Archives for posts with tag: Covid 19

Read in English

iRNK: „To je genska terapija, a ne vakcina“

Deo serije „Priče o kovidu protivurečne naučnim“ na ovom blogu. Intervju koji sledi, sa dr Dejvidom Martinom, je u skladu sa nekoliko drugih kontra-narativa od strane naučnika iz serije Covid 19.

*

Intervju @ https://www.westonaprice.org/podcast/its-gene-therapy-not-a-vaccine/
Arhiva @ https://archive.li/gpG3w

Dr Dejvid Martin, osnivač i predsednik kompanije M-CAM Inc., osporava naše pretpostavke o novim iRNK KOVID-19 vakcinama. Citirajući same farmaceutske kompanije, Dejvid napominje da ovo nisu vakcine, već zapravo, genska terapija. Objašnjava šta nam vakcine mogu učiniti, šta oni obećavaju da nam mogu učiniti, i kako da napravimo razliku. U nastavku je transkript intervjua Hilde Gor sa dr Dejvidom Martinom.

HG: Imam prijatelje koji su primili jednu od novih vakcina protiv Kovida-19, a imate ih i Vi. To su najbrže razvijene vakcine u čitavoj našoj medicinskoj istoriji i mnogi ljudi staju u red da bi ih primili što pre. Od čega su napravljene? Šta nam mogu učiniti? Zašto ih promovišu i ko to čini? Ovo je epizoda 292, a naš gost je dr Dejvid Martin. Diplomirao je na Univerzitetu Gošen, magistrirao na Bol Stejt (Ball State) Univerzitetu i doktorirao na Univerzitetu Virdžinija. On je inovator, profesor i čovek sa obimnom biografijom punom dostignuća.

Sa Dejvidom smo se fokusirali na iRNK KOVID-19 vakcine. On prolazi glavna pitanja koja ih okružuju. Pregleda tehnologiju iRNK i objašnjava kako se radi o genskoj terapiji, a ne o vakcini i našem uobičajenom razumevanju te reči. Sagledava probleme sa PCR testovima i čak nam pomaže da razumemo naše šire vanredno stanje. Na kraju, objašnjava kako nas strah na podsvesnom nivou može naterati da se odupremo istini.

Dobrodošli u emisiju, Dejvid.

DM: Hvala Vam. Divno je biti ovde.

HG: Imam prijateljicu koji radi u školskom sistemu. Dobila je pismo u kojem se sugeriše da je ona ključni radnik i da treba da primi jednu od ovih novih vakcina koje su u razvoju protiv ovog virusa KOVID. Šta bi trebalo da zna pre nego što to učini?

DM: Počnimo sa vašom uvodnom rečenicom. Nijedna reč u nizu koju ste upotrebili ne postoji u stvarnosti. Razotkrijmo to. Pre svega, ne postoji vakcina koja je u razvoju ili se planira da bude vakcina protiv virusa SARS-CoV-2. To ne postoji. To nije razvijeno. Nije čak ni 2021. godine u razmišljanju. To je jedna od nesrećnih stvari u vezi sa onim što se događa u propagandnom ratu, koji se odvija u februaru, Svetska zdravstvena organizacija je potpuno jasno stavila do znanja da SARS-CoV-2 ili virus i KOVID-19, što je serija kliničkih prezentacija bolesti, bile su dve različite stvari.

HG: Pravite zanimljivu razliku. Čula sam da je SARS-CoV-2 „virus“ i da je KOVID-19 bolest. Da li to govorite?

DM: KOVID 19 nije bolest. To je niz kliničkih simptoma. To je džinovski spektar stvari povezanih sa onim što je nekada bilo povezano sa gripom i drugim febrilnim bolestima. Problem koji imamo je taj što je u februaru, Svetska zdravstvena organizacija jasno izjavila da ne bi trebalo da postoji mešanje ove dve stvari. Jedno je virus po njihovoj definiciji, a drugo je skup kliničkih simptoma. U februaru je postojala iluzija da je SARS-CoV-2 izazvao KOVID-19. Problem sa tom definicijom i sa očekivanjima je da većina ljudi pozitivnih na testu metodom RT-PCR za testiranje, zbog fragmenata onoga što je povezano sa SARS-CoV-2, uopšte nije bolesna. Iluzija, da virus uzrokuje bolest, se raspala. To je razlog zašto su izmislili termin asimptomatski nosač.

HG: Drugim rečima, mogla bih da dobijem pozitivan rezultat ovog PCR testa i iz razloga što nisam asimptomatična, ono što se dešava je to što uopšte nisam bolesna. Oni su dali lažnu pretpostavku da SARS-CoV-2 uzrokuje KOVID-19.

DM: To nikada nije bio slučaj, nikada nije bio i nikada neće biti slučaj. Postoji uzročna izjava koja se daje u medijima gde je, na primer, Džons Hopkins ili platforma za praćenje KOVID ili bilo koja od ovih stvari namerno zavarala ljude. U Virdžiniji nema 5.000 novih slučajeva. Potencijalno može biti nekoliko hiljada pozitivnih PCR testova, ali većina ljudi koji imaju pozitivan test nikada neće imati niti jedan simptom. Većina ljudi koji imaju simptome nemaju pozitivne testove.

HG: Znam neke pojedince koji su to rekli. Rekli su: „Osećao sam se bolesno, a bio sam negativan na testu. Moja rođaka, koja se osećala odlično, bila je pozitivna na testu.“

DM: Uvek će biti tako. Uzročna veza koju su stvorili mediji, CDC i KOVID praćenje, a to je saradnja između Blumberg fondacije, Gejts fondacije, Zakerberg fondacije i drugih, zvanični brojevi koje zateknemo preko ekrana svakog jutra na našim računarima, na našim televizijama, ti brojevi namerno lažu. Oni su svesno lagali od nastanka ovoga. Ne postoji uzročno-posledična veza između ovih stvari koje nikada nisu utvrđene. Nikada nije bilo ni približno utvrđeno. Imamo situaciju u kojoj je iluzija problema u tome što ljudi kažu: „Ne želim da dobijem KOVID-19.“ Misle na to da ne žele da se zaraze virusom. Problem je u tome što te dve stvari nisu međusobno povezane.

Virusna infekcija nije dokumentovana u većini onoga što nazivaju slučajevima. Ne postoji osnov za takvu povezanost, osim za manipulaciju javnosti. To je prva polovina problema. Druga polovina problema je u tome što ono što se naziva vakcinacijom, što, kao što dobro znate kada neko kaže reč vakcinacija, javnost to razume kao da se lečite oslabljenim ili živim virusom ili fragmentom oslabljenog virusa i da je lečenje namenjeno sprečavanju zaraze i sprečavanju prenošenja infekcije, ono što vakcina u uobičajenoj definiciji vakcine treba da učini.

Problem je što, u slučaju Moderne i Fajzera (Pfizer), ovo nije vakcina. Ovo je genska terapija. To je hemoterapijsko sredstvo koje je genska terapija. To nije vakcina. Šta ona radi? Šalje lanac sintetičke RNK u ljudsko biće i u njemu priziva na stvaranje spajk proteina S1, koji je patogen. To je toksin u ljudskim bićima. Ovo ne samo da vas ne sprečava da se razbolite, već čini da vaše telo proizvodi ono od čega se razbolite.

HG: U tom smislu, to zvuči kao vakcina?

DM: Ne, nikako, jer bi vakcina trebalo da pokrene imunitet. Ne bi trebalo da pokrene u vama da proizvodite toksin.

HG: Tako se ovo razlikuje.

DM: Nije mala razlika. To uopšte nije isto. Ovo je javna manipulacija pogrešnim prikazivanjem kliničkog lečenja. To nije vakcinacija. To nije sprečavanje infekcije. To nije uređaj koji sprečava prenos. To je sredstvo uz koje je vaše telo prisiljeno da stvori toksin sa kojim se, navodno, vaše telo nekako navikne nositi, ali za razliku od vakcine, koja treba da pokrene imuni odgovor, ovo treba da pokrene stvaranje toksina.

