The most highly cited physician on the early treatment of COVID-19 has come out with an explosive new interview that blows the lid off the medical establishment’s complicity in the unnecessary deaths of thousands.
Dr. Peter McCullough said these deaths have been facilitated by a false narrative bent on pushing an all-new, unproven vaccine for a disease that was highly treatable.
He said the alleged Covid-19 virus is a bioweapon and the vaccines represent “phase two” of that bioweapon.
“As this, in a sense, bioterrorism phase one was rolled out, it was really all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation,” McCullough said in a June 11 webinar with German attorney Reiner Fuellmich and several other doctors.
“Both the respiratory virus and the vaccine delivered to the human body the spike protein, the gain of function target of this bioterrorism research.”
“Now I can’t come out and say all this on national TV today or at any time,” he continued. “But, what we had learned over time is that we could no longer communicate with government agencies. We actually couldn’t even communicate with our propagandised colleagues in major medical centres, all of which appear to be under a spell, almost as if they are hypnotized right now.”
He did not hold back in his criticism of his colleagues in the medical community.
“And doctors, good doctors, are doing unthinkable things, like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathological spike protein into pregnant women. I think when the doctors wake up from their trance they’re going to be shocked to think what they’ve done to people.”
McCullough is professor of medicine and vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University and also teaches at Texas A&M University. He is an epidemiologist, cardiologist and internist and has testified before the Texas State Senate related to COVID-19 treatments. He holds the distinction of being the most widely cited physician in the treatment of COVID-19 with more than 600 citations in the National Library of Medicine.
In the interview McCullough said:
“The first wave of the bioterrorism is a respiratory virus that spread across the world, and affected relatively few people—about one percent of many populations—but generated great fear.”
He said the virus targeted primarily people over 50 with multiple medical conditions. It poses almost no risk to children.
He said 85 percent of the more than 600,000 U.S. deaths could have been prevented with a multi-drug treatment given in the early to mid-point of the disease.
Instead, people were told to stay home and not return to the hospital unless their symptoms got worse, such as severe breathing problems. By then it was too late for many. They were placed on ventilators and died.
The vast majority of doctors jumped in lockstep to follow these erroneous “guidelines” handed down by the World Health Organisation and the U.S. Centre for Disease Control. Those guidelines neglected to place any focus on the treatment of sick patients and, from the beginning, as early as April 2020, started emphasizing the need for a vaccine as the only real hope of beating back the virus.
The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS] logged 5,993 reports of deaths of people injected with the COVID vaccine between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 11, 2021. That’s more than all the deaths reported to VAERS from all other vaccines combined over the last 22 years.
But these numbers, as shocking as they are, don’t scratch the surface of the actual number of dead Americans, said McCullough.
“We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS, and we have two whistleblowers in the CDC. We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. Fifty thousand deaths. So we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day than certainly the viral illness by far. It’s basically propagandized bioterrorism by injection.
McCullough added that “every single thing that was done in public health in response to the pandemic made it worse.”
He said the suppression of early COVID treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine and especially Ivermectin, “was tightly linked to the development of a vaccine.”
Without the suppression of the already-available treatments, the government would not have been able to legally grant Emergency Use Authorisation to the three vaccines rushed to market in the USA by Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson.
“I published basically the only two papers that teach doctors how to treat COVID-19 at home to prevent hospitalisation and death…If treated early, it results in an 85 percent reduction in hospitalisations and death,” McCullough said.
So not only were the vaccines rolled out unnecessarily by suppressing already available, effective treatments, but the FDA and CDC are now covering up tragic numbers of deaths caused by their experimental mRNA injections.
McCullough said he has organized groups around the world that emphasise early treatment.
“Governments have actually tried to block early treatment of Covid patients, so we created a home patient guide,” he said.
“We broke through to the people, and the people who got sick with COVID called in to get medications from mail-order distribution pharmacies. So without the government even knowing what went on, we crushed the epidemic here in the United States towards the end of December and January.
“We basically took care of the pandemic with about 500 doctors and telemedicine services. And to this day we treat about 25 percent of the US COVID-19 population that actually are at high risk, over age 50 with medical problems or present with severe symptoms. And we basically handled the pandemic, and at the same time we’ve tried to keep ourselves above the political fray.”
McCullough said his focus has recently turned to the unnecessary and dangerous injections.
“We are working to change the public view of the vaccine. The public initially accepted the vaccine and we had to kind of slowly turn the ship. Now, in the U.S. the rates of vaccination have been dropping since April 8. Most of the vaccination centres are empty.
“We have a lot going on in the United States. We are engaging more and more attorneys.
The cover-up has imploded. Covid-19 was engineered in a lab, and the desperate attempts to hide its true origins are rapidly collapsing.
Over the weekend, even the Wall Street Journal is now catching up to what Natural News reported a year ago, admitting that covid-19 came from a lab. The article is entitled, “The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak” and carries the subhead, “The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus.”
Authored by Steven Quay and Richard Muller, the article discusses the genetic fingerprint of the “double CGG” combination that appears in the virus:
Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory. Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2.
Despite this, the virologists involved in the gain-of-function research on coronavirus sought to hide the existence of this double CGG fingerprint:
When the lab’s Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the data that accompanied the paper. Was it omitted in the hope that nobody would notice this evidence of the gain-of-function origin?
But in a matter of weeks virologists Bruno Coutard and colleagues published their discovery of the sequence in CoV-2 and its novel supercharged site. Double CGG is there; you only have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein that held it “may provide a gain-of-function” capability to the virus, “for efficient spreading” to humans.
So it’s not just that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab; the scientists involved in that effort also tried to cover their tracks and deceive the world as millions died.
“The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory,” write Quay and Muller. Yes, we knew that a year ago. Now, the mainstream media is finally beginning to admit to the reality that those of us in the independent media have known all along.
Names you need to know: Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance), Anthony Fauci, Ralph Baric
Some good sources of information about the communist Chinese bioweapons program that was funded by Daszak, Fauci and even the Pentagon:
The Pentagon gave $39 MILLION to Dr. Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance – the charity that funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab accused of being the source of the outbreak, federal data reveals… Federal data seen by DailyMail.com reveals The Pentagon gave $39 million to EcoHealth Alliance, which funded a lab in Wuhan, China, between 2013 and 2020. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is accused of being the source of Covid-19.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has just uncovered a Chinese book that proves that Chinese military scientists have been working towards the development of a “new era of genetic weapons.” These weapons, the Chinese scientists promised, could be “artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponized and unleashed.”
In the 2015 volume, called The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapons, the Chinese military scientists begin by suggesting that World War III would be fought with biological weapons.
And not just any bioweapons.
Coronaviruses, a number of which cause respiratory illnesses in people, were mentioned as a class of viruses that could be readily weaponized. Indeed, the Chinese scientists were even more explicit, pointing out in their paper that the coronavirus that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, was an ideal candidate for a bioweapon.
From The Bulletin:
It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”
Virologists like Daszak had much at stake in the assigning of blame for the pandemic. For 20 years, mostly beneath the public’s attention, they had been playing a dangerous game. In their laboratories they routinely created viruses more dangerous than those that exist in nature. They argued that they could do so safely, and that by getting ahead of nature they could predict and prevent natural “spillovers…”
Researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led by China’s leading expert on bat viruses, Shi Zheng-li or “Bat Lady,” mounted frequent expeditions to the bat-infested caves of Yunnan in southern China and collected around a hundred different bat coronaviruses.
Shi then teamed up with Ralph S. Baric, an eminent coronavirus researcher at the University of North Carolina. Their work focused on enhancing the ability of bat viruses to attack humans so as to “examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs [coronaviruses].” In pursuit of this aim, in November 2015 they created a novel virus by taking the backbone of the SARS1 virus and replacing its spike protein with one from a bat virus (known as SHC014-CoV). This manufactured virus was able to infect the cells of the human airway, at least when tested against a lab culture of such cells.
Baric had developed, and taught Shi, a general method for engineering bat coronaviruses to attack other species. The specific targets were human cells grown in cultures and humanized mice.
Peter Daszak celebrates (brags) about engineering the SARS coronavirus to attack human cells
Also from TheBulletin.org:
Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. Her plan was to take genes that coded for spike proteins possessing a variety of measured affinities for human cells, ranging from high to low. She would insert these spike genes one by one into the backbone of a number of viral genomes (“reverse genetics” and “infectious clone technology”), creating a series of chimeric viruses. These chimeric viruses would then be tested for their ability to attack human cell cultures (“in vitro”) and humanized mice (“in vivo”).
On December 9, 2019, before the outbreak of the pandemic became generally known, Daszak gave an interview in which he talked in glowing terms of how researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been reprogramming the spike protein and generating chimeric coronaviruses capable of infecting humanized mice.
“And we have now found, you know, after 6 or 7 years of doing this, over 100 new SARS-related coronaviruses, very close to SARS,” Daszak says around minute 28 of the interview. “Some of them get into human cells in the lab, some of them can cause SARS disease in humanized mice models and are untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine. So, these are a clear and present danger….
“Daszak: Well I think…coronaviruses?—?you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happen with coronavirus, in zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work a lot with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab.
In disjointed style, Daszak is referring to the fact that once you have generated a novel coronavirus that can attack human cells, you can take the spike protein and make it the basis for a vaccine.
Full details in today’s length Situation Update podcast
Today’s podcast provides the full details, covering the origins of covid, the cover-up attempt and the collapse of the cover-up. Now we know that the spike protein used in covid vaccines is actually a communist Chinese military bioweapon.
We also therefore know that covid-19 vaccines are biological weapons designed to exterminate humanity, since they contain the weaponized spike protein that was specifically engineered to attack human ACE2 receptors, which exist all over the body (not just the lungs).
Remember, Fauci and Daszak helped fund the development of genetically engineered “humanized mice” — mice with human lung tissue — in order to maximize the ability of the virus to infect human beings. This is all now admitted.
‘We Made a Big Mistake’ — COVID Vaccine Spike Protein Travels From Injection Site, Can Cause Organ Damage
Research obtained by a group of scientists shows the COVID vaccine spike protein can travel from the injection site and accumulate in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.
COVID vaccine researchers had previously assumed mRNA COVID vaccines would behave like traditional vaccines. The vaccine’s spike protein — responsible for infection and its most severe symptoms — would remain mostly in the injection site at the shoulder muscle or local lymph nodes.
But new research obtained by a group of scientists contradicts that theory, a Canadian cancer vaccine researcher said last week.
“We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now,” said Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario. “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”
Bridle, who was awarded a $230,000 grant by the Canadian government last year for research on COVID vaccine development, said he and a group of international scientists filed a request for information from the Japanese regulatory agency to get access to Pfizer’s “biodistribution study.”
Biodistribution studies are used to determine where an injected compound travels in the body, and which tissues or organs it accumulates in.
“It’s the first time ever scientists have been privy to seeing where these messenger RNA [mRNA] vaccines go after vaccination,” Bridle said in an interview with Alex Pierson where he first disclosed the data. “Is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is: absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting.”
The Sars-CoV-2 has a spike protein on its surface. That spike protein is what allows it to infect our bodies, Bridle explained. “That is why we have been using the spike protein in our vaccines,” Bridle said. “The vaccines we’re using get the cells in our bodies to manufacture that protein. If we can mount an immune response against that protein, in theory we could prevent this virus from infecting the body. That is the theory behind the vaccine.”
“However, when studying the severe COVID-19, […] heart problems, lots of problems with the cardiovascular system, bleeding and clotting, are all associated with COVID-19,” he added. “In doing that research, what has been discovered by the scientific community, the spike protein on its own is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation.”
When the purified spike protein is injected into the blood of research animals, they experience damage to the cardiovascular system and the protein can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause damage to the brain, Bridle explained.
The biodistribution study obtained by Bridle shows the COVID spike protein gets into the blood where it circulates for several days post-vaccination and then accumulates in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.
“We have known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein, Bridle said. “It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it gets into circulation.”
A large number of studies have shown the most severe effects of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, such as blood clotting and bleeding, are due to the effects of the spike protein of the virus itself.
A recent study in Clinical and Infectious Diseases led by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Harvard Medical School measured longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 recipients of the Moderna vaccine 1 and 29 days after the first dose and 1-28 days after the second dose.
Out of these individuals, 11 had detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein in blood plasma as early as one day after the first vaccine dose, including three who had detectable levels of spike protein. A “subunit” protein called S1, part of the spike protein, was also detected.
Spike protein was detected an average of 15 days after the first injection, and one patient had spike protein detectable on day 29 — one day after a second vaccine dose — which disappeared two days later.
The results showed S1 antigen production after the initial vaccination can be detected by day one and is present beyond the injection site and the associated regional lymph nodes.
Assuming an average adult blood volume of approximately 5 liters, this corresponds to peak levels of approximately 0.3 micrograms of circulating free antigen for a vaccine designed only to express membrane-anchored antigen.
In a study published in Nature Neuroscience, lab animals injected with purified spike protein into their bloodstream developed cardiovascular problems. The spike protein also crossed the blood-brain barrier and caused damage to the brain.
It was a grave mistake to believe the spike protein would not escape into the blood circulation, according to Bridle. “Now, we have clear-cut evidence that the vaccines that make the cells in our deltoid muscles manufacture this protein — that the vaccine itself, plus the protein — gets into blood circulation,” he said.
Bridle said the scientific community has discovered the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation.
Once in circulation, the spike protein can attach to specific ACE2 receptors that are on blood platelets and the cells that line blood vessels, Bridle said. “When that happens it can do one of two things. It can either cause platelets to clump, and that can lead to clotting — that’s exactly why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with these vaccines. It can also lead to bleeding,” he added.
Stephanie Seneff, senior research scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is now clear vaccine content is being delivered to the spleen and the glands, including the ovaries and the adrenal glands, and is being shed into the medium and then eventually reaches the bloodstream causing systemic damage.
“ACE2 receptors are common in the heart and brain,” she added. “And this is how the spike protein causes cardiovascular and cognitive problems.”
Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways not assessed in safety trials.
In a public submission, Whelan sought to alert the FDA to the potential for vaccines designed to create immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to instead cause injuries.
Whelan was concerned the mRNA vaccine technology utilized by Pfizer and Moderna had “the potential to cause microvascular injury (inflammation and small blood clots called microthrombi) to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.”
More Deaths Reported After J&J, AstraZeneca Vaccines, Plus Researchers Link AstraZeneca to Strokes in Young Adults
The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccines came under scrutiny again this week as more reports of deaths — largely due to blood clot disorders — surfaced in Belgium, Canada and Greece, and a new report linked the AstraZeneca vaccine to strokes in young adults.
The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccines came under scrutiny again this week as more reports of deaths — largely due to blood clot disorders — surfaced in Belgium, Canada and Greece.
Adding to the vaccine makers’ woes is a new report out of London from researchers who identified the first cases of strokes occurring in young adults who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was co-developed by the University of Oxford University in the UK.
Belgium suspends use of J&J vaccine
Belgium said Wednesday it was suspending vaccinations with J&J vaccine, for people under the age of 41, following the death of a woman from blood clots after she received the shot. This is the second time Belgium has paused the one-shot vaccine.
“The Inter-ministerial conference has decided to temporarily administer Janssen’s vaccine to the general population from the age of 41 years, pending a more detailed benefit-risk analysis by the EMA,” said a statement issued by Belgium’s federal health minister and seven regional counterparts.
The woman, who was under the age of 40, died May 21 after being admitted to the hospital with severe thrombosis and platelet deficiency, Reuters reported.
The government asked for urgent advice from the European Union’s drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), before it would consider lifting the suspension.
The EMA said it is reviewing the death of the woman in Belgium, along with other reports of blood clots, with the Belgian and Slovenian medicines agencies, and has asked J&J to carry out a series of additional studies to help assess a possible link between the shot and rare blood clots.
The EMA confirmed a “possible link,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits outweighed the risks. The drug regulator’s safety committee (PRAC) said a warning should be added to the product label, but the blood clot-related disorders should be listed as “very rare” side effects of the vaccine.
On April 23, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) voted to resume the use of J&J’s vaccine without restrictions after the vaccine was paused to investigate reports of rare blood clots. The recommendation by the CDC’s advisory panel said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits outweighed the risks and recommended use for persons 18 years of age and older in the U.S. under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization.
Researchers identify strokes in young adults after AstraZeneca shot
The first cases of large-vessel arterial occlusion strokes in young adults linked to AstraZeneca’s vaccine were described in detail for the first time in a letter published online in the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.
“These are the first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” senior author, Dr. David Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, told Medscape Medical News.
“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis) which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” Werring explained.
Werring noted the reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are describing only three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said.
The first case, a 35-year-old woman, experienced intermittent headaches on the right side and around her eyes for six days after vaccination. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm and leg.
Imaging revealed the woman had a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and treatment with anticoagulant and fondaparinux, but suffered brain stem death and subsequently died.
The second case, a 37-year-old woman, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after vaccination with AstraZeneca. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as blood clots in her lungs and brain. She improved clinically with treatment.
The third case occurred in a 43-year-old man who presented 21 days after vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery. He was treated and remains stable.
The researchers said young patients presenting with ischaemic stroke after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT.
Ontario man dies from ‘rare but real’ blood clot after first dose of AstraZeneca
An Ontario man in his 40s died after receiving his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, public health officials confirmed Tuesday.
Dr. Barbara Yaffe, Ontario’s associate chief medical officer of health, said his death is being investigated, but the man suffered from VITT.
“While the investigation is ongoing and a final cause of death has yet to be officially determined, it has been confirmed that the individual did have VITT at the time of his death,” Yaffe said Tuesday. “The risks associated with this vaccine are [rare], but they are real.”
Chief Medical Officer Dr. David Williams restricted AstraZeneca vaccinations for people who have not yet received the first dose as of May 11, due to a higher-than-expected rate of blood clots.
Greece investigating four cases of blood clots after AstraZeneca shot
Α 63-year-old woman from Greece died of blood clots after vaccination with AstraZeneca. The case was one of four being investigated by the National Organization for Medicines (EOF) for a potential correlation between AstraZeneca’s vaccine and rare blood clots, according to the Greek City Times.
Also in Greece, a 44-year-old woman is in serious condition after experiencing VITT. Her case was the second incident found by EOF to be linked to the vaccine, according to the Greek Reporter.
A third blood clotting incident involved a 35-year-old man from Crete who suffered two blood clots after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine. The man was hospitalized after suffering a clot in his leg a few days after getting the jab. He suffered a second blood clot in his brain while hospitalized
As The Defender reported April 7, European regulators said they confirmed a “possible link” between AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine and “very rare” blood clots, but concluded the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risks.
The EMA did not recommend restricting use of the vaccine based on age, gender or other risk factors, but did say cases of blood clotting after vaccination “should be” listed as a possible side effect, according to a statement issued by the agency’s safety committee.
The AstraZeneca vaccine is not yet authorized for use in the U.S.
Nobel Prize Winner: Mass Vaccination an "Unacceptable Mistake"
In every country, ‘the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths,’ the famous virologist said
As published on LifeSite News by Celeste McGovern
French virologist and Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier called mass vaccination against the coronavirus during the pandemic “unthinkable” and a historical blunder that is “creating the variants” and leading to deaths from the disease.
“It’s an enormous mistake, isn’t it? A scientific error as well as a medical error. It is an unacceptable mistake,” Montagnier said in an interview translated and published by the RAIR Foundation USA yesterday. “The history books will show that, because it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.”
Many epidemiologists know it and are “silent” about the problem known as “antibody-dependent enhancement,” Montagnier said.
“It is the antibodies produced by the virus that enable an infection to become stronger,” he said in an interview with Pierre Barnérias of Hold-Up Media earlier this month.
Vaccination leading to variants
“It is clear that the new variants are created by antibody-mediated selection due to the vaccination.”
“The new variants are a production and result from the vaccination. You see it in each country, it’s the same: in every country deaths follow vaccination,” he said.
