“Chinese Media Coverage, Biowarfare, and My Covid EBook” (Unz):

“Another interesting fact discussed in my new article was the professional background and activities of a certain Robert P. Kadlec. From the late 1990s onward, Kadlec had become one of America’s leading military experts on biological warfare, with his major writings promoting biowarfare as a powerful technique for severely damaging the economy of a geopolitical adversary, but doing so while retaining “plausible deniability” since the diseases could not easily be proven as man-made rather than natural in origin.

After serving as a top biowarfare expert in the Bush Administration, he had more recently been brought back into government as an Assistant Secretary under Trump in 2017. The following year, the Chinese economy began suffering sudden viral epidemics, which severely damaged its important poultry and pork industries, and the Covid virus that mysteriously appeared in Wuhan in late 2019 shared similar characteristics:

[D]uring the previous two years, the Chinese economy had already suffered serious blows from other mysterious new diseases, although these had targeted farm animals rather than people. During 2018 a new Avian Flu virus had swept the country, eliminating large portions of China’s poultry industry, and during 2019 the Swine Flu viral epidemic had devastated China’s pig farms, destroying 40% of the nation’s primary domestic source of meat, with widespread claims that the latter disease was being spread by mysterious small drones…So for three years in a row, China had been severely impacted by strange new viral diseases, though only the most recent had been deadly to humans. This evidence was merely circumstantial, but the pattern seemed highly suspicious.

Furthermore, the particular features of Covid itself seem to fall into this same category. Early last year, we published the perspective of a retired forty-year veteran of American biodefense, who focused on the unusual epidemiological characteristics of the virus, which was extremely contagious but had a low fatality rate of 1% or less. As I summarized his analysis:

One important point he made was that high lethality was often counter-productive in a bioweapon since debilitating or hospitalizing large numbers of individuals may impose far greater economic costs on a country than a biological agent which simply inflicts an equal number of deaths. In his words “a high communicability, low lethality disease is perfect for ruining an economy,” suggesting that the apparent characteristics of the coronavirus were close to optimal in this regard.

According to a long article in the New York Times, from January to August 2019 Kadlec had run an important American simulation-exercise called “Crimson Contagion,” in which a large group of federal and state officials dealt with the consequences of the sudden appearance of a deadly respiratory viral epidemic in China, seeking to protect America from any spread into our own society. And two months after one of America’s leading biowarfare experts had wrapped up that national practice drill, a viral disease of exactly those characteristics suddenly and mysteriously appeared in the city of Wuhan, surely a coincidence that many might find quite troubling.

If a business enterprise in serious financial difficulty suddenly doubles its fire insurance and a couple of months later its main factory burns to the ground, the insurance adjusters would naturally turn a suspicious eye to the circumstances.

We should also hardly be surprised that the Wikipedia page for Kadlec heavily whitewashes his background, making absolutely no mention of his extensive writings on the effectiveness and strategy of offensive biowarfare.”

For what it is worth, the Wikipedia article on Kadlec is basically a list of various forms of wrongdoing, though offing 600,000-1,000,000, and counting, Americans would probably trump all that. WikiSpooks:

“Kadlec is part of a tight-knit group of “bioterror alarmists” in government and the private sector who gained prominence thanks to their eagerness for imagining the most horrific, yet fictitious scenarios that inspired fear among Presidents, top politicians and the American public[6], including Dark Winter and Crimson Contagion. Kadlec’s doomsday speculations about biological weapons attacks soon caught the attention of Randall Larsen, the then-director of the National War College’s Department of Military Strategy and Operations, who hired Kadlec because he “had become convinced that the most serious threat to national security was not Russian or Chinese missiles, but a pandemic.”

In 1995, Kadlec detailed several “illustrative scenarios” regarding the use of “biological economic warfare” against the United States. One of these fictional scenarios, titled “Corn Terrorism,” involves China planning “an act of agricultural terrorism” by clandestinely spraying corn seed blight over the Midwest using commercial airliners. Another scenario, entitled “That’s a ‘Lousy’ Wine,” involves “disgruntled European winemakers” covertly releasing grape lice they have hidden in cans of paté to target California wine producers.”[7]“

“HHS taps Kadlec to run department’s coronavirus response” (Cancryn) (April 2 2020, and already up to the staggering number of six deaths!):

“The new structure comes as the Trump administration races to head off a rapid increase in confirmed cases over the last 48 hours affecting dozens across the country and killing six to date.”

by Edward Slavsquat via Twitter

Good luck, Macron

Smarmy GILF-hunter president Emmanuel Macron is likely begging Klaus Schwab for a new strain of coronavirus (the “please don’t guillotine me” variant) after cities and towns across France rose up on Saturday against his openly degenerate regime. There was much exciting action reported in all corners of the country.