HG: Način na koji sam čula da su kompanije govorile je da ovako naučite svoje telo da se bori protiv ovog virusa kada se pojavi. Tako oni to predstavljaju.

DM: Njihovo kliničko ispitivanje nije uključivalo ništa od toga, čak ni mogućnost unutar kliničkog ispitivanja. Kliničko ispitivanje nije merilo prisustvo ili odsustvo virusa ili fragmenta virusa. Kliničko ispitivanje nije merilo mogućnost suzbijanja prenosa, kliničko ispitivanje nije merilo nijednu od tih stvari. Ovo je slučaj pogrešnog predstavljanja tehnologije i to je učinjeno isključivo kako bi mogli da se stave pod okrilje zakona o javnom zdravstvu koji eksploatiše vakcinaciju.

HG: Ono što kažete razlikuje se od onoga što je većina nas čula u udarnim vestima, pa čak i u saopštenjima za štampu velikih kompanija.

DM: To je zato što ljudi ne čitaju stvarna klinička ispitivanja. Ako pročitate klinička ispitivanja, ništa od onoga što kažem nije nimalo različito. U stvari, same kompanije su rekle ono što ja govorim. Rekli su da ne mogu da testiraju postojanje ili odsustvo virusa i da ne mogu da testiraju prenosivost, jer su rekli da bi to bilo nepraktično. I same kompanije su priznale svaku stvar koju govorim, ali koriste javnu manipulaciju rečju vakcina da bi kooptirale javnost u verovanju da dobijaju nešto što ne dobijaju. Ovo vas neće sprečiti da dobijete koronavirus. To vas neće sprečiti da se razbolite. U stvari, naprotiv, mnogo češće ćete se razboljevati od samog virusa.

HG: Kako to možete reći tako sa sigurnošću?

DM: Zato što podaci pokazuju upravo to, jer ljudi koji su primili vakcinu, do vremena kada su primili drugu dozu, 80% tih ljudi imalo je jednu ili više kliničkih prezentacija KOVID-19, 80% ljudi koji imaju infekciju prema RT-PCR nisu imali simptome uopšte.

HG: Ljudi ga dobijaju više od „vakcine?“

DM: Da. Dobićete simptome KOVID-19 primanjem genske terapije predstavljene kao vakcina. Dobićete simptome KOVID-a u 80% slučajeva. Ako ste izloženi SARS-CoV-2 prema RT-PCR, u 80% slučajeva, uopšte nećete imati simptome.

HG: Koja je svrha dobijanja ove vakcine ili ove genske manipulacije kako je vi nazivate?

DM: To je tehnologija genske terapije. To je Modernina lična definicija. Držimo se onoga što kažu da jesu. Korist ne postoji. Ljudsko biće će biti potencijalno izloženo neklasifikovanim, i kratkoročnim i dugoročnim rizicima promene svoje RNK i DNK zbog izloženosti ovoj genskoj terapiji. Ovo je važno shvatiti, nema kliničke koristi, osim što je u određenim slučajevima infekcije CoV i / ili izloženosti KOVIDU-19 bilo nekoliko. Pod tim mislim na manje od nekoliko stotina od skoro 40.000 u kliničkom ispitivanju. Nekoliko stotina ljudi imalo je nekoliko dana slabije simptome kod genske terapije u poređenju sa drugom kontrolnom grupom. Čak i u tom poređenju, ako pogledate metodologiju koja se nalazi u objavljenim radovima za klinička ispitivanja, oni se igraju sa podacima, jer ono što rade je razdvajanje reaktivnosti, što znači način na koji osoba reaguje kada je izložena genskoj terapiji, odvajaju neželjene događaje od stvarnih simptoma KOVID-a.

Problem je što simptomi KOVID-a uključuju stvari poput groznice, bolova u telu, bolova u mišićima, slabosti u mišićima i slične stvari. Rešili su se velikog dela onoga što bi se moglo smatrati simptomima KOVID-a, nazivajući ih neželjenim događajima. Ako izvučete te podatke i kažete: „Uporedite populaciju koja je dobila gensku terapiju sa populacijom koja nije dobila gensku terapiju.“ Populacija koja je dobila gensku terapiju imala je mnogo više bolesti, uključujući simptome KOVID-19, nego populacija koja nije dobila genetsku terapiju, ali zato što su ogroman broj stvari klasifikovali kao neželjene događaje, tehnički su se zaneli i došli do ovih smešnih 90% plus efikasnost. Efikasnost nije bila efikasna u blokiranju bolesti. Bilo je efikasno u navodnom skraćivanju trajanja simptoma.

HG: Ljudi se plaše da su spremni da veruju u ono što žele da veruju i zadržavajući onaj delić informacija koje ste podelili, da će verovatnoća primene vakcine protiv gripa, „Bar ublažiti moje simptome i ograničiti trajanje moje bolesti.“ Drže se tog jednog delića informacija koji je bio manipulacija podacima, kao što kažete, i drže se nade da će ovo biti njihova spasonosna milost da im pomogne da izbegnu KOVID-19.

DM: Ništa od ovoga im neće pomoći da izbegnu KOVID-19 i ništa od ovoga im neće pomoći da izbegnu SARS-CoV-2.

HG: Govorili smo uglavnom o vakcini Moderna i Fajzer koje su genska terapija. Da li je još neka u izradi ili dolazi na tržište, koja ne koristi gensku terapiju?

DM: Ispitivanje AstraZeneca Oksford koristi virusni fragment. Više je u tehnološkom smislu onoga što bismo vi i ja mogli istorijski smatrati vakcinom. Ispitivanje AstraZeneca Oksford bilo je zanimljivo gledati, jer imaju problem sa metodologijom koji je prilično veliki izazov u pogledu pokušaja obmanjivanja podataka i razumevanja šta se dešava bilo sa strane bezbednosti ili efikasnosti. Razlog je jednostavan, jer u određenim slučajevima ispitivanje AstraZeneca Oksford nije koristilo kontrolnu grupu sa fiziološkim rastvorom. Koristili su drugu vakcinu kao kontrolu. Drugim rečima, namestili su karte. Čine da izgleda kao da su nekako neutralni u poređenju sa drugom vakcinacijom, u nekoliko svojih napora prikupljanja podataka.

Kao rezultat toga, imamo problem sa metodologijom, koji su usput kritikovali brojni klinički naučnici. Veći je problem što još uvek ne mere osetljivost na viruse i prenos virusa. To su dve noge stolice koje su potrebne svima da bi rekli da vakcinišu stanovništvo iz razloga javnog zdravlja. Ne postoji način na koji. Ovo je jednostavna stvar koju morate shvatiti. Kao kada bih rekao: „Svi moraju da uzimaju hemoterapiju zbog raka koji mogu dobiti.“

HG: Ljudi bi Vam se smejali u lice.

DM: Upravo se to događa. Ovo nije profilaktički. Ovo nam ne pomaže. Rečeno nam je da se podvrgnemo lečenju bolesti koju nemamo i najverovatnije je nećemo imati. Rečeno nam je da pažljivim marketinškim manipulacijama i propagandom nazivamo ove stvari vakcinama za javno zdravlje.

HG: U prošlosti smo ih uzimali iz tog razloga. „Nemam boginje. Ne želim da dobijem morbile, pa ću da primim ovu vakcinu protiv morbila. ” Naučeni smo da prihvatimo takav pristup.

DM: To je priča koju svako očekuje.

HG: Zašto to ne očekujete? Zbog čega ste zaronili duboko?

DM: To nije ono što se meri. To nije ono što se radi i ne radi se o ovoj tehnologiji. iRNK nije vakcinacija. To je genska terapija koja je prvobitno razvijena za lečenje karcinoma. Zbog toga koristim analogiju hemoterapije. Ovo nije vakcinacija.

