Things’.”

Your smartphone in effect becomes a government listening device that detects and accesses all nearby wireless or bluetooth devices, or anything that has a MAC address for that matter. How ‘near’ is nearby is not revealed by the company, or the Air Force, both of which refused to comment on the Wall St. Journal story. But with the expansion of 5G wireless, it should be assumed it’s more than just a couple steps from your smartphone.

One can imagine some scary scenarios with this capability in the hands of government snoops:

  • Not only would the government know your geographical location via the GPS signal to your cellphone. They’d know what you are doing. And with whom.
  • A political gathering would allow them to see all the owners of other cellphones in the vicinity of a protest or demonstration. How many are gathering at a particular street or location. The direction they might be heading. Or whether there’s an organization meeting in a hall or room and who (with a cellphone as well) might be attending.
  • If you’re driving on a winding coastal or mountain road, it would know, and could possibly access, your car’s various electronic systems to turn them off. It might access your car’s circuit board that governs your power steering when you’re driving in an area of winding roads. Or it might be able to just shut down your car’s electrical system and remotely lock all your doors. The police no longer have to engage in highway chases until capture.
  • The new tech would allow the government to access the data on your fitbit device while you’re jogging. Or worse, maybe even interfere with the signal on your heart pacemaker device.
  • The technology might be used to access your smartphone, and from there to turn on your home Alexa device to listen in and record conversations without you ever knowing. Or to listen in on your zoom conferencing on your laptop. Or maybe even worse, to shut down or bypass the safety features on your home furnace equipment. Or turn off your home security system.
  • And with 5G wireless broadband, the tracking might be extended well beyond the range of a bluetooth device. Add 5G broadband wireless to SignalFrame’s technology, and then wed that to the capability of machine learning and artificial intelligence, and you get instant processing of a massive amount of data on any targeted person or gathering!

This problem of government surveillance on free citizen activity is not new. It took a giant leap after 9-11 with the Patriot Act and acquisition of phone data by Homeland Security and other government agencies. It was supposed to have stopped. But it hasn’t. The snoops have continued to ignore Congressional resolutions and court decisions on privacy invasion of citizens. The latest Air Force lab testing is likely just a recent ‘tip of the iceberg’ revelation. And if the Air Force is doing it, be assured so are the Army, Navy, the NSA, CIA, FBI and all the other government snoops.

Certainly this kind of technology would be used not only by the US government. If the USA has it, you can bet other governments do too–especially China, Russia, Israel, and probably some of the Europeans as well.

Unlike in 2001, in 2020 SignalFrame’s technology takes government surveillance to a new level–given the ubiquity of smartphones, Internet of Things (IOT) devices, digital circuit board dependent autos, and all the many household devices now with MAC wireless access addresses. And now, unlike circa 2001 and the passage of the Patriot Act (and its continuation in annual NDAA legislation), we have AI, machine learning, neural nets everywhere, and massive government data processing power.

In short, Technology is becoming a growing tool and power in the hands of governments, to use to thwart democratic and constitutional rights–as well as to detect, apprehend, and ‘deal with’ those who protest and oppose those governments.

Ex-Pfizer Exec Demands EU Halt COVID-19 Vaccine Studies Over ‘Indefinite Infertility’ And Other Health Concerns

via Zerohedge

Former Pfizer vice president and scientific director Dr. Michael Yeadon and German lung specialist and parliamentarian Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg have filed an urgent application with the European Medicine Agency calling for the immediate suspension of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccine studies – particularly the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).

Yeadon and Wodarg say the studies should be halted until a design study is available which addresses a host of serious safety concerns expressed by a growing body of renowned scientists who are skeptical of how quickly the vaccines are being developed, according to Germany’s 2020 News.

On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se. –2020 News

The pair also point to concerns raised in previous studies involving other coronaviruses – including (via 2020 News):

  • The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
  • The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
  • The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
  • The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.

Wodarg Yeadon EMA Petition Pfizer Trial FINAL 01DEC2020 en Unsigned With Exhibits by Zerohedge Janitor on Scribd

Dr. Yeadon made headlines last month when he said “There is no science to suggest a second wave should happen,” and that false positive results from inherently flawed COVID-19 tests are being used to ‘manufacture’ a second wave.

As Ralph Lopez write at HubPages, Yeadon warns that half or even “almost all” of tests for COVID are false positives. Dr. Yeadon also argues that the threshold for herd immunity may be much lower than previously thought, and may have been reached in many countries already.

In an interview last month (see below) Dr. Yeadon was asked:

“we are basing a government policy, an economic policy, a civil liberties policy, in terms of limiting people to six people in a meeting…all based on, what may well be, completely fake data on this coronavirus?”

Dr. Yeadon answered with a simple “yes.”

He then lamented the lives lost as a result of lockdown policies, and of the “savable” countless lives which will be further lost, from important surgeries and other healthcare deferred, should lockdowns be reimposed.

Watch the full discussion below:

Time for a Divorce? The US is so Bitterly Divided Between Red & Blue Factions that Some Want it to Split into Two Nations

by Michael Rectenwald

While my country’s currently the Dis-United States of America, calls for it to be broken up into a Republican-dominated state and a Democrat-dominated one are so radical that it’s difficult to see how it could be implemented.

