COVID-Vaccinated Can ‘Shed’ Spike Protein, Harming Unvaccinated

America’s Frontline Doctors: COVID-vaccinated can ‘shed’ spike protein, harming unvaccinated

As these experimental vaccines create ‘spike proteins,’ vaccinated individuals ‘can shed some of these particles to close contacts’ causing disease in them, including in children.

By Patrick Delaney

 

LOS ANGELES, California, May 3, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In their latest issue brief, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) warned how spike proteins resulting from experimental COVID-19 gene therapy vaccines have the capacity to 1.) pass through the “blood-brain barrier” causing neurological damage, 2.) be “shed” by the vaccinated, bringing about sickness in unvaccinated children and adults, and 3.) cause irregular vaginal bleeding in women.

Released last week and titled “Identifying Post-vaccination Complications & Their Causes: an Analysis of Covid-19 Patient Data,” the stated purpose of the document is “to provide additional information for concerned citizens, health experts, and policymakers about adverse events and other post-vaccination issues resulting from the three experimental COVID-19 vaccines currently administered under EUA (emergency use authorization)” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The non-profit organization highlighted the thousands of adverse events which are related to these “vaccines” and captured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). “Yet these complications have received a fraction of the attention paid to J&J’s blood-clotting controversy,” they lamented with dismay, asking, “Why?”

In taking a closer look at this data, AFLDS presents “some major categories of concern as-yet publicly unaddressed by either the FDA or CDC,” asserting that failure of these regulators “to consider these and other ‘known unknowns’ is a dereliction of basic medical research.”

They breakout their general categories of concern as shown below:

First, there are significant fears regarding the wide distribution of these new vaccines, which employ a new technology and remain only experimental without full approval from the FDA. Instead of employing an attenuated antigen response – as happens with conventional vaccines – these experimental agents introduce something called a “spike protein” into one’s system.

“It takes years to be sure something new is safe,” the AFLDS document confirms. “No one knows definitively the long-term health implications for the body and brain, especially among the young, related to this spike protein. In addition, if documented problems with the protein do arise, there will never be any way to reverse the adverse effects in those already vaccinated.”

Second, unlike conventional vaccines, these spike proteins, along with “lipid nanoparticles” have the capacity to pass through the “blood-brain barrier” which provides special protection for these sensitive areas of the body.

“There simply has not been enough time to know what brain problems and how often a brain problem will develop from that,” the document warns.

Risks from such penetration include “chronic inflammation and thrombosis (clotting) in the neurological system, contributing to tremors, chronic lethargy, stroke, Bell’s Palsy and ALS-type symptoms. The lipid nanoparticles can potentially fuse with brain cells, resulting in delayed neuro-degenerative disease. And the mRNA-induced spike protein can bind to brain tissue 10 to 20 times stronger than the spike proteins that are (naturally) part of the original virus.”

Third, as these experimental vaccines produce many trillions of spike proteins in their recipients, these vaccinated individuals “can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts,” causing disease in them.

In an email correspondence with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Simone Gold, the founder of AFLDS, directed this writer to an April 29 tweet where she posted a document from Pfizer’s experimental trials in which the pharmaceutical giant “acknowledges this mechanism” of potential shedding, she wrote. 

As the document states, one can be “exposed to [the] study intervention due to environmental exposure,” including “by inhalation or skin contact” with someone involved in the study, or with another who has been exposed in the same way.

And this, according to AFLDS, can be dangerous. As the issues brief continues, “the spike proteins are pathogenic (‘disease causing’) just like the full virus.” Furthermore, these “spike proteins bind more tightly than the fully intact virus” and thus cases around the world of “pericarditis, shingles, pneumonia, blood clots in the extremities and brain, Bell’s Palsy, vaginal bleeding and miscarriages have been reported in persons who are near persons who have been vaccinated.” Such shedding also “appears to be causing wide variety of autoimmune disease (where the body attacks its own tissue) in some persons.”

In addition, other more serious dangers to even the unvaccinated are possible due to the fact that these “spike proteins can cross the blood brain barrier, unlike traditional vaccines.”

Fourth, such shedding leaves children vulnerable if they are in proximity to parents and teachers who have received these experimental vaccines. While the threat of COVID-19 to the young is rightly described as “irrelevant,” including a 99.997% survival rate for those under 20 years of age, AFLDS is concerned some children may become symptomatic due to such proximity to the vaccinated. At such point there is a danger that “public health bureaucrats” might use such cases to “speculate that a child’s illness is related to a SARS-CoV-2 ‘variant,’” when it is a result of contact with vaccinated adults.

“Our other concern is that children could develop long-term chronic autoimmune disease including neurological problems due to the fact that children have decades ahead of them and trillions of the spike proteins mentioned above.”

Fifth, “AFLDS is aware of thousands of reports involving vaginal bleeding, post-menopausal vaginal bleeding, and miscarriages following COVID-19 vaccination as well as anecdotal reports of similar adverse events among those in close contact with the vaccinated.” While at this point the independent physicians organization “cannot comment definitively on the close contacts” other than to mention they “have heard reports of this worldwide,” the many reported incidents of post-vaccination vaginal bleeding establishes a clear “connection between the vaccine and irregular bleeding.”

“Despite this clear-cut evidence, menstrual-cycle changes were not listed among the FDA’s common side effects in its phase-three clinical participants. Women’s reproductive health needs to be taken seriously rather than waved away by agenda-driven public health officials,” the brief reads.

Finally, acknowledging the “irrepressible economic incentive among pharmaceutical companies” to market unnecessary and dangerous childhood COVID vaccinesboosters, and the like, AFLDS insists “Public health experts should stop and assess data on possible vaccine side effects and related post-vaccination questions before it is too late.”

 

Systemically Flawed Mortality Statistics Should Not Be Guiding Science, Medicine or Public Policy

Systemically Flawed mortality statistics should not be guiding science, medicine or public policy

An evidence based position presented by a former death certificate clerk
By Joy Fritz

In An article published on LifeSiteNews:

“Being a former death certificate clerk, and having spent nearly 7 years in the funeral home industry ushering thousands of death certificates from digital creation to final registration, I am appalled that death certificate data is codified for use as our national mortality statistics. Aside from some basic demographic tracking of age, place and gender of the deceased, using death certificates for anything beyond closing bank accounts is a disservice to society.

With the rare exception of a medical certifier that has independently chosen to be conscientious and thorough in their certificate completion practices, or the special circumstances of car accidents, overdose, suicides and homicide deaths that lend themselves to robust investigation and reporting protocols, the average natural cause of death reporting on death certificates and the mortality statistics extrapolated from them are not the product of careful investigation, are known to have a 20-60% inaccuracy rate according to the peer-reviewed literature, and are, by definition, variable medical opinions, not facts.

It’s an extremely uncomfortable truth when you look around us at a world enslaved by the daily COVID mortality tallies being reported from every outlet. It’s especially disconcerting if you’ve assumed mortality statistics were somehow exempt from the Twain-ism about statistics being lesser in value to both lies and damn lies. But both the nature and the nurture of cause-of-death data capture flies in the face of any reliability in mortality statistics as structurally sound pillars of objective fact.

However, unlike the entrenched modern-day mores that demand unquestioning homage to those with special knowledge, I will not ask that you believe me simply because of my professional experience. I am here to offer you three considerations to help you develop your own understanding of cause-of-death data capture so as to create an independence in your own pursuit of truth regarding this underlying societal assumption about the infallibility of mortality data. Perhaps you will find, as I have, that mortality statistics tabulated from death certificates have no business steering public health recommendations or medical decisions, and using them as a metric for scientific research or public policy is about as prudent as building a skyscraper on a sand box.

 

The Harsh Realities of Death Certification

 

 

The first harsh reality we need to come to terms with is that even though causes of death provided on death certificates are treated like gavel-dropping legal facts, especially with their prima facie status in a court of lawthere’s not actually much scientific investigation happening behind the scenes as to what has caused a death.

The best way to describe the culture I witnessed being the middle-woman in the death recording process for nearly 5,000 death certificates, was not a culture of careful, unbiased scientific investigation but rather a demoralizing, bureaucratic game of hot potato.

The funeral home directors want the record registered ASAP so the family they are serving won’t have their burial or cremation services delayed and the next-of-kin can get their certified copies so as to start settling affairs (close bank accounts, access life insurance, etc.).

The doctor’s office, hospice or hospital decedent affairs staff wanted me (the mortuary representative) to stop calling them with urgent messages about the upcoming burial or cremation service and the need for doctor’s expedient cooperation in the multi-step process for record approval and attestation.

The doctor wants the request for causes of death off his/her desk and doesn’t want to deal with multiple rejections from either the mortuary or the vital records registrars if he/she put causes or contributory factors that don’t fit the narrow allowances under the “natural” manner of death umbrella.

The coroner/medical examiner office doesn’t want to take cases that they don’t absolutely have to, when they are understaffed and already up to their ears in car accident deaths, drug overdoses, suicides and homicide death investigations.

The local vital records registrars don’t want to approve a cause of death that will get flagged by their bosses at the state registrar office after the record has been sent for final registration, causing a whole mess of paperwork to fix the problem.

This bureaucratic tumbling machine results in bland, simple, broad brushstroke causes of death that are an easy ‘pass’ in the electronic system becoming the gold standard in death recording. Any time-intensive investigation is avoided at all costs. The system isn’t built to allow for investigation anyway. In fact, in the state where I worked, doctors are supposed to provide causes of death within 15 hours of the death occurring, and all the multi-step information gathering and verification process between the family, doctor, coroner and state registrar is supposed to be finalized within 7 days after the death.

Towards this end, I was regularly advised by the local registrar’s office to coach the doctors in submitting causes that passed the registrar’s easy filters for natural manners of death, despite the physician’s uncertainty.

The doctor doesn’t know why the person died? Just ask the doctor if the patient was on any medications (insinuating that the cause for a medication prescription, such as hypertension, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, etc. is an easy pass for the cause of death).

Oh, the doctor hasn’t physically seen the patient in over six months? They can still sign the death certificate; just ask them if a refill prescription was sent to the pharmacy for their patient in the past six months, then they are still the “attending” physician.

A 60 year old patient died unexpectedly at home? No autopsy needed, it’ll just be a coroner sign-out case.

A sign-out case, at least here in Los Angeles County, means that the local coroner/medical examiner just needs to stop by the mortuary and take a couple of pictures of the outside of the body to make sure there’s no evidence of physical trauma. Then, the last doctor to order a prescription refill can sign the death certificate with their best guess as to why the patient died, or if the doctor won’t cooperate, the coroner/medical examiner will just slap a catch-all diagnosis like “atherosclerotic heart disease” on the death certificate and call it good.

Everyone involved in death recording gets used to (read:demoralized by) the system, especially for those who died in hospice care or in long-term care facilities. Their causes of death will typically default to the primary diagnosis for which they were put in the nursing home or on hospice in the first place.

Some of the facilities I worked with had a cause-of-death worksheet sent to me minutes after the death occurred because the worksheet had been pre-filled out and was waiting in the patient’s file weeks or months before the person actually died.

For very few deceased, some scientific-ish investigation does occur, although that has dramatically trended down since the 1940s. Postmortem autopsy investigation has dramatically dropped from 20-50% postmortem autopsy rate as late as the 1970s to only 4-8% in our current postmortem protocols.

Because of a shortage in those who specialize in this type of investigation, combined with the requirement that a medical examiner/coroner must be involved in the death recording process for any unnatural or iatrogenic factors impacting the death, you probably shouldn’t expect your loved one’s doctor to be including any medical complications after medication or a medical intervention (such as vaccination) as a cause of death on the death certificate.

In fact, even if your doctor is bold enough to concede that your loved one’s health deteriorated significantly after a medical intervention, the death certificate process would then have to come to a screeching halt.

That’s an unnatural cause of death. Now the case gets bumped to the medical examiner/coroner. But even then, 30% of doctors have reported being instructed by the coroner to put an inaccurate cause of death on purpose so that the medical examiner/coroner office won’t need to take the case. And the metaphorical potato game continues.

However, if the case is accepted by the medical examiner/coroner office, things start getting really messy for the family and the funeral home. The medical examiner/coroner office can be likened to the DMV for death recording. The grieving family is now extremely likely to experience delays in what date the funeral or cremation services can be arranged. When I was a mortuary employee I personally saw situations where the doctor sent causes that required coroner involvement but the services had already been scheduled, and traveling family and friends had already flown in from across the country for the burial. The service schedule needed to be completely rearranged sometimes by up to two weeks out to allow for autopsy and death certificate completion before we could get the permit to bury (or cremate).

On top of that inconvenience, there’s hundreds of dollars in fees from the coroner investigation and post-autopsy body reconstruction services the mortuary must perform if the family had a viewing service in their wishes. Even after the burial, the traffic jam imposed on settling affairs and having closure can last up to a year while the coroner takes the time to determine the manner and cause of death.

What’s the understanding to take away from this behind-the-scenes look at death recording? A thorough picture of what impacted the health of your loved one is de-incentivized in a bureaucratic system, and the carefully investigated truth that ought to guide science research, public policy and medical decision-making for future generations becomes no more reliable than pulling a lever on a slot machine.

Causes of Death are Medical Opinions and are Often Disputed

 

But what many don’t realize, and the second of my three offered considerations on this matter, is that the causes of death listed on a death certificate were never designed to be the immovable pillars of science, medicine or law in the first place. As laid out by the CDC, both the physician handbook and medical examiner/coroner’s handbook state that causes of death are a medical opinion, and that these opinions can change from provider to provider.

Let me tell you, they sure did change from provider to provider. When I worked as a death certificate clerk, I occasionally would send death certificate worksheets to multiple doctors involved in a patient’s care if we had a rush to bury or cremate. In these situations we needed to cast a wider net to find a rapidly responding doctor to accomplish the record before final disposition. Many times each physician would send me back a different cause of death. Same patient. Different opinions. Different causes of death.

In general, if someone died in a hospital, the hospitalist would put the acute condition they treated the patient for while leaving out pre-existing chronic conditions. The primary care or hospice physician would put a chronic condition like heart disease, diabetes or hypertension that they prescribed regular meds for, with very little information about the past few weeks or days of health decline. And a specialist would put the specific condition they were managing as the cause of death, such as stage 4 kidney disease and any disease-specific complications that, in their opinion, could explain the demise.

Occasionally there was some consensus on the causes of death between the worksheets sent back from different providers, but thoroughness of the contributory factors or the logical sequence of conditions that led to the decline was almost always lacking or inconsistent in the majority of worksheets received.

These data capture “captains,” who are in charge of supplying us with some of the most valuable data, exercise very little care or consistency in how they fill out these records. Yet their output is blindly guiding scientific assumptions, research funding, public health policy and clinical risk estimation for generations to come.

And I don’t think we can quite blame them. Physicians have received little-to-no education on the importance of death certification and most are unaware that this data is simply repackaged and regurgitated back to them in the news media, scientific literature or public health policy. In medical schools there is not much more than a couple of hours of discussion on death certificate completion, and sometimes the education is as basic as watching this 20 minute slideshow and being quizzed with a handful of questions. Doctors have no thorough or standardized training, and at time of a patient’s death they are not taking enough time to review each patient’s complete medical record and clinical course carefully before completing the causes-of-death worksheet. And even the few who are more thoughtful in the information they provide can still have a varying opinion on what qualifies to be reported as a cause.