HG: Imam kolege, sigurna sam da i Vi imate, prijatelje i poznanike koji će ići na to. Šta možemo reći tim ljudima ili podeliti sa njima što bi ih moglo probuditi?

DM: To je složeno pitanje i odavno sam odabrao da se ne bavim energijom buđenja uspavane metafore, jer činjenica je da su ljudi uslovljeni da reaguju na strah, to je refleksno i nije svesno. Ako ispitamo svoje ponašanje i ono što radimo je sebi na štetu, jer smo uvereni da je na jedan ili drugi način pred nama gora budućnost, to je nešto za šta nemam mogućnost da kažem da će činjenice ikada prevazići . U životu još nisam sreo nekoga ko je dozvolio da neka činjenica prevlada verovanjem. Jednom kada usvojite neko verovanje, činjenice nisu dobrodošle, jer ono što one čine, ne samo da optužuju vaše verovanje, već i energiju koju vi držite i koja kaže: „Moram da verujem u ono što mi je rečeno“.

Čim pokušate da stupite u kontakt sa činjenicama, sve što uradite je da pokrenete sukob. Ono što radim je da pokušavam da uzmem složenu nauku i složeno izveštavanje i trudim se da ona bude pristupačna i lako razumljiva. Cilj je da u određenim slučajevima ljudi kažu: „Ne mogu ni da verujem da je istina ono što je rekao.“ Dobra stvar je što ne morate verovati da je istina ono što kažem, jer ja ne vrednujem verovanje. Ja vrednujem objektivnu stvarnost činjenica. Ispostavilo se da je u ovom konkretnom slučaju jednostavno i otvoreno reći bilo kojoj osobi u Moderninoj sopstvenoj Komisiji za hartije od vrednosti, oni su to potpuno jasno stavili do znanja da je njihova tehnologija tehnologija genske terapije. U svom kliničkom ispitivanju, potpuno su jasno stavili do znanja da ne mogu meriti prisustvo ili odsustvo virusa i ne mogu meriti prisustvo ili odsustvo prenosa virusa. Svaka pojedinačna stvar koju su predstavljali da rade, a koja pogađa javno razumevanje šta je vakcinacija, izričito su rekli, „Oni to ne rade“.

HG: Bili ste pažljivi i izneli ste činjenice meni i publici i zahvalni smo. Želim da vas pitam na ličniji način, da li biste uopšte uradili ovaj PCR test ako biste morali na putovanje? Dobijam različite vrste e-mailova i ljudi me kontaktiraju, čak ni ne govorim o vakcini ili tehnologiji genske terapije, ali određene stvari su potrebne da bi se učestvovalo u životu.

DM: Aktivno sam uključen u mnoge značajne parnice koje pokušavaju da razotkriju zaveru koju pokreće PCR, kao i intervencije medicinske protivmere. U prethodnici sam sa još nekoliko duša koje se bore za prava građana da donose odluke zasnovane na činjenicama, a ne na propagandi. Činjenica je da PCR test nikada nije odobren kao dijagnostika. Nije dijagnostički. Ne postoji ništa u vezi sa izvođenjem PCR testa koji čini bilo šta drugo osim pojačavanja propagandnog narativa. Ne govori vam ništa.

Razlog zašto ne radimo testiranje na grip je taj što ne želimo da priznamo činjenicu da većina ljudi koji su u bolnici, koji su bolesni i koji umiru doživljavaju potpuno isto što se događalo svake godine, što je je bolest slična gripu, prehladi i pneumoniji. U mnogim slučajevima, kada neko ima kompromitovani imunitet ili drugi komorbiditet dovodi do smrtnih slučajeva. Tužna je stvarnost da se to događa, ali deo je ljudskog iskustva da se to događa. Činjenica je da PCR test neće postaviti ili neće potvrditi bilo koju dijagnozu, jer PCR testovi ne mogu potvrditi dijagnozu.

HG: Intervjuisala sam dr Toma Kauana i dr Endija Kaufmana, i oni kažu istu stvar. Osoba koja je smislila ili razvila PCR test kaže da se on ne treba koristiti za dijagnozu bilo čega.

DM: Kao i FDA, tako i svi ostali. Jedini razlog zašto koristimo PCR testove je taj što guverneri i Ministarstvo zdravlja i socijalne službe održavaju vanredno stanje. Onog trenutka kada se ukine to vanredno stanje u bilo kojoj državi ili zemlji, PCR test neće smeti da se koristi. Održavamo vanredno stanje kako bi proizvođači mogli da nastave da prodaju stvar koja nikada ne bi bila odobrena da je predmet kliničkog ispitivanja. To važi i za ono što se naziva vakcinama. Genska terapija koju Moderna i Fajzer rade, obe bi bile odmah suspendovane ako se vanredno stanje ukine. Ljudi ne razumeju da ako ukinete vanredno stanje, cela kuća od karata pada.

HG: To je nešto drugo za šta se vi i vaš tim zalažete?

DM: To je zato što autorizacija za upotrebu u hitnim slučajevima spada u vanredne situacije.

HG: Da li je ovo jedan od razloga, da li mislite da su klevetali hidroksihlorokin ili bilo koji drugi protokol koji bi mogao da leči simptome SARS-CoV-2?

DM: Bez pogovora. Ako pogledate istorijski, već dugi niz godina dr Antoni Fauci iz NIAID-a održava godišnji sastanak savetodavnog odbora. Svake godine on jadikuje nad činjenicom da pokušavaju da naprave ovu univerzalnu vakcinu protiv gripa, na koju se poziva kao na vakcinu za novorođenčad. Oni to pokušavaju godinama, ali nije uspelo. Ovo je prilika da Antoni Fauci dobije ono što nije uspeo da dobije pravnim sredstvima, a to je da želi da stigne do mesta gde primorava stanovništvo na vakcinu. Manipuliše ovom situacijom da bi primorao populaciju na vakcinu. Činjenica je da je zaboravio da bi, ako namerava da primora stanovništvo na vakcinu, to barem trebalo da bude vakcina.

HG: Koji bi bili njegovi motivi za to?

DM: Uvek je bio finansijski. Ulog su milijarde dolara, a NIAID je u suštini inkubator za farmaceutsku industriju. Služi blagajnicima koji su mu u NIAID-u u karijeri omogućili da upravlja 191 milijardom dolara.

HG: Ovde ima mnogo toga za razmotranje. Dali ste nam puno prostora za razmišljanje. Želimo ponovo da razgovaramo s vama, ali recimo da sam osoba koja je čitala sve ove činjenice i uverili ste me. Ne želim da dobijem ovu tehnologiju genske terapije. Ne želim čak ni da dobijem vakcinu AstraZeneca. Ne želim da dobijem ništa od ovoga, ali pod pritiskom sam zbog posla ili zbog putovanja, šta biste mi savetovali?

DM: Ne mogu uopšte nikoga da savetujem. To nije moja uloga, ali ono što vam mogu reći je da je ovo odluka koju će bilo koje ljudsko biće na kraju morati da donese na osnovu toga da li se ili ne odlučuje za život ili se odlučuje za robovanje. Ovo je kao u bilo kojoj tački istorije u kojoj morate donositi odluke koje se zasnivaju na onome što je moralno i etično i ispravno s obzirom na vaš osećaj odgovornosti i poslušnosti. Činjenica je kao da ste vezali sigurnosni pojas, kao da radite čitav niz drugih stvari, vaš izbor za bavljenje nekom aktivnošću na kraju će biti odluka sa kojom morate živeti.

Neću dodirnuti stvar i neću dozvoliti da moje telo napadne stvar koja je razvijena na neetičan i nezakonit način. Neću dozvoliti nikome da ima priliku da manipuliše mojim genetskim kodom. To se neće dogoditi. Ako to znači da to me to košta određenog poslodavca ili određene veze ili bilo čega drugog, moj život vredi više od toga. Uslovljeni smo da upadnemo u ovu zamku, koja glasi: „Možda nećemo uspeti da uđemo u avion.“ Dakle, vozite.