The US is so bitterly divided that some wonks are calling for a formal split – either into an arrangement giving states more autonomy to govern themselves, or a two-nation solution. Neither will prevail because the pain of remaining ‘together’ is still insufficient.

In the latest issue of its publication The American Mind, the Claremont Institute published a series of articles entitled ‘A House Divided’ – a conversation the conservative think tank says is taking place in private among Americans on both sides of the political divide. Matthew J. Peterson argues in the introduction that a discussion of possible remedies needs to come into the public light so the nation can avoid “serious and sudden shocks to our political and cultural life.” What remedies, you ask? The possibility and desirability of parting ways.

The division in the US seems to have reached an insurmountable impasse. America is divided – culturally, economically, and politically – into two separate tribes. Descriptions of a rankled, bitterly alienated nation are by now a cliché.

According to this view, red America – die-hard Republicans – consists of the mostly rural and suburban, religious, gun-toting, pro-America tribe. This tribe takes pride in America’s past and prizes its cultural and traditional heritage. Its members relish the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. They enjoy high school football and hunting, and proudly display the American flag. They hate ‘socialism’ and ‘communism,’ and prize individual freedom and the system of free enterprise. In the context of the virus, this group embraces risk and autonomy, and despises the orders of governors and mayors for masking, social distancing, and lockdowns. This is Trump’s America: the ‘deplorables’.

The other tribe, blue America – die-hard Democrats – consists of a ‘progressive’, urban, secular, sophisticated coastal elite, along with those who identify with said values and prize the cultural capital that comes with espousing them. Many among this tribe believe America’s history is beyond redemption, marked with stains it nevertheless furiously attempts to expose and then remove by all means necessary. It keeps faith with a technocratic elite and a society administered by an academic, bureaucratic, and medical expert class. It extols collective responsibility and despises red-neck individualism. In the context of the virus, it welcomes universal masking, social distancing, and lockdowns. This is now Biden’s America.

At this point, so the argument goes, the two tribes have little in common and nothing but contempt for each other. The acrimony between blue and red is so intense and thoroughgoing that something must be done – or so argue two of the Claremont Institute’s contributors. (A third suggests the federalism in the Constitution is sufficient to deal with such factionalism).

But these writers, a pseudonymous ‘Rebecca’ and ‘Tom Trenchard’, suggest the tribal differences are irreconcilable. The first calls for a formal “separation” under an enhanced federalism (or more state autonomy). The second suggests that a “divorce” and two-state solution is the only remedy. In any case, a second civil war must be avoided at all costs. It wouldn’t lead to the reunification of the country, as the first did, but would bring only needless violence and further enmity.

In 1845, the Tory statesman and sometime litterateur Benjamin Disraeli published the novel ‘Sibyl, or The Two Nations’, which describes in fictional terms the great polarity then existing within a newly industrialized England: the working classes on the one hand, and the industrial parvenu and old aristocracy on the other. The immiserated state of the working classes, or the Condition of England Question as it was called, was treated by writers of such varying political convictions as the socialist Friedrich Engels, the liberal John Stuart Mill, the great novelist and moderate reformer Charles Dickens, the wistful feudalist Thomas Carlyle, and Disraeli himself, a conservative. The recommendations proffered, depending on the author, included a new noblesse oblige on the part of the wealthy, extended political reform, and socialism.

There are some parallels with our nation today. In modern America, ‘the working classes’ aren’t all poor, although they have less cultural capital. Many own, or have owned, small businesses. They also work in any number of jobs. Yet they are opposed and silenced by the legacy media and internet technocracy and lack the power to resist the national Covid measures likely to be imposed by the incoming Biden administration.

The ‘coastal elites’, on the other hand, aren’t all rich. They include students and former students who’ve accrued enormous student loan debt, activists living incommodiously in groups in family or non-family housing, and the laptop class surviving on piecemeal, occasional freelance gigs under the Uberization of the labor force.

Despite their hatred of the ‘coastal elites’, the supposed ‘country bumpkins’ use the technology, the educational systems, and even the legacy media and social media platforms that treat their values like so much refuse.

Blue America relies on the red for ‘essential services’, including food, housing, industry, and the market that red America represents. They also need red America for propping up their sense of intellectual superiority. Without the supposed contrast provided by red America, blue Americans would have to base their self-esteem on actual accomplishments, which are quite sparse in many cases.

Furthermore, red and blue are not all strictly middle America or coastal. Red and blue live among each other, the former more than a little afraid to voice their opinions for fear of being mobbed by the latter. Some blues work as professors and live in otherwise red college towns. Reds live in urban centers too and some are as ‘educated’ as their blue peers.

So, could the nation irrevocably split into a red heartland and a blue one? It’s unlikely in my view. While the prevailing portrait of two Americas has some merit, it is a caricature that fails to account for the degree to which the two nations intermingle and depend on each other.

Look at the map of how individual counties voted. While Trump won some 2,500 generally sparsely populated ones, and Biden some 500 largely heavily populated ones, there is no easy divide. Even within counties, there are mostly significant minority red or blue factions. The pain of separation would be greater than the discomfort of remaining ‘together’. Thus, these antipathetic twins will remain locked in a loveless, rancorous, and intolerable marriage – for the foreseeable future, at least.