It appears the Resistance has taken over at least one government office. They reportedly even defaced a portrait of their beloved leader:

There was also singing and merrymaking, very important when dismantling Dictatorship:

In Paris, the police fled for their lives upon realizing they were vastly outnumbered:

The humiliated cops retaliated by carpet bombing the city’s main boulevard with tear gas and trotting out the water cannons:

More videos of the rebellion-in-progress below. We expect much more of this. The French will not quietly submit to Macron’s attempt to turn them into QR-coded chattel:

Three quarters of Covid-19 infections in Singapore in the last 4 weeks were among vaccinated individuals. The government has vaccinated nearly 75% of its 5.7 million people. Of the 1,096 locally transmitted cases, 44% were fully vaccinated people, while 30% were partially vaccinated. -Reuters 2021-07-23

In Los Angeles, USA, fully vaccinated people made up 20% of covid cases. -Bloomberg 2021-07-23

Jabbed people travelling by air >4 hours may suffer blood clots. -US CDC warning on its website. ~2021-06

Up to 2021-03-13, European Medicines Agency noted 3,964 reports of deaths and 162,610 of injuries in the subjects of injections with the first 3 experimental jabs. -healthimpactnews.com

The Myth of Asymptomatic Spread. The Wuhan University of Science and Technology carried out screening on nearly 10 million Chinese citizens in Wuhan. Of the 9,865,404 participants without any previous history of COVID-19, a mere 300 were identified as being positive and asymptomatic. 1,174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were tracked and traced. None of them tested positive. -ukcolumn.org 2021-07-02

There were a total of 463,457 reports of adverse events from “covid vaccines”, including 10,991 deaths and 48,385 serious injuries from 2020-12-14 and 2020-07-09. -US CDC (VAERS) 2021-07-16

US CDC reported that for ~10,000 reports of the fully vaccinated getting infected, 27% were asymptomatic, 61% were mildly ill, 10% were hospitalised and 2% died. It has since stopped accepting reports of such asymptomatic cases. -off-guardian.org 2021-05-26

In Israel, about half of the 46 patients hospitalised in serious condition as of early July were vaccinated. -Reuters 2021-07-23

Notes: This does not cover (a) the falling ages of the victims (b) those victimised by extended contact with the jabbed (c) victms of flu/pneumonia which may be what covid is. The many banned and derided modern and traditional treatments that address the illness in the victims, regardless of what it really is.

Conclusion: Based on the statistics there is no reason to think there’s any need to treat an exotic disease with special medicine. Those testing positive with a PCR test and subsequently dying, or those testing positive post mortem, both regardless of actual cause of death, are very frail, elderly people.

By Megan Redshaw via Childrens Health Defense

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) filed a motion July 19, seeking immediate injunctive relief in Alabama Federal District Court to stop the use of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID vaccines — Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) — for three groups of Americans.

According to a press release, AFLDS is asking to immediately stop administration of experimentalCOVID vaccines in anyone 18 and younger, all those who have recovered from COVID and acquired natural immunity, and every other American who has not received informed consent as defined by federal law.

The 67-page motion requests the judge issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to § 360bbb–3(b)(1)(C) for the following reasons:

• There is no emergency, which is a prerequisite to issuing EUA and EUA renewals for COVID vaccines.
• There is “no serious or life-threatening disease or condition.”
• Vaccines do not diagnose, treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2 or COVID.
• Known and potential risks of the vaccine outweigh their known and potential benefits.
• There are adequate, approved and available alternatives to vaccines.
• Healthcare professionals and vaccine candidates are not adequately informed.

The authors of the motion attached a declaration by a whistleblower who came forward alleging deaths occurring within 72 hours of receiving a COVID vaccine are significantly under-reported in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

As of July 9, reported deaths in the VAERS totaled 10,991. Of those, 4,593 occurred within 72-hours of vaccination.

The whistleblower — a computer programmer who developed more than 100 distinct healthcare fraud algorithms, and who has expertise in healthcare data analytics that allows her to access Medicare and Medicaid data obtained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Systems (CMS) — filed a sworn statement under penalty of perjury alleging the actual number of COVID vaccine-related deaths is closer to 45,000.

The whistleblower alleged that VAERS, while extremely useful, is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least five.

In her statement, she said:

“On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS. I verified these numbers by collating all of the data from VAERS myself, not relying on a third party to report them. In tandem, I queried data from CMS medical claims with regard to vaccines and patient deaths, and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000. Put in perspective, the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market which only resulted in 53 deaths.”