HG: Razmišljala sam o tome. Počeću da se vozim čamcem.

DM: Neću dozvoliti da moja budućnost i moja dobrobit budu robovi komercijalnom interesu koji pokušava da iznudi nešto od mene ili me uceni u nečemu.

HG: To zvuči kao život. To zvuči kao sloboda za razliku od ropstva. Cenim to. Mislim da je to ono što ćemo čuti u fondaciji. Želimo da ljudi žive najbolje što mogu, preuzimaju odgovornost za sopstveno zdravlje i traže načine da ga neguju, koji možda nije najmoderniji ili najisplativiji za zdravstvene kompanije, ali će biti najbolji za njih. Dozvolite mi da zaključim tako što ću vam postaviti pitanje koje često postavljam na kraju. Ako bi čitalac mogao učiniti jednu stvar da poboljša ili održi svoje zdravlje, šta biste mu preporučili?

DM: Izaberite pre svega promenu načina života i odaberite je sa nekim drugim. Počnite da vežbate, bavite se zdravijim načinom ishrane. Sve što uključuje spajanje osećaja blagostanja, što uključuje druženje, ishranu, vitalnost i osnaživanje vas samih da postanete osoba koja ima, ne samo konceptualnu ideju o tome šta je zdravlje, već ima i doživljeno iskustvo o tome. Što više imate proživljeno zdravstveno iskustvo, manje vam se može reći da se ne osećate dobro kada ste potpuno dobro.

HG: Hvala Vam puno na vašem vremenu, Dejvide. Ovo je bio sjajan razgovor.

DM: Zaista nema na čemu. Čuvajte se.

*

Transcendentna korupcija i korona virus prvi deo

Transcendentna korupcija i korona virus – drugi deo

Kovid: Suzbijanje naučnih kontra-narativa

Kovid vs grip: Gde je kosa, alatka Smrti, u 2020-2021?

*

Srbija

Čitajte na srpskom

Part of the ‘Covid Scientific Counter-Narratives’ series at this blog. The following interview, with Dr David Martin PhD, is consistent with the several other counter-narratives by scientists in the Covid 19 series.

*

Interview @ https://www.westonaprice.org/podcast/its-gene-therapy-not-a-vaccine/

Archived @ https://archive.li/71A7x & @ https://archive.li/1sYyp

Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-CAM Inc, challenges our presuppositions about the new mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. Quoting the pharmaceutical companies themselves, David suggests that these are not vaccines, but, in actuality, gene therapy. He explains what the vaccines may do to us, what they are promising they can do for us, and how to distinguish the difference.

The below transcript is the Hilda Gore interview with Dr. David Martin.

HG: I have friends who’ve gotten one of the new COVID-19 vaccines and you do too. These are the fastest developed vaccines in all of our medical history and many people are lining up to get them as soon as possible. What are they made of? What would they do to us? Why are they being promoted and by whom? This is episode 292 and our guest is Dr. David Martin. He received his Undergrad degree from Goshen College, Master’s of Science from Ball State University and Doctorate from the University of Virginia. He is an innovator, a professor, and a man with an extensive resume of accomplishments.

With David, we focused on the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. He goes over the major issues surrounding them. He reviews the mRNA technology and explains how it is gene therapy, not a vaccine and our usual understanding of the word. He reviews the problems with the PCR tests and even helps us understand our broader state of emergency. Finally, he explains how fear on a subconscious level can make us resist the truth.

Welcome to the show, David.

DM: Thank you. It’s lovely to be here.

HG: I have a friend that works in the school system. She got a letter suggesting that she’s an essential worker and that she needs to get this one of these new vaccines being developed against this COVID virus. What should she know before she goes for it?

DM: Let’s start with your opening sentence. None of the words in the order that you use exist in reality. Let’s unpack that. First of all, there is no vaccine that is in development or contemplated that is a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That doesn’t exist. That hasn’t been developed. It isn’t even, in 2021, in contemplation. It’s one of the unfortunate things about what’s going on in the propaganda war, which is in February, the World Health Organization made it abundantly clear that SARS-CoV-2 or the virus and COVID-19, which is a series of clinical presentations of illness were two distinct things.

HG: You’re making an interesting distinction. I have heard that SARS-CoV-2 is “the virus” and that COVID-19 is the disease. Is that what you’re saying?

DM: COVID 19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases. The problem that we have is that in February, the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between the two of these things. One is a virus, in their definition and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19. The problem with that definition and with the expectation is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2 are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That’s the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.

HG: In other words, I might get a positive result from this PCR test and the reason I’m not asymptomatic, what’s happening is I’m not sick at all. They’ve made a false assumption that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19.

DM: That’s never been the case, never has been the case and never will be the case. There is a causal statement that is made in the media where, for example, Johns Hopkins or the COVID tracker platform or any of these things has intentionally misled the people. There are not 5,000 new cases in Virginia. There potentially may be several thousand positive PCR tests but most of the people who have a positive test will never have a single symptom. Most of the people who have symptoms do not have positive tests.

HG: I know some individuals who said that thing. They were like, “I was feeling sick and I got a negative test. My sister-in-law, who was feeling great, got a positive test.”

DM: It will always be the case. The causal link that the media, the CDC made and the COVID tracker, which is the collaboration between the Bloomberg Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Zuckerberg Foundation and others, the official numbers that we get traped across the screens every morning of our computers in our televisions, those numbers are willfully lying. They have been willfully lying since the inception of this. There is not a causal link between these things that have never been established. It has never even been close to established. We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, “I don’t want to get COVID-19.” What they mean is they don’t want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other.

A viral infection hasn’t been documented in the majority of what is called cases. There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That’s the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination, which as you well know when somebody says the word vaccination, the public understanding is that you are being treated with an attenuated or alive virus or a fragment of an attenuated and that the treatment is meant to keep you from getting an infection and it is meant to keep you from transmitting the infection that vaccine in the common definition of a vaccine is meant to do.

The problem is that in the case of Moderna and Pfizer, this is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy. It’s a chemotherapy agent that is gene therapy. It is not a vaccine. What is this doing? It’s sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen. It’s a toxin inside of human beings. This is not only not keeping you from getting sick, it’s making your body produce the thing that makes you sick.

HG: In that sense, it does sound like a vaccine?

DM: No, not at all because a vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin.

HG: That’s how this differs.

DM: It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all. This is a public manipulation of misrepresentation of clinical treatment. It’s not a vaccination. It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.

HG: The way I’ve heard the companies put it is this is to teach your body to fight this virus when it comes around. That’s how they’re presenting it.

DM: Their clinical trial didn’t include any of that as even a possibility within the clinical trial. The clinical trial did not measure the presence or absence of a virus or a virus fragment. The clinical trial did not measure the possibility of transmission suppression, the clinical trial didn’t measure any of those things. This is a case of misrepresentation of technology and it’s done exclusively so that they can get themselves under the umbrella of public health laws that exploit vaccination.

HG: What you’re saying is different from what most of us have heard in the mainstream news and even from the press releases from big companies.

DM: That’s because people aren’t reading the actual clinical trials. If you read the clinical trials, nothing that I’m saying is even remotely different. As a matter of fact, the companies themselves have said what I’m saying. They said, they could not test for the existence or absence of the virus and they could not test for the transmissivity because they said it would be impractical. The companies themselves have admitted to every single thing I’m saying but they are using the public manipulation of the word vaccine to co-opt the public into believing they’re getting a thing, which they are not getting. This is not going to stop you from getting Coronavirus. It’s not going to stop you from getting sick. In fact, on the contrary, it will make you sick far more often than the virus itself.

HG: How can you say that so definitively?

DM: Because the data is nothing but that, for people receiving by the time they got the second shot, 80% of people had one or more clinical presentations of COVID-19, 80% of people who have an infection according to RT-PCR have no symptoms at all.

