What in hell IS covid 911 July 2021 edition

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
I'm confused why everyone is trying to explain covid with long explanations and article links. The word covid is an acronym that has nothing to do with a virus.

C.O.V.I.D. = Certificate of Vaccine Identification

As soon as they changed the name from corona virus to covid I LOL'd, it was so in your face. And I knew forced vaccines were coming. There is no new corona virus or any variant, period. It's time to start shutting down these short bus aficionados whenever it's mentioned. It's beyond retarded at this point.

If I'm wrong, prove it. Where did the word covid come from? Justify the name with something more logical than what I'm presenting. Explain why you're parroting the news from people who clearly had nefarious intentions from the start.
It's the first two letters of "corona," the first two letters of "virus" and the first letter of "disease."

Or it's a secret acronym for the demon id
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
2.1.1. Disease or condition COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2, a zoonotic virus that first emerged as a human pathogen in China and has rapidly spread around the world by human to human transmission. In December 2019, a pneumonia outbreak of unknown cause occurred in Wuhan, China. In January 2020, it became clear that a novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) was the underlying cause. In early January 2020, the genetic sequence of the 2019-nCoV became available to the World Health Organization (WHO) and public, and the virus was categorized in the Betacoronavirus subfamily. By sequence analysis, the phylogenetic tree revealed a closer relationship to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus isolates than to other coronaviruses that infect humans, including the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2 infections and the resulting disease COVID-19 have spread globally, affecting a growing number of countries. On 11 March 2020 the WHO characterized the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic. As of 01 December 2020, there have been >63 million globally confirmed COVID-19 cases and >1.4 million deaths, with 191 countries/regions affected. At the time of this marketing application submission, confirmed cases and mortality continue to rise globally. The ongoing pandemic remains a significant challenge to public health and economic stability worldwide.


2.1.2. Epidemiology and risk factors.
Every individual is at risk of infection as there is no pre-existing immunity to the SARS-CoV-2. Following infection some but not all individuals develop protective immunity in terms of neutralising antibody responses and cell mediated immunity. However, it is currently unknown to what extent and for how long this protection lasts. According to WHO 80% of infected individuals recover without need for hospital care, while 15% develop more severe disease and 5% need intensive care. Increasing age and underlying medical conditions are considered risk factors for developing severe disease.


2.1.3. Aetiology and pathogenesis.
SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus with four structural proteins. One of them, the Spike protein is a surface protein which binds the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) present on host cells. Therefore, the Spike protein is considered a relevant antigen for vaccine development. It has been shown that antibodies against the Spike protein neutralise the virus and prevent infection.

snip

In most situations, a molecular test is used to detect SARS-CoV-2 and confirm infection. The reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test methods targeting SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA are the gold standard in vitro methods for diagnosing suspected cases of COVID-19. Samples to be tested are collected from the nose and/or throat with a swab. Molecular methods used to confirm an active infection are usually performed within a few days of exposure and around the time that symptoms may begin.

here is your gold standard "

being removed because it couldn't differnciate between flu's...


more fun reading here...https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel Comparative Data
newer sarscov2 testing

The FDA SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel allows for a more precise comparison of the analytical performance of different molecular in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assays intended to detect SARS-CoV-2. The Reference Panel contains common, independent, and well-characterized reference material that is available to developers of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid-based amplification tests (NAATs) for which Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was requested.

Background
During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical specimens were not readily available to developers of IVDs to detect SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDs based on available data from contrived samples generated from a range of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation. While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.

From February through the middle of May, the FDA issued a total of 59 EUAs for IVDs for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 based on validation data using contrived specimens derived from SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. As the pandemic progressed and more patient specimens became available, on May 11, 2020, the FDA recommended in the Policy for Coronavirus Disease-2019 Tests that developers obtain and use patient specimens to validate their tests.

Recognizing the value to healthcare professionals, laboratories, and patients in understanding the relative performance of NAATs for SARS-CoV-2, the FDA obtained live virus in February to develop a reference panel. Reference panels are a fundamental tool for performance assessment of molecular tests, and the use of the same reference material across different tests allows a direct comparison of analytical sensitivity performance across these tests. As was done for the evaluation of NAATs for Zika, the FDA is again providing a tool for a comparative analysis of the performance of different tests. Such comparison has shown to be useful to healthcare providers and laboratories using these tests.

The FDA SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel is shared with developers who have interacted with FDA through the review process.

Development of the FDA SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel
To more precisely compare the performance of NAAT SARS-CoV-2 assays, through a collaboration between the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the FDA established a Reference Panel composed of standardized material, suitable for the determination and direct comparison of analytical sensitivity and cross-reactivity of nucleic acid-based SARS-CoV-2 assays.

The panel contains one heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 strain and one heat-inactivated MERS-CoV strain in cell culture media. The panel is composed of five tubes (T1 to T5): T1 contains the SARS-CoV-2 strain (2019-nCoV/USA-WA1/2020) at a concentration of ~1.8x108 RNA NAAT detectable units/mL (NDU/mL); T2, T3, T4, and T5 contain blinded samples, meaning that, although the FDA knows the concentration, the developer testing the samples does not. Based on a standard protocol provided by the FDA for T1, the developers are asked to perform a range finding Limit of Detection (LoD) study followed by a confirmatory study to further define and corroborate the LoD of their assay. The blinded samples (T2 to T5) are also tested per a protocol provided by the FDA, to confirm the LoD determined for T1 and evaluate cross-reactivity with MERS-CoV virus. Depending on the test, the number of tests performed on different amounts of viral replicates can range from over 40 to over 150.

The FDA SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel was first provided to all developers of authorized IVD EUAs that used contrived samples to validate their assay and is provided to all developers who request an EUA for SARS-CoV-2 NAATs. In general, FDA's EUAs require developers to evaluate and submit the analytical limit of detection and assess traceability of their product with any FDA-recommended reference material as a condition of the authorization. As explained above, assessment of assay performance using the FDA SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel allows for a consistent determination of the relative sensitivity of these tests and cross-reactivity with MERS-CoV virus.

While the FDA SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel helps determine the comparative performance among authorized tests, the panel is not a replacement for the analytical and clinical validation recommendations the FDA has provided in the EUA templates. For example, the panel only includes one strain of SARS-CoV-2 and one cross-reactant, MERS-CoV. Recent mutations reported for SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., D614G), which may impact molecular testing, are not included.

Distribution and Testing of the FDA SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel
The FDA began distribution of the FDA SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel in May 2020. As of November 14, 2020, the FDA has contacted developers of 206 authorized assays for shipping information and has sent the reference panel to developers of 190 authorized assays. The FDA is reviewing results as they are returned and continues to send the reference panel out to additional developers.

As of October 9, 2020, the FDA has contacted developers of 197 authorized assays for shipping information and by October 14, 2020 sent the reference panel to developers of 181 authorized assays which are included in the tables below. Developers who received the reference panel were asked to conduct testing and return results within two weeks of receiving the panel. Many developers returned data to the FDA by October 30, 2020, but in some cases, FDA did not receive the data, or the data was uninterpretable, or is still under interactive review. All contacted developers are listed in Table 1 along with the current status of their Reference Panel testing. Confirmed results of the relative sensitivity of EUA authorized assays provided by developers as of October 30, 2020, are displayed in Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C. The results are presented in three tables according to the clinical matrix used in the study: swab in transport media, direct swabs (dry swabs), or saliva.

Following a protocol provided by the FDA with the reference panel, developers conducted testing with 3 replicates of serial dilutions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus provided in T1 in clinical negative specimens. The studies are performed by diluting the panel material in "negative patient clinical matrix" acquired and prepared by individual developers. The developers identified a provisional LoD and then performed confirmatory testing. To corroborate the LoD identified from testing T1, developers then diluted in clinical negative specimens and tested the blinded samples (T2-T5) according to the protocol provided by the FDA.

Table 1. Status of Developers of Authorized EUAs contacted for distribution of the FDA SARS CoV 2 Reference Panel
This table lists developers who were contacted for distribution of the FDA SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel as of 10/9/2020 for panel shipping no later than 10/14/20.

Status Notes:

  • Status of "Did not provide shipping information" indicates that no shipping information was received by 10/14/2020.
  • Status of "Data not returned" indicates that no data was received as of 10/30/2020.