 

Peer-reviewed Literature Suggests Unreliability of Death Certificates for Guiding Policy

 

Does this culture of data capture really support the weight of science, medicine and public health policy with any confidence? As my third and final consideration for you, let’s take a look at what the peer-reviewed literature shows us as to how this bureaucratic data tumbler spits out.

Here’s an international study of COPD patients, where 42% of clinical trial patients whose death certificates were analyzed by an independent committee did not have COPD listed anywhere on their death certificate. These were patients enrolled in a clinical trial for COPD therapy.

Then, in Norway, 17.6% of investigated death certificates required amendmentsto change the underlying cause of death.

study out of Pakistan shows 62% of death certificates have errors that significantly changed the death certificate interpretation.

Missouri DHSS 2009-2012 study found 45.8% of the underlying cause of death reporting inaccurate.

A blinded study based on reviewing medical records vs. death certificates in Vermont showed 60% as needing a change in the underlying cause of death.

Another Vermont study with a similar methodology found that 34% of hospital death certificates were wrong in the cause or manner of death.

This meta-analysis comparing clinical diagnoses against autopsy findings states: “At least a third of death certificates are likely to be incorrect and 50% of autopsies produce findings unsuspected before death.”

And how about 25% of adults dying within 30 days of being hospitalized with a Clostridium difficile infection in the UK? According to this study, if you were to die soon after being hospitalized for a C. diff infection, there’s only a 17% chance C. diff will be listed as the underlying cause of your death, and only a 31% chance it will be mentioned on your death certificate at all.

And did you know that even though tuberculosis is believed to be the leading infectious disease killer cited by global authorities to be taking 1.5 million lives every year, this South Africa’s study found 63% of decedents who were autopsied after receiving a tuberculosis diagnosis on their death certificate didn’t even test positive for TB by smear or culture. Whichever disease or situation that is killing the people falsely diagnosed with TB is not getting the research funding it deserves.

And the death certificates for infants bring this truth home about the lack of accuracy in causes of death even more:

This study found 48% of infant deaths in Mexico were not reported accurately compared to the patient’s medical chart. And 71% of those inaccurate death certificates had failed to mention an infectious, parasitic, or respiratory disease as either contributory or underlying factor.

This Ohio study of infant death certificates found 56.5% of death certificates were discordant with autopsy findings.

So across the board, reported causes of death are wrong 20-60% of the time. With the exception of a couple of cancer types, studies done on every continent have found an incompetence in death certificate data recording that is so shocking, it’s a wonder it hasn’t taken up enough headlines to actually effect change.

But there was a change made this past year. Not a data capture reform for all the erroneous death diagnoses, and not even a data capture reform to improve reporting for ALL the infections that significantly impact our health before death. The CDC’s National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) rolled out the data capture red carpet for one – and only one – disease-causing pathogen: SARS-CoV-2.

On March 24th, 2020, only 11 days after the first lockdown started, and well before widespread testing was available, the NVSS gave hand-holding guidance to the medical certifiers, local registrars and mortality statistics coders on precisely how they ought to spotlight COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death on death certificates. They boldly declared that COVID should be the underlying cause on a death certificate “more often than not” even without laboratoryconfirmation of infection. What’s crazier still, is that when they created this COVID alert in March and followed up by releasing this COVID death recording guidance a few days later, we couldn’t have possibly had enough country-specific statistics to justify such a drastic departure in coding COVID deaths compared to how other infectious disease fatalities are ascertained.

So the NVSS actually dictated a belief to the community of death certificate medical certifiers and vital records registrars (who are our cause-of-death approval “gate keepers”), before having any reasonable disease surveillance infrastructure established to support their claim of probability of undiagnosed COVID being the cause of death, thus greatly amplifying the perception of COVID mortality. This may have even been against Federal law on data collection changes, as this peer-reviewed research paper suggests, stating “Federal agencies that make changes to how they collect, publish, and analyze data without alerting the Federal Register and OMB [Office of Management and Budget] as a result, are in violation of federal law.”

Furthermore, their COVID-19 death certifying guidance, changed the death certification long-standing protocols when it declared: “…reporting “COVID–19” due to “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease” in Part I would be an illogical sequence as COPD cannot cause an infection, although it may increase susceptibility to or exacerbate an infection. In this instance, COVID–19 would be reported in Part I as the UCOD [underlying cause of death] and the COPD in Part II [as the contributory factor].

The UCOD on a death certificate is what’s reported and tallied in our national mortality statistics as the reason that the death occurred. It is found on the last line of Part 1 on a death certificate. What needs to be provided for a death certificate is a logical sequence of conditions that explain why the death has occurred, not a logical sequence as to why an infection has occurred. So relegating an important chronic condition that logically explains why someone has died of an infection that most people survive is a drastic departure from previous cause-of-death guidance.

Here are four examples given to medical certifiers in the CDC training module and the CDC handbook on proper death certification of cases with infection-related deaths in patients with pre-existing conditions. (UCOD is shown in bold and the infection that has immediately led to death is italicized.) :

From slide 43 of the CDC training module on Improving Cause of Death Reporting: Cause of Death Reporting Assessment – Answer 3 of

The correct sequence of conditions in Question #3 is:

  • (a) Enterobacter aerogenes sepsis

  • (b) Bilateral lower lobe pneumonia due to Enterobacter aerogenes

  • (c) Chronic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation

  • (d) Quadriplegia due to C4 spinal cord injury

From the CDC handbook on death certification: Example 5:

  • (a) Pseudomonas aeruginosa sepsis

  • (b) Pseudomonas aeruginosa urinary tract infection

  • (c) In-dwelling bladder catheter

  • (d) Left hemiparesis

  • (e) Old cerebrovascular accident

Example 6:

  • (a) Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia

  • (b) Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

  • (c) HIV infection

Example 10:

  • (a) Escherichia coli meningitis

  • (b) Cystic fibrosis

In all these examples it is the pre-existing condition that made the patient susceptible to death from an infection (i.e., quadriplegia, stroke (cerebrovascular accident), HIV or cystic fibrosis) that is advised by regulatory bodies to be reported as the underlying cause of death (UCOD) which is then subsequently tallied in our mortality statistics as the reason for the death.

But the new COVID-19 guidance advises the exact opposite: medical certifiers are now to report the infection as the UCOD and tally it in our mortality statistics, while simultaneously demoting the previously revered underlying chronic condition (e.g., COPD) into a section of the death certificate that doesn’t impact mortality statistics and holds less sway in science, medicine, public health and law.

Here’s an example from the Hawaii Vital Records website showing how the COVID death certificate is supposed to look:

Image

As you can see, reporting death in this way will naturally highlight the short term COVID illness resulting in death, instead of reporting the chronic illness like we have done in the past. This is another way how COVID mortality is being artificially amplified over any other infectious cause of death.

Flawed System of PCR Testing for COVID, Even After Death

Finally, yet another biased standard of boosting COVID mortality specific to this year’s very odd death tallying was PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 carriage performed after death, including on those whose cause of death was suicide or car accidents and obviously not COVID-related at all. Testing for pathogen carriage after accidental death would have never been performed in the past. Similarly, any at-home deaths that used to be chalked up to “atherosclerotic heart disease” without any investigation were now presumed COVID deaths. Andnursing home clusters of deaths in the elderly – which, by the way, I used to regularly witness multiple times a year in my capacity as a death recording clerk from 2013-2019 – were now opportunities to swab the dead to contribute to the COVID death toll in 2020, even without evidence of symptoms in the deceased.

As I mentioned previously, deaths that occurred in nursing homes and under hospice care almost always were attributed to the chronic condition that explained their decline in health – regardless of what final infection they suffered from… until now.

This year has provided an undue cause-of-death spotlighting for one pathogen, bolstered by a biased infrastructure of mortality statistics tabulation that has greatly skewed the scientific process of data capture needed to steer medicine, public policy and public perceptions rationally. Without consistent guidance from accurately reported cause-of-death information, science and medicine cannot apply their resources and recommendations wisely to save the highest number of lives. Our rights and freedoms are being lost because public policy and perceptions are being built on a foundation of risk estimation that is so erroneous that it crumbles under even the slightest academic examination. It’s time to have better conversations and create real solutions to the data capture crisis misleading our world. This year has shown us just how horrifically misled we can be by a set of fallacious assumptions.

Families look at the death certificate information of their deceased loved ones to steer their own medical decision-making when it comes to forming their beliefs about genealogical susceptibility to disease and perceptions of risk. Scientific, medical and legislative bodies are influenced by apparent conclusions drawn from the death certificate data and affect the well-being of nations around the globe. Cause of death reporting changes the world on a micro- and macro-scale for better or worse; thus, accuracy matters.

To this end, I’m personally stepping out of my comfort zone, and into the world of grassroots social impact. Many others are concerned about the issue of accuracy in death certification and we are starting a nonprofit to help families, funeral homes and medical certifiers amend death certificates so as to provide an accurate reporting of underlying and contributory health factors that played a role in a patient’s demise.

If you are interested in being involved in effecting change in death certificate accuracy by volunteering these next few months with website, budget and strategic planning, or if you have skills and time to lend in the Officer or Board member capacity, please reach out to me at JoyFritz@protonmail.com.

EXCLUSIVE – Former Pfizer VP “Government is Lying to You”

EXCLUSIVE - Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’

Dr. Mike Yeadon

‘Look out the window, and think, “why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?” Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.’

Published on LifeSite News By Patrick Delaney

Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.

He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.

His main points included:

1. There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”

2. Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.

3. Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign.

4. Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”

5. Thus, this virtually means that design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”

6. Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue in a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.

7. The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.”

Dr. Yeadon began identifying himself as merely a “boring guy” who went “to work for a big drug company … listening to the main national broadcast and reading the broad sheet newspapers.”

Continuing, he said: “But in the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus. That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in.

“Or, by the way, on top of the current list of gene-based vaccines that we have miraculously made, there will be some ‘top-up’ vaccines to cope with the immune escape variants.

“Everything I have told you, every single one of those things is demonstrably false. But our entire national policy is based on these all being broadly right, but they are all wrong.”

‘Conspiracy’ and not just ‘convergent opportunism’

“But what I would like to do is talk about immune escape because I think that’s probably going to be the end game for this whole event, which I think is probably a conspiracy. Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism,’ that is a bunch of different stakeholder groups have managed to pounce on a world in chaos to push us in a particular direction. So it looked like it was kind of linked, but I was prepared to say it was just convergence.”

“I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky varmints, these “variants”’— which I call ‘samiants’ by the way, because they are pretty much the same — but they’re all saying this and they are all saying ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”

Possible end game: vaccine ‘passports’ tied to spending allowances, thorough control

“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’… Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.

“When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide. And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it. “For example, you might find that after a banking reset that you can only spend through using an app that actually feeds off this [database], your ID, your name, [and] your health status flag.”

“And, yes, certainly crossing an international border is the most obvious use for these vaccine passports, as they are called, but I’ve heard talk of them already that they could be necessary for you to get into public spaces, enclosed public spaces. I expect that if they wanted to, you would not be able to leave your house in the future without the appropriate privilege on your app.

“But even if that’s not [the] true [intent of the vaccine campaign], it doesn’t matter, the fact that it could be true means everyone [reading] this should fight like crazy to make sure that [vaccine passport] system never forms.”

“[With such a system], here is an example of what they could make you do, and I think this is what they’re going to make [people] do.

“You could invent a story that is about a virus and its variations, its mutations over time. You could invent the story and make sure you embed it through the captive media, make sure that no one can counter it by censoring alternative sources, then people are now familiar with this idea that this virus mutates, which it does, and that it produces variants, which is true [as well], which could escape your immune system, and that’s a lie.

“But, nevertheless, we’re going to tell you it’s true, and then when we tell you that it’s true and we say ‘but we’ve got the cure, here’s a top-up vaccine,’ you’ll get a message, based on this one global, this one ID system: ‘Bing!’ it will come up and

say ‘Dr. Yeadon, time for your top-up vaccine. And, by the way,’ it will say ‘your existing immune privileges remain valid for four weeks. But if you don’t get your top-up vaccine in that time, you will unfortunately detrimentally be an “out person,” and you don’t want that, do you?’ So, that’s how it’ll work, and people will just walk up and they’ll get their top-up vaccine.”

Gov’t lies, Big Pharma moves forward, medicine regulators get out of the way, and possible ‘mass-depopulation’

“But I will take you through this, Patrick, because I am qualified to comment. I don’t know what Vanden Bossche is about. There was no possibility at all, based on all of the variants that are in the public domain, 4000 or so of them, none of them are going to escape immunity [i.e. become more dangerous].

“Nevertheless, politicians and health advisers (to loads of governments) are saying that they are. They’re lying. Well, why would you do that?

“Here’s the other thing, in parallel, pharmaceutical companies have said, several of them, it will be quite easy for us to adjust our gene-based vaccines, and we can hasten them through development, and we can help you.

“And here’s the real scary part, global medicines regulators like [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA, the Japanese medicines agency, the European Medicines Agency, have gotten together and announced … since top-up vaccines will be considered so similar to the ones that we have already approved for emergency use authorization, we are not going to require the drug companies to perform any clinical safety studies.

“So, you’ve got on the one hand, governments and their advisers that are lying to you that variants are different enough from the current virus that, even if you’re immune from natural exposure or vaccination, you’re a risk and you need to come and get this top-up vaccine. So, I think neither of those are true. So why is the drug company making the top-up vaccines? And [with] the regulators having got out of the way — and if Yeadon is right, and I’m sure I am or I wouldn’t be telling you this — you go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.

“And if you wanted to introduce a characteristic which could be harmful and could even be lethal, and you can even tune it to say ‘let’s put it in some gene that will cause liver injury over a nine-month period,’ or, cause your kidneys to fail but not until you encounter this kind of organism [that would be quite

possible]. Biotechnology provides you with limitless ways, frankly, to injure or kill billions of people.

“And since I can’t think of a benign explanation for any of the steps: variants, top-up vaccines, no regulatory studies… it’s not only that I cannot think of a benign explanation, the steps described, and the scenario described, and the necessary sort of resolution to this false problem is going to allow what I just described: unknown, and unnecessary gene sequences injected into the arms of potentially billions of people for no reason.

“I’m very worried … that pathway will be used for mass depopulation, because I can’t think of any benign explanation.”

‘Absurdly impossible’ variants will escape immunity, ‘just a lie’

“If I can show you that one major thing that governments around the world are telling the people is a lie, you should take my 32 years of experienced opinion that says, most of it, if not all of it, is a lie.”

“The most different variant is only 0.3% different from the original sequence as emailed out of Wuhan in … January 2020. 0.3% [is] the one [variant] that is the most different on the planet so far. And now another way of saying it is, ‘all of the variants are not less than 99.7% identical to each other.’