HG: People are getting it more from the “vaccine?”

DM: Yes. You will get COVID-19 symptoms from getting the gene therapy passed off as a vaccine. You will get COVID symptoms from that 80% of the time. If you’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 according to RT-PCR, 80% of the time, you will have no symptoms at all.

HG: What is the purpose of getting this vaccine or this gene manipulation as you call it?

DM: It’s a gene therapy technology. That’s Moderna’s own definition. Let’s stick with what they say they are. The benefit is non-existent. A human being is going to be potentially exposed to unclassified, both short-term and long-term risks of altering their RNA and DNA from exposure to this gene therapy. This is important to understand, there is no clinical benefit except that in certain instances of CoV infection and/or COVID-19 exposure, there were a few. By that, I mean less than a few hundred out of nearly 40,000 in the clinical trial. A few hundred people had a few days less severe symptoms with the gene therapy when compared to the other control group. Even in that comparison, if you look at the methodology that’s in the published papers for the clinical trials, they play games with the data because what they’re doing is, they’re separating reactivity, meaning the way in which a person responds to being exposed to the gene therapy, they separate out adverse events from actual COVID symptoms.

The problem is that COVID symptoms include things like fever, body ache, muscle pain, muscle weakness and things like that. They got rid of a lot of what would have been considered to be COVID symptoms by calling them adverse events. If you pull that data out and you say, “Compare the population that got the gene therapy with the population that didn’t get the gene therapy.” The population that got the gene therapy had way more illness, including COVID-19 symptoms, than the population that didn’t get the gene therapy but because they classified an enormous number of things as adverse events, they technically wiggled themselves into what was this ridiculous 90% plus effectiveness. Effectiveness was not effective in blocking illness. It was effective in allegedly shortening the duration of symptoms.

HG: People are afraid that they are ready to believe what they want to believe and holding onto that one bit of information that you shared, that the likelihood with the flu vaccine, “At least it will tamp down my symptoms and limit the duration of my illness.” They held onto that one bit of information that was data manipulation, as you’re saying and they’re holding out hope that this will be their saving grace to help them avoid COVID-19.

DM: Nothing about this will avoid COVID-19 and nothing about this will avoid SARS-CoV-2.

HG: We’ve been talking mostly about the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine that is gene therapy. Is there another one in the works or getting to the market that is not using gene therapy?

DM: The AstraZeneca Oxford trial is using a viral fragment. It is more along the technological lines of what you and I might consider historically, to be a vaccine. The AstraZeneca Oxford trial has been an interesting one to watch because they have a methodology problem that is quite challenging in terms of trying to fool data and understand what’s happening either on the safety or efficacy side. The reason is simple, that in certain instances, the AstraZeneca Oxford trial has not used a saline control group. They’ve used another vaccine as the control. In other words, they’ve stacked the deck. They’re making it look like they are somehow neutral compared to another vaccination in several of their data collection efforts.

As a result of that, we have both a methodology problem, which by the way, has been criticized by a number of clinical scientists. The bigger problem is that they’re still not measuring viral susceptibility and viral transmission. Those are the two legs of the stool that is required for anyone to say that they are vaccinating a population for public health reasons. There is no means by which. This is a simple thing to wrap your head around. If I said, “Everybody needs to take chemotherapy for cancer they might get.”

HG: People would laugh in your face.

DM: That’s exactly what is happening. This is not prophylactic. This is not helping us. We’re being told to take a treatment for a disease we don’t have and most likely will not have. We’re being told that using careful marketing manipulation and propaganda, calling these things vaccines for public health.

HG: Historically vaccines, we’ve taken them for that reason. “I don’t have the measles. I don’t want to get the measles, so I’m going to get this measles shot.” We’ve been primed to accept that approached.

DM: That’s the narrative everybody expects.

HG: Why don’t you expect that though? What’s made you dive deep?

DM: That’s not what’s being measured. That’s not what’s being done and that’s not what this technology is about. mRNA is not a vaccination. It’s a gene therapy that was originally developed for cancer treatment. That’s why I’m using the chemotherapy analogy. This is not a vaccination.

HG: I have colleagues, I’m sure you do too, friends and acquaintances who are going for it. What can we tell these people or share with them that might wake them up?

DM: That’s a complex issue and I have chosen a long time ago to not engage in the energy of this waking sleeping metaphor because the fact of the matter is if people are conditioned to react to fear, this is reflexive and it’s not conscious. If we examine our behavior and what we do is engage in self-harm because we are convinced that somehow or another, there’s a worse future ahead of us, that’s something that I don’t have an ability to say facts are going ever to overcome. I have yet to meet in my life someone who allowed a fact to overwhelm a belief. Once you’ve adopted a belief, facts are not welcome because what they do is, they not only indict your belief but they indict the energy that you hold that says, “I have to believe what I’m told.”

The minute you try to engage with facts, all you do is trigger conflict. What I do is I try to take the complex science and the complex reporting, and I try to make it accessible and easily understood. The goal is that in certain instances, people will go, “I can’t even believe that what he said was true.” The cool thing is you don’t have to believe what I’m saying is true because I don’t value belief. I value the objective reality of facts. It turns out that in this particular case, it is simple and straightforward to say to any person in Moderna’s own SEC filings, they make it abundantly clear that their technology is a gene therapy technology. In their clinical trial, they’ve made it abundantly clear that they could not measure the presence or absence of the virus and they could not measure the presence or the absence of the transmission of the virus. Every single thing that they represented to be doing that preys on the public understanding of what vaccination is, they explicitly said, “They’re not doing that.”

HG: You have been careful to lay out the facts to me and the audience and we’re thankful. I want to ask you on a more personal note, would you even take this PCR test if you had to for travel? I’m getting all kinds of emails and people reaching out to me and I’m not even talking about the vaccine or the gene therapy technology but certain things are being required to participate in life.

DM: I’m actively involved with many of the significant pieces of litigation that are going on to try to unmask the conspiracy that is driving both the PCR, as well as the medical countermeasure interventions. I’m at the vanguard with a few other souls who are fighting for the rights of citizens to make decisions informed by facts, not informed by propaganda. The fact of the matter is the PCR test has never been approved as a diagnostic. It is not diagnostic. There’s nothing about taking a PCR test that does anything other than reinforce a propaganda narrative. It doesn’t tell you anything.

The reason why we’re not doing influenza testing is that we don’t want to admit the fact that the majority of people who are in hospital, who are sick and who are dying are experiencing exactly the same thing that’s happened every year, which is influenza-like, flu-like and pneumonia-like illness. In many cases, when someone has immune compromise or other comorbidities leads to fatalities. It’s a sad reality that that happens but it is part of the human experience that it happens. The fact is that a PCR test is not going to make or not make a confirmed diagnosis of anything because PCR tests cannot confirm a diagnosis.

HG: I’ve interviewed Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andy Kaufman, and they say the same thing. The person who came up with or developed the PCR test says that it’s not to be used to diagnose anything.

DM: So does the FDA so does everybody else. The only reason we are using PCR tests is that governors and the Department of Health and Human Services are maintaining a state of emergency. The second that that state of emergency is lifted in any state or in the country, the PCR test won’t be allowed to be used. We’re maintaining a state of emergency so that manufacturers can keep selling a thing that would never be approved if it was subject to a clinical trial. It goes for what’s being called vaccines too. The gene therapy that Moderna and Pfizer are doing, both of those would be suspended immediately if the state of emergency got lifted. People don’t understand that if you lift the state of emergency, the whole house of cards falls.

HG: That is something else that you and your team are advocating for?

DM: It’s because the emergency use authorization falls with the state of emergency.

HG: Is this one reason, do you think that they have cast aspersions on hydroxychloroquine or any other protocols that could possibly treat the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2?