Recognizing the value to healthcare professionals, laboratories, and patients in understanding the relative performance of NAATs for SARS-CoV-2, the FDA obtained live virus in February to develop a reference panel.

the CDC has LIVE VIRUS SAMPLES... order yours today...
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
The panel contains one heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 strain and one heat-inactivated MERS-CoV strain in cell culture media. The panel is composed of five tubes (T1 to T5): T1 contains the SARS-CoV-2 strain (2019-nCoV/USA-WA1/2020) at a concentration of ~1.8x108 RNA NAAT detectable units/mL (NDU/mL); T2, T3, T4, and T5 contain blinded samples,

heat inactivatecd samples? like they are not the same as an alive sample so what are you comparing? or do you sample the subjects mucus then heat it up kill everything and then compare?
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master


As you probably know, the FDA approved the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID jab on Monday. Here’s an article we wrote about the “approval.”

According to the EUA Fact Sheet on the FDA’s website, one of the ingredients in this jab is 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine. See the screenshot below…

123-PC


What exactly is this “mystery” ingredient in Pfizer’s “secret sauce”?
This is important to know, since this is a component of the lipid nanoparticles in every Pfizer/BioNTech shot.

So, let’s check out the Cayman Chemicals Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (hereafter referred to as 123-PC).

We’ve put red boxes around a few of the alarming things we noticed.

SDS-Sec1-12-Distearoly-3-PC


In Section 1.2, we discover that 123-PC is for research use only, not for human or veterinary use.



SDS-Sec2-12-Distearoly-3-PC


In Section 2.3, we discover that 123-PCmay be irritating to the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract” and it “may be harmful by … skin absorption” and that “the toxicological properties have not been thoroughly investigated.



SDS-Sec4-12-Distearoly-3-PC


In Section 4.1, we learn that if 123-PC is inhaled, contacts the skin or eyes, or is ingested, that the person should get medical attention.



SDS-Sec67-12-Distearoly-3-PC


In Section 6, we discover that if 123-PC is accidentally released, that persons should “wear a NIOSH self-contained breathing apparatus or respirator and appropriate personal protection” and should dispose of 123-PC by “transfer(ring) to a chemical waste container … in accordance with local regulations.”

Then, finally in Section 7, we learn that we should “avoid prolonged or repeated exposure” to 123-PC.

In summary, 123-PC is an ingredient contained in every Pfizer COVID jab, and according to the Safety Data Sheet:

  • 123-PC is not for human use
  • 123-PC might irritate the mucous membrane
  • 123-PC might irritate the upper respiratory tract
  • 123-PC might be harmful if absorbed by the skin
  • If 123-PC is accidentally released, you should wear a breathing apparatus or respirator
  • 123-PC should only be disposed of in a chemical waste container
  • If 123-PC is inhaled or ingested, the person should get medical attention
Did we miss anything?
Oh yeah, according to the SDS, we have no idea how toxic 123-PC really is!

Is your mind blown yet? Seriously! What kind of CRACK was the FDA smoking to approve a jab that contains this KNOWN POISON in EVERY DOSE?

In the video below, Stew Peters interviews Dr. Jane Ruby about this stunning “secret sauce” (around the 13 minute mark)…
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master

Really good stuff on a couple other components of other vaccines.

The tobacco link is great.
I'm always interested in the bioelecttical link.

And finally a reason for doing it.

It's a control grid lockdown because they almost messed up allowing accidentally a trump to emmerge.

They saw massive discontent and got spoooked.

No reason to demand such draconian measures for a minuscule global chance of dying FROM the flu called sars cov aids 19
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master

Why your country is full of delusions on covid911.

Brandy Vaughan joined us from Learn The Risk. Brandy was a former pharmaceutical insider (she used to work for the major drug company called Merck selling vioxx to doctors and hospitals.) who revealed some pretty shocking information lately about vaccines, flu shots and how health is created in the body.

As you know vaccines is a hot topic in today’s world. You have people on either side of the fence. People who are pro vaccines against the anti-vaxers.

The is creating division in our country.

She talked about her time at Merck and how that led to where she is today. How does a person selling drugs to doctors become the person Brandy is? Her transformation is incredible and she shares how it all happened in today’s show.

We also talked about what vioxx does and what creates health in the body. Health and immunity as Brandy says, doesn’t come from injecting foreign chemical compounds directly into your bloodstream bypassing the natural immune response of the body.

Health doesn’t come from a doctor, a shot, a vaccine or a pill. Health comes from within. A healthy body, comes from a healthy mind.

And a healthy mind lives a healthy lifestyle. A healthy mind chooses to make healthy choices.

Real immunity and real health is earned. You have to work hard at it. It’s not something that’s handed to you and doesn’t come from a doctor. You must work for your health, as with anything in life that is valuable.

The work that Brandy does helping to educate people about the ingredients in vaccines as well as the potential risks (and there are many) of simply getting a flu shot.

We need more health advocates like Brandy Vaughan out there in the world.

Listen to this show and share if you think your friends will like it!
🙂


Thanks guys!

A few links mentioned during the show

Vaccines Are They Really Safe and Effective?
dissolving illusions
naturallyhealingautism.com
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
mercola removes these after 48 hours, this should be its entirety.
one Dr of the millions thinks we should warn as many folks that will listen, at least your blood kin.

maybe shot does nothing except retighten the control grid?
maybe the plandemic was all about culling the "unbelievers" the hard to cajole?
only the most pliant and gullible need apply for the technocracy world?
they have done nothing to convince me that this regime is an emergency worthy of world wide shut downs and medicating, mostly to the contrary.

the truth WILL set you free, believe on his promise and nothing else!

Microbiologist Explains COVID Jab Effects
Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked


STORY AT-A-GLANCE
  • The FDA can only grant emergency use authorization for a pandemic drug or vaccine if there’s no safe and effective preexisting treatment or alternative. Since there are several such alternatives, the FDA is legally required to revoke the emergency authorization for these shots
  • While the COVID injections have been characterized as being somewhere around 95% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, this is the relative risk reduction, which tells you very little about its usefulness. The absolute risk reduction is only around 1% for all currently available COVID shots
  • Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) refers to a condition where the vaccination augments your risk of serious infection. We are now starting to see evidence that ADE is occurring in the vaccinated population
  • One of the most common side effects of the COVID shots is abnormal blood clotting, which can result in strokes and heart attacks
  • Even microclots that don’t completely block the blood vessel can have serious ramifications. You can check for presence of microclots by performing a D-dimer blood test. If your D-dimer is elevated, you have clotting somewhere in your body
In this interview, German microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi sifts through the facts and fictions of the coronavirus pandemic. Together with Karina Reiss, Ph.D., he’s written two books on this subject, starting with “Corona False Alarm? Facts and Figures,” published in October 2020, followed by “Corona Unmasked: New Facts and Figures.”
The second book is currently only available in German, but you can download a free chapter of “Corona Unmasked” in English on FiveDoves.com.
Bhakdi’s Medical Credentials
Bhakdi graduated from medical school in Germany in 1970. After a year of clinical work, he joined the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology, where he remained for four years as a post-doc.
There, he also began researching immunology. Eventually, he ended up chairing the department of medical, microbiology and hygiene at the University of Mainz, where he worked for 22 years until his retirement nine years ago. During that time, Bhakdi also worked on vaccine development, and says he’s “certainly pro-vax with regards to the vaccinations that work and that are meaningful.”
Much of his research focused on what’s called the complement system. When activated, the complement system ends up working in such a way that it destroys rather than aids your cells. Interestingly enough, SARS-CoV-2 uses this very system to its advantage, turning your immune system toward a path of self-destruction.
The same self-destructive path also appears to be activated by the COVID shots, which is part of why Bhakdi believes they are the greatest threat humanity has ever faced. “It is our duty to aggressively inform people about the dangers that they are subjecting themselves and their loved ones to by this ‘vaccination,’” he says.
How Effective Are the COVID Shots?