A video published last week on YouTube uses data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington to illustrate the spikes in deaths in numerous countries across the globe after the introduction of COVID vaccination, confirming Montagnier’s observation.
The French interviewer pointed to data from the World Health Organization(WHO) showing that since the vaccines were introduced in January, new infections contamination have “exploded,” along with deaths, “notably among young people.”
“Yes,” agreed Montagnier who is a professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. “With thrombosis, etc.”
Thrombosis – or blood clots — have been an unexpected problem linked to the new coronavirus vaccines and the cause of AstraZeneca’s vaccine being pulled in several countries. The head of Canada’s public health agency, Theresa Tam, told a press conference Tuesday that there are now 21 confirmed cases of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, or VITT, including among three women who died from the blood-clotting disorder potentially linked to AstraZeneca’s vaccine and another 13 cases are under investigation.
Montagnier said that he is currently conducting research with those who have become infected with the coronavirus after getting the vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in April that it had received 5,800 reports of people who had “breakthrough” COVID after being vaccinated, including 396 people who required hospitalization and 74 patients who died.
“I will show you that they are creating the variants that are resistant to the vaccine,” Montagnier said.
Coronavirus made in a lab
The famous French virologist created waves in April 2020 when he told a French television station that he believed SARS-CoV2, the new pandemic coronavirus, was man-made in a laboratory. The “presence of elements of HIV and germ of malaria in the genome of coronavirus is highly suspect and the characteristics of the virus could not have arisen naturally,” he said.
Though he was ridiculed by French experts for having “a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science,” Montagnier published a paper in July 2020 supporting his claims that the novel coronavirus must have originated from human experimentation in a lab – a theory that has recently resurfaced and is currently considered the most likely origin of the virus.
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).
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 passthrough 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 dangerouschildhood COVID vaccines, boosters, 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
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 law, there’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 providecauses 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.LifeSite’s daily headlines
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.
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.
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 minuteslideshow 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.
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 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.
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.) :
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.
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
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.
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 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:
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
A nurse giving the vaccine is required to ensure the worker gives informed consent, current at the time of treatment
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
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.
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.
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.
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 Communications, the 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?”
In the John-Hopkins newsletter a very interesting article emerged by Yanni Gu, revealing interesting research done by Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins.
In her examination of the US death rates she found the following:
By retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September.
According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data.”
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.
She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.
Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?
To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.
“This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes,” Briand pointed out.
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.
Graph depicts the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018.
This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.
The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.
“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.
In an interview with The News-Letter, Briand addressed the question of whether COVID-19 deaths can be called misleading since the infection might have exacerbated and even led to deaths by other underlying diseases.
“If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn’t give us a choice but to point to some misclassification,” Briand replied.
In other words, the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the U.S. is considered problematic only when it increases the total number of deaths or the true death burden by a significant amount in addition to the expected deaths by other causes. Since the crude number of total deaths by all causes before and after COVID-19 has stayed the same, one can hardly say, in Briand’s view, that COVID-19 deaths are concerning.
Briand also mentioned that more research and data are needed to truly decipher the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States.
Throughout the talk, Briand constantly emphasized that although COVID-19 is a serious national and global problem, she also stressed that society should never lose focus of the bigger picture — death in general.
The death of a loved one, from COVID-19 or from other causes, is always tragic, Briand explained. Each life is equally important and we should be reminded that even during a global pandemic we should not forget about the tragic loss of lives from other causes.
According to Briand, the over-exaggeration of the COVID-19 death number may be due to the constant emphasis on COVID-19-related deaths and the habitual overlooking of deaths by other natural causes in society.
During an interview with TheNews-Letter after the event, Poorna Dharmasena, a master’s candidate in Applied Economics, expressed his opinion about Briand’s concluding remarks.
“At the end of the day, it’s still a deadly virus. And over-exaggeration or not, to a certain degree, is irrelevant,” Dharmasena said.
When asked whether the public should be informed about this exaggeration in death numbers, Dharmasena stated that people have a right to know the truth. However, COVID-19 should still continuously be treated as a deadly disease to safeguard the vulnerable population.