DM: There’s no question. If you look historically, for many years, Dr. Anthony Fauci at NIAID has held his annual advisory committee meeting. Every year he laments the fact that they’re trying to build this universal influenza vaccine, which he refers to using as an infant in-print vaccine. They’ve been trying to do this for years and it hasn’t worked. This happens to be an opportunity for Anthony Fauci to get what he has not been able to get through legal means, which is he wants to get to a place where he forces a vaccine on a population. He’s manipulating this situation to force a vaccine on a population. The fact of the matter is he forgot that if he’s going to force a vaccine on a population, it should at least be a vaccine.

HG: What would his motives be for that?

DM: Always has been financial. There are billions of dollars at stake and NIAID is essentially the incubator for the pharmaceutical industry. He’s serving the paymasters that have let him manage $191 billion in his career at NIAID.

HG: There are lots to consider here. You’ve given us a lot of food for thought. We want to have another conversation with you again but let’s say I’m an individual that was reading all these facts and I’ve been persuaded. I do not want to get this gene therapy technology. I don’t want even to get the AstraZeneca vaccine. I don’t want to get any of this but I’m under pressure either because of my job or for travel purposes to do so, what would you advise me to do?

DM: I can’t advise a person at all. That’s not my role but what I can tell you is that this is a decision that any human being is going to ultimately have to make based on whether or not they choose to live or they choose to be enslaved. This is like any point in history where you have to make decisions that are based on what is moral and ethical and right with respect to your own sense of responsibility and accountability. The fact of the matter is like wearing a seat belt, like doing a whole bunch of other things, your choice to engage in an activity is ultimately going to be a decision that you have to live with.

I will not touch a thing and I will not allow my body to be invaded with a thing that is been developed in an unethical and illegal way. I am not going to let anybody have the opportunity to manipulate my genetic code. It’s not going to happen. If that means that it comes at a cost of a particular employer or a particular relationship or whatever else, my life happens to be worth more than that. We’ve been conditioned to fall into this trap, which is, “We might not be able to get on a plane.” So, drive.

HG: I thought about that. I’m going to start taking a boat.

DM: I’m not going to let my future and my well-being be enslaved to a commercial interest that is trying to extort or blackmail me into a thing.

HG: That does sound like living. That does sound like freedom as opposed to slavery. I appreciate that. I think that’s what we’re about to hear at the foundation. We want people to live their best lives to take responsibility for their own health and look to ways to nurture it that may not be the most modern or the most profitable for health companies but will be best for them. Let me wrap up by asking you the question I often pose at the end. If the reader could do one thing to improve or sustain their health, what would you recommend that they do?

DM: Pick a lifestyle modification first and foremost and pick it with someone else. Begin exercising, engage in a more wholesome way of engaging with the food you consume. Anything that involves bringing together the sense of wellbeing, which involves fellowship, nutrition, vitality and empowering you to become a person who not only has a conceptual idea of what health is but has a lived experience of it. The more you have the lived experience of health, the less you can be told you’re unwell when you’re perfectly fine.

HG: Thank you so much for your time, David. This has been a great conversation.

DM: You are most welcome. Take care.

Related:

Covid: Scientific Counter-Narratives

Covid scientific counter-narrative links to information provided by front-line doctors and top scientific researchers from universities and other institutions that are suppressed by algorithms at google search and have been censored at Facebook, Twitter, Youtube & LinkedIn.  If it appears any of the links have been scrubbed from the net, copy the link location (control + click with a macbook on any link below) and enter it into the search-bar at https://archive.li/ (where the articles are backed up.) This list is frequently updated. The first three articles are my own, most of the rest (with a few exceptions) are either external links or journalism republished at ronaldthomaswest.com.

When Western Culture Turned to Cannibalism

Transcendent Corruption & Corona Virus part one

Transcendent Corruption & Corona Virus part two

Forensic Analysis: 9,000 Vaccine Deaths Should be 45,000

PCR False Positives Big Problem in Australia

USA New Trend: More Deaths From Vaccine Than Covid

UK New Trend: More Cases in Vaccinated Than Unvaccinated

Pfizer Ex-VP: “Fact-Checkers Pack of Lies”

Dr Martin’s Fauci/Covid Criminal Dossier (pdf 205 pages)

PCR Tests Accuracy Debunked (again)

EUA (experimental) Vaccines Violate Nuremberg Ethics 

Canada Fires Another Top Doctor for Raising Questions

Pfizer Manipulated Vaccine Protocols for Children

USA Senator: Suppression of Vaccine Deaths in Media

Politics of Ivermectin in Indonesia

18-39? AstraZeneca Twice as Likely to Kill You as Covid

Fear Mongers vs Delta Variant kills 0.08% of Unvaccinated

Countless Holes in the Official Covid Narrative (the long read)

Lisbon court: 0.9% (152) covid deaths, not the 17,000 claimed (pdf)

1.5 Million Vaccine Injuries, 15,000+ Deaths in EU (1/2 of Europe)

Top Medical Professor Fired for Questioning Vaccinating Children

Inventor of mRNA censored at Youtube for saying “ivermectin”

Moderna mRNA Vaccine Developed Before Covid Outbreak

Asymptomatic Covid Spread Alarm Was False

Science Breakthrough: How Ivermectin Works on Covid

PhD in Immunology censored at Youtube

India Lawsuit Against WHO Chief Scientist (pdf)

India Bar Association Sues WHO Chief Scientist

Corrupt WHO Pushes Back on Ivermectin in India

India Court Over-rules WHO, Allows Ivermectin

Ivermectin Crushes Covid in Mexico City

Pfizer’s Own Research Reveals mRNA Vaccine deadly

Suppressing Ivermectin Has Killed 1/2 Million (to May 2021)

John Hopkins Professor: 1/2 of Americans are immune

The Drug That Cracked Covid (pdf file)

CDC Data 12,000% Increase in Deaths With EUA Vaccines

Another 160 Experts Say Stop the Experimental Jabs

Ivermectin Crushes Covid in Delhi

How Corruption Suppresses Ivermectin

Paper by 57 Scientists: Stop EUA Vaccinating Now

Bill Gates Protects Big Pharma Profits on Covid Vaccines

More on mRNA Experimental Vaccine

Top Yale University Researcher: Ivermectin Kills Covid

Covid vs Flu: Where is the Grim Reaper’s Scythe in 2020-2021?

Covid: Suppression of Scientific Counter-Narratives

mRNA: “It’s Gene Therapy, Not A Vaccine” David Martin, PhD

We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April by Dr Marty Makary (Johns Hopkins)

Treat Your Own Covid by John Day MD

Beating covid with generic drugs

The Great Barrington Declaration on covid

Fear is the Killer on covid

PCR False Positives (Study: Ten Fatal Flaws)

Propaganda & Corona Virus

*

Covid 19

*

A former Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence for Special Forces, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald had lived over thirty years in close association with Blackfeet Indians (those who still speak their language), and is published in international law as a layman: The Right of Self- Determination of Peoples and It’s Application to Indigenous People in The USA or The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole. Ronald has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

“Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with the good” -Mahatma Ghandi

updated 20 July 2021

Covid scientific counter-narrative links to information provided by front-line doctors and top scientific researchers from universities and other institutions that are suppressed by algorithms at google search and have been censored at Facebook, Twitter, Youtube & LinkedIn.  If it appears any of the links have been scrubbed from the net, copy the link location (control + click with a macbook on any link below) and enter it into the search-bar at https://archive.li/ (where the articles are backed up.) This list is frequently updated. The first three articles are my own, most of the rest (with a few exceptions) are either external links or journalism republished at ronaldthomaswest.com.