While the COVID injections have been characterized as being somewhere around 95% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, this claim is the product of statistical obfuscation. In short, they’ve conflated relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is actually right around 1% for all currently available COVID shots.1
In "Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials"2 Ron Brown, Ph.D. calculates the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s injections, based on their own clinical trial data, so that they can be compared to the relative risk reduction reported by these companies. Here’s a summary of his findings:
  • Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 — Relative risk reduction: 95.1%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.7%
  • Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 — Relative risk reduction: 94.1%. Absolute risk reduction 1.1%
In a July 1, 2021, commentary in The Lancet Microbe,3 Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele and Michel Vaillant also argue for the use of absolute risk reduction when discussing vaccine efficacy with the public. They too went through the calculations, coming up with the following:
  • Pfizer/BioNTech — Relative risk reduction: 95%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.84%
  • Moderna — Relative risk reduction: 94%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
  • Gamaleya (Sputnik V) — Relative risk reduction: 91%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.93%
  • Johnson & Johnson — Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
  • AstraZeneca/Oxford — Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.3%

What Kind of Protection Do the COVID Shots Provide?
Aside from providing insignificant protection in terms of your absolute risk reduction, it’s important to realize that they do not provide immunity. All they can do is reduce the severity of the symptoms of infection. According to Bhakdi, they fail even at this.
“They showed absolutely zero [benefit in the clinical trials],” he says. “This is the ridiculousness. People don't understand that they're being fooled and have been fooled all along. Let's take the one of these Pfizer trials: 20,000 healthy people were vaccinated and another 20,000 people were not vaccinated.
And then they observed, over a period of 12 weeks or so, how many cases they found in the vaccinated group and how many cases they found the non-vaccinated. What they found was that less than 1% of the vaccinated group got COVID-19 and less than 1% in the non-vaccinated group also got COVID-19.
The difference was 0.8 to 0.1%, which is nothing, considering the fact that they were not even looking at severe cases. They were looking at people with a positive PCR test — which as we all now know is worthless — plus one symptom, which could be cough or fever.
That is not a severe case of COVID-19. Any vaccination that is going to get authorized must be shown to protect against severe illness and death, and this has definitely not been shown. So, forget authorization. It can't be authorized, not by any normal means.
Now [the COVID injections do not have] full authorization, it's an emergency authorization, which again is absolute bullshit, since we know the infection fatality rate of this disease or virus is not greater than that of seasonal flu. John Ioannidis has published these numbers, which have never been contested by anyone in the world and cannot be contested.
If you are under 70 years of age and have no severe preexisting illness, you can hardly die [from SARS-CoV-2 infection]. So, there is no fatality rate that can be reduced.
And for people who are elderly and have preexisting illness, as we know from Dr. Peter McCullough and his colleagues' work, there are very good means and medicines to treat this virus so that the fatality rates go down another 70 to 80%, which means there is no ground for emergency use whatsoever.
This means the FDA should be able to be forced to retract this emergency use authorization — unless they are in league with whoever wants to do this.”
I neglected to follow-up on his comment about 40,000 people being equally divided between the injection and no injection groups in the COVID injection trials. A few months ago, they actually abandoned the non-injection arm of the trial, so no there is no control group anymore.
The justification was that the injection was too important to deny it to the control group. It’s just another sneaky way to skirt around reporting all the adverse effects occurring in the injection group.
That said, it’s worth repeating that the FDA can only grant emergency use authorization for a pandemic drug or vaccine if there’s no safe and effective preexisting treatment or alternative. Since there are several such alternatives, the FDA is legally required to revoke the emergency authorization for these shots.
Evidence of Increased Infection Risk After Injection
Presently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims some 95% of SARS-CoV-2 infections resulting in hospitalization are occurring among the unvaccinated. This too is a statistical fiction, as they’re using data from January through June 2021, when most of the American public were unvaccinated.
Looking at more recent data, we’re finding that the majority of severe cases and hospitalizations are actually occurring among those that received the COVID jab. Unfortunately, as noted by Bhakdi:
“It's all manipulated. And, if someone wants to manipulate something and are in a position to then propagate it, you have no chance of analyzing it and telling people because we have no voice in this affair. When we stand up and tell people this, they just turn around and say that's not the truth.”
Disturbingly, we’re now starting to see the first indications of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which many scientists were concerned about from the very beginning. India, for example, where 10% of the population has been “vaccinated,” is now seeing very severe cases of COVID-19. Bhakdi says:
“What we're witnessing in India and probably also in Israel is the immune dependent enhancement of disease … It's bound to happen. So, the people who are getting vaccinated now have to be fearful of the next wave of genuine infections, whether it's [SARS-CoV-2 variants] or any other coronaviruses, because they're all related and they will all be subject to immune dependent enhancement, obviously.”
Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE) refers to a condition where the vaccination results in the complete opposite of what you’re looking for. Rather than protect against the infection, the vaccine augments and worsens the infection.
ADE can occur through more than one mechanism, and Bhakdi is of the opinion that the enhancement is primarily due to over-reactive killer lymphocytes and secondary complement activation, both of which cause severe damage.
Antibodies Versus Lymphocytes
Bhakdi explains:
“There are two major arms of defense against viral infection. One is the antibodies that, if they are present, may prevent the virus from entering your cells. These are so-called neutralizing antibodies, which the vaccination is supposed to [produce].
But the antibodies are not at the place that they are needed, which is on the surface of the airway epithelium. They are in the blood, but not at the surface of the epithelium where the virus arrives. The second arm of immune defense then comes into play, and these are the lymphocytes.
There are different types of lymphocytes and I will simplify matters by saying the important lymphocytes are the so-called killer lymphocytes that sense whenever a virus product is being produced in the cell. They will then destroy the cells that harbor the virus and thus the factory is closed and you get well again.
That is the mechanism for how we can survive viral infections of the lung, and this happens all the time. So, the lymphocytes, in contrast to the antibodies, recognize many, many, many parts of the proteins. So, if a virus changes a little bit, it doesn't matter, because the waste products that are recognized by the killer lymphocytes remain very similar.
That is why all of us, and this is now known, all of us have memory lymphocytes in our lymph nodes and lymphoid organs that are trained to recognize these coronaviruses. And whether or not a mutant is there, it doesn't really matter, because they will recognize a mutant or variant.”
According to Bhakdi, coronaviruses can only undergo point mutations, meaning only one nucleotide at a time can be changed. The influenza virus, meanwhile, can undergo more radical mutations. For example, a flu virus can completely change its spike protein by swapping spike proteins with another virus that is simultaneously present.
This sort of shift is not possible with coronaviruses. Therefore, you will never have leaps in antigenic changes either for antibodies or for T-cell killer lymphocytes. That’s why the background immunity that evolves during the lifetime of a human being is very broad and solid.
Natural Immunity Is Far Superior to Vaccine-Induced Immunity
One of the most egregious nullifications of medical scientific truth is the claim that COVID “vaccination” confers superior protection compared than the natural immunity you get after you’ve been exposed to the virus and recover. The reality is that natural immunity is infinitely more superior to the vaccine-induced protection you get from these shots, which is both narrow and temporary.
The COVID shot produces antibodies against just one of the viral proteins, the spike protein, whereas natural immunity produces antibodies against all parts of the virus, plus memory T cells. As noted by Bhakdi:
“The very fact that the World Health Organization has changed the definition of herd immunity … is such a scandal. I'm at a loss of words to describe how ridiculous I find this all, that this is being accepted by our colleagues. How can the physicians and scientists of the world bear to listen to all this nonsense?”
How the COVID Shot Causes Damage
As explained by Bhakdi, when you get a COVID shot, genetic instructions are being injected into your deltoid muscle. Muscle drains into your lymph nodes, which in turn can enter your bloodstream. There may also be direct translocation from the muscle into smaller blood vessels.
Animal data submitted by Pfizer to Japanese authorities show the mRNA appeared within the blood within one or two hours of injection. The rapidity of it suggests the nano particles are translocated from the muscle directly into the blood, bypassing the lymph nodes.
Even microclots that don’t completely block the blood vessel can have serious ramifications. You can check for presence of microclots by performing a D-dimer blood test. If your D-dimer is elevated, you have clotting somewhere in your body.
Once inside your bloodstream, the genetic instructions are delivered to the cells available, namely your endothelial cells. These are the cells that line your blood vessels. These cells then start producing spike protein, as per the mRNA instructions. As the name implies, the spike protein looks like a sharp spike protruding from the cell wall, into the bloodstream.
Since they are not supposed to be there, your killer lymphocytes rush to the area, thinking the cells are infected. The killer lymphocytes attack the cells, which causes damage to the cell wall. This damage, in turn, provokes clot formation. We’re now seeing evidence that COVID shots are causing all manner of clotting issues, from microsized clots to massive clots stretching a foot or more in length.
Of course, when a large enough clot occurs in the heart, you end up with a heart attack. In the brain, you end up with stroke. But even microclots that don’t completely block the blood vessel can have serious ramifications. You can check for presence of microclots by performing a D-dimer blood test. If your D-dimer is elevated, you have clotting somewhere in your body.
How Vaccine-Induced Antibodies Can Cause Harm
But that’s not all. The anti-spike protein antibodies can also be harmful. Bhakdi explains:
“The other thing that has now emerged is just as frightening [as the clotting problem]. One to two weeks after the first jab, you start making antibodies in large amounts.
Now, when the second jab is done, and the spike proteins starts to project from the walls of your vessels into your bloodstream, it is not only met by the killer lymphocytes, but now the antibodies are also there and the antibodies activate [the] complement [system].
That was my first field of research. The first cascade system is the clotting system. Turn it on and the blood will clot. If you turn on the complement system with the antibodies that bind to your vessel wall, then this complement system will start creating holes in the vessel wall.
And you see these patients who have bleeding in the skin. Ask, where does that come from? Well, if you go around riddling your vessels with holes, you [get bleeding]. If the holes riddle vessels of the liver, or the pancreas or the brain, then the blood will seep through the vessels into the tissues …
[The COVID injections] are in your bloodstream for at least a week, and they will seep into any organ. And when those [organ] cells then start to make the spike protein themselves, then the killer lymphocytes will also seek and destroy them [in that organ, creating more damage and subsequent clotting].
What we are witnessing is one of the most fascinating experiments that could lead to massive autoimmune disease. When this will happen, God knows. And what this will lead to, God knows.”
COVID Jab May Trigger Latent Viruses and Cancer
The COVID jabs can also decimate your lymph nodes, as your lymph nodes are full of lymphocytes and other immune cells. Some of the lymphocytes will die immediately upon contact, causing inflammation.
Cells that don’t die and take up the mRNA and start producing spike protein will be recognized as virus producers and get attacked by the complement system. It essentially creates a war between some immune cells against other immune cells. As a result of this attack, your lymph nodes swell and become painful.
This is a serious problem, as the lymphocytes in your lymph nodes are lifelong sentinels that keep latent infection such as shingles under control. When they malfunction or are destroyed, these latent viruses can activate. This is why we’re seeing reports of shingles, lupus, herpes, Epstein-Barr, tuberculosis and other infections emerge as a side effect of the shots. Of course, certain cancers can also be affected.
“As we all know, tumors are forming every day in our bodies, but those tumor cells are recognized by our lymphocytes and then they're snuffed out,” Bhakdi says. “So, I am worried sick that the world is being goaded into taking something into the body that is going to change the whole face of medicine.”
Informed Consent Is Virtually Impossible
After giving this issue a great deal of thought, Bhakdi is convinced that the COVID injection campaign must be stopped.
“Gene-based vaccines are an absolute danger to mankind and their use at present violates the Nuremberg codex, such that everyone who is propagating their use should be put before tribunal,” Bhakdi says.
“Especially the vaccination of children is something that is so criminal that I have no words to express my horror … We are horribly worried that there's going to be an impact on fertility. And this will be seen in years or decades from now. And this is potentially one of the greatest crimes, simply one of the greatest crimes imaginable …
As we all know, it is laid down by the Nuremberg codex that in case experiments are to be conducted in humans, this can only be performed with informed consent.
Informed consent means that the person to be vaccinated has to be informed about all the risks, the risk benefit ratios, the potential dangers and what is known about side effects. This cannot be done with children, because children are not in the position to understand it.
Therefore, they cannot give informed consent. Therefore, they cannot be vaccinated. If anyone does that, he should be set before a tribunal. If grownups have been informed and want to get the shot, that's all right. But don't force anyone to get the shot. It has to be by informed consent only.”
Of course, informed consent is also virtually impossible even for adults, as they’re only given one side of the story. All side effects and risks are censored virtually everywhere and discussions about them are banned. The U.S. government is even pushing to criminalize discussion about COVID injection risks.
Where Do We Go From Here?
If you’ve already gotten one or two shots, there’s nothing you can do about that. Certainly, do not get a booster, as each booster is undoubtedly going to magnify the damage.
“In the end, I predict that we're going to see mass illnesses and deaths among people who normally would have wonderful lives ahead of them,” Bhakdi says. The question on people’s minds is, can anything be done to reverse the damage from these shots? As yet, we do not know.
However, if you have received one or more shots and develop symptoms of an infection, Bhakdi recommends treatment with hydroxychloroquine and/or ivermectin, such as the Zelenko protocol,4 and the MATH+ protocols,5 which have proven their effectiveness. It’s important to realize you may actually be more prone to serious infection, not less.
Nebulized hydrogen peroxide can also be used for prevention and treatment of COVID-19, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper6 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at first onset of symptoms.
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
42. BRITTANY GALVIN, of Tampa, Florida, is Vice President of Sales for a professional employer organization, and the primary breadwinner for her family. She is a 35-year-old wife and mother of three children. She has a history of Rheumatoid Arthritis, diagnosed four years ago, in remission for a couple of years. Before the COVID injections, she did not take any regular medications.