AFLDS said the findings were shocking, and informed consent is impossible when safety data is not accurate.

In a press release, AFLDS said:

“It is unlawful and unconstitutional to administer experimental agents to individuals who cannot make an informed decision as to the true benefits and risks to the vaccine on an independent basis. They must be of an age or a capacity to make informed decisions and have been provided with all of the risk/benefit information necessary to make an informed decision.”

One of the named plaintiffs, Deborah Sobczak, the mother of a 15- and 17-year-old, said in the press release:

“My child will not be the subject of an experiment. What kind of monsters are we allowing to control us? Perfectly healthy children have developed heart inflammation, brain bleeding and even died! I have had enough. I am not sacrificing my child so a pharmaceutical company can experiment on her. This madness has to stop.”

There is no emergency warranting EUA of COVID vaccines, plaintiffs allege

According to the complaint, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, named as one of the defendants in the lawsuit, declared on Feb. 4, 2020, pursuant to § 360bbb–3(b)(1)(C), that SARS-CoV-2 created a “public health emergency.”

This initial emergency declaration has been renewed repeatedly and remains in force today — a necessary legal prerequisite for the issuance of vaccine EUAs, the complaint states. EUA allowed the mass use of the vaccines by the American public before the completion of the standard regimen of clinical trials and FDA approval.

Plaintiffs allege the emergency declaration and its multiple renewals are illegal because there is no underlying emergency. Using HHS COVID death data, SARS CoV-2 has an overall survivability rate of 99.8% globally, which increases to 99.97% for persons under the age of 70. This is consistent with the seasonal flu, the complaint states.

Plaintiffs argue HHS deliberately inflated COVID case data

Plaintiffs allege HHS’ data is deliberately inflated. On March 24, 2020, HHS changed the rules applicable to coroners and others responsible for producing death certificates and making “cause of death” determinations exclusively for COVID.

The rule change states: “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”

According to the complaint, HHS statistics showed 95% of deaths classified as “COVID-19 deaths” involved an average of four additional comorbidities. Plaintiffs claim the CDC knew the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death would result in COVID being the underlying cause more often than not.

Plaintiffs said the actual number of COVID cases is also far lower than the reported number due to emergency use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, which are used as a diagnostic tool for COVID. The PCR tests are themselves experimental products, authorized by the FDA under separate EUAs. The package inserts state PCR tests should not be used to diagnose COVID.

The complaint alleges the way in which the PCR tests are being administered knowingly guarantees an unacceptably high number of false positive results.

COVID vaccine risks undisclosed and under-reported, lawsuit says

AFLDS medico-legal researchers analyzed the accumulated COVID vaccine risk data and found migration of the pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the body. Yet vaccines were authorized without any studies demonstrating where the spike proteins traveled in the body following vaccination, how long they remain active and what effect they have, the complaint states.

AFLDS researchers analyzed VAERS and discovered an increased risk of death from COVID vaccines. The database indicated vaccine deaths in the first quarter of 2021 represented a 12,000% to 25,000% increase in vaccine deaths, year-on-year.

From 2009 to 2019, there were 1529 reported deaths associated with all vaccines reported to VAERS, according to the motion. In the first quarter of 2021, there were more than 4,000 reported deaths with 99% of all reported vaccine deaths in 2021 attributed to the COVID vaccine. Only 1% were attributed to other vaccines in the system.

Plaintiffs also disclosed evidence of reproductive harm, vascular disease, autoimmune disease, neurological damage and they highlighted an increased risk of harm for children with COVID vaccines to support their position.

Why the secrecy around V-Safe data?

The complaint called attention to the secrecy of the CDC’s V-Safe system — a parallel system used to track reported adverse events via a smartphone app controlled exclusively by the CDC.

Plaintiffs raised concerns that information in V-Safe exceeds that in VAERS. They claim VAERS is inaccurate because it potentially includes fewer than 1% of all vaccine adverse events, and the federal government is failing to provide data from other monitoring sources such as V-Safe, CMS and the military.

Plaintiffs stated informed consent cannot be given without understanding the risks. They said they can’t help but wonder why HHS would fail to disclose to the public critical information related to risk from it’s reporting systems, “particularly in light of the fact that they have had the time and resources to study and extend the authorizations on the vaccines, build an enormous vaccine marketing machine and roll out vaccine clinics all over the nation.”

The lawsuit was filed by several law firms, including RENZ Law. The complaint and whistleblower declaration can be read here.

Megan Redshaw

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) is asking federal prosecutors to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci accountable for allegedly perjuring himself in congressional testimony over funding research that made an animal virus transmissible to humans.

“I will be sending a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) asking for a criminal referral because he has lied to Congress,” Paul said on Tuesday night in a Fox News interview.

The statement came hours after Paul sparred with Fauci, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, in a fiery Senate hearing over the Covid-19 pandemic. Fauci denied lying to Congress when he testified in May that the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) never funded so-called gain-of-function virus research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

Paul cited a paper by a Wuhan scientist on research into bat coronaviruses, funded by the NIH, and noted that it had been reviewed by MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt, who concluded that “certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function.”

Fauci reiterated that the research wasn’t gain-of-function, as the NIH has also claimed, and told Paul, “You do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly, and I want to say that officially.” He went on to accuse the senator of lying, saying Paul was suggesting that the NIH-funded research created Covid-19. Paul argued that Fauci was creating a straw man, repeatedly pointing out that he wasn’t saying the viruses in question caused the pandemic. 

Lying to Congress is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Referrals to the DOJ by members of Congress are non-binding and often lead to nothing. Paul argued that there’s no question that the research in question is the epitome of gain-of-function.

“We have scientists that will line up by the dozens to say that the research he was funding was gain-of-function,” the senator told Fox. “He’s doing this because he has a self-interest to cover his tracks and to cover his connection to Wuhan lab.” He added that regardless of whether it’s proven that Covid-19 originated in the Wuhan lab, Fauci is “lying about whether or not he funded gain-of-function research, and yes, he should be punished.”

Richard Grenell, former acting director of national intelligence in the Trump administration, was among those convinced of Fauci’s guilt, posting a video of Fauci’s hand shaking as he was being grilled by Paul. “He’s been outed,” Grenell said. “Dr. Fauci has no credibility. He’s imploded, and he has made the situation worse.”

Fauci has been portrayed as a hero of the pandemic by Democrat politicians and mainstream media outlets, despite flip-flopping on mask-wearing guidelines and other recommendations. Paul noted that Fauci controls billions of dollars in research funding, and claimed scientists are afraid to say anything critical of him.

“People are deathly afraid of him,” Paul told Fox. “Researchers won’t cross him. To cross him means it’s the last money you’ll ever get.”

He suggested, too, that Fauci is obfuscating the nature of the work done at the Wuhan lab to escape responsibility for his role in such research and for previously defending gain-of-function by saying the knowledge gained is worth the risk of causing a pandemic, which he argued would be unlikely.

“That’s just a terrible judgment, and we shouldn’t leave the future of mankind to one bureaucrat,” Paul told podcast host Brad Polumbo. 

By Justin Stoneman via Telegraph

Standard face coverings are just “comfort blankets” that do little to reduce the spread of Covid particles, a scientist advising Sage on ventilation has said.

Dr Colin Axon, who has advised the government on minimising the risk of cross-infection in supermarkets, accused medics of presenting a “cartoonish” view of how how tiny particles travel through the air.

He warned some cloth masks have gaps which are invisible to the naked eye, but are 500,000 times the size of viral Covid particles.

“The small sizes are not easily understood but an imperfect analogy would be to imagine marbles fired at builders’ scaffolding, some might hit a pole and rebound, but obviously most will fly through,” he told The Telegraph.

The mask debate has been reignited this week after the Government published ‘Freedom Day’ guidance recommending their continued use. It led to Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, enforcing their continued use on the London Underground.

Dr Axon said the public need to be offered a wider view of the science behind face masks, rather than the “partial view” of information being pushed by medics over their effectiveness.

‘Medics have a cartoonish view of how the world is’

“Medics have this cartoonised view of how particles move through the air – it’s not their fault, it’s not their domain – they’ve got a cartoonish view of how the world is,” he said.

“Once a particle is not on a biological surface it is no longer a biomedical issue, it is simply about physics. The public has only a partial view of the story if information only comes from one type of source. Medics have some of the answers but not a whole view.”

Dr Axon, Brunel University’s senior lecturer in engineering, said that the true mechanisms involved are best evaluated through science.

“When the particle enters another body it returns to a biomedical issue but the mask debate is about the particle journey,” he said.

“Masks can catch droplets and sputum from a cough but what is important is that SARS CoV-2 is predominantly distributed by tiny aerosols.”

Passengers wear face masks on a platform at Canning Town underground station in London

Dr Axon said that medics were “unable to comprehend” the miniscule elements at play, adding: “A Covid viral particle is around 100 nanometres, material gaps in blue surgical masks are up to 1,000 times that size, cloth mask gaps can be 500,000 times the size.”

Dr Axon, whose report on ventilation in supermarkets was used by both Nervtag and Sage to aid decisions, says that medics “cannot have it both ways” over asymptomatic spread.

He added: “Not everyone carrying Covid is coughing, but they are still breathing, those aerosols escape masks and will render the mask ineffective.”

Droplets from coughs are much larger, and more likely to be stopped by a properly used mask, Dr Axon says. An Oxford study last summer concluded that masks were “effective” in reducing the spread of the virus.

‘We are entrenching bad behaviour’

However, other studies have cast doubt on their effectiveness. A subsequent Danish study involving 6,000 people concluded that there was no statistical difference in infection spread in non-wearers, while data on US states with non-mandated usage failed to show a correlated uptick in cases.

“The public were demanding something must be done, they got masks, it is just a comfort blanket,” Dr Axon noted. “But now it is entrenched, and we are entrenching bad behaviour.

“All around the world you can look at mask mandates and superimpose on infection rates, you cannot see that mask mandates made any effect whatsoever.

“The best thing you can say about any mask is that any positive effect they do have is too small to be measured.”

by Sebastian Rushworth MD via: Sebastian Rushworth M.D

One of the strangest things about the last few months on planet Earth has been the relentless drive to vaccinate everyone, regardless of what their individual risk from the virus is, and whether or not they’ve already had the disease.

It was well known long before covid came along that people who have had an infection are usually at least as well protected as those who get vaccinated.

The whole point of vaccination is, after all, to mimic infection so as to stimulate immunity. If you’ve had measles, you don’t need to take the measles vaccine. If you’ve had hepatitis A, you don’t need to take the hepatitis A vaccine. If you’ve had chickenpox, you don’t need to take the chickenpox vaccine. Yet if you’ve had covid, you should supposedly still take the covid vaccine. Strange.

The obsession with vaccinating everyone is particularly odd in a situation where access to vaccines is limited and the stated goal is to reach herd immunity as quickly as possible, since wasting time vaccinating people who have already had the infection will inevitably delay the time it takes for a population to reach herd immunity.

Yet many people who should know better have been happy to play along with the “everyone needs to be vaccinated” mantra, in spite of the fact that it runs counter to the stated goal of governments and public health agencies. Many doctors had covid during 2020, yet they were more than happy to stand at the front of the line and take the vaccine in late 2020 and early 2021, even though they knew (or should have known) that they were almost certainly already maximally protected from the virus, and that taking the vaccine would inevitably mean a delay in vaccination of those who had not yet had the infection.

A few months back I wrote about a study, published in The Lancet in April, that showed a 93% decreased risk of re-infection in people who had already had covid. That would make prior infection equivalent to the most effective vaccines, in terms of its ability to protect against covid (which is as we would expect).

For those who remain unconvinced that prior infection is at least equivalent to vaccination, however, a very interesting study was recently posted on MedRxiv. This was a retrospective cohort study of the 52,238 employees of the Cleveland Clinic, who were followed from December 16th 2020 (when the Cleveland Clinic started vaccinating its staff) until May 15th 2021. The objective of the study was to compare the relative rates of infection between four groups of employees: Thos who had had covid and been vaccinated, those who had had covid but not yet been vaccinated, those who had not had covid but had been vaccinated, and those who had neither had covid nor been vaccinated.

A PCR test was used to diagnose covid in the study. The Cleveland Clinic was not engaging in any screening of asymptomatic staff during the study period, so tests were in almost all cases carried out when participants developed symptoms suggestive of covid. In other words, the method used to diagnose covid in this study was equivalent to the method used in most other studies, and also the method that is used in the real world.

So, what were the results?

There were 2,139 new covid infections among the 52,238 participants. In other words, 4.1% of the participants in the study developed covid during the five month period. 99.3% of these infections were among participants who had neither had covid nor been vaccinated. The remaining 0,7% were among participants who hadn’t had covid but had been vaccinated.

2,579 participants had already had covid at the start of the study. Not a single one of them developed covid during the five month period. This includes both the 1,229 with prior infection who were vaccinated, and the 1,359 who weren’t. What that means is that prior infection was associated with a 100% reduction in the relative risk of infection. That was true regardless of whether the person with prior infection was vaccinated or not. Vaccination did not provide any additional benefit to those who had already had covid.

What can we conclude?

Prior infection is highly effective at protecting against covid. There is thus no need for people who have already had covid to get vaccinated. When governments do vaccinate people who have already had covid, they are wasting taxpayers money and putting people at risk of side effects for no good reason.