Transcendent Corruption & Corona Virus part one

Transcendent Corruption & Corona Virus part two

When Western Culture Turned to Cannibalism

Forensic Analysis: 9,000 Vaccine Deaths Should be 45,000

PCR False Positives Big Problem in Australia

USA New Trend: More Deaths From Vaccine Than Covid

UK New Trend: More Cases in Vaccinated Than Unvaccinated

Pfizer Ex-VP: “Fact-Checkers Pack of Lies”

Dr Martin’s Fauci/Covid Criminal Dossier (pdf 205 pages)

PCR Tests Accuracy Debunked (again)

EUA (experimental) Vaccines Violate Nuremberg Ethics 

Canada Fires Another Top Doctor for Raising Questions

Pfizer Manipulated Vaccine Protocols for Children

USA Senator: Suppression of Vaccine Deaths in Media

Politics of Ivermectin in Indonesia

18-39? AstraZeneca Twice as Likely to Kill You as Covid

Fear Mongers vs Delta Variant kills 0.08% of Unvaccinated

Countless Holes in the Official Covid Narrative (the long read)

Lisbon court: 0.9% (152) covid deaths, not the 17,000 claimed (pdf)

1.5 Million Vaccine Injuries, 15,000+ Deaths in EU (1/2 of Europe)

Top Medical Professor Fired for Questioning Vaccinating Children

Inventor of mRNA censored at Youtube for saying “ivermectin”

Moderna mRNA Vaccine Developed Before Covid Outbreak

Asymptomatic Covid Spread Alarm Was False

Science Breakthrough: How Ivermectin Works on Covid

PhD in Immunology censored at Youtube

India Lawsuit Against WHO Chief Scientist (pdf)

India Bar Association Sues WHO Chief Scientist

Corrupt WHO Pushes Back on Ivermectin in India

India Court Over-Rules WHO, Allows Ivermectin

Ivermectin Crushes Covid in Mexico City

Pfizer’s Own Research Reveals mRNA Vaccine deadly

Twitter Locks Out mRNA Pioneer

Suppressing Ivermectin Has Killed 1/2 Million (to now)

John Hopkins Professor: 1/2 of Americans are immune

The Drug That Cracked Covid (pdf file)

CDC Data 12,000% Increase in Deaths With EUA Vaccines

Another 160 Experts Say Stop the Experimental Jabs

Ivermectin Crushes Covid in Delhi

How Corruption Suppresses Ivermectin

Paper by 57 Scientists: Stop EUA Vaccinating Now

Bill Gates Protects Big Pharma Profits on Covid Vaccines

More on mRNA Experimental Vaccine

Top Yale University Researcher: Ivermectin Kills Covid

Covid vs Flu: Where is the Grim Reaper’s Scythe in 2020-2021?

Covid: Suppression of Scientific Counter-Narratives

mRNA: “It’s Gene Therapy, Not A Vaccine” David Martin, PhD

We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April by Dr Marty Makary (Johns Hopkins)

Treat Your Own Covid by John Day MD

Beating covid with generic drugs

The Great Barrington Declaration on covid

Fear is the Killer on covid

PCR False Positives (Study: Ten Fatal Flaws)

Propaganda & Corona Virus

*

Satirized information for the seasoned cynic:

DIY is the American acronym for ‘do it yourself.’ Now, sit down before you go on to read what follows; where reality mocks sanity.

Firstly, anyone reading here can go to any search engine and order ‘do it yourself’ [diy] gene editing kits. Enter “diy gene editing” and what do you know! What used to be the province of scientific labs at universities is history, last century, passé, done and over with. A bright 17 year old with wealthy and disconnected parents can, these days, set up a world class equipped, home laboratory in the basement of his house and create what could amount to a military grade bio-weapons facility.

Yep. Been worried about what DARPA might do? So dated, out-of fashion, these days any wealthy kid with an IQ of 150, left to raise himself up to be a sociopath, can do what was proposed at the Pentagon [link to original post prior to plausible information war determined to debunk it] a scant 15 years ago; genetically edit religious conviction out of the future:

Ooooh… those naughty scientists at wooohan were so careless to let the genie out of the geopolitical bottle, er, I meant let Bat-woman do the big no-no… when actuality is, it could be (these days) any pissed off bright person with a bit of money and biological know-how and an ax to grind with humanity can make mass shooters look like your typically ignorant school yard bully… and f***ing harmless by comparison. In fact (except for its creator) nobody knows for certain and most likely we’ll never know with absolute certainty where Covid 19 actually came from. All we do know is, it looks like it was made in a lab, kitchen, basement or garage.

Yes, folks, that’s what Cartesian-Platonic civilization’s ‘thirst to know’ has brought us all to (Western science is the story of Pandora’s Box) while our political bosses are running us all off a cliff like lemmings; enabling their corrupt buddies at big pharma to take advantage of ’emergency use authorizations’ generating vast amounts of filthy lucre with even more experimental gene editing .. the only fit for lab rats mRNA gene therapies created by scientists not nearly so bright as our world’s angry kids.

Either one could kill us all –

 

*

A former Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence for Special Forces, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald had lived over thirty years in close association with Blackfeet Indians (those who still speak their language), and is published in international law as a layman: The Right of Self- Determination of Peoples and It’s Application to Indigenous People in The USA or The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole. Ronald has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

“Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with the good” -Mahatma Ghandi

Great Barrington Declaration

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Read The Declaration Sign the Declaration Current Signature Count Français Português Español Italiano DEUTSCH SVENSKA РУССКИЙ עברית Polski Dansk Ελληνικά Magyar اللغة العربية čeština Hrvatski română 简体字 Türkçe Nederlands Íslenska Український Català 한국어 bahasa Indonesia Српски Български SUOMI Føroyskt 日本語 Sugbuanon Tagalog اُردُو ภาษาไทย SLOVENŠČINA ਪੰਜਾਬੀ हिन्दी ગુજરાતી eesti keel euskara Esperanto தமிழ் lietuvių kalba Norsk

The Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. Sign the Declaration

Co-signers

Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners

Dr. Alexander Walker, principal at World Health Information Science Consultants, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, USA

Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England

Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England

Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada

Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Boris Kotchoubey, Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany

Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA

Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA

Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England

Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England

Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA

Dr. Florian Limbourg, physician and hypertension researcher, professor at Hannover Medical School, Germany

Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland

Dr. Gerhard Krönke, physician and professor of translational immunology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Dr. Gesine Weckmann, professor of health education and prevention, Europäische Fachhochschule, Rostock, Germany

Dr. Günter Kampf, associate professor, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald University, Germany

Dr. Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden

Dr. Karol Sikora, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England

Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA

Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England

Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England

Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England

Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada

Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England

Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India

Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USADr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA

Dr. Salmaan Keshavjee, professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, USA

Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England

Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism provider and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA

Tom Nicholson, Associate in Research, Duke Center for International Development, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, USA

Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, professor and expert in virology, immunology and cell biology, University of Würzburg, Germany

Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel

Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England

20 February 2021 update: “We’ll have herd immunity by April” by Dr. Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health –

Вирусолог Павел Волчков

^ Geneticist Pavel Volchkov

“The intelligence services of the United States and Russia are essentially at war” -Dmitri Trenin, Colonel, GRU (retired)

With the Covid 19 epidemic, there may be emerging evidence of Russia to now has more or less played along with the West’s propaganda game (and ‘flipped’ it with high profile technical & humanitarian aid, e.g. to Italy) concerning the Covid epidemic rather than open up to be overtly demonized. But now Sweden and a particular (very well accredited) Russian virologist/geneticist may have thrown a bit of a monkey wrench into the propaganda machine’s gears. Follows is the Russian online magazine Izvestia interview that goes counter to all of the hysteria we see generated elsewhere. So, what are the real facts? Will there be a second Covid 19 wave? Do people lose their Covid immunity? These are valid questions.

**

Izvestia: Based on the fact that 20% of people with antibodies to coronavirus were officially recorded in Moscow, we can safely assume that 40-60% of the capital’s residents already have immunity to it, Pavel Volchkov, head of the MIPT genomic engineering laboratory, told Izvestia in an exclusive interview. This means that there will be no second wave of morbidity in the capital, the expert is sure. In addition, the virologist shared his views on exactly how the COVID-19 pandemic began. He is leaning towards the laboratory-origin version of SARS-CoV-2.