43. Before the spring of 2020, she traveled extensively for work. Just prior to the reporting of the COVID outbreak in the United States, when she returned from Las Vegas in late February of 2020, she got extremely sick. The Urgent Care doctor she saw told her there was no way she could have COVID because she had not been to China. Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 10 Filed 06/10/21 Page 17 of 113 18 Between March and June 2020, she was tested at least ten times for COVID-19. None of these tests were positive. However, she was sick for almost three months.

44. By June of 2020, Brittany had become extremely ill. She went to the ER and was transferred to Advent Carrollwood Hospital where she was admitted to a Covid unit for 6 days as “positive” for COVID-19. She never saw positive test results. On the first day of her hospital admission, she was treated with Hydroxychloroquine. By the third day she had improved significantly. Nothing helped before the Hydroxychloroquine. Several months later, she had a positive antibody test.

45. Brittany experienced tremendous pressure to get “vaccinated” so she requested a medical exemption from the shot from her rheumatologist. However, she was advised by his assistant that they were recommending that all patients get the injections. She was further advised that her doctor would not provide a recommendation against the shot, but that instead, he would write a letter stating she should get the shot. This incident was extremely alarming to Brittany.

46. After her doctor failed to support her medically, and needing to get back to work, Brittany reluctantly took the first Moderna injection on March 28, 2021. Within 4- 5 hours of receiving the shot, she experienced chills all over her body and felt terrible. She felt unsteady and when she walked it felt like her legs were moving through wet cement.

47. She received her second Moderna injection on May 4, 2021, at her local Publix pharmacy. She filled out a form that asked me if she had a prior autoimmune disease. She checked the box on the form indicating that she had, and that she would Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 10 Filed 06/10/21 Page 18 of 113 19 need to be seen by a pharmacist. No pharmacist saw her and she reluctantly accepted the injection.

48. A couple of days after the shot metal started sticking to her body. Brittany had learned more about the shots and was alarmed. She asked the pharmacist why he provided shots with a blank package insert and he could not tell her what was in the shots.

49. On May 22, 2021, about 13 days after her second shot, Brittany seized up unable to walk, and fainted on the floor. Her head was tingling and her ears were hot. She had a terrible headache. Coming to, she was able to call 911. By the time paramedics arrived, her body had fully seized up. She was transported to Memorial Hospital of Tampa by ambulance where the staff asked her immediately if she had had the COVID shot, which ones, and when. She overheard a conversation at that emergency room that alerted her that similar side effects were coming into the hospital regularly. She overheard hospital staff talking about seeing a lot of heart conditions, chest pains, and leg numbness from the COVID shots.

50. At Memorial Hospital, the hospital staff took x-rays with a spoon stuck to her body. In fact, the MRI technician tried it, and the spoon stuck to him as well.

51. She was ultimately released with the reason for admission in her chart noted as “anxiety.”

52. A few days later, on May 25, 2021, she was admitted to the emergency room at Advent Carrollwood Hospital in Tampa, Florida for the same symptoms: unsteadiness, numbness, tingling, headaches, nausea, chest pain. The next day she was Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 10 Filed 06/10/21 Page 19 of 113 20 released, and her chart noted that she was admitted for “anxiety.” After this hospital stay, she made a report to VAERS.

53. On May 30, 2021, Brittany was again admitted to Advent Carrollwood Hospital. She was there fighting for her life as of, June 8, 2021. She has undergone multiple tests, including without limitation blood tests, neurology tests, brain MRIs, and a spinal tap. The hospital was prepared to release her with another diagnosis of “anxiety” when her neurology team arrived in her room with results from her lumbar puncture. Her neurologist advised her that her problems arose from the COVID shot. He also advised her that she was not the first patient he has seen with these problems. He then diagnosed her with Guillain Barre Syndrome, Acute Neuropathic POTS, pericarditis, gastroparesis and aseptic meningitis and, as she was told, made a report to VAERS.

54. As of June 8, 2021, Brittany has a very stiff neck and her head pain is extreme. She cannot use the bathroom unassisted. She is experiencing pressure in her head like her brain is swollen. She has recently been running a fever and throwing up. She is getting worse, not better. Her family and husband need her.

55. Brittany feels very strongly about using her experience to warn and help others so this does not happen to them. She posted her experiences on Instagram at @brit_galvin. Her videos have been censored on social media.

56. When Brittany took the COVID-19 experimental injections, she did not know they were experimental and not approved by the FDA. She was highly confused by the media asserting that they were “safe and effective.”

more at:
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master

59. AUBREY BOONE, of Lubbock, Texas, is 39 years old and studying to be a colon hydro-therapist. She also works as a caregiver for her retired father, who is a disabled Veteran and unable to care for himself due to service-related injuries and significant cognitive decline. Additionally, she is the single mother of two minor children ages twelve and sixteen. She has always been healthy and had no medical problems prior to being injected with the experimental agents in the Covid-19 “vaccine”.

60. Aubrey took the first Moderna shot on March 18, 2021, and the second shot on April 15, 2021. She registered for the vaccine appointment online and showed up at Lubbock Civic Center with her father. When she arrived, staff searched for her name on the roster, where it happened to appear twice. Her identification was never checked, nor was her father’s. They then were escorted to a table and asked only if they were getting the first or second shot. Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 10 Filed 06/10/21 Page 22 of 113 23

61. The first shot was given by an EMT. He told Aubrey that it was the first shot, and she should experience no side effects. They were not at any time provided with disclosures, papers or directives. They were only provided a proof of vaccine card.

62. Aubrey cannot attest to the position of the person who administered the second shot, because the woman giving the shot did not wear a uniform. Aubrey and her father were once again only asked if it was the first or second shot. This time, they were asked which brand of shot we had received. The woman giving Aubrey the injection told her she may get a fever and if it persists to go to the emergency room. Once again, Aubrey and her father were never given any paperwork on the actual vaccine and never warned of potential side effects.

63. After the shot Aubrey became extremely ill very quickly. Within 12 hours she had a fever of 103, severe migraine, unbearable body aches, stomach issues, and what seemed to be arthritic pain in every joint on her body. The fever lasted four days, but the severe migraine continued for 17 days. Aubrey became so ill that she could barely function. During the first four days, she had someone assist her by bringing her items that she needed. This person became terribly ill with the same symptoms she was experiencing, within 24 hours of contacting her.

64. Aubrey was never informed that she could get this sick from the vaccine. She could not function for 17 days and this was extremely difficult for her. If she would have known that she was going to become that sick with the vaccine she would have been able to make a somewhat informed decision for herself, and for her family that depends solely on Aubrey’s care. Aubrey heard that the experimental injection is going to be given to children aged 12 to 15 and she believes that is wrong. She does not want her Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 10 Filed 06/10/21 Page 23 of 113 24 children to get this experimental Covid-19 vaccine injection. Aubrey felt enormous pressure to get vaccinated. She believes the pressure on children is even stronger. Children are not old enough to be pressured about their health decisions and they are not old enough to make a potentially life changing medical decision. None of the adverse information that this Plaintiff has discovered about the Vaccines, and none of the information about alternatives, was known to this Plaintiff prior to sustaining Vaccine injury, and none was supplied by the Defendants or as a result of their efforts.
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master


As you probably know, the FDA approved the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID jab on Monday. Here’s an article we wrote about the “approval.”

According to the EUA Fact Sheet on the FDA’s website, one of the ingredients in this jab is 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine. See the screenshot below…

123-PC


What exactly is this “mystery” ingredient in Pfizer’s “secret sauce”?
This is important to know, since this is a component of the lipid nanoparticles in every Pfizer/BioNTech shot.

So, let’s check out the Cayman Chemicals Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (hereafter referred to as 123-PC).

We’ve put red boxes around a few of the alarming things we noticed.

SDS-Sec1-12-Distearoly-3-PC-v3


In Section 1.2, we discover that 123-PC is for research use only, not for human or veterinary use.



SDS-Sec2-12-Distearoly-3-PC


In Section 2.3, we discover that 123-PCmay be irritating to the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract” and it “may be harmful by … skin absorption” and that “the toxicological properties have not been thoroughly investigated.



SDS-Sec4-12-Distearoly-3-PC


In Section 4.1, we learn that if 123-PC is inhaled, contacts the skin or eyes, or is ingested, that the person should get medical attention.



SDS-Sec67-12-Distearoly-3-PC


In Section 6, we discover that if 123-PC is accidentally released, that persons should “wear a NIOSH self-contained breathing apparatus or respirator and appropriate personal protection” and should dispose of 123-PC by “transfer(ring) to a chemical waste container … in accordance with local regulations.”

Then, finally in Section 7, we learn that we should “avoid prolonged or repeated exposure” to 123-PC.

In summary, 123-PC is an ingredient contained in every Pfizer COVID jab, and according to the Safety Data Sheet:

  • 123-PC is not for human use
  • 123-PC might irritate the mucous membrane
  • 123-PC might irritate the upper respiratory tract
  • 123-PC might be harmful if absorbed by the skin
  • If 123-PC is accidentally released, you should wear a breathing apparatus or respirator
  • 123-PC should only be disposed of in a chemical waste container
  • If 123-PC is inhaled or ingested, the person should get medical attention
Did we miss anything?
Oh yeah, according to the SDS, we have no idea how toxic 123-PC really is!

Is your mind blown yet? Seriously! What kind of CRACK was the FDA smoking to approve a jab that contains this KNOWN POISON in EVERY DOSE?

In the video below, Stew Peters interviews Dr. Jane Ruby about this stunning “secret sauce” (around the 13 minute mark)…
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
Brit medical professionals send a nasty letter...its ignored.



22 August 2021

Dear Sirs and Madam,

Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK.

We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally "smeared" by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.

We are taking the step of writing this public letter because it has become apparent to us that:

  • The Government (by which we mean the UK government and three devolved governments/administrations and associated government advisors and agencies such as the CMOs, CSA, SAGE, MHRA, JCVI, Public Health services, Ofcom etc, hereinafter "you" or the "Government") have based the handling of the COVID pandemic on flawed assumptions.
  • These have been pointed out to you by numerous individuals and organisations.
  • You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel.
  • Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.
  • The pandemic response policies implemented have caused massive, permanent and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated.
  • Only by revealing the complete lack of widespread approval among healthcare professionals of your policies will a wider debate be demanded by the public.
In relation to the above, we wish to draw attention to the following points. Supporting references can be provided upon request.

1. No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies

The evidence of disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong.

It is for this reason that lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic

preparedness plans prior to 2020. In fact, they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals. There has been such an inexplicable absence of consideration of the harms caused by lockdown policy it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is willful avoidance.

The introduction of such policies was never accompanied by any sort of risk/benefit analysis. As bad as that is, it is even worse that after the event when plenty of data became available by which the harms could be measured, only perfunctory attention to this aspect of pandemic planning has been afforded. Eminent professionals have repeatedly called for discourse on these health impacts in press-conferences but have been universally ignored.

What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.

2. Institutional nature of COVID

It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease, as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS.

Transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.

Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.

Despite this, no early, aggressive and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result.

Preparations for this coming winter, including ensuring sufficient capacity and preventative measures such as ventilation solutions, have not been prioritised.

3. The exaggerated nature of the threat

Policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible 'case' rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying 'with COVID' and not 'of COVID' where the disease was the underlying cause of death.

The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.

Moreover, in headlines reporting the number of deaths, a categorisation by age was not included. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born.

This is a highly relevant fact in assessing the societal impact of the pandemic. Death in old age is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government's messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.

Doctors were asked to complete death certificates in the knowledge that the deceased's death had already been recorded as a COVID death by the Government. Since it would be virtually impossible to find evidence categorically ruling out COVID as a contributory factor to death, once recorded as a "COVID death" by the government, it was inevitable that it would be included as a cause on the death certificate.

Diagnosing the cause of death is always difficult and the reduction in post mortems will have inevitably resulted in increased inaccuracy. The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID.

The overall all-cause mortality rate from 2015-2019 was unusually low and yet these figures have been used to compare to 2020 and 2021 mortality figures which has made the increased mortality appear unprecedented. Comparisons with data from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result.

Even now COVID cases and deaths continue to be added to the existing total without proper rigour such that overall totals grow ever larger and exaggerate the threat. No effort has been made to count totals in each winter season separately which is standard practice for every other disease.

You have continued to adopt high-frequency advertising through publishing and broadcast media outlets to add to the impact of "fear messaging". The cost of this has not been widely published, but government procurement websites reveal it to be immense -- hundreds of millions of pounds.

The media and government rhetoric is now moving onto the idea that "Long Covid" is going to cause major morbidity in all age groups including children, without having a discussion of the normality of postviral fatigue which lasts upwards of 6 months. This adds to the public fear of the disease, encouraging vaccination amongst those who are highly unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from COVID.

4. Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere

The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed.

For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalisations by 90% in low risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted.

Dr. Tess Lawrie, of the Evidence Based Medical Consultancy in Bath, presented a thorough analysis of the prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin to the government in January 2021. More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.



Many doctors are understandably cautious about possible over-interpretation of the available data for the drugs mentioned above and other treatments, although it is to be noted that no such caution seems to have been applied in relation to the treatment of data around the government's interventions (eg the effectiveness of lockdowns or masks) when used in support of the government's agenda.

Whatever one's view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalisation might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk / benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.

5. Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioural science to generate unwarranted fear

Propagation of a deliberate fear narrative (confirmed through publicly accessible government documentation) has been disproportionate, harmful and counterproductive. We request that it should cease forthwith.

To give just one example, the government's face covering policies seem to have been driven by behavioural psychology advice in relation to generating a level of fear necessary for compliance with other policies.

Those policies do not appear to have been driven by reason of infection control, because there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2.

Several high profile institutions and individuals are aware of this and have advocated against face coverings during this pandemic only inexplicably to reverse their advice on the basis of no scientific justification of which we are aware. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence suggesting that mask wearing can cause multiple harms, both physical and mental.

This has been particularly distressing for the nation's school children who have been encouraged by government policy and their schools to wear masks for long periods at school.

Finally, the use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe. Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behaviour, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.

6. Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses

The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains -- especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination -- is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified.

Chasing down every new emergent variant is counterproductive, harmful and totally unnecessary and there is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.

Mutant strains appear simultaneously in different countries (by way of 'convergent evolution') and the closing of national borders in attempts to prevent variants travelling from one country to another serves no significant infection control purpose and should be abandoned.

7. Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions

It is well-established that asymptomatic spread has never been a major driver of a respiratory disease pandemic and we object to your constant messaging implying this, which should cease forthwith.

Never before have we perverted the centuries-old practice of isolating the ill by instead isolating the healthy. Repeated mandates to healthy, asymptomatic people to self-isolate, especially school children, serves no useful purpose and has only contributed to the widespread harms of such policies.

In the vast majority of cases healthy people are healthy and cannot transmit the virus and only sick people with symptoms should be isolated.

The government's claim that one in three people could have the virus has been shown to be mutually inconsistent with the ONS data on prevalence of disease in society, and the sole effect of this messaging appears to have been to generate fear and promote compliance with government restrictions.

The government's messaging to 'act as if you have the virus' has also been unnecessarily fear-inducing given that healthy people are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus to others.

The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of 'cases', is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness.

Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly at enormous cost to health and well-being and to the country's economy.

Countries that have removed community restrictions have seen no negative consequences which can be attributed to the easing. Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections is seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings.

The reason for reduced impact of each successive wave is that: (1) most people have some level of immunity either through prior immunity or immunity acquired through exposure; (2) as is usual with emergent new viruses, mutation of the virus towards strains causing milder disease appears to have occurred.

Vaccination may also contribute to this although its durability and level of protection against variants is unclear.

The government appears to be talking of "learning to live with COVID" while apparently practicing by stealth a "zero COVID" strategy which is futile and ultimately net-harmful.

8. Mass testing of healthy children

Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.

During Easter term, an amount equivalent to the cost of building one District General Hospital was spent weekly on testing schoolchildren to find a few thousand positive 'cases', none of which was serious as far as we are aware.

Lockdowns are in fact a far greater contributor to child health problems, with record levels of mental illness and soaring levels of non-COVID infections being seen, which some experts consider to be a result of distancing resulting in deconditioning of the immune system.

9. Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions

Based merely on early "promising" vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed -- without proper debate or rigorous analysis -- to the entire adult population).

This decision was taken despite massive harms consequent to continued lockdowns which were either known to you or ought to have been ascertained so as to be considered in the decision making process.

Moreover, a number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign, meaning that in most cases, whether the consent obtained can be truly regarded as "fully informed" must be in serious doubt:

  • The use of coercion supported by an unprecedented media campaign to persuade the public to be vaccinated, including threats of discrimination, either supported by the law or encouraged socially, for example in co-operation with social media platforms and dating apps.
  • The omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects and unknown long-term effects.
Finally, we note that the Government is seriously considering the possibility that these vaccines -- which have no associated long-term safety data -- could be administered to children on the basis that this might provide some degree of protection to adults. We find that notion an appalling and unethical inversion of the long-accepted duty falling on adults to protect children.

10. Over-reliance on modeling while ignoring real-world data

Throughout the pandemic, decisions seem to have been taken utilising unvalidated models produced by groups who have what can only be described as a woeful track record, massively overestimating the impact of several previous pandemics.

The decision-making teams appear to have very little clinical input and, as far as is ascertainable, no clinical immunology expertise.

Moreover, the assumptions underlying the modeling have never been adjusted to take into account real-world observations in the UK and other countries.

It is an astonishing admission that, when asked whether collateral harms had been considered by SAGE, the answer given was that it was not in their remit -- they were simply asked to minimise COVID impact. That might be forgivable if some other advisory group was constantly studying the harms side of the ledger, yet this seems not to have been the case.

Conclusions

The UK's approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group -- the elderly -- the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children.

Moreover your policies have failed in any event to prevent the UK from notching up one of the highest reported death rates from COVID in the world.

Now, despite very high vaccination rates and the currently very low COVID death and hospitalisation rates, policy continues to be aimed at maintaining a population handicapped by extreme fear with restrictions on everyday life prolonging and deepening the policy-derived harms.

To give just one example, NHS waiting lists now stand at 5.1m officially, with -- according to the previous Health Secretary -- a likely further 7m who will require treatment not yet presented. This is unacceptable and must be addressed urgently.

In short, there needs to be a sea change within the Government which must now pay proper attention to those esteemed experts outside its inner circle who are sounding these alarms.

As those involved with healthcare, we are committed to our oath to "first do no harm", and we can no longer stand by in silence observing policies which have imposed a series of supposed "cures" which are in fact far worse than the disease they are supposed to address.

The signatories of this letter call on you, in Government, without further delay to widen the debate over policy, consult openly with groups of scientists, doctors, psychologists and others who share crucial, scientifically-valid and evidence-based alternative views and to do everything in your power to return the country as rapidly as possible to normality with the minimum of further damage to society.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Jonathan Engler, MB ChB LLB (Hons) DipPharmMed

Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS B Med Sci FRCS FFSEM, Consultant Surgeon, ran vaccination program for a Polio Outbreak, Past President BOSTA, for Orthopaedic Surgeons, Faculty member FFSEM

Mr. Tony Hinton, MB ChB, FRCS, FRCS(Oto), Consultant Surgeon

Dr. Renee Hoenderkamp, BSc (Hons) MBBS MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr. Ros Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician

Mr. Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB MD FRCSEd FRCS (Gen Surg) MIHM VR

Dr. Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician

Dr. Alan Mordue, MB ChB, FFPH (ret), Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine

Mr. Colin Natali, BSc(Hons), MBBS FRCS FRCS(Orth), Consultant Spine Surgeon

Dr. Helen Westwood, MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner

Click here, for the complete list of signatories.
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
Vaccine Failure and the Way Out

The Corona vaccines don’t work very well. Ubiquitous statistics showing that the vaccinated enjoy substantial protection against serious illness and death seem wrong. In some cases they are probably manipulated. They are certainly confounded by the different testing regimes to which the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are subjected. Once you forget the specifics of efficacy and look at the broader picture, it is easy to see where we are. The vaccines have not reduced Corona mortality compared to the same time last year in any jurisdiction that I know of. Countries with high vaccination rates are now seeing the same number of deaths, or more, as they had at the beginning of September 2020. Time is a flat circle.
If you peer deeper, you’ll generally find this: The vaccinated remain substantially protected against serious illness or death, but the unvaccinated are entering the hospital and dying at very high rates indeed, as if to compensate. Thus Israel has maintained the same case fatality rate of around 0.7%, before and after mass vaccination. If this is just Delta being more dangerous, then we would expect countries with lower vaccination rates to be enduring truly staggering mortality right now, but they are not. In heavily vaccinated countries, Delta is raging with a rare fury among the unvaccinated, but in lesser-vaccinated countries it is doing nothing unusual. This means that the efficacy statistics are broadly unreliable. The exact reasons don’t really matter: Either the vaccines have the power to change the whole picture, or they don’t.
None of this should surprise us. Vaccines against coronaviruses have been used in animals for decades, and none of them work very well. Generally they begin to fail after a few months. Despite their technical sophistication, our mRNA and vector vaccines against SARS-2 are no different. They had some success when they were first rolled out, but if anything that probably made things worse. They effectively killed off the older Kent lineage and reduced the overall genetic diversity of SARS-2. Cases plummeted in the United Kingdom and Israel, and Delta emerged victorious from this bottleneck event. When newly vaccinated Icelanders travelled to the Delta-saturated UK for holiday, they did not even enjoy an initial period of protection against infection. They brought Delta back to Iceland, where the new strain circulated among vaccinated and unvaccinated at nearly the same rate.
In a world where the symptomatic mostly stay home, Corona is locked in a balancing act. It can’t make people too sick too soon, or its hosts will remove themselves from circulation and infect nobody. Delta is more aggressive than prior strains, probably to the point of disadvantaging itself in containment-happy countries. The more aggressive, earlier replication allows it to get the jump on immunity in the vaccinated, however, who can also tolerate more virus replication with fewer symptoms. Together with ordinary antigenic drift, this would seem to be the mechanism that has brought Delta to prominence. We are probably justified in calling this phenomenon a weak Marek Effect. Our universal vaccination campaigns worked just well enough to speed up the evolutionary processes that are always and everywhere optimising Corona.
It is impossible to believe that this failure was not foreseen. The scientists who developed the vaccines knew for sure how things would play out. That’s why they concluded the trials after three or four months and vaccinated their controls. It’s why they have been talking about boosters from the very beginning. It’s why, if you listened carefully, you never heard Zero Covid sloganeering coming from Team Vaccine. Only the comparative morons on Team Lockdown ever talked like that.
Our politicians and our new public health dictators, on the other hand, remained oblivious to the limited potential of the vaccines. They continue to insist on universal vaccination and green passes, while it is obvious that these will do nothing to influence the course of the pandemic. It is worth asking why, because when you think about it, you can see that the vaccine roll-out came with an inbuilt exit strategy. The vaccines arrived most everywhere in the spring, as Corona was going out of season anyway. Policymakers immediately claimed declining infections as a victory for the vaccines, but they failed to take the next step and declare the war won and either discontinue their case counts, or at the very least exclude the vaccinated from infection and mortality statistics. Instead, they deployed half measures, devising new regulations that exempt the vaccinated from testing most of the time, while failing to shut the door on the pandemic and maintaining numbers that are just reliable enough to reveal the futility of their policies.
This was the second time our brave health dictatorship failed to use the obvious, purpose-built exit ramp of seasonality. The first was in Spring 2020, after the entire West (with the exceptions of Sweden and Belarus) bought into mass containment and Corona infections collapsed everywhere in April. Establishment scientific voices had by this time spent two months denying that there would be significant seasonal effects, on the basis of some superficial modelling studies. As with the vaccine roll-out, denying seasonality allowed them to declare a policy victory. As with the vaccine roll-out, the stage was set for everybody to say that they had defeated Corona, fold up shop and go home. This is, you will note, exactly what China did. They tightened official testing criteria, declared the pandemic over with and never looked back. Western countries, though, kept the ball in the air all summer long, just as they are keeping the ball in the air now.
Governments are both more powerful and more paralysed than they have been at any other point in history. Powers have diffused throughout the realms of bureaucracy. By distributing power in this way, occupational classes ensure loyalty and unanimity across the whole of the civil service, academia and the press. The consequence is that states have become profoundly and permanently demobilised, incapable of acting according to coherent strategies. Over and over in Corona, we see clear hints of strategic thinking in certain quarters – the exit ramps are among the clearest signs – but these are always overridden by the broader momentum of countless thousands of nameless, faceless optimisers and hystericists who sit on hundreds of boring pointless committees performing the same iterative destructive acts of governance over and over.
These are bureaucratic processes of untold complexity, all of them steered in roughly the same direction by a loose system of Schelling points. The mysterious power of globalist organisations like the World Economic Forum is the coordination they provide, by acting as venues for the occupational elites to formulate policy schemes among themselves and to propagate these plans and ideals through loose networks of affiliated tycoons, journalists and NGOs. Until now, Corona policy in every western country has unfolded more or less according to the same script, devised by the World Health Organisation at the end of February 2020. The final act was supposed to be the wide-scale eradication of Corona after mass vaccination. It is now clear that this will never happen. For the first time since March 2020, there is no obvious international consensus on the way forward.
A few countries, or perhaps even a few prominent politicians or public health pundits who do not have their heads up their asses, could change everything. Everyone who is not crazy needs to start insisting on the same simple message:
We have to live with Corona, it will always be with us. Biannual boosters for the entire population will not solve anything. They will only reduce the effectiveness of vaccines by encouraging antigenic drift. The vaccines are, at best, a solution for the elderly and the vulnerable only. Everyone will get Corona, even the vaccinated, and children need to get it while they are still young and while it poses no risk to them. In this way, SARS-2 will become an unimportant virus in the coming years.
UPDATE: My critics complain that Delta has a different seasonality, so calendar-date comparisons are inappropriate. This was only an attempt to simplify. Compare mortality statistics however you want: They have, as a rule, not improved. My critics complain further that Israel’s unchanging case fatality rate is an outlier, and that the CFR is declining elsewhere. This is true! I only cited Israel to illustrate the shifting burden of mortality and hospitalisation to the unvaccinated. Official case fatality rates are obviously determined by local diagnostic policies and in themselves they mean almost nothing.
 

MeanMaster

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
What is the Natural source of "Spike Proteins (S
This guy does a good job explaining how the spike protein works.


It may be difficult to fully understand without knowing a little about the properties of aminoacids, and how they respond to changes in pH. Also knowing basic things like what are polar bonds and hydrogen bonds. But I think you'll have no trouble.
 

Vilis_Hāzners

🇺🇸 🇺🇸 RACE AND NATION FIRST! 🇺🇸 🇺🇸
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
INGREDIENT #1: CELLS FROM ABORTED FETUS Aborted fetal cells, listed on vaccine package inserts as “Human Fetal Diploid Cells.” Terms to Investigate: PERC6, MRC5, WI-38, HEK-293,
I need evidence of this. Articles proving it are scarce now. I know I saw the vax companies not only admittng this, but defending it as well.
 
Last edited:

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
updated 14 hours ago;

The Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca and Janssen drugs are NOT "vaccines" but complexed Graphene Oxide nano particulate aggregates of varying nano elements attached to genetically modified nucleic acids of mRNA from animal or vero cells and aborted human fetal cells as viewed and described above. Once again the ingredients in these so-called vaccines are highly magneticotoxic, cytotoxic and genotoxic to plant, insect, bird, animal and human cell membranes and their genetics which already has lead to serious injuries (estimated at over 500 million) and/or eventual death (estimated at over 35 million).[18][19] through [55][73] The so-called “experts” or "medical savants" are telling YOU that CoV - 2 - 19 vaccines are the ONLY way to stop the spread of CoV-19... even when there is NO EVIDENCE of its existence
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
[67] Nano coronavirus recombinant vaccine taking graphene oxide as carrier - Patent https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112220919A/en

Abstract
The invention belongs to the field of nano materials and biomedicine, and relates to a vaccine, in particular to development of 2019-nCoV coronavirus nuclear recombinant nano vaccine. The invention also comprises a preparation method of the vaccine and application of the vaccine in animal experiments. The new corona vaccine contains graphene oxide, carnosine, CpG and new corona virus RBD; binding carnosine, CpG and neocoronavirus RBD on the backbone of graphene oxide; the CpG coding sequence is shown as SEQ ID NO 1; the novel coronavirus RBD refers to a novel coronavirus protein receptor binding region which can generate a high-titer specific antibody aiming at the RBD in a mouse body, and provides a strong support for prevention and treatment of the novel coronavirus.
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
I asked google:

Common question
Has anyone died from the COVID-19 vaccine?

Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 310 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through June 14, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 5,343 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

So they sorta admit dead folks from a vax...far more than swine flu...because trump and white supremacist
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master

MeanMaster

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
What's Up With All the Damn Bats?

So, all you warriors out there.

How many of you are aware of First Generation Warfare? Second? Third?

Good!

All three of them are besides the point of my brief article here, so I won't mention them again.

Fourth Generation Warfare is also unrelated to my main subject, but let me insert the definition here so we are all on the same page..

( ...) a post-Clausewitzian state where the wars are undeclared, the battlefields can be anywhere, the uniforms are optional, and the combatants as well as the targets are often "civilian". Conventional militaries have repeatedly attempted to utilize technology to meet the new challenges posed, but even the most advanced technology has provided little more than meaningless short-term victories rendered futile in months, if not weeks. This inability of Western governments and militaries to come to terms with the changing nature of modern warfare has led to failed interventions, failed occupations, and now even failed states everywhere from Eastern Europe to Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. And with the recent mass movement of peoples around the world, 4th Generation Warfare can be safely expected to appear in Western Europe and the United States before long.
-
4th Generation Warfare Handbook, by William S Lind

Put simply, 4th Generation Warfare entails secretly funding proxy armed forces to attack the enemy while you keep you hands clean and maintain plausible deniability.

Fifth Generation Warfare is attacking an enemy in such a way that he isn't even aware that someone is hurting him, essentially until it's too late.

And here I want to make a claim:

For the last fifty years we may (or may not) have been under attack by an invisible enemy.

Or...

Our enemies have fumble-fucked around for fifty years trying to get 5th Generation Warfare right, and still we didn't notice.


One might ask, "By what means have I been attacked by an invisible enemy? Hell! I know I've been under attack already. Shitty jobs. Crappy schools. Everything costs too damn much. Currupt politicians couldn't care less. What else is there?"

Well I think it's something so insidious, so horrible, that we dread the thought of it. Yet in our hearts we have suspected all along..

A list of viruses that supposedly originated from bats, and other animals, over the last fifty years.

1967 - Marburg

This outbreak began in early August when 30 people became ill in the German towns of Marburg and Frankfurt. The infections were traced to three separate laboratories that shared a shipment of infected African green monkeys. Fruit bats of the Pteropodidae family, are considered the natural host of this virus. Marburg (and Ebola) is a member of the Filoviridae family (filovirus). In fatal cases death occurs after around 8 or 9 days, usually preceded by severe blood loss and shock. In the original German outbreak there were 7 deaths. Since then the largest outbreaks were seen in the Democratic Republic of Congo (128 deaths) and Angola (329 deaths), in the years 2000 and 2005 respectively.

1976 - Ebola
This recurring virus and its antibodies are carried by bat and rodent species native to East and West Africa. During its first appearance there were 280 deaths reported in an outbreak that lasted less than 11 weeks. Recently, in 2016, a West African outbreak lasted more than two years and resulted in over 11,310 deaths.

1976 - Swine Flu, The False Epidemic
It began at a US Army base called Fort Dix, where several soldiers suddenly fell ill. This virus was feared at the time to be closely related to the 1918 flu, which had killed over a 100 million people worldwide. Within 10 months, nearly 25% of the US population, or 45 million citizens (President Gerald Ford among them), received a vaccine that resulted in more than 450 people developing Guillain-Barré syndrome. Unexpectedly, the virus mostly inflicted mild symptoms and didn't spread outside the US. Only a couple deaths have been attributed to this mysterious event.

1994 - Henipavirus
Originating in Australia, this virus is transmitted to horses (and humans as well) by fruit bats (genus Pteropus). Both Nipah (NiV) and Hendra (HeV) viruses comprise the genus Henipavirus and are highly pathogenic paramyxoviruses. Since their respective initial outbreaks in 1998 and 1994, they have continued to cause sporadic outbreaks. Designated as Biosafety Level 4 pathogens, live henipaviruses are available only to select laboratories around the world. There are four deaths attributed to it.

1997 - H5N1, Avian Influenza Virus
The first human case of infection was found in Hong Kong and this virus was spread by infected chickens. This unique virus was eliminated by the total depopulation of poultry markets and chicken farms in China. A total of six fatal cases were reported
.
1998 - Nipah
This viral infection attacks the brains of it's victims, and is found in Malaysia and Singapore. Native fruit bats are identified as the origin of this virus. It is transmitted to humans via contaminated pork. There are 105 deaths attributed to this virus
.
2002 - SARS Cov1, Acute and Severe Respiratory Syndrome.
This coronavirus epidemic originated in Guangdong Province, China. Early-onset patients were determined more likely to live within walking distance of a market where live animals are sold (a "wet market"), and living near a poultry or livestock farm was not associated with increased risk. Various animal species were suspected of hosting this virus, yet a perfect match was never found. Recently, a report titled “Masked palm civet has been wronged for a decade, bat was the real culprit of SARS virus”, was released to put an end to the origin mystery, and blamed Rhinolophus sinicus, or the Chinese Rufous Horseshoe Bat. Still questions remain. SARS CoV 1 was the first disease to emerge in the 21st century that showed capacity to spread along the routes of international air travel. There are 774 deaths attributed to it.

2009 - H1N1pdm09, Swine Influenza
This virus contained a unique combination of influenza genes not previously identified in animals or people. It was first detected in the United States were there are 12,469 deaths attributed to it, worldwide there are 151,700 estimated deaths. Few young people had any existing immunity (as detected by antibody response) to this virus, but nearly one-third of people over 60 years old did have antibodies protecting against it.

2012 - Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), MERS-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV).
This coronavirus has been found in camels in several countries along the Arabian Peninsula. The infection can spread by having contact with these camels or through human to human exposure. The main symptoms of MERS are flu-like and develop within 2 to 14 days. According to the CDC, around one-third of patients diagnosed with MERS have died. There are around 858 deaths attributed to this desease
.
2013 - Influenza A Virus Subtype H7N9
This virus normally infects birds and was first discovered in Shanghai, China. That country is currently experiencing its 6th outbreak of this virus, however severe cases are rare today. On October 26, 2013, Chinese scientists announced that they had successfully produced an H7N9 vaccine. It is the first influenza vaccine developed entirely in China. There are 616 deaths attributed to this virus.

2019 - SARS CoV 2, Covid-19
This coronavirus first appeared in Wuhan China, and is related somewhat to two bat-derived strains, bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21. However, it's very unusual genome is actually closer in relation to the mysterious SARS Cov1. Time will tell this one's outcome.

But wait! There's more..

Last year, 118 people in the U.S. were infected with measles, and more than 800 people in Hawaii were recently diagnosed with mumps. Whooping cough cases have been rising since the '80s, the biggest spike (more than 48,000 cases) being just six years ago.

Coincidences?

I have other suspicions.
 
Last edited:
Top