“Now, you might be thinking, ‘hmm, .3%, is that enough [to escape immunity and become more dangerous]?’ The answer is no. Get away, ya know, get out of here …

“The human immune system is a thing of wonder. What it does is when it faces a new pathogen like this, you’ve got professional cells, they’re called professional antigen-presenting cells —they’re kind of rough tough things that tend not to succumb to viruses. And their job is to grab foreign things in the near environment and tear them limb from limb [inside the cell]. They really cut them up into hundreds of pieces. And then they present these pieces on the surfaces of their cell to other bits of your immune system, and amazingly, because of the variability that God and nature gave you, huge variability to recognize foreign things, and your body ends up using 15 to 20 different specific motifs that it spots about this virus. They’re called epitopes, basically they’re just like little photographs of the details about this virus. That’s what they do. And that is what is called your repertoire, your immune repertoire is like 20 different accurate photographs, close-ups, of different bits of this virus.

“Now, if a tiny piece of the virus changes, like the .3% I’ve just described, if you are reinfected by that variant, your professional cells tear into that virus and cut it

into pieces, present them again, and lo and behold, most of the pieces that you have already seen and recognized, are still there in the variants.

“There is absolutely no chance that all of them will fail to be recognized and that is what is required for immune escape, to escape your immunity. It must present to you as a new pathogen. It must be sufficiently different that, when it is cut up by your professional checker cells, it won’t find mostly the same thing it has seen before. And that is just absurdly impossible when you have only varied .3%, so it is 99.7% (similar). “You can go and check that by looking at papers by a person called Alison Tarke. There is also Shane Crotty, and all of the other co-authors.

“And before them, coming from my theoretical understanding of multi-locus immunity, which is what I just badly tried to describe, to what actually happens … If your [immune system] is presented with something that contains even half of those similar pieces, there is no way your body will say, ‘that’s a new pathogen.’

“And, so, the idea that 0.3% could even have a chance of getting around immunity is just a lie. It’s not [even] like an opinion difference.

“I don’t think 3% would be enough. That’s 10 times more variation than has occurred in 16 months [with this virus]. I don’t even think 30% difference would be enough. So, I’m saying that 100 times more variation than has actually happened, would still leave me putting a big bet on the human immune system not being fooled that these are new pathogens.

“I’ve chatted this over with several professors of immunology and they agreed with me, it’s like, ‘why are you asking me this?’

“So, I think that what I’ve just said is that governments and their advisors in multiple countries are lying about variants. That’s a massive thing! You should check it out. Your readers should check it out. If it’s true, don’t you think it’s terrifying?! It was when I realized it.

“So, they’re lying about variants, and then, of course, since [the variants] are not really different, you do not need a ‘top-up’ vaccine. Now you should be getting the hairs on the back of your neck up, because they are making them right now!” “They are making billions of vials of it. And they will be available by the end of the year.

“And I think they’ll require people to first, be on the vaccine passport one-world database, and then it will roll up into the top-ups, and if it takes a bit longer it will take a bit longer.

“But this is not going away. It won’t go away until enough people, if they ever do, say ‘you’re a bunch of frauds and we are taking our freedoms back, so you can just stop doing this.’

“Because one person shouting into the wilderness and all of the other academics looking the other way, will have us just going down this pipe maybe a week later than if I hadn’t said anything, but we’re still going down to hell.

“So, that’s why I’m frightened.

“The variants aren’t different. I call them ‘samiants’… they’re pretty much the same. They’re not different. Therefore, you don’t need a top-up vaccine, so don’t go near any of them.”

‘Why is my government lying to me?’ Because ‘they are going to kill you.’

“[And if you recognize that our governments are involved in a major verifiable lie], don’t just turn your computer off and go to supper. Stop. Look out the window, and think, ‘why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?’ Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power and this is a really artful way of getting you to line-up and receive some unspecified thing that will damage you. I have no idea what it will actually be, but it won’t be a vaccine because you don’t need one. And it won’t kill you on the end of the needle because you would spot that.

“It could be something that will produce normal pathology, it will be at various times between vaccination and the event, it will be plausibly deniable because there will be something else going on in the world at that time, in the context of which your demise, or that of your children will look normal.

“That’s what I would do if I wanted to get rid of 90 or 95% of the world’s population. And I think that’s what they’re doing.”

“Now I don’t know [for certain] that they’re going to use that [system] to kill you, but I can’t think of a benign reason, and with that power they certainly could harm you, or control you, so you should object [and strenuously oppose it].”

People can’t deal with this level of evil, but Soviets, Hitler, Mao show its possibility

“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it. And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil…

“But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on.

“We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this. They’re all around us. So, I say to folks, the only thing that really marks this one out, is its scale.

“But actually, this is probably less bloody, it’s less personal, isn’t it? The people who are steering this … it’s going to be much easier for them. They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face. They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back and our grandparents or great grandparents were either victims of this, or they were actually members of it, or at least they witnessed it from overseas. That’s how close we are.

“And all I’m saying is, some shifts like that are happening again, but now they are using molecular biology.

“And the people going along with it, I think they would probably say, ‘I was only following orders,’ which we have heard before.

“But I know, because I have talked to lots of people, and some of them have said ‘I don’t want to believe that you are right, so I’m going to just put it away because if it is true, I can’t handle it.’ And I think … all you need to do is find a good

reason to tell people, ‘Don’t take the vaccine unless you’re a medical risk of dying from the virus!’ That seems to me a pretty good line!”

Towards a solution – ‘We need God’

“I’m a scientist, and I can tell you, talking to non-scientists, using science as a tool, will not work. It will fail.

“So, we need philosophers, people who understand logic, religion, something like that, [they have] got to wrestle with this, and start talking in a language people will understand. Because if we leave it with scientists, people like me, even though I’m well-intentioned, I’m a gabbling alien as far as most people in the street are concerned. They won’t believe the government will lie to them, they don’t believe the government would ever do anything that will harm them, but they are [doing such things].”

Finally, in an email correspondence, Dr. Yeadon concluded, “I have latest taken to signing off with ‘May God save us’, because I think we need God now more than at any time since WW2.”

 

To view the original Article 

Scandalous – Irrefutable Evidence Lockdown Deaths Are Labelled Covid-19

Scandalous – Irrefutable evidence Lockdown deaths are labelled Covid-19

An Article Published by the Daily Expose explores the statistics surrounding lockdown, proving how detrimental to Public Health they have been and how much we have been misled:

The order to “stay at home” was given towards the end of March in 2020. That very order has lead to thousands upon thousands of unnecessary deaths that have occurred at home and in care homes according to official ONS data.

When they first started to count “Covid” deaths in 2020 they initially counted anybody who they suspected had symptoms of Covid. Symptoms that are common with all respiratory diseases that have been around for our entire lives.

Then once they could start testing, with the controversial PCR test they were counting anybody who died within 45 days of a positive test. Then they revised that to 28 days. Then right at the start of the third lockdown they changed those parameters to within 60 days of a positive test. Meaning even if the person was to tragically die in a car accident, if they had received a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 within the set time frame they have been and are added to the Covid death statistics.

 So we took a look at the data (which you can find here) for the setting in which deaths occurred from April onward in 2020 compared to the previous 5 year average. One month stood out as particularly high compared to the five year average and that month was April. The five year average for deaths at home in April was 9,384.6. But in April 2020 there were 16,909 deaths that occurred at home. The five year average for deaths in care homes in April was 8,691. But in April 2020 there were 26,541 deaths that occurred in care homes. That is an astronomical increase. The question is, why?


Deaths occurring in each month by place of death

The authorities would have you believe the number is because of “Covid-19”. But if we take a look at hospital data (which you can find here) for the month of April 2020 and compare it with previous years we can start to join the dots as to why there was such an astronomical increase.
  • In 2017, April-June there were on average a total of 91,724 beds occupied which equated to 89.1% occupancy.
  • In 2018, April-June there were on average a total of 91,056 beds occupied which equated to 89.8% occupancy.
  • In 2019, April-June there were on average a total of 91,730 beds occupied which equated to 90.3% occupancy.
  • In 2020, April-June there were on average a total of 58,005 beds occupied which equated to 62% occupancy.
  • In 2018 – April – 1,984,369 attended A&E
  • In 2019 – April – 2,112,165 attended A&E
  • In 2020 – April – 916,581 attended A&E

There were 30% less hospital beds occupied in April – June 2020 compared with the previous three years. And the number attending A&E in April 2020 was 57% down on the previous year. That explains why there was such an astronomical increase in deaths occuring at home in April 2020, it was because they were not being treated for their illnesses in hospital. Not because of Covid-19, but because of lockdown. Because the authorities message to “stay at home and protect the NHS” hit too hard and the general public did just that, they stayed at home and they protected the NHS by not using it.

 

Aprl 2020, A&E attendance

But what about care homes? What caused such a terrible increase in care home deaths?

Well a Care Quality Commission report (you can see the report here) recently released, clarifies exactly what happened and it is disgraceful.

The CQC found examples of inappropriate and unlawful use of ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) forms – including blanket DNACPR. They also found that staff incorrectly interpreting DNACPR prevented people getting access to hospital care and treatment. Reports were also received of Care providers seeking to apply DNACPR forms to patients without sufficient discussion or explanation with the individuals and their families.

These are some examples of the reports that the CQC received –

‘The doctor on call had advised care home staff that if the older people in their care contracted COVID-19, they would have a DNACPR put in place. Another said doctors were refusing to visit a care home because they had had two residents die from COVID-19. Care staff were asked to take observations that they were not trained for, and all residents had a DNACPR in place.’

‘The individual feedback we received showed experiences of people and their families who were unaware that they had a DNACPR order, often not finding out until the person was quite unwell. Sometimes this decision had been made by a medical
professional without the involvement of the person or family. Sometimes the family were told that the person had agreed to the DNACPR, but there were questions’ raised about whether this was informed consent due to reasons such as deafness or
not speaking English, or from conversations that the family had with the person.’

‘There were also examples from the feedback where care had not been provided to the person with a DNACPR in place – for example, a care home not calling an ambulance straight away, a delay in calling doctors, or someone who felt pressured to agree to an advance COVID-19 care plan that stated that they would stay at home without treatment if they contracted COVID-19.’

So there you have it, care home residents were essentially refused hospital treatment and had Do Not Rescusitate orders placed on them without even being informed about it. Even their families were unaware.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-60.png

The CQC states this was due to confusion at the new DNACPR rules that were brought out at the start of the first lockdown. Well that confusion cost lives, not Covid as the authorities would have you believe.

We can prove this because the problem we found with the data is that April 2020 is the only significant increase on the previous five year average. The thing that’s concerning with the data is that we have been kept under the reign of dictatorial tyranny in the name of “protecting the NHS and saving lives”, but the deaths from June through to October 2020 in hospitals have been below the five year average.

Surely if we were in the midst of a “deadly pandemic” in which we had to “stay at home to protect the NHS” we would expect to see a huge increase in deaths occurring in hospital due to the strain on the NHS because of the “deadly pandemic”? But that hasn’t been the case. Far from it.

But if we look at the data for deaths occurring at home, they have been far above the 5 year average throughout every month since March in the whole of 2020. Why?

Because lockdown kills and the fear propaganda released by the authorities whipped the general public into refusing to use the NHS either out of fear of catching the virus or because they were under the impression it was overwhelmed and wanted to protect it.

This is a horrifying disgrace. But will the authorities and scientists ever be held to account?

To view the original article please visit here

 

Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data

Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data

In An Article Published in the British Medical Journal on January 4th 2021, Peter Doshi examines what the preliminary data suggests in the ongoing Vaccine Trials and examines some of the potential flaws in the study.

On 5 February 2021 we published a clarification to this piece. It is available here. 

Five weeks ago, when I raised questions about the results of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s covid-19 vaccine trials, all that was in the public domain were the study protocols and a few press releases. Today, two journal publicationsand around 400 pages of summary data are available in the form of multiple reports presented by and to theFDA prior to the agency’s emergency authorization of each company’s mRNA vaccine. While some of the additional details are reassuring, some are not. Here I outline new concerns about the trustworthiness and meaningfulness of the reported efficacy results.

“Suspected covid-19”

All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote).

If many or most of these suspected cases were in people who had a false negative PCR test result, this would dramatically decrease vaccine efficacy. But considering that influenza-like illnesses have always had myriadcauses—rhinoviruses, influenza viruses, other coronaviruses, adenoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, etc.—some or many of the suspected covid-19 cases may be due to a different causative agent.

But why should etiology matter? If those experiencing “suspected covid-19” had essentially the same clinical course as confirmed covid-19, then “suspected plus confirmed covid-19” may be a more clinically meaningful endpoint than just confirmed covid-19.

However, if confirmed covid-19 is on average more severe than suspected covid-19, we must still keep in mind that at the end of the day, it is not average clinical severity that matters, it’s the incidence of severe disease that affects hospital admissions. With 20 times more suspected covid-19 than confirmed covid-19, and trials not designed to assess whether the vaccines can interrupt viral transmission, an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent—namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants—seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines’ real ability to take the edge off the pandemic.

There is a clear need for data to answer these questions, but Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.

The 371 individuals excluded from Pfizer vaccine efficacy analysis

Another reason we need more data is to analyse an unexplained detail found in a table of FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine: 371 individuals excluded from the efficacy analysis for “important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2.”  What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna’s trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for “major protocol deviation”—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)

What were these protocol deviations in Pfizer’s study, and why were there five times more participants excluded in the vaccine group?  The FDA report doesn’t say, and these exclusions are difficult to even spot in Pfizer’s report and journal publication.

Fever and pain medications, unblinding, and primary event adjudication committees

Last month I expressed concern about the potential confounding role of pain and fever medications to treat symptoms. I posited that such drugs could mask symptoms, leading to underdetection of covid-19 cases, possibly in greater numbers in people who received the vaccine in an effort to prevent or treat adverse events. However, it seems their potential to confound results was fairly limited: although the results indicate that these medicines were taken around 34 times more often in vaccine versus placebo recipients (at least for Pfizer’s vaccine—Moderna did not report as clearly), their use was presumably concentrated in the first week after vaccine use, taken to relieve post-injection local and systemic adverse events. But the cumulative incidencecurves suggest a fairly constant rate of confirmed covid-19 cases over time, with symptom onset dates extending well beyond a week after dosing.

That said, the higher rate of medication use in the vaccine arm provides further reason to worry about unofficial unblinding. Given the vaccines’ reactogenicity, it’s hard to imagine participants and investigators could not make educated guesses about which group they were in.  The primary endpoint in the trials is relatively subjective making unblinding an important concern. Yet neither FDA nor the companies seem to have formally probed the reliability of the blinding procedure, and its effects on the reported outcomes.

Nor do we know enough about the processes of the primary event adjudication committees that counted covid-19 cases. Were they blinded to antibody data and information on patients’ symptoms in the first week after vaccination?  What criteria did they employ, and why, with a primary event consisting of a patient-reported outcome (covid-19 symptoms) and PCR test result, was such a committee even necessary? It’s also important to understand who was on these committees. While Moderna has named its four-member adjudication committee—all university-affiliated physicians—Pfizer’s protocol says three Pfizer employees did the work. Yes, Pfizer staff members.

Vaccine efficacy in people who already had covid?

Individuals with a known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection or previous diagnosis of Covid-19 were excluded from Moderna’s and Pfizer’s trials. But still 1125 (3.0%) and 675 (2.2%) of participants in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s trials, respectively, were deemed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline.

Vaccine safety and efficacy in these recipients has not received much attention, but as increasingly large portions of many countries’ populations may be “post-Covid,” these data seem important—and all the more so as the US CDC recommends offering vaccine “regardless of history of prior symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.” This follows on from the agency’s conclusions, regarding Pfizer’s vaccine, that it had ≥92% efficacy and “no specific safety concerns” in people with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

By my count, Pfizer apparently reported 8 cases of confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 in people positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1 in the vaccine group, 7 in the placebo group, using the differences between Tables 9 and 10) and Moderna, 1 case (placebo group; Table 12).

But with only around four to 31 reinfections documented globally, how, in trials of tens of thousands, with median follow-up of two months, could there be nine confirmed covid-19 cases among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline? Is this representative of meaningful vaccine efficacy, as CDC seems to have endorsed? Or could it be something else, like prevention of covid-19 symptoms, possibly by the vaccine or by the use of medicines which suppress symptoms, and nothing to do with reinfection?

We need the raw data

Addressing the many open questions about these trials requires access to the raw trial data. But no company seems to have shared data with any third party at this point.

Pfizer says it is making data available “upon request, and subject to review.” This stops far short of making data publicly available, but at least leaves the door open. How open is unclear, since the study protocol says Pfizer will only start making data available 24 months after study completion.

Moderna’s data sharing statement states data “may be available upon request once the trial is complete.” This translates to sometime in mid-to-late 2022, as follow-up is planned for 2 years.

Things may be no different for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine which has pledged patient-level data “when the trial is complete.” And the ClinicalTrials.gov entry for the Russian Sputnik V vaccine says there are no plans to share individual participant data.

The European Medicines Agency and Health Canada, however, may share data for any authorized vaccines much earlier.  EMA has already pledged to publish the data submitted by Pfizer on its website “in due course,” as has Health Canada.

Peter Doshi, associate editor, The BMJ

Competing interests: I have been pursuing the public release of vaccine trial protocols, and have co-signed open letters calling for independence and transparency in covid-19 vaccine related decision making.

Spanish translation of this article

Footnote

Calculations in this article are as follows:  19% = 1 – (8+1594)/(162+1816); 29% = 1 – (8 + 1594 – 409)/(162 + 1816 – 287). I ignored denominators as they are similar between groups.

 

To Read the original article, please visit

“No Jab, No Pay” – A Criminal Offence

“No jab, no pay” – a criminal offence

Fiction:

Employers can insist on workers having a vaccine.

Law:

The offence of ‘battery’ is the intentional or reckless infliction of unlawful force. For a doctor, nurse or any person to administer a vaccine without the ‘informed consent’ of the recipient is to commit a criminal offence.  This is likely to be charged as ‘assault and battery’.  A person who intentionally encourages or assists the commission of an offence is themselves guilty of an offence contrary to Section 44 of the Serious Offences Act 1997. If a worker rolls up their sleeve reluctantly,  There are a number of employers who might read this article very nervously….

Consent is no defence

In a judgment still binding on Courts throughout the UK, the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) held that where people commit violence against each other, even if the violence is in private and by mutual consent, an offence may still be committed. Reasoning that “society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence”, the Court held that consent is not a valid defence. (R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19 (11 March 1993)

The facts concerned sadomasochistic practices of a group of men where the least serious offence charged and upheld was assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH). ABH is a step up from battery in terms of seriousness. ABH is typically charged for scratches, bruises and bite marks. It may also embrace puncture of the flesh with a needle. Coming forward to 2020 and 2021, it would be difficult to imagine that puncture with a needle and injection of a foreign substance to the body, liable to cause adverse reaction to the recipient, is anything but very serious indeed. 

Informed Consent and Criminality

In the medical context, it has always been essential for someone administering a vaccine to know that the patient is giving their informed consent to receive it. The requirement for informed consent is fundamental to medical practice. (For further information about informed consent, see section 8 of the letter Stop Testing in Schools.)

The criminality arising under threat of ‘no jab no pay’ arises by the following logical steps:

  1. By definition, if agreement is coerced, it is not by consent; if access to the benefits of work is only given in return for consenting to a vaccine, that consent is not free
  2. A nurse giving the vaccine is required to ensure the worker gives informed consent, current at the time of treatment
  3. If a nurse knows that the worker’s consent is not free but is given under threat of ‘no jab no pay’ (or any detriment or bribe), the nurse commits an offence by administering the vaccine
  4. The employer who has encouraged or assisted that offence, by making the threat, or by facilitating (and thereby assisting) the vaccine appointment, is guilty of an offence under Section 44 (and/or section 45 and/or section 46) of the Serious Offences Act 1997

Further, and especially given public debate and publicity on the issue, it offers no defence for medical practices to turn their heads away from the circumstances in which any patient submits to a vaccine. Given the numbers of people being vaccinated, to take for granted that none are under threat, or that those who are will speak up of their own accord, is reckless. They will, after all, have shown submission to the threat just by turning up.

The doctor/nurse is therefore under a positive duty to ensure informed consent is given. That requires taking steps, which should be recorded prior to treatment if they wish to defend themselves against criminal prosecution, to ensure the patient is under no threat of ‘no jab no pay’ or similar. They will be reckless to conduct their practice otherwise.

The Courts can defend the people

We are unaware of this issue of criminality being raised before this post. However, most of us could not have imagined circumstances in which the freedom of society has been taken away by this Government. If ever there was a time for the Courts to exercise common law powers to stop this particular cult of violence, at least against large unwilling sections of the public, surely it is now.

If support were needed for the Courts in stepping up, they may look to Europe. The Right to Privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which still applies in the UK even after Brexit, includes the right to bodily integrity.

That right is reflected in the recent statement of the Council of Europe, of which the UK is one of 47 member states, whose focus is the promotion of respect for human rights under the ECHR. It reflects the moral compass of the European Union and on 27th January 2021 published and adopted the resolution of its members to:

7.3 " with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake: "

7.3.1 " ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; "

7.3.2 "ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated "

If there is to be any individual freedom left in this country, when asked are the Courts really going to permit coercion to vaccinate through denial of access to work? It is time for a prosecution by the CPS but, if necessary, by private prosecution.

Civil Protection of Employment Rights

If our analysis above is correct, then it also opens up remedy for any worker or applicant for work under threat, regardless of their length of service and without need to rely on disability or inability to have a vaccine. They may not, for example, have unfair dismissal rights before an Employment Tribunal, but they may still apply to the Courts for an injunction to restrain the employer from making any such threats.

Health workers

In passing, the analysis above applies to health workers as it does to anyone else. The argument is also relevant to ‘fairness’ in unfair dismissal claims and, regardless of the views of some legal commentators, any health worker is entitled to ask an Employment Tribunal to demand from the employer evidence as to why, in the particular circumstances of their job and their workplace, a vaccine is needed and has real benefit. Most lawyers seem to have paid little attention to evidence.

Evidence, perhaps, that the vulnerable are already protected, or that a worker has natural T-cell immunity already, or if other measures are available, or if the ‘case’ numbers are so low, or if the risk of adverse effect is comparatively greater than the risk from virus, or if the vaccine may be ineffective against transmission or against newly publicised variants or etc. etc. etc….

When it comes to evidence, scary headlines in mainstream media and press releases from No. 10 ought not to cut the mustard.

Whistleblowing

Any employee who raises the above with their employer and finds themselves subject to dismissed as a result may also be protected under whistleblower legislation and expert legal advice should be sought without delay. In seemingly strong cases, the Employment Tribunal has power to reverse the dismissal provided the application is made within 7 days.

Killing the cure: The Strange War Against Hydroxychloroquine

Killing the cure: The Strange War Against Hydroxychloroquine

By Meryl Nass, M.D.and Belinda Brown

The following is a deep dive into what appears to have been a concerted attempt to ensure that hydroxychloroquine would not be viewed as an effective treatment for COVID-19.

As Published on LifeSiteNews

PART ONE

The UK has had the ignominious triumph of having one of the world’s highest death rates. Some see the solution in continuing lockdowns, more testing and ultimately the vaccine. We argue that the solution lies in medical treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin rather than in vaccination.  But hydroxychloroquine was ruled out as a potential treatment for covid19 quite early on. This is despite the fact that, when used correctly, it is a highly efficacious treatment. Had it been readily available as a prophylactic or early stage treatment we would need neither lockdowns nor vaccinations and dramatically fewer people would have died. However this didn’t happen. Here we intend to explore why.

Hydroxychloroquine had repeatedly been found to be an effective treatment for Covid19. Didier Raoult was one of the earliest to discover its usefulness. He treated over 1000 patients  with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine and almost 99% recovered. Other studies found its efficacy was increased when zinc was added into the protocol; there were fewer fatalities and patients were discharged home earlier. Harvey Risch, a Yale professor conducted a meta-analysis showing the key role it could play in an outpatient setting. This was recently confirmed by McCullough who showed how when started earlier it may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and is associated with reduced mortality. Most recently Zelenko has written on the dramatic improvements hydroxychloroquine can bring about in a nebulized form. A groups of scientists and phd researchers put together a ‘living review’, a database of all the papers on hydroxychloroquine which can be viewed here: https://c19study.com/ They suggest that had it been used over 1,344,703 lives could have been saved

Safety was also never an issue when used correctly. It had been used for 65 years by hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses, prescribed without routine screening and given to adults, children, pregnant women and nursing mothers.  It is derived from the bark of the cinchona tree, which has been used for hundreds or thousands of years to treat malaria.

How did a cheap, safe, and highly effective drug, come to be seen as a potentially fatal medication, which you could lose your license for prescribing, your credibility for advocating and every time someone tried to talk about it, they would be banned, humiliated or described as ‘fake news’.

How did this happen? And more ominously, why?

The stage was set when the WHO Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at a media briefing (18th March last year) made it clear that the controlled trials which had produced the initial findings were going to be overridden by the WHO’s far more expensively produced results:

" Multiple small trials with different methodologies may not give us the clear, strong evidence we need about which treatments help to save lives. WHO and its partners are therefore organizing a study in many countries in which some of these untested treatments are compared with each other. This large, international study is designed to generate the robust data we need, to show which treatments are the most effective. We have called this study the SOLIDARITY trial. "

The idea that multiple small trials are not able to generate strong evidence is false. The Cochrane Library Consortium, the gold standard  in the research world, examined tens of thousands of comparisons between randomized trials and their non-randomized counterparts and found the two types of studies arrived at virtually identical conclusions.   

But WHO appeared determined to control the narrative and set up a $108 million dollar study with 12,000 patients at 500 hospital sites across 30 countries. They trialled hydroxychloroquine on 954 late stage patients. 64% of these were already on oxygen or ventilation. 

Using this study they were able to achieve very different results.

To understand how, you need to know covid 19 has three stages: viral replication which can develop into florid pneumonia and then multi-organ attack. Hydroxychloroquine tackles early-stage viral replication rather than late stage inflammation which requires a different approach. It is most valuable as an outpatient treatment preventing covid19 developing to a later stage.

By giving hydroxychloroquine to late-stage patients SOLIDARITY was setting up a trial which would be bound to have negative results.

However, more egregious was the dosage. While hydroxychloroquine is very safe when used correctly, like paracetamol it has a narrow toxic to therapeutic margin. In 1979 the WHO calculated that 1.5 -2 g of the “base” drug could be a potentially fatal dose. In the Solidarity trial patients were administered a dosage of 2.4 g (equivalent of 1.9 base) in the first 24 hours or 9.6 g in total over ten days

The only ‘safety’ information collected during the trial was whether patients required oxygen, required a ventilator, or died. This effectively masked the adverse effects of the drugs tested, obscuring whether mortality was due to drug toxicity as opposed to death due to Covid 19.

This toxic dosage was quickly identified by India’s official medical research agency, the Indian Council of Medical Research. They wrote to the WHO to alert them to the fact they were using doses 4 times higher than in India. Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, the WHO’s chief scientist and previous head of the Indian medical research agency should have been able to identify this herself. A previous trial in Brazil in March-April with a slightly higher dosage (12 g in ten days) had been stopped prematurely due to excess deaths and is currently being investigated. But the Solidarity trial’s HCQ arm was only permanently stopped after one of the authors of this blog post, on finding out these doses, threatened them with a manslaughter charge. Was there a connection? You can decide.

A similar strategy in the fight against hydroxychloroquine was the Oxford based RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY) clinical trials run by two Professors from the University of Oxford Peter Horby and Martin Landray. This was a large British multi-centre clinical trial of the sort generally believed to yield the most reliable evidence.

It also used 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients, a potentially lethal dose

Horby and Landry presented a number of arguments to reassure that the dosages were not toxic, not all of which stood up to further investigation. For example, they suggest that as no extra deaths had occurred in the first couple of days when the dosage was highest this was evidence that the dose was not fatal (see line 284). They ignored the crucial fact that hydroxychloroquine has a particularly long half-life, and cumulative dosing was the more relevant measure.  

FranceSoir concluded from their extremely detailed investigation of RECOVERY that many patients died of toxic overdoses of hydroxychloroquine rather than covid 19.  You can read more about it here and here.

While the hydroxychloroquine arm has been shut down  doctors are strongly encouraged to enrol all COVID19 patients onto the RECOVERY trial. In fact they recently recruited over just over 10,000 patients in January alone. They are also maintaining  the same minimalist approach towards safety which we saw earlier on: “trials are being run as simply as they can to reduce the burden on the NHS”. 

As Chair of  the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) and a committee member of The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), Peter Horby is an extremely influential man.

A third mysterious event in pushing hydroxychloroquine out of the picture was the publication in the Lancet of a large international observational study based on 96 000 Covid cases (15,000 of whom received a chloroquine drug) which appeared to show that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were of no benefit and caused considerable harm. This was reported on here. The flaws in the study were so blatant that one of us critiqued it on the day it was published. Within days 146 researchers wrote to the British Medical Journal with concerns about its methodology and data integrity. It took two weeks for the Lancet to retract the study but by then the damage was done.

PART TWO

In part one we showed how the trials designed to test hydroxychloroquine appear to have been manipulated in a direction which was bound to produce negative results. In part two we look at the influence of these studies.

Large studies have a significant impact on medical knowledge even where they are seriously misleading. They are more likely to be published and to shape meta-analyses. The fraudulent Lancet study mentioned in part one is still extensively cited.

 But in the case of hydroxychloroquine there has been a determination to influence the way that hydroxychloroquine was viewed and used throughout the world in fundamental ways. 

Firstly, the WHO put pressure on governments and professional bodies to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine. Belgium, France, Italy were just some of the countries which banned its use for treatment of Covid-19. The Jakarta Post/Reuters reported on May 27 that WHO had instructed Indonesia’s health ministry to suspend the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of Covid-19.  Indonesia, the world’s 4th most populous country, had been using the drug early for all cases, independent of severity, with good results. Fortunately, Indonesia refused to comply.

Similarly, Costa Rica, which had a particularly low fatality rate, and was said to be the only country in Central America using HCQ for early treatment, considered stopping hydroxychloroquine as a result of pronouncements by the WHO

The FDA at first issued an Emergency Use Authorization for chloroquine drugs, and then suspended  this. Each of these moves served to restrict use of the drugin different ways.

The clamp down in the use of hydroxychloroquine in Switzerland created a natural experiment. For about 2 weeks after hydroxychloroquine use was halted, death rates approximately tripled, for about 15 days. Then, after its use was allowed again, two weeks later death rates from Covid fell back to their baseline. But this did not receive the attention which it deserved. 

Large outpatient studies were also suspended in response to these studies. 

For example, COPCOV, a large global clinical trial which aimed to enrol 40,000 healthcare workers in an outpatient setting, appears to have been temporarily halted after recruiting 226 participants. Investigators involved in the study argue that HCQ had the potential to save tens of thousands of lives. They attributed this suspension to ‘the fraudulent data [in the Lancet-published, later retractedstudy], unjustified extrapolation and exaggerated safety concerns’.

Similarly, another trial described as ‘The largest and most systematic outpatient trial leveraged by the US National Institutes of Health’ which planned to include an estimated 2000 outpatients with early covid-19 was stopped for good after only 20 had been enrolled in a month.

This was particularly damaging to the potential use of hydroxychloroquine, as it is in an outpatient context that it has its most valuable role to play

And so the systematic exclusion of hydroxychloroquine from the COVID19 medical landscape progressed.

The most-consulted US medical encyclopedia, UptoDate, advised physicians to restrict hydroxychloroquine to only clinical trials, citing the FDA.

Sanofi announced it would no longer supply the drug for use with Covid, and cancelled its clinical trials  including one for outpatients, which should have been a key area of research.

Sanofi also began acting like a regulator, writing to health professionals in Australia to remind them that hydroxychloroquine was not approved for use outside a clinical trial. Sanofi also started collecting information on all off-label use of hydroxychloroquine in New Zealand and Australia, providing mechanisms for people to make anonymous reports.  

If anyone should wonder why Sanofi, a drug manufacturing company, should become a surveillance/ enforcement mechanism to frighten medical providers from using the drug for COVID19, it is worth noting that Sanofi, partnering with GSK, subsequently received a potential 2.1 billion dollars from the US government for 100 million doses of coronavirus vaccine. Perhaps that is where the answer lies.

And in what appeared to be a strange war against hydroxychloroquine, in Taiwan, a country which fared remarkably well in the battle against covid19, a factory essential to the production of hydroxychloroquine was burnt down

The barrage of negative publicity which the studies on hydroxychloroquine precipitated influenced what was published. When publishing empirical research, it is easier to publish positive findings. But when it came to hydroxychloroquine there was a bias towards publishing negative results. Studies from North America were almost four times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined.

Richard Smith, former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) helps us understand why: ‘Medical Journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies,’. He was backed up by Richard Horton: ‘Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry’.

Richard Horton was the editor in chief when the Lancet published the fraudulent research on hydroxychloroquine. He should know.

The treatment of hydroxychloroquine by social media companies provided a study on the operation of ‘fake news’.  YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said: ‘YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts the World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations’. While this sounds reasonable on the face of it, the fact remains that the WHO’s pronouncements were not reliable. When those with power control the narrative it is more difficult to decipher the truth.

An example of this censorship occurred when a group calling themselves “America’s Frontline Doctors” gave a press conference and livestream talks about the Covid-19 pandemic and the need for physicians to be able to prescribe HCQ freely.  While the media sparsely attended the press conference, the livestream got millions of views. Within hours, their livestream was banned by Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. While they can be found again on YouTube, they have been subject to character assassinations, and accused of having a political agenda. It is hard to see what they gain from exposing themselves to criticism and public humiliation except the knowledge that they have done their best to save other people’s lives.

There was a pattern of targeting doctors who spoke out in favour of hydroxychloroquine. Professor Didier Raoult, an authoritative microbiologist and one of the world’s most published scientists, wrote the original paper which put hydroxychloroquine on the map. As a result, he was subject to a significant level of attack. For example, when the New York Times Magazine did a feature on him, what they ultimately produced was a detailed hit piece. In the US, Raoult is now considered an unreliable crank

Vinay Prasad MD explained how ‘Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labelled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship’. 

PART THREE

In part one we looked at how trials of hydroxychloroquine appeared to have been designed to achieve negative results. In part two we looked at how these trials influenced strategies in the treatment of COVID19. Today we consider why hydroxychloroquine was subject to such an unprecedented attack?

Initially there may have been political motivations.

As it was the year of the US elections there was no shortage of people ready to criticise Trump’s poor handling of the pandemic. Firstly, he was attacked for downplaying the severity of it and then for his over-enthusiastic embracing of a potential cure. This was seen to be a risky strategy which could (and did) lead some people to self-medicate. As a result, Trump’s approach elicited a strong negative reaction from some members of the medical profession.

However, it also seems possible that had Trump been able to successfully promote hydroxychloroquine this would have transformed him into a hero. And there were many forces which wanted the President out.

Even before the WHO got to work on Solidarity, President Trump had, on the basis of findings from smaller clinical trials, obtained free drug donations for the Strategic National Stockpile of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which were made available for distribution to state governments. By the end of May pharmaceutical companies had donated more than 150 million doses, enough to fully treat more than 15 million people as part of their efforts for the ‘prevention and treatment of the coronavirus outbreak’.  

However, Rick Bright, an Obama appointed official, personally opposed widespread distribution of the donated hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, by insisting that it be registered for Emergency Use Authorization only (EUA). This greatly restricted its usage to only hospitalised patients, while preventing distribution to the outpatients with early disease in whom it would be expected to do the most good. This was not necessary as it was a properly licensed drug. This usage particularly discriminated against elderly residents in nursing homes who would no longer be able to access it as a prophylactic treatment.

This was a charade to confuse doctors.  FDA participated in the charade, issuing advice that use of the drug required a level of monitoring that could only be accomplished in a hospital. So, even though doctors could legally prescribe it off-label, they became aware that if they did so, they would likely be sued for malpractice if something went wrong.

However clumsily some may feel that Trump articulated his plan, it would have been able to save thousands of lives.

But perhaps more pertinently the fingerprints of big pharma were all over the decisions made.

One of the earliest studies initiated in response to Trump’s plan found that patients receiving hydroxychloroquine were more likely to die than those receiving regular care. However it was soon acknowledged that this was due to the severe stage of illness, and the fact that those in the group who received the drug were much sicker than those who did not. As The study noted, ‘hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease…Thus, as expected, increased mortality was observed in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine both with and without azithromycin’. The study was not peer reviewed, nor did it include azithromycin and zinc although previous studies suggested this combination produced the best outcome. One could argue that the trial appeared to be designed to ensure that hydroxychloroquine would come out badly.

One of the co-authors had been involved with Gilead which was produced remdesivir, a competing covid19 drug.

Perhaps more telling are the various links with vaccine producers. In fact, it is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the byword for vaccines, who were the experts when determining the doses of hydroxychloroquine. It was they who had developed a model of chloroquine penetration into tissues for malaria. At the expert working group they explained that they would have a post-exposure prophylaxis clinical trial protocol for hydroxychloroquine in the coming week, but we have not been able to find this.

Either way the BMGF were influential.  At the first meeting where the WHO working group discussed the potential role of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of covid19 five out of 25 of the meeting’s participants were from BMGF. When it came to decisions about the dosage for the disastrous SOLIDARITY trials a representative from the foundation was one of only four participants involved

Similarly, BMGF heavily funded the Recovery trial

As advocates of vaccination conflicts of interest were inevitable.  But if the dosage decided on for the hydroxychloroquine trials was a mistake it has cost us very dearly and served BMGF very well.

Big Pharma are extremely heavily invested in the UK public health decision-making system from the top down.  In the light of what we already know it would appear that their financial interest in vaccine production takes priority over a desire to save individual lives.

For example, many might wonder why Neil Ferguson, with his poor record of disease modelling, might be allowed to be so influential. But as someone who consistently over-predicts the scale of danger and is Acting Director of the Vaccine Impact Modelling Group, (funded by BMGF and GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance) he could undoubtedly play a useful role.

The British Government is also the largest funder of GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance. The links between big pharma, the WHO and our health strategies have been documented in detail here and here. When a floundering UK government is so heavily invested in a vaccine industry the potential financial gain from a successful vaccine roll out, rather than health and wellbeing of the people, is shaping  everything which the government chooses to do.

When looking at public health decisions it becomes apparent that these have been shaped by big pharma in a way which will inevitably lead to vaccines. PCR testing has been used to artificially ramp up the rate of infections, lockdown has destroyed the economy, and potential cures such as hydroxychloroquine (and maybe more recently ivermectin) appear to have been strategically removed. As a result, we are pushed into a corner from which vaccines appear to be the only escape.

What can we learn from this sorry saga of hydroxychloroquine?

The WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials which appear to have been designed so hydroxychloroquine and its cousin chloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development. In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.  In so doing, they have deprived billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic.  This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths.

Big pharma does not work in our interests. Some of those involved in this scandal appear to be financially motivated and these motivations shape policy decisions in ways which, certainly in the case of COVID19, are ultimately destructive of human health. Furthermore, their own agenda, wittingly or not, shapes the decisions and outputs of those further downstream.

We need some form of deregulation where as individuals we have greater control over our own health decisions. The risks involved are unlikely to be greater than the risks involved in entrusting ourselves to those who are influenced by financial interests when they make decisions about public health. Their recent track record speaks for itself.

Arbiters of ‘fake news’, wittingly or not, act as advocates for those with the funding and clout to produce the reports, studies and trials which make their case. While there is a great deal of fiction on the internet, fact checkers themselves do not have the authority to determine the ‘truth’ and in fact were recently pulled up for their censorship of a post about hydroxychloroquine. In the case of hydroxychloroquine (and more recently ivermectin) anonymous fact checkers claim more authority for the results of large clinical trials which can produce seriously misleading information.

By preventing the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine for early stage covid19 huge numbers of the elderly and those with co-morbidities, with men disproportionately represented among them, have died. This is genocide by default.

In this strange war against hydroxychloroquine it is not just hydroxychloroquine ‘they’ are attacking. This is a war against us. 

To read the original article, please visit

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/hcq-behe

The Hydroxychloroquine Saga

The Hydroxychloroquine Saga

by Rick Bradford

Has much of the world failed to benefit from an effective, early-stage treatment for COVID-19, because early trial results were misleading? There may be a number of drugs we could ask this question of; here I look at hydroxychloroquine.

The Early Indications

Hydroxychloroquine is not an exotic new drug with which doctors and medical authorities have little experience. On the contrary, it has been used widely for decades to treat malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. It came to public attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19 early in 2020, not least because of President Trump’s espousal of it.

In the period March – July 2020, attention focused on the WHO-led multinational Solidarity Trial and the UK’s own Recovery Trial which addressed the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19.

The Chief Investigators of the Recovery project released a press statement on June 5th 2020 which stated simply, “no clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19”.

On July 4th 2020 the Solidarity project discontinued the hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir trials. The interim trial results showed that hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir produced little or no reduction in the mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care. The Solidarity Trial found that all four treatments evaluated (remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon) had little or no effect on overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and duration of hospital stay in hospitalised patients.

The Recovery and Solidarity trials were exclusively carried out on seriously ill patients in hospital, rather than the early-stage patients for which there was existing evidence that hydroxychloroquine might be effective. A drug which acts against the pathogen is most relevant when the pathogen is multiplying. In the later stages of COVID-19, the illness becomes an immune-system-driven inflammatory condition, and by that time the original pathogen has already done its damage. Could it be that the negative results of the Recovery and Solidarity trials were due to their deployment to patients in an inappropriate phase of the disease? Certainly, Professor Didier Raoult from IHU-Marseille, and an early leading proponent of hydroxychloroquine, was not impressed with the Recovery trial, accusing it of being “the Marx Brothers doing science”.

In passing I note that a further multinational trial, REMAP-CAP, was also deployed only to seriously ill patients with severe pneumonia admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). I have found no results from this study. On June 3rd 2020 it was suspended following the scare from a now infamous Lancet paper by Mehra et al which claimed the use of hydroxychloroquine increased death rates (the paper was retracted a few days later). I presume that trial was never restarted.

Another criticism of the Recovery and Solidarity trials which has been made is of the dosage regime, with the doses appearing to be substantially greater than standard practice when the drug is used against malaria, lupus or rheumatoid arthritis (see, for example, “Killing the cure: The strange war against hydroxychloroquine“).

Recent Evidence that Hydroxychloroquine is Effective Against COVID-19

Care is needed here. To recommend a particular drug to medical practitioners requires a randomized controlled trial (RCT). However, before one goes to the expense and trouble of carrying out a controlled trial there must be some prima facie evidence to suggest a positive outcome is likely. Is there such prima facieevidence that hydroxychloroquine is effective when used in the right dosage on patients in the right stage of the disease?

Yes, there is. Lots of it. In fact, far more than is necessary to establish a prima facie case. It is this fact, against indications from the earlier trials, that motivated the writing of this short article. The number of studies emerging which examine the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, sometimes in combination with other drugs, is substantial – far too many papers for me to review here. Fortunately, review articles are now appearing which bring the big picture together, although what is still needed is a definitive, rigorous meta-analysis published in a top journal.

What I shall do first is give the reader a brief impression of what data is around by looking at a small sample of studies. These alone are sufficient to provide a solid prima facie case. You will see that the evidence comes from all over the world. The weight of evidence that hydroxychloroquine, possibly combined with other drugs, is efficacious in the early stages of COVID-19 is very strong. I will give a status summary of all the studies available as of February 2021 after looking at a few individual studies.

Didier Raoult and the Marseille Team

Although invariably associated in the press with the name of the flamboyant Didier Raoult alone, the paper which was submitted to the journal Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease on May 27th and published online on June 25th 2020 included the names of 43 authors: “Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis“. Extracts from the abstract are:

" In our institute in Marseille, France, we initiated early and massive screening for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hospitalization and early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ-AZ) was proposed for the positive cases. We retrospectively report the clinical management of 3,737 screened patients, including 3,119 (83.5%) treated with HCQ-AZ (200 mg of oral HCQ, three times daily for 10 days and 500 mg of oral AZ on day one followed by 250 mg daily for the next four days, respectively) for at least three days and 618 (16.5%) patients treated with other regimen (“others”). "

" The patients’ mean age was 45 (sd 17) years, 45% were male, and the case fatality rate was 0.9%… Treatment with HCQ-AZ was associated with a decreased risk of transfer to ICU or death (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.18 0.11–0.27), decreased risk of hospitalization ≥10 days (odds ratios 95% CI 0.38 0.27–0.54) and shorter duration of viral shedding (time to negative PCR: HR 1.29 1.17–1.42)… Although this is a retrospective analysis, results suggest that early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment of COVID-19 patients, with at least three days of HCQ-AZ lead to a significantly better clinical outcome and a faster viral load reduction than other treatments. "

Although many patients were relatively young in Covid terms, 12.3% were over 64 (5.7% older than 74). Of patients given hydroxychloroquine, 359 were over 64; of patients given other treatments, 157 were over 64. There was a high level of comorbidity: cancers 4%, diabetes 8%, chronic heart disease 6%, hypertension 15%, chronic respiratory disease 9% and obesity 11%.

The vultures have been circling Raoult for some time. The New York Times did a hit piece on Raoult in which “Trump” occurred 11 times. The Guardian was delighted to give Raoult some publicity… when the story was that he was to be subject of a disciplinary hearing by his professional medical body. In the Guardian story, “Trump” appeared in the third sentence. Muddying the waters of a purely medical question with political partisanship is worrying. There were 42 other authors responsible for the paper as well as Raoult, but Trump was not one of them.

Bernaola (Madrid)

The paper “Observational Study of the Efficiency of Treatments in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 in Madrid” by Nikolas Bernaola et al was submitted to the medRxiv medical preprint archive in July 2020 (current peer review status unknown). It concluded: “In this multicenter study of patients admitted with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine and prednisone administration was found to be associated with improved outcomes. Other treatments were associated with no effect or worse outcomes.” However, it sounds a warning note: “Randomized, controlled trials of these medications in patients with COVID-19 are needed to avoid heavy administration of treatments with no strong evidence to support them.”

Tarek Sulaiman’s Team, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

The Effect of Early Hydroxychloroquine-based Therapy in COVID-19 Patients in Ambulatory Care Settings: A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study” was placed on the medRxiv preprint archive on September 13th 2020 with the names of 22 authors. From the abstract:

" This observational prospective cohort study took place in 238 ambulatory fever clinics in Saudi Arabia, which followed the Ministry of Health (MOH) COVID-19 treatment guideline. This guideline included multiple treatment options for COVID-19 based on the best available evidence at the time, among which was Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Patients with confirmed COVD-19 (by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test) who presented to these clinics with mild to moderate symptoms during the period from June 5th–16th 2020 were included in this study. Our study looked at those who received HCQ-based therapy along with supportive care (SC) and compared them to patients who received SC alone. "

" All patients were presenting with active complaints; however, the HCQ groups had higher rates of symptoms compared to the SC group (fever: 84% vs 66.3, headache: 49.8 vs 37.4, cough: 44.5 vs 35.6, respectively). Early HCQ-based therapy was associated with a lower hospital admission within 28-days compared to SC alone (9.4% compared to 16.6%, RRR 43%, p-value <0.001). The composite outcome of ICU admission and/or mortality at 28-days was also lower in the HCQ group compared to the SC (1.2% compared to 2.6%, RRR 54%, p-value 0.001). Adjusting for age, gender, and major comorbid conditions, a multivariate logistic regression model showed a decrease in the odds of hospitalisation in patients who received HCQ compared to SC alone (adjusted OR 0.57 [95% CI 0.47-0.69], p-value <0.001). The composite outcome of ICU admission and/or mortality was also lower for the HCQ group compared to the SC group controlling for potential confounders (adjusted OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.34-0.91], p-value 0.019). "

CONCLUSION Early intervention with HCQ-based therapy in patients with mild to moderate symptoms at presentation is associated with lower adverse clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients, including hospital admissions, ICU admission, and/or death.

Derwand, Scholz and Zelenko (USA Data)

The December 2020 edition of the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents contains the peer reviewed paper “COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study“. The abstract reads:

The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the outpatient setting after early treatment with zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (triple therapy) dependent on risk stratification. This was a retrospective case series study in the general practice setting. A total of 141 COVID-19 patients with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the year 2020 were included. The main outcome measures were risk-stratified treatment decision and rates of hospitalisation and all-cause death. A median of 4 days [interquartile range (IQR) 3–6 days; available for n = 66/141 patients] after the onset of symptoms, 141 patients (median age 58 years, IQR 40–67 years; 73.0% male) received a prescription for triple therapy for 5 days. Independent public reference data from 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients in the same community were used as untreated controls. Of 141 treated patients, 4 (2.8%) were hospitalised, which was significantly fewer (P < 0.001) compared with 58 (15.4%) of 377 untreated patients [odds ratio (OR) = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06–0.5]. One patient (0.7%) in the treatment group died versus 13 patients (3.4%) in the untreated group (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.03–1.5; P = 0.12). No cardiac side effects were observed. Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset using triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low-dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly fewer hospitalisations.

Brazil

Published online in October 2020 in Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, the peer reviewed paper “Risk of hospitalization for Covid-19 outpatients treated with various drug regimens in Brazil: Comparative analysis” carried the names of nine Brazilian authors and one from the USA. From the Abstract:

Use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), prednisone or both significantly reduced hospitalization risk by 50–60%. Ivermectin, azithromycin and oseltamivir did not substantially reduce risk further….This work adds to the growing literature of studies that have found substantial benefit for use of HCQ combined with other agents in the early outpatient treatment of COVID-19, and adds the possibility of steroid use to enhance treatment efficacy.

Switzerland’s Natural Experiment

A rather stunning piece of evidence for hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness comes from Switzerland, as explained in this article: “Covid-19: l’hydroxychloroquine marche, une preuve solide?” My French is not good, but I get “une preuve solide” right enough. Some background is required first.

On May 22nd 2020, the Lancet published a paper which has become scandalous. It claimed that hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine when used for treatment of COVID-19 decreased in-hospital survival rates. It met with a maelstrom of criticism, and was retracted by the Lancet just 13 days later on June 4th 2020. This is a most unusual occurrence. The newspaper FranceSoir described it using the term “fraudulent study” (l’étude frauduleuse). It has been claimed that its database did not actually exist.

But in the 13 days before the paper was withdrawn it did its damage: the WHO and many Nation States decided to ban the prescribing of hydroxychloroquine due to the scare caused by that paper. (The REMAP-CAP trial of hydroxychloroquine was terminated due to it.) Switzerland, in which hydroxychloroquine had previously been in widespread use, was one of the countries which introduced a ban – on May 27th. But, after the Lancet paper had been withdrawn, the Swiss rescinded the ban and the widespread prescribing of hydroxychloroquine restarted after 15 days on June 11th. This created a natural experiment of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. The result is shown by Figure 1 below.

Figure 1

The graph shows, in effect, the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients against date. To be precise, the ordinate is the nrCFR (New Resolved Case Fatality Rate), which is defined as the proportion of deaths among the resolved cases (dead or cured) in the seven days preceding the date in question.

The two vertical lines indicate the cessation of prescribing hydroxychloroquine (May 27th) and its reintroduction 15 days later (June 11th). Prior to May 27th, hydroxychloroquine was in widespread use and the death rate was reducing. A time delay between treatment change and any influence on death rate is to be expected. Thirteen days after the ban on hydroxychloroquine, the death rate leapt upwards to a level not seen since March. Thirteen days after the reintroduction of hydroxychloroquine, the death rate dropped equally precipitously back down to its previous low level. Une preuve solide, it would seem.

Stunning though that is, there is evidence that is perhaps even more stunning.

Covid Analysis Group

I had it in mind to look at how the overall death rates varied between countries according to their usage of hydroxychloroquine. But it’s been done already. A group of researchers calling themselves Covid Analysis Group have been publishing regular updates of exactly that data, the latest being November 14th 2020: “Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine: a country-based analysis.” The key result is shown in Figure 2. The analysis is very detailed. Figure 2 includes adjustments described in the web link, which also gives the raw data. I have not attempted to critique the data.

Figure 2 shows in green the death rate per million for countries with widespread early usage of hydroxychloroquine. The red lines relate to countries with limited early usage of hydroxychloroquine. The graph is so striking it needs no additional commentary. Virtually all the green countries lie at lower death rates than virtually all the red countries. Note the stipulation regarding the deployment of hydroxychloroquine in the early stages of the disease.

Figure 2

The most obvious concern is whether the countries plotted have been cherry-picked, since only a small sub-set of the world’s nations are included. The Covid Analysis Group addressed this issue:

Why is country x not included? Our goal is to identify countries that have taken a strong decision on treatment. Countries without clear decisions are much harder to analyze – to create any meaningful results we need to know the proportion of usage to some reasonable degree… Countries like Italy or Brazil have extremely mixed usage, with differences during major time periods of their outbreak and/or major geographic differences. Analyzing these countries would be much more complex.

The Totality of Available Studies at 26th February 2021

As of February 26th there were 259 studies, 211 which compare with control groups, and 187 peer reviewed. You can find them all listed on this very useful link. I quote that site’s summary of the totality of evidence:

Hydroxychloroquine is not effective when used very late with high dosages over a long period (Recovery/Solidarity), effectiveness improves with earlier usage and improved dosing. Early treatment consistently shows positive effects. Negative evaluations typically ignore treatment time, often focusing on a subset of late stage studies.

Figures 3, 4 and 5 below are lifted straight from that source. Figure 3 shows that all 27 studies which involved treatment during the early stage of the disease were efficacious, the average improvement being 65%. Figure 4 shows all the trials, on both early and late stage patients. Most show a beneficial effect, but a substantial number of late-stage studies produce a worse outcome than controls. Early stage treatment is therefore key, as has been consistently maintained by proponents of hydroxychloroquine in the medical community.

Figure 5 shows the distribution around the world of usage of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. Limited use is found across all anglophone countries.

Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Has the Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine been Misrepresented?

So, has much of the world failed to benefit from an effective, early-stage treatment for COVID-19 because early trials of hydroxychloroquine were misleading? Based on the evidence now accumulating it would appear so. But one of the surprises, to this author, is that the negative view of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine is highly country-specific, being universal across anglophone countries, whilst most other countries have continued to deploy it. The reader may speculate about the reasons for this.

Rick Bradford is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Engineering at the University of Bristol.

To read the original Article, please visit:

The Hydroxychloroquine Saga

Corona Investigative Committee Declares Pandemic a Scam and “The greatest crime against Humanity”

Corona Investigative Committee Declares Pandemic a Scam and “The greatest crime against Humanity”

Massive lawsuits allege Covid scam is a Crime Against Humanity.

The German Corona Investigative Committee has taken testimony from a large number of international scientists and experts since July 10, 2020 and serve as an inditement of the medical tyranny unfolding. They plan on suing the World Health Organisation (WHO) and affiliated partners for misleading the public and destroying lives without justification.

Dr. Reiner Füllmich, one of the four lawyers who makes up the committee states his argument in the following transcript:

“Hello. I am Reiner Fuellmich and I have been admitted to the Bar in Germany and in California for 26 years. I have been practicing law primarily as a trial lawyer against fraudulent corporations such as Deutsche Bank, formerly one of the world’s largest and most respected banks, today one of the most toxic criminal organizations in the world; VW, one of the world’s largest and most respected car manufacturers, today notorious for its giant diesel fraud; and Kuehne and Nagel, the world’s largest shipping company. We’re suing them in a multi-million-dollar bribery case. 

I’m also one of four members of the German Corona Investigative Committee. Since July 10, 2020, this Committee has been listening to a large number of international scientists’ and experts’ testimony to find answers to questions about the corona crisis, which more and more people worldwide are asking. All the above-mentioned cases of corruption and fraud committed by the German corporations pale in comparison in view of the extent of the damage that the corona crisis has caused and continues to cause. 

This corona crisis, according to all we know today, must be renamed a “Corona Scandal” and those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages. On a political level, everything must be done to make sure that no one will ever again be in a position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity or to attempt to manipulate us with their corrupt agendas. And for this reason I will now explain to you how and where an international network of lawyers will argue this biggest tort case ever, the corona fraud scandal, which has meanwhile unfolded into probably the greatest crime against humanity ever committed. 

Crimes against humanity were first defined in connection with the Nuremberg trials after World War II, that is, when they dealt with the main war criminals of the Third Reich. Crimes against humanity are today regulated in section 7 of the International Criminal Code. The three major questions to be answered in the context of a judicial approach to the corona scandal are: 

1.         Is there a corona pandemic or is there only a PCR-test pandemic? Specifically, does a positive PCR-test result mean that the person tested is infected with Covid-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing in connection with the Covid-19 infection?

2.         Do the so-called anti-corona measures, such as the lockdown, mandatory face masks, social distancing, and quarantine regulations, serve to protect the world’s population from corona, or do these measures serve only to make people panic so that they believe – without asking any questions – that their lives are in danger, so that in the end the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints?

3.         Is it true that the German government was massively lobbied, more so than any other country, by the chief protagonists of this so-called corona pandemic, Mr. Drosten, virologist at charity hospital in Berlin; Mr. Wieler, veterinarian and head of the German equivalent of the CDC, the RKI; and Mr. Tedros, Head of the World Health Organization or WHO; because Germany is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world for its strict and, of course, successful adherence to the corona measures? 

Answers to these three questions are urgently needed because the allegedly new and highly dangerous coronavirus has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world, and certainly not here in Germany. But the anti-corona measures, whose only basis are the PCR-test results, which are in turn all based on the German Drosten test, have, in the meantime, caused the loss of innumerable human lives and have destroyed the economic existence of countless companies and individuals worldwide. In Australia, for example, people are thrown into prison if they do not wear a mask or do not wear it properly, as deemed by the authorities. In the Philippines, people who do not wear a mask or do not wear it properly, in this sense, are getting shot in the head. 

Let me first give you a summary of the facts as they present themselves today. The most important thing in a lawsuit is to establish the facts – that is, to find out what actually happened. That is because the application of the law always depends on the facts at issue. If I want to prosecute someone for fraud, I cannot do that by presenting the facts of a car accident. So what happened here regarding the alleged corona pandemic? 

The facts laid out below are, to a large extent, the result of the work of the Corona Investigative Committee. This Committee was founded on July 10, 2020 by four lawyers in order to determine, through hearing expert testimony of international scientists and other experts: 

1.         How dangerous is the virus really?

2.         What is the significance of a positive PCR test?

3.         What collateral damage has been caused by the corona measures, both with respect to the world population’s health, and with respect to the world’s economy? 

Let me start with a little bit of background information. What happened in May 2019 and then in early 2020? And what happened 12 years earlier with the swine flu, which many of you may have forgotten about? In May 2019, the stronger of the two parties which govern Germany in a grand coalition, the CDU, held a Congress on Global Health, apparently at the instigation of important players from the pharmaceutical industry and the tech industry. At this Congress, the usual suspects, you might say, gave their speeches. Angela Merkel was there, and the German Secretary of Health, Jens Spahn. But, some other people, whom one would not necessarily expect to be present at such a gathering, were also there: Professor Drosten, virologist from the Charite hospital in Berlin; Professor Wieler, veterinarian and Head of the RKI, the German equivalent of the CDC; as well as Mr. Tedros, philosopher and Head of the World Health Organization (WHO). They all gave speeches there. Also present and giving speeches were the chief lobbyists of the world’s two largest health funds, namely the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. Less than a year later, these very people called the shots in the proclamation of the worldwide corona pandemic, made sure that mass PCR tests were used to prove mass infections with Covid-19 all over the world, and are now pushing for vaccines to be invented and sold worldwide. 

These infections, or rather the positive test results that the PCR tests delivered, in turn became the justification for worldwide lockdowns, social distancing and mandatory face masks. It is important to note at this point that the definition of a pandemic was changed 12 years earlier. Until then, a pandemic was considered to be a disease that spread worldwide and which led to many serious illnesses and deaths. Suddenly, and for reasons never explained, it was supposed to be a worldwide disease only. Many serious illnesses and many deaths were not required any more to announce a pandemic. Due to this change, the WHO, which is closely intertwined with the global pharmaceutical industry, was able to declare the swine flu pandemic in 2009, with the result that vaccines were produced and sold worldwide on the basis of contracts that have been kept secret until today. 

These vaccines proved to be completely unnecessary because the swine flu eventually turned out to be a mild flu, and never became the horrific plague that the pharmaceutical industry and its affiliated universities kept announcing it would turn into, with millions of deaths certain to happen if people didn’t get vaccinated. These vaccines also led to serious health problems. About 700 children in Europe fell incurably ill with narcolepsy and are now forever severely disabled. The vaccines bought with millions of taxpayers’ money had to be destroyed with even more taxpayers’ money. Already then, during the swine flu, the German virologist Drosten was one of those who stirred up panic in the population, repeating over and over again that the swine flu would claim many hundreds of thousands, even millions of deaths all over the world. In the end, it was mainly thanks to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and his efforts as a member of the German Bundestag, and also a member of the Council of Europe, that this hoax was brought to an end before it would lead to even more serious consequences. 

Fast forward to March of 2020, when the German Bundestag announced an Epidemic Situation of National Importance, which is the German equivalent of a pandemic in March of 2020 and, based on this, the lockdown with the suspension of all essential constitutional rights for an unforeseeable time, there was only one single opinion on which the Federal Government in Germany based its decision. In an outrageous violation of the universally accepted principle “audiatur et altera pars”, which means that one must also hear the other side, the only person they listened to was Mr. Drosten. 

That is the very person whose horrific, panic-inducing prognoses had proved to be catastrophically false 12 years earlier. We know this because a whistleblower named David Sieber, a member of the Green Party, told us about it. He did so first on August 29, 2020 in Berlin, in the context of an event at which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. also took part, and at which both men gave speeches. And he did so afterwards in one of the sessions of our Corona Committee. 

The reason he did this is that he had become increasingly sceptical about the official narrative propagated by politicians and the mainstream media. He had therefore undertaken an effort to find out about other scientists’ opinions and had found them on the Internet. There, he realized that there were a number of highly renowned scientists who held a completely different opinion, which contradicted the horrific prognoses of Mr. Drosten. They assumed – and still do assume – that there was no disease that went beyond the gravity of the seasonal flu, that the population had already acquired cross- or T-cell immunity against this allegedly new virus, and that there was therefore no reason for any special measures, and certainly not for vaccinations. 

These scientists include Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California, a specialist in statistics and epidemiology, as well as public health, and at the same time the most quoted scientist in the world; Professor Michael Levitt, Nobel prize-winner for chemistry and also a biophysicist at Stanford University; the German professors Kary Mölling, Sucharit Bhakti, Klud Wittkowski, as well as Stefan Homburg; and now many, many more scientists and doctors worldwide, including Dr. Mike Yeadon. Dr. Mike Yeadon is the former Vice-President and Scientific Director of Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. I will talk some more about him a little later. 

At the end of March, beginning of April of 2020, Mr. Sieber turned to the leadership of his Green Party with the knowledge he had accumulated, and suggested that they present these other scientific opinions to the public and explain that, contrary to Mr. Drosten’s doomsday prophecies, there was no reason for the public to panic. Incidentally, Lord Sumption, who served as a judge at the British supreme court from 2012 to 2018, had done the very same thing at the very same time and had come to the very same conclusion: that there was no factual basis for panic and no legal basis for the corona measures. Likewise, the former President of the German federal constitutional court expressed –  albeit more cautiously – serious doubts that the corona measures were constitutional. But instead of taking note of these other opinions and discussing them with David Sieber, the Green Party leadership declared that Mr. Drosten’s panic messages were good enough for the Green Party. Remember, they’re not a member of the ruling coalition; they’re the opposition. Still, that was enough for them, just as it had been good enough for the Federal Government as a basis for its lockdown decision, they said. They subsequently, the Green Party leadership called David Sieber a conspiracy theorist, without ever having considered the content of his information, and then stripped him of his mandates. 

Now let’s take a look at the current actual situation regarding the virus’s danger, the complete uselessness of PCR tests for the detection of infections, and the lockdowns based on non-existent infections. In the meantime, we know that the health care systems were never in danger of becoming overwhelmed by Covid-19. On the contrary, many hospitals remain empty to this day and some are now facing bankruptcy. The hospital ship Comfort, which anchored in New York at the time, and could have accommodated a thousand patients, never accommodated more than some 20 patients. Nowhere was there any excess mortality. Studies carried out by Professor Ioannidis and others have shown that the mortality of corona is equivalent to that of the seasonal flu. Even the pictures from Bergamo and New York that were used to demonstrate to the world that panic was in order proved to be deliberately misleading. 

Then, the so-called “Panic Paper” was leaked, which was written by the German Department of the Interior. Its classified content shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that, in fact, the population was deliberately driven to panic by politicians and mainstream media. The accompanying irresponsible statements of the Head of the RKI – remember the [German] CDC – Mr. Wieler, who repeatedly and excitedly announced that the corona measures must be followed unconditionally by the population without them asking any question, shows that that he followed the script verbatim. In his public statements, he kept announcing that the situation was very grave and threatening, although the figures compiled by his own Institute proved the exact opposite. 

Among other things, the “Panic Paper” calls for children to be made to feel responsible – and I quote – “for the painful tortured death of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow the corona rules”, that is, if they do not wash their hands constantly and don’t stay away from their grandparents. A word of clarification: in Bergamo, the vast majority of deaths, 94% to be exact, turned out to be the result not of Covid-19, but rather the consequence of the government deciding to transfer sick patients, sick with probably the cold or seasonal flu, from hospitals to nursing homes in order to make room at the hospitals for all the Covid patients, who ultimately never arrived. There, at the nursing homes, they then infected old people with a severely weakened immune system, usually as a result of pre-existing medical conditions. In addition, a flu vaccination, which had previously been administered, had further weakened the immune systems of the people in the nursing homes. In New York, only some, but by far not all hospitals were overwhelmed. Many people, most of whom were again elderly and had serious pre-existing medical conditions, and most of whom, had it not been for the panic-mongering, would have just stayed at home to recover, raced to the hospitals. There, many of them fell victim to healthcare-associated infections (or nosocomial infections) on the one hand, and incidents of malpractice on the other hand, for example, by being put on a respirator rather than receiving oxygen through an oxygen mask. Again, to clarify: Covid-19, this is the current state of affairs, is a dangerous disease, just like the seasonal flu is a dangerous disease. And of course, Covid-19, just like the seasonal flu, may sometimes take take a severe clinical course and will sometimes kill patients. 

However, as autopsies have shown, which were carried out in Germany in particular, by the forensic scientist Professor Klaus Püschel in Hamburg, the fatalities he examined had almost all been caused by serious pre-existing conditions, and almost all of the people who had died had died at the very at a very old age, just like in Italy, meaning they had lived beyond their average life expectancy. 

In this context, the following should also be mentioned: the German RKI – that is, again the equivalent of the CDC – had initially, strangely enough, recommended that no autopsies be performed. And there are numerous credible reports that doctors and hospitals worldwide had been paid money for declaring a deceased person a victim of Covid-19 rather than writing down the true cause of death on the death certificate, for example a heart attack or a gunshot wound. Without the autopsies, we would never know that the overwhelming majority of the alleged Covid-19 victims had died of completely different diseases, but not of Covid-19. The assertion that the lockdown was necessary because there were so many different infections with SARS-COV-2, and because the healthcare systems would be overwhelmed is wrong for three reasons, as we have learned from the hearings we conducted with the Corona Committee, and from other data that has become available in the meantime: 

A.        The lockdown was imposed when the virus was already retreating. By the time the lockdown was imposed, the alleged infection rates were already dropping again.

B.         There’s already protection from the virus because of cross- or T-cell immunity. Apart from the above mentioned lockdown being imposed when the infection rates were already dropping, there is also cross- or T-cell immunity in the general population against the corona viruses contained in every flu or influenza wave. This is true, even if this time around, a slightly different strain of the coronavirus was at work. And that is because the body’s own immune system remembers every virus it has ever battled in the past, and from this experience, it also recognizes a supposedly new, but still similar, strain of the virus from the corona family. Incidentally, that’s how the PCR test for the detection of an infection was invented by now infamous Professor Drosten. 

At the beginning of January of 2020, based on this very basic knowledge, Mr. Drosten developed his PCR test, which supposedly detects an infection with SARS-COV-2, without ever having seen the real Wuhan virus from China, only having learned from social media reports that there was something going on in Wuhan, he started tinkering on his computer with what would become his corona PCR test. For this, he used an old SARS virus, hoping it would be sufficiently similar to the allegedly new strain of the coronavirus found in Wuhan. Then, he sent the result of his computer tinkering to China to determine whether the victims of the alleged new coronavirus tested positive. They did. 

And that was enough for the World Health Organization to sound the pandemic alarm and to recommend the worldwide use of the Drosten PCR test for the detection of infections with the virus now called SARS-COV-2. Drosten’s opinion and advice was – this must be emphasized once again – the only source for the German government when it announced the lockdown as well as the rules for social distancing and the mandatory wearing of masks. And – this must also be emphasized once again – Germany apparently became the center of especially massive lobbying by the pharmaceutical and tech industry because the world, with reference to the allegedly disciplined Germans, should do as the Germans do in order to survive the pandemic. 

C.         And this is the most important part of our fact-finding: the PCR test is being used on the basis of false statements, NOT based on scientific facts with respect to infections. In the meantime, we have learned that these PCR tests, contrary to the assertions of Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and the WHO, do NOT give any indication of an infection with any virus, let alone an infection with SARS-COV-2. Not only are PCR tests expressly not approved for diagnostic purposes, as is correctly noted on leaflets coming with these tests, and as the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, has repeatedly emphasized. Instead, they’re simply incapable of diagnosing any disease. That is: contrary to the assertions of Drosten, Wieler and the WHO, which they have been making since the proclamation of the pandemic, a positive PCR-test result does not mean that an infection is present. If someone tests positive, it does NOT mean that they’re infected with anything, let alone with the contagious SARS-COV-2 virus. 

Even the United States CDC, even this institution agrees with this, and I quote directly from page 38 of one of its publications on the coronavirus and the PCR tests, dated July 13, 2020. First bullet point says: “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019 nCOV [novel coronavirus] is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.” Second bullet point says: “The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019 nCOV infection.” Third bullet point says: “This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” 

It is still not clear whether there has ever been a scientifically correct isolation of the Wuhan virus, so that nobody knows exactly what we’re looking for when we test, especially since this virus, just like the flu viruses, mutates quickly. The PCR swabs take one or two sequences of a molecule that are invisible to the human eye and therefore need to be amplified in many cycles to make it visible. Everything over 35 cycles is – as reported by the New York Times and others – considered completely unreliable and scientifically unjustifiable. However, the Drosten test, as well as the WHO-recommended tests that followed his example, are set to 45 cycles. Can that be because of the desire to produce as many positive results as possible and thereby provide the basis for the false assumption that a large number of infections have been detected? 

The test cannot distinguish inactive and reproductive matter. That means that a positive result may happen because the test detects, for example, a piece of debris, a fragment of a molecule, which may signal nothing else than that the immune system of the person tested won a battle with a common cold in the past. Even Drosten himself declared in an interview with a German business magazine in 2014, at that time concerning the alleged detection of an infection with the MERS virus, allegedly with the help of the PCR test, that these PCR tests are so highly sensitive that even very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive. At that time, he also became very much aware of the powerful role of a panic and fear-mongering media, as you’ll see at the end of the following quote. He said then, in this interview: “If, for example, such a pathogen scurries over the nasal mucosa of a nurse for a day or so without her getting sick or noticing anything, then she’s suddenly a MERS case. This could also explain the explosion of case numbers in Saudi Arabia. In addition, the media there have made this into an incredible sensation.” 

Has he forgotten this? Or is he deliberately concealing this in the corona context because corona is a very lucrative business opportunity for the pharmaceutical industry as a whole? And for Mr. Alford Lund, his co-author in many studies and also a PCR-test producer. In my view, it is completely implausible that he forgot in 2020 what he knew about the PCR tests and told the business magazine in 2014. 

In short, this test cannot detect any infection, contrary to all false claims stating that it can. An infection, a so-called “hot” infection, requires that the virus, or rather a fragment of a molecule which may be a virus, is not just found somewhere, for example, in the throat of a person without causing any damage – that would be a “cold” infection. Rather, a “hot” infection requires that the virus penetrates into the cells, replicates there and causes symptoms such as headaches or a sore throat. Only then is a person really infected in the sense of a “hot” infection, because only then is a person contagious, that is, able to infect others. Until then, it is completely harmless for both the host and all other people that the host comes into contact with. 

Once again, this means that positive test results, contrary to all other claims by Drosten, Wieler, or the WHO, mean nothing with respect to infections, as even the CDC knows, as quoted above. 

Meanwhile, a number of highly respected scientists worldwide assume that there has never been a corona pandemic, but only a PCR-test pandemic. This is the conclusion reached by many German scientists, such as professors Bhakti, Reiss, Mölling, Hockertz, Walach and many others, including the above-mentioned Professor John Ioannidis, and the Nobel laureate, Professor Michael Levitt from Stanford University. 

The most recent such opinion is that of the aforementioned Dr. Mike Yeadon, a former Vice-President and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer, who held this position for 16 years. He and his co-authors, all well-known scientists, published a scientific paper in September of 2020 and he wrote a corresponding magazine article on September 20, 2020. Among other things, he and they state – and I quote: 

We’re basing our government policy, our economic policy, and the policy of restricting fundamental rights, presumably on completely wrong data and assumptions about the coronavirus. If it weren’t for the test results that are constantly reported in the media, the pandemic would be over because nothing really happened. Of course, there are some serious individual cases of illness, but there are also some in every flu epidemic. There was a real wave of disease in March and April, but since then, everything has gone back to normal. Only the positive results rise and sink wildly again and again, depending on how many tests are carried out. But the real cases of illnesses are over. There can be no talk of a second wave. The allegedly new strain of the coronavirus is …” 

– Dr. Yeadon continues – 

“… only new in that it is a new type of the long-known corona virus. There are at least four coronaviruses that are endemic and cause some of the common colds we experience, especially in winter. They all have a striking sequence similarity to the coronavirus, and because the human immune system recognizes the similarity to the virus that has now allegedly been newly discovered, a T-cell immunity has long existed in this respect. 30 per cent of the population had this before the allegedly new virus even appeared. Therefore, it is sufficient for the so-called herd immunity that 15 to 25 per cent of the population are infected with the allegedly new coronavirus to stop the further spread of the virus. And this has long been the case.” 

Regarding the all-important PCR tests, Yeadon writes, in a piece called “Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics: The Deadly Danger of False Positives”, dated September 20, 2020, and I quote “The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89 to 94 per cent, or near certainty.” Dr. Yeadon, in agreement with the professors of immunology Kamera from Germany, Kappel from the Netherlands, and Cahill from Ireland, as well as the microbiologist Dr. Arve from Austria, all of whom testified before the German Corona Committee, explicitly points out that a positive test does not mean that an intact virus has been found. 

The authors explain that what the PCR test actually measures is – and I quote: “Simply the presence of partial RNA sequences present in the intact virus, which could be a piece of dead virus, which cannot make the subject sick, and cannot be transmitted, and cannot make anyone else sick.” Because of the complete unsuitability of the test for the detection of infectious diseases – tested positive in goats, sheep, papayas and even chicken wings – Oxford Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, writes that the Covid virus would never disappear if this test practice were to be continued, but would always be falsely detected in much of what is tested. Lockdowns, as Yeadon and his colleagues found out, do not work. Sweden, with its laissez-faire approach, and Great Britain, with its strict lockdown, for example, have completely comparable disease and mortality statistics. The same was found by US scientists concerning the different US states. It makes no difference to the incidence of disease whether a state implements a lockdown or not. 

With regard to the now infamous Imperial College of London’s Professor Neil Ferguson and his completely false computer models warning of millions of deaths, he says that – and I quote: “No serious scientist gives any validity to Ferguson’s model.” He points out with thinly veiled contempt – again I quote: “It’s important that you know, most scientists don’t accept that it …” – that is, Ferguson’s model – “was even faintly right. But the government is still wedded to the model.” Ferguson predicted 40 thousand corona deaths in Sweden by May and 100 thousand by June, but it remained at 5,800 which, according to the Swedish authorities, is equivalent to a mild flu. If the PCR tests had not been used as a diagnostic tool for corona infections, there would not be a pandemic and there would be no lockdowns, but everything would have been perceived as just a medium or light wave of influenza, these scientists conclude. Dr. Yeadon in his piece, “Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics: The Deadly Danger of False Positives, writes: “This test is fatally flawed and must immediately be withdrawn and never used again in this setting, unless shown to be fixed.” And, towards the end of that article, “I have explained how a hopelessly performing diagnostic test has been, and continues to be used, not for diagnosis of disease, but it seems solely to create fear”. 

Now let’s take a look at the current actual situation regarding the severe damage caused by the lockdowns and other measures. Another detailed paper, written by a German official in the Department of the Interior, who is responsible for risk assessment and the protection of the population against risks, was leaked recently. It is now called the “False Alarm” paper. This paper comes to the conclusion that there was that there was and is no sufficient evidence for serious health risks for the population as claimed by Drosten, Wieler and the WHO, but – the author says –  there’s very much evidence of the corona measures causing gigantic health and economic damage to the population, which he then describes in detail in this paper. This, he concludes, will lead to very high claims for damages, which the government will be held responsible for. This has now become reality, but the paper’s author was suspended. 

More and more scientists, but also lawyers, recognize that, as a result of the deliberate panic-mongering, and the corona measures enabled by this panic, democracy is in great danger of being replaced by fascist totalitarian models. As I already mentioned above, in Australia, people who do not wear the masks, which more and more studies show, are hazardous to health, or who allegedly do not wear them correctly, are arrested, handcuffed and thrown into jail. In the Philippines, they run the risk of getting shot, but even in Germany and in other previously civilized countries, children are taken away from their parents if they do not comply with quarantine regulations, distance regulations, and mask-wearing regulations. According to psychologists and psychotherapists who testified before the Corona Committee, children are traumatized en masse, with the worst psychological consequences yet to be expected in the medium- and long-term. In Germany alone, to bankruptcies are expected in the fall to strike small- and medium-sized businesses, which form the backbone of the economy. This will result in incalculable tax losses and incalculably high and long-term social security money transfers for – among other things – unemployment benefits. 

Since, in the meantime, pretty much everybody is beginning to understand the full devastating impact of the completely unfounded corona measures, I will refrain from detailing this any further. 

Let me now give you a summary of the legal consequences. The most difficult part of a lawyer’s work is always to establish the true facts, not the application of the legal rules to these facts. Unfortunately, a German lawyer does not learn this at law school but his Anglo-American counterparts do get the necessary training for this at their law schools. And probably for this reason, but also because of the much more pronounced independence of the Anglo-American judiciary, the Anglo-American law of evidence is much more effective in practice than the German one. A court of law can only decide a legal dispute correctly if it has previously determined the facts correctly, which is not possible without looking at all the evidence. And that’s why the law of evidence is so important. On the basis of the facts summarized above, in particular those established with the help of the work of the German Corona Committee, the legal evaluation is actually simple. It is simple for all civilized legal systems, regardless of whether these legal systems are based on civil law, which follows the Roman law more closely, or whether they are based on Anglo-American common law, which is only loosely connected to Roman law. 

Let’s first take a look at the unconstitutionality of the measures. A number of German law professors, including professors Kingreen, Morswig, Jungbluth and Vosgerau have stated, either in written expert opinions or in interviews, in line with the serious doubts expressed by the former president of the federal constitutional court with respect to the constitutionality of the corona measures, that these measures – the corona measures – are without a sufficient factual basis, and also without a sufficient legal basis, and are therefore unconstitutional and must be repealed immediately. Very recently, a judge, Thorsten Schleif is his name, declared publicly that the German judiciary, just like the general public, has been so panic-stricken that it was no longer able to administer justice properly. He says that the courts of law – and I quote – “have all too quickly waved through coercive measures which, for millions of people all over Germany, represent massive suspensions of their constitutional rights. He points out that German citizens – again I quote – “are currently experiencing the most serious encroachment on their constitutional rights since the founding of the federal republic of Germany in 1949”. In order to contain the corona pandemic, federal and state governments have intervened, he says, massively, and in part threatening the very existence of the country as it is guaranteed by the constitutional rights of the people. 

What about fraud, intentional infliction of damage and crimes against humanity? Based on the rules of criminal law, asserting false facts concerning the PCR tests or intentional misrepresentation, as it was committed by Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and WHO, as well as the WHO, can only be assessed as fraud. Based on the rules of civil tort law, this translates into intentional infliction of damage. The German professor of civil law, Martin Schwab, supports this finding in public interviews. In a comprehensive legal opinion of around 180 pages, he has familiarized himself with the subject matter like no other legal scholar has done thus far and, in particular, has provided a detailed account of the complete failure of the mainstream media to report on the true facts of this so-called pandemic. Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and Tedros of the WHO all knew, based on their own expertise or the expertise of their institutions, that the PCR tests cannot provide any information about infections, but asserted over and over again to the general public that they can, with their counterparts all over the world repeating this. And they all knew and accepted that, on the basis of their recommendations, the governments of the world would decide on lockdowns, the rules for social distancing, and mandatory wearing of masks, the latter representing a very serious health hazard, as more and more independent studies and expert statements show. Under the rules of civil tort law, all those who have been harmed by these PCR-test-induced lockdowns are entitled to receive full compensation for their losses. In particular, there is a duty to compensate – that is, a duty to pay damages for the loss of profits suffered by companies and self-employed employed persons as a result of the lockdown and other measures. 

In the meantime, however, the anti-corona measures have caused, and continue to cause, such devastating damage to the world population’s health and economy that the crimes committed by Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and the WHO must be legally qualified as actual crimes against humanity, as defined in section 7 of the International Criminal Code. 

How can we do something? What can we do? Well, the class action is the best route to compensatory damages and to political consequences. The so-called class action lawsuit is based on English law and exists today in the USA and in Canada. It enables a court of law to allow a complaint for damages to be tried as a class action lawsuit at the request of a plaintiff if: 

1.         As a result of a damage-inducing event …

2.         A large number of people suffer the same type of damage. 

Phrased differently, a judge can allow a class-action lawsuit to go forward if common questions of law and fact make up the vital component of the lawsuit. Here, the common questions of law and fact revolve around the worldwide PCR-test-based lockdowns and its consequences. Just like the VW diesel passenger cars were functioning products, but they were defective due to a so-called defeat device because they didn’t comply with the emissions standards, so too the PCR tests – which are perfectly good products in other settings – are defective products when it comes to the diagnosis of infections. Now, if an American or Canadian company or an American or Canadian individual decides to sue these persons in the United States or Canada for damages, then the court called upon to resolve this dispute may, upon request, allow this complaint to be tried as a class action lawsuit. 

If this happens, all affected parties worldwide will be informed about this through publications in the mainstream media and will thus have the opportunity to join this class action within a certain period of time, to be determined by the court. It should be emphasized that nobody must join the class action, but every injured party can join the class. 

The advantage of the class action is that only one trial is needed, namely to try the complaint of a representative plaintiff who is affected in a manner typical of everyone else in the class. This is, firstly, cheaper, and secondly, faster than hundreds of thousands or more individual lawsuits. And thirdly, it imposes less of a burden on the courts. Fourthly, as a rule it allows a much more precise examination of the accusations than would be possible in the context of hundreds of thousands, or more likely in this corona setting, even millions of individual lawsuits. 

In particular, the well-established and proven Anglo-American law of evidence, with its pre-trial discovery, is applicable. This requires that all evidence relevant for the determination of the lawsuit is put on the table. In contrast to the typical situation in German lawsuits with structural imbalance, that is, lawsuits involving on the one hand a consumer, and on the other hand a powerful corporation, the withholding or even destruction of evidence is not without consequence; rather the party withholding or even destroying evidence loses the case under these evidence rules. 

Here in Germany, a group of tort lawyers have banded together to help their clients with recovery of damages. They have provided all relevant information and forms for German plaintiffs to both estimate how much damage they have suffered and join the group or class of plaintiffs who will later join the class action when it goes forward either in Canada or the US. Initially, this group of lawyers had considered to also collect and manage the claims for damages of other, non-German plaintiffs, but this proved to be unmanageable. 

However, through an international lawyers’ network, which is growing larger by the day, the German group of attorneys provides to all of their colleagues in all other countries, free of charge, all relevant information, including expert opinions and testimonies of experts showing that the PCR tests cannot detect infections. And they also provide them with all relevant information as to how they can prepare and bundle the claims for damages of their clients so that, they too, can assert their clients’ claims for damages, either in their home country’s courts of law, or within the framework of the class action, as explained above. 

These scandalous corona facts, gathered mostly by the Corona Committee and summarized above, are the very same facts that will soon be proven to be true either in one court of law, or in many courts of law all over the world. These are the facts that will pull the masks off the faces of all those responsible for these crimes. To the politicians who believe those corrupt people, these facts are hereby offered as a lifeline that can help you readjust your course of action, and start the long overdue public scientific discussion, and not go down with those charlatans and criminals. 

Thank you.”

Recommended Articles

Upcoming Events

Asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 didn’t occur at all, study of 10 million finds

Asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 didn’t occur at all, study of 10 million finds

By Michael Haynes as Published at LifeSite News

Only 300 asymptomatic cases in the study of nearly 10 million were discovered, and none of those tested positive for COVID-19.

WUHAN, China, December 23, 2020- A study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan, China, found that asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 did not occur at all, thus undermining the need for lockdowns, which are built on the premise of the virus being unwittingly spread by infectious, asymptomatic people.

Published in November in the scientific journal Nature Communicationsthe paper was compiled by 19 scientists, mainly from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, but also from scientific institutions across China as well as in the U.K. and Australia. It focused on the residents of Wuhan, ground zero for COVID-19, where 9,899,828 people took part in a screening program between May 14 and June 1, which provided clear results as to the possibility of any asymptomatic transmission of the virus.

Asymptomatic transmission has been the underlying justification of lockdowns enforced all across the world. The most recent guidance from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still states that the virus “can be spread by people who do not have symptoms.” In fact, the CDC claimed that asymptomatic people “are estimated to account for more than 50 percent of transmissions.”

U.K. Health Secretary Matt Hancock also promoted this message, explaining that the concept of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 led to the U.K. advocating masks and referring to the “problem of asymptomatic transmission.”

However, the new study in Nature Communications, titled “Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly 10 million residents of Wuhan, China,” debunked the concept of asymptomatic transmission. 

It stated that out of the nearly 10 million people in the study, “300 asymptomatic cases” were found. Contact tracing was then carried out and of those 300, no cases of COVID-19 were detected in any of them. “A total of 1,174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19.”

Both the asymptomatic patients and their contacts were placed in isolation for two weeks, and after the fortnight, the results remained the same. “None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period.”

Further evidence showed that “virus cultures” in the positive and repositive asymptomatic cases were all negative, “indicating no ‘viable virus’ in positive cases detected in this study.”

Ages of those found to be asymptomatic ranged between 10 and 89, with the asymptomatic positive rate being “lowest in children or adolescents aged 17 and below” and highest rate found among people older than 60.

The study also made the realization that due to a weakening of the virus itself, “newly infected persons were more likely to be asymptomatic and with a lower viral load than earlier infected cases.”

These results are not without precedent. In June, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, shed doubt upon asymptomatic transmission. Speaking at a press conference, Van Kerkhove explained, “From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”

She then repeated the words “It’s very rare,” but despite her word choice of “rare,” Van Kerkhove could not point to a single case of asymptomatic transmission, noting that numerous reports “were not finding secondary transmission onward.”

Her comments went against the predominant narrative justifying lockdowns, and at the time the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) highlighted that “she undermined the last bit of rationale there could be for lockdowns, mandated masks, social distancing regulation, and the entire apparatus of compulsion and coercion under which we’ve lived for three months.”

Swift to act, the WHO performed a U-turn, and the next day Van Kerkhove then declared that asymptomatic transmission was a “really complex question … We don’t actually have that answer yet.”

“I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies,” she added.

However, the new Wuhan study seems to present solid, scientific evidence that asymptomatic transmission is not just rare but nonexistent. Given that it found “no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious,” the study raises important questions about lockdowns. 

Commenting on the study, The Conservative Tree House noted that “all of the current lockdown regulations, mask wearing requirements and social distancing rules/decrees are based on a complete fallacy of false assumptions.” The evidence presented in the study shows that “‘very rare’ actually means ‘never’ asymptomatic spread just doesn’t happen – EVER.”

Such a large scientific study of 10 million people should not be overlooked, Jeffrey Tucker argued in the AIER, as it should be “huge news,” paving the way “to open up everything immediately.” Yet media reports have been virtually nonexistent and “ignored,” a fact that Tucker explained: “The lockdown lobby ignores whatever contradicts their narrative, preferring unverified anecdotes over an actual scientific study of 10 million residents in what was the world’s first major hotspot for the disease we are trying to manage.”

The recent findings should enable society to reopen once more, according to the AIER. Without asymptomatic transmission, “the whole basis for post-curve-flattening lockdowns,” life should resume and “we could take comfort in our normal intuition that healthy people can get out and about with no risk to others.”

“We keep hearing about how we should follow the science,” Tucker added. “The claim is tired by now. We know what’s really happening.” 

He closed his commentary with the question: “With solid evidence that asymptomatic spread is nonsense, we have to ask: Who is making decisions and why?”

To Read the Original Article, please visit

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/asymptomatic-transmission-of-covid-19-didnt-occur-at-all-study-of-10-million-finds