Izvestia: Pavel Yuryevich, from your point of view, how many people in Moscow already have immunity to SARS-CoV-2?

Volchkov : Recently, an article was published by Swedish scientists who conducted a study of T-cell immunity (“Sustainable T-cell immunity in recovering patients with the asymptomatic COVID-19 course”), the results of which I personally had long been waiting for. They analyzed a large number of biological samples by conducting an expensive ELISPOT analysis (Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSpot – T-cell detection method). It turned out that even those who did not have IgG antibodies had T-cell immunity. And there are two to three times more such people in the population than those with antibodies.

Izvestia: What does it mean?

Volchkov: If in Moscow [it is] officially recorded 20% of people with high titers of IgG antibodies, then you can safely add another 20-40% to this figure. It turns out that about half of Moscow residents are immune to coronavirus. They will not get sick anymore.

Izvestia: Recently, articles appeared that showed that antibodies are lost …

Volchkov: And that’s fine. They must be lost. This always happens. There is a half-life of IgG, IgM, IgA antibodies. Their amount in the blood begins to fall six months to a year after meeting with the infection. There are so few of them that this amount cannot be detected by any test. What is the purpose of antibodies? Here the virus flew into the respiratory tract, infected a group of cells, created a small local focus (with a mild course of the disease). The immune system recognized these cells and localized them – it is like the city of Wuhan was closed in China. It turns out that a large number of antibodies do not seem to exist, but the immunity has formed and worked. However, it is concentrated in T- and B-memory cells. When the infection again is exposed to a person, the immune system recognizes it, the cells will begin to produce antibodies.

Izvestia: Does it make sense then to test for IgG antibodies?

Volchkov: It does. This test is cheap and gives us a cutoff. This cut-off now is 20%. So we can multiply this amount by two to three times. It’s hard to say the exact number, for this you need to conduct a large-scale study using expensive ELISPOT analysis, as the Swedes did.

Izvestia: Is it possible to say that the ‘herd’ immunity that everyone has been talking about for so long has already taken shape in Moscow?

Volchkov: For the multi-million population city, today’s figures in the region of 700 new infected per day indicate that it has formed. If we really had only 20% of the residents with immunity, then with open restaurants and shops, we would expect a much larger number of infected people.

Izvestia: But after all, on this figure (+700 people per day) you can maintain for a long time. Or not? What is your prediction?

Volchkov: I think this figure will now begin to decline and will reach zero at the end of August. It is clear that in the capital for a long time there will be imported cases from regions that belatedly began to ‘pick up’ the coronavirus.

Izvestia: That is, the second wave will not happen?

Volchkov: For Moscow, it is already impossible. Now people who have formed natural immunity in the capital are 40-60%. If the dynamics continues, their number will increase by the end of August to 80–90%.

Izvestia: And in other cities of Russia, the second wave is possible?

Volchkov: Only in those that are well insulated and where there is an extremely low level of infection. In big cities, definitely not. If you have already burned the grass, then the burned-out areas cannot be ignited again. Do you know how firefighters fight fire? They take and burn the front of the strip to stop the fire. This strip is our buffer immunity.

Izvestia: But what about the fact that the virus mutates and the body may simply not recognize it?

Volchkov: In any case, it does not mutate very quickly. Even the seasonal flu virus needs several years to re-infect you. And then in the event that part of its segments, and the flu has eight, will be re-sorted, that is, replaced by parts from another influenza virus. Coronavirus is single-segment – it cannot change that way.

Izvestia: But can it recombine?

Volchkov: Maybe. But this event is more rare. It must take at least a couple of years for it to be able to return and cause you some kind of pathology. And still it will not be comparable to the first time. The immune system at least somehow recognizes it, which means it [the immunity] will work. A secondary immune response will develop.

Izvestia: The war of supporters of the natural and artificial origin of the coronavirus continues on the pages of the media, on social networks and blogs. What can you say at the moment when so many articles about its structure have been published?

Volchkov: I came to the conclusion that the probability of the virus overcoming the inter-species barrier without human help [accidental eating of a bat carrier SARS-CoV-2] is significantly less than the one that it had help. By help, I mean prolonged cultivation of the virus in the laboratory, the introduction of amino acid modifications, experiments to infect human cells if possible. All this is described in the famous article of 2015 [Nature magazine, November 9, 2015]. In favor of this hypothesis is also the location of the city of Wuhan.

Izvestia: How is that in your thinking?

Volchkov: Wuhan is located in the very center of China. Bats are not found there. They live in the south, in Yunnan, on the border with Vietnam. It was there that they were caught to isolate new coronaviruses, which are now stored in the collection of the Wuhan laboratory. Although theoretically it can be assumed that they were brought thousands of kilometers to eat.

Izvestia: But it is possible?

Volchkov: Yes, perhaps. But in practice, traditional cuisine is considered traditional because its menu contains local species of animals. If the virus ‘jumped’ onto a person when it was eaten, it would be found in Yunnan, on the border with Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar. From there the epidemic would have spread.

Izvestia: Speaking about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, you can only consider probabilities?

Volchkov: I’m afraid so. In the [genome] sequence it is not written: ‘I am made synthetically.’ There are no obvious ‘donkey ears’ – traces of a genetic engineering structure. But there is a hint of it. This is the famous furin insert, about which much has already been said.

Izvestia: But could it find itself in the genome of the virus during recombination?”

Volchkov: It could. However, the likelihood of this event greatly increases, provided that you create thousands of amino acid mutations. And the fact that American and Chinese scientists did this is proved by the 2015 article. If you look at the publications of these scientific groups, it becomes clear that they are very active, have worked with these viruses for a long time. In addition, the Chinese have a large library of coronaviruses, where the most genetically close sample of RatG13 has been discovered. It was brought to the Wuhan Institute of Virology from Yunnan in 2013. For seven years, when it was cultivated, passivated, it could naturally acquire a large number of mutations. In addition, science has made great progress in this regard over the past 10 years. We live in an era of synthetic biology, when you can synthesize some parts de novo, and then ensure a seamless insertion of such a synthetic part into the genome.

Izvestia: That is, 10 years ago, you would definitely say, looking at the genome, what is inserted there?

Volchkov: Exactly. And now there are technologies of extended genetic synthesis, when thousands of nucleotides can be synthesized. You simply send the letter sequence to a special company that synthesizes it and sends it back. The possibilities are huge now. In this way, whole libraries of new coronaviruses can be generated. Suppose there are 10 million of them there. And then you can choose the most promising one from them, assemble it using the reverse genetics method and test for the ability to infect human cells.

Izvestia: That is, from your point of view, the probability that the virus has leaked from the laboratory is quite high?

Volchkov: Yes. An argument in this favor is also that coronaviruses were not considered particularly dangerous for some time. And it was possible to work with them at the second level of protection [there are four of them, the third and fourth levels, according to the American classification, are especially dangerous. – Izvestia]. Actually, this is understandable, because the initially isolated viruses could not pass from an animal to a person to overcome the inter-species barrier and, accordingly, from person to person.

Izvestia: That is exactly what was affirmed at the very beginning of the pandemic …

Volchkov: At the second level of protection, it could easily fly out and infect the scientist. And what’s important: it’s impossible to see right away. The funny thing is that the one who brought this virus out of the laboratory did not even understand that they did it. And still may not understand to now.

The original Russian language interview with geneticist Pavel Volchkov at Izvestia:

https://iz.ru/1031582/anna-urmantceva/vtoraia-volna-dlia-moskvy-uzhe-nevozmozhna

An aside: insofar as freedom of press is concerned, something so straightforward with counter-narrative as the preceding interview in what amounts to Russian ‘mainstream’ news would NEVER pass muster and go to press in the Western corporate media.

Tip of the hat to John Helmer –

Further reading:

1) https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/covid-19/

2) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/stockman-clown-cars-are-fully-loaded-and-dr-faucis-leading-parade

 

%d bloggers like this: