Every time I try to take a break the baddies from Big Pharma seem to be desperate to bring me back into the fold, so I’ve bitten.

But this one is a doozy - and goes to the heart of how the pharma corporations (with their government lackey helpers) were able to persuade a generation of pregnant women to take the risk of a novel untested genetic therapy vaccine candidate outside of a research trial.

To clarify, this was something that had not been done since the thalidomide scandal that caused lifechanging disabilities in tens of thousands of children.

Just for the record I have written extensively about the very demonstrable link between the COVID mRNA vaccine and pregnancy risks starting here and ending here showing conclusively that there is an increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects based on the FDA and Pfizer’s own data.

The magnitude of that increase as shown by the only reliable and available data was approximately double for those women who received a product like this in very early pregnancy, prompting the pharma companies and governments to rally to cover up this problem with “real world data”. That is, data that was not from a randomised trial and - because it was curated by the pharma companies or government departments who already promised the vaccines would be safe - showed no problem at all. If you’re interested in how the governments sold fake data to the public you can see how this happened here and here with all the conflicts of interest involved.

However, this article is not about the fact that there were safety signals involved with the use of this novel technology in pregnancy. It is concerned with two other questions:

1. How was a generation of pregnant women persuaded that they should risk taking a novel genetic vaccine - with no long term safety data and despite historical warnings, from thalidomide and the DES scandals, never to give pregnant women new products?

2. Why was it so important that pregnancy was not allowed as an exemption from vaccine mandates - such that every working pregnant woman had to take one of these products or lose their job, ignoring decades of discrimination law?

Well, I still can’t answer number 2 for certain because I can’t emulate in my mind the kind of psychopathic mentality that would devise such a mandate, but what I now can do is answer number 1.

And it starts with this document1 from a duo called Mike Yeadon and Wolfgang Wodarg:

1. The December 2020 EMA petition

In case you missed it - the red !! URGENT !! (with dual exclamation marks either side of the capitalised URGENT, you know just to reinforce that it was URGENT because otherwise the EMA would have known it was URGENT) should have given away immediately whether this was a serious document or not.

It’s not, it’s a fake masquerading as an attempt to engender some kind of “antivaccination hero” status from the petitioners, and I’m going to explain why.

2. Who is Wolfgang Wodarg?

Other than the format of the “URGENT” document itself, the first clue that something was up should have been the petitioner. You see, the pretext of the document is to warn the EMA (Europeans medicine agency) that the COVID vaccines had undisclosed dangers (they do) and contaminants (they do).

But as we’ve seen before, if you want to bury such stories all you have to do is wrap them up in a crazy wrapper and let the factcheckers go to town thoroughly mocking and debunking of anyone that tries to touch the subject.

We showed this here and called it “poisoning the well”:

The archetype of well poisoning of course is Alex Jones, who runs (still, despite a bankruptcy suit of over $1bn that apparently doesn’t matter if you’re in with the right people) an online media entity called “Infowars” which constantly sensationalises potentially-real government scandals, such that discussion of them is easy to ridicule.

This is a great rundown of the top 10 Alex Jones rants that show this happening but there is a gem clipped below - where David Aaronovitch of The Times blows AJ’s cover by telling him that if he’s allowed to push his exposés and live then he must be part of the conspiracy.

You can see the crazy Kabuki acting in deflection and Andrew Neil devolves into laughter calling him crazy. Job done. Which is what happens every time anybody credible goes onto his show - their credibility is shattered by association.

Of course the only explanation as to why the Alex Jones’ show can continue earning $100m a year when he was supposed to be bankrupted by a $1bn court case is that, as Aaronovitch declares, he is “part of it”.

So now let’s get back to the URGENT letter from the protagonists “fighting for the people against pharma”.

Hopefully you have already got the idea but the first thing to ask is - who is Wolfgang Wodarg?

Well he is, in fact, a real life German doctor but in terms of his expertise in this area (genomics, virology, clinical trials) he doesn’t have any. You can look up his pubmed record here and it’s pretty empty, with one letter to a training journal in 2015. Not a single research paper in sight.

In fact he pretty much came away from medicine after the “Gert Postel” case where he had hired a fake doctor as a deputy public health chief. No repercussions for Wolfgang though, and straight into the German parliament he went where presumably he couldn’t cause any more damage and then was recruited into the socialist group of the Council of Europe and has spent over 20 years as a socialist Eurocrat.

Probably the least likely person in the world in fact to fight for the people against pharma, and in any case somebody with zero expertise in this area and a lot of reason to believe he, like “graphene in the jabs”2 Astrid Stuckelberger, is more likely to be working for the European government than the people.

Fortunately just like a German Alex Jones he has his own “crazy conspiracy” website and hosts a whole bunch of people in TV interviews that would be considered “fringe” without anybody credible. And of course you can buy his book “Falsche Pademien” which, just like Alex Jones, is available on Amazon without seemingly much pushback from the rich and powerful entities he is supposed to be outing.

Personally I don’t think he wrote the EMA document, but that’s not important when we look to the Kabuki content soon. However to give you a segue into the next part it’s worth seeing this commentary from Wodarg’s website, remembering that he never published a single paper on virology, genomics or proteins.

In fairness to Dr Wodarg (h-index = 13) his interview with Del Bigtree here, presumably in order to sell his book, was relatively measured but still very focussed on the PCR test issue (addressed here) and the idea that the “pandemic was false” with minimal focus on mRNA vaccines.

Although most of what he says has some truth it is sensationalised and not credible to the general public or the medical establishment. And that’s the point. For clarity, this is the model:

So, if you’re going to be a good boy/girl and work for pharma you get to be promoted in the medical establishment journals (e.g. Viki Male). But if you’re (seemingly) against pharma you also get to be promoted - but in a very controlled environment, just like the Alex Jones set up where anything you say will be tainted by absolute rubbish.

And this is almost certainly where Wodarg fits into the scheme, putting his name to a petition that he was not qualified to write but fulfilled a purpose.

And that purpose was to provide cover for his co-petitioner, Mike Yeadon. And the reason I can claim this is that Mike Yeadon, not Wolfgang Wodarg, had the scientific credentials to have come up with the additions.

Before we proceed to the next section, I have to point out that Mike Yeadon reposted an unprovoked Christmas hit-piece on me 3 weeks ago which remains live. So, although this article is in no way a response to that hit-piece, it is important to note that Mike chose, for whatever reason, to post that hit-piece in order to intimidate me. I have archived the post merely to document the timeline because the pharma harassment networks love nothing more than crying victim after initiating the intimidation themselves.

3. Who is Mike Yeadon?

Mike Yeadon is a published scientist, who worked for Pfizer for many years and emerged front and centre in early 2021 as the “anti-vax hero” (if there is such a thing). The hero claim is made by Reuters in this well-read article that seems, well, just a little bit staged:

Just as a reminder, our article is not really about Yeadon or Wodarg but about the staging of them as anti-vax heroes so that those that had concerns about the mRNA vaccines would jump into their boat - without even questioning where the boat was headed4.

However, some background is essential to understand what role the “anti-vax” hero plays.

Although Mike Yeadon is sold to the vaccine-sceptic community as an “anti-vax hero” in the Reuters article this is on the back of the idea that he is “an ex-Pfizer VP”; i.e. that he is not “with Pfizer” any more.

The broader truth of this is that Yeadon is a lifelong Pfizer affiliate. Every single paper that he published prior to creating and then selling his offshoot company (“Ziarco”) was published out of a Pfizer institute. That is, the institute listed as the main paper’s institute on Pubmed was Pfizer5, and this is despite Mike himself claiming that his PhD was undertaken at Porton Down “with the support of the Procurement Executive, Ministry of Defence”.

I guess that makes Mike a spook as well as a lifelong Pfizer employee (because as we have said before, once you sign an NDA with pharma it is lifelong). The claim that Mike is “ex-Pfizer” is his alone, repeated in multiple articles based on his own claim that he’d sold his company and retired.

The truth is much more insidious as outlined in this excellent and in-depth article from Fee’s Garden which shows how the “wonder drug” that catapulted Yeadon to multi-millionaire status was dumped at a HALF-BILLION dollar write off that found its way to the Cayman islands.

Of course, it wasn’t a wonder-drug at all. It was rubbish. Here is the main finding from the drug trial on less than 200 participants - no difference from placebo.

So why would Novartis pay half a billion dollars for a drug that they knew was rubbish only to write off that money within 2 years?

Well, one explanation is a form of money laundering:

Pharma gets the tax write-off (which is worth a large proportion of the investment) and in this case the money ends up in the Cayman islands (just like the money trails from the Panama papers).

The reason that pharma corporations would dump hundreds of millions of dollars in the Cayman islands is that they can then use this money to run bribery and blackmail networks as they did with the Vioxx scandal - where tens of thousands of people died because Merck blackmailed doctors with threats of deregistration if they said anything about the deaths.

And if Pharma fund these networks from the Caymans they are not subject to the usual rules of pharma in the UK, USA or Australia where they would be illegal.

For the more visual of you this is how the scam seems to work:

Great job. But it gets more interesting because Mike Yeadon is also now the front for yet another company called “Liberty Places” which was sold as a haven for “anti-vaxxers” to move to.

Yet it’s in Zanzibar, a sub-state of Tanzania known for its human rights abuses (and lovely beaches, obviously). And when you look for the corporation, supposedly registered in the Seychelles, it doesn’t exist. The UK registration of the holding company (misspelled “holidng”) is registered to another entity, BDSC group limited, which is basically a ghost - as is its director “Delroy Bernard”. The registered office in Zanzibar is a deserted shack.

Obviously this should be filling you with extreme confidence that Mike is acting in your interest and if you want to prove me wrong and show that Liberty Places is kosher (despite being heavily linked to the even dodgier PANDA group who were exposed as another malinformation network here) then please give them a call and see if they answer.

Of course if they were taking your money for these villas in 2021 you wouldn’t think the operator would be closed now if they have built this wonderful resort in Zanzibar, unless it was AI generated and doesn’t actually exist - a bit like Ziarco.

So it’s fake, just like a lot of things associated with pharma people.

Now I’ve set the scene as to whether Mike Yeadon is an “anti-vax hero” or just another pharma operative who was the convenient and/or unwitting front for a money laundering operation for Pfizer and Novartis, let’s get back to the original document (the EMA petition) that underpinned the “anti-vax hero” scam.

4. The Poison Placenta Pill

To understand what happened, it is important to note that the date of the Reuters article above was March 18, 2021 and was written by Steve Stecklow of the “Centre for Investigative Journalism”.

The CIJ touts itself as an independent journalism foundation but was founded by George Soros’ Open Society, so it isn’t. It’s what’s called “advocacy journalism” - which is journalism written to meet an activist narrative. In the old days we called it propaganda.

The March date is important because that was the time during which the public were expressing valid concerns about giving the COVID mRNA vaccines to pregnant women. I say valid because the lessons of thalidomide were supposed to teach us that no drug should be given to pregnant women without long-term (that is, many years) observational safety data. And not only did 3 months not count as long-term but there were already safety signals arising out of the Pfizer trials for pregnancy that the CDC, FDA and Pfizer knew about. If you were a doctor and you said anything about it you would be threatened with deregistration (yes, that is still happening) so the only people able to kick up a fuss about those pesky pregnancy risks were the public, and they were not buying it.

So, in steps the official narrative brigade to tell you that, the COVID vaccines were definitely safe in pregnancy, probably (with no real data of course). This was in February 2021:

And surprisingly the common theme of these articles was not so much the risk of birth defects but infertility. And the reason for that was one of the poison pills in the Wodarg-Yeadon “antivax” petition, that catapulted Yeadon (and to a lesser extent Wodarg, as if Yeadon was now the main player) into the Reuters article, as well as multiple similar fact-check articles. For instance, here’s another “fact check” article from January 2021 quoting the Yeadon-Wodarg submission and telling you that the infertility claim “has been debunked”.

Every single article takes the same discordant tack - that “the infertility claim was debunked therefore the vaccines are safe in pregnancy”.

Of course, infertility is completely separate from safety during pregnancy but that didn’t matter for the articles because the purpose of the articles were to shut you up by creating a straw man argument which went something like this:

“Anti-vaxxers say the COVID vaccines are too new and unsafe to use them in pregnancy”

“Antivaxxers said the vaccines cause infertility because the protein created by the vaccine is similar to a placental protein”

“There is no similarity between the vaccine protein and the placental protein so the antivaxxers are wrong, gullible (due to following Mike Yeadon) and fearmongering”

“Therefore the vaccines are safe in pregnancy”

Can you see how that might work?

Well, in case you don’t believe me, I’ll show you. For some background be aware that the whole story relies on something called “Syncytin-1” which is a protein found in human placenta. It looks like this in diagrammatic representation

For the eagle eyed of you, you might be able to see (especially in the left part of the picture (top-down view) that it has some superficial similarities to the COVID spike protein arrangement - from our blockbuster article back in 2022 (which proved that COVID was a synthetic virus).

The similarities are something akin to “a horse and a dog are similar because they have four legs”. So, not really similar at all but we’ll come back to this later.

The reason for this “similarity" is that Syncytin-1 is actually an evolutionary protein derived many millions of years ago from retroviruses that had a property of fusing cells. That is, it’s a cell fusion protein which the placenta relies on to work effectively and is an example of humans adapting to viral infection by propagating a viral function (sticking cells together) into our own genome.

So of course the proteins are going to look a bit similar if they have similar function. In this case it joins cells together to make the syncytio.. (joined cells).. trophoblast - which is the early part of the placenta.

This protein is called a HERV or Human endogenous retroviral element which is an evolutionary hangover. In other words this protein was adapted from a virus during evolution because the viral protein provided the cell fusion needed for better placental function.

Isn’t nature amazing?

We will come back to it soon but for now let’s see what happened when the bigwigs moved in to sell the COVID vaccines to pregnant women, and how they did it.

5. The RCOG moves in

By far the leading authority on pregnancy health is the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists6. So this was the necessary centre point of information through which the world’s anxious pregnant women would be given the necessary information to tell them whether the vaccine was safe in pregnancy.

Of course it was, because those crazy anti-vaxxers were wrong about Syncytin-1, right?

Well, here is Dr Raj Mathur who is an expert in infertility and who was recruited (likely through no fault of his own) to give you the low-down on this whole story. It is only 6 minutes long and I highly recommend you watch it to realise how this propaganda played out. The video is from a series from the RCOG telling you how “safe” the COVID vaccines are in pregnancy, pre-pregnancy and breastfeeding.

As predicted the video “debunks” what we now know was a set-up story - that is the fake “syncytin-1 cross reacts with the placenta and so everyone will be infertile” story. But to be sure to convince you, Dr Mathur also does the other predictable and scripted thing - which is to regurgitate the impossible data that emerged early in 2021 from the CDC’s monitoring system. I have debunked this ad nauseum - including in this article which described another target of well poisoning related to the increased miscarriage rate after the COVID vaccines:

To be clear, the RCOG could have chosen anybody to do this video and the presentation would have been the same because the important message was, again:

“Because antivaxxers claimed that Syncytin-1 is similar to Spike protein and we can prove that it isn’t, antivaxxers are wrong and therefore the mRNA vaccine is safe in pregnancy”

To run this point home, here are the “final thoughts” from the video bordering on mockery of vaccine sceptics. Here’s my scorecard for that slide.

That’s two out of six. A poor attempt. But note the “depopulate” trope that is often dropped into vaccine sceptic discussions and is intended to mock and discredit sceptics (because obviously a sane person can see that the world has not been “depopulated” despite the excess deaths seen in many countries).

One other thing worth noting from this talk was the fact that the world’s researchers seemed already prepared with this debunking - publishing the paper referenced in the video only a few weeks7 after the petition had successfully made its way to vaccine sceptic circles.

The combination of these authors is somewhat disturbing with the main (first and last) authors funded by Novartis (who bought Mike Yeadon’s company) and another (Zubiak) from the Polish Military Institute of Medicine.

Such a small world.

Before we move away from the RCOG’s role in this scheme it is worth noting that part of their “no problems with the COVID vaccines in pregnancy” claim referenced in this video was based on the apparent investigation of over 100,000 vaccinations in pregnancy. But that claim was false. When asked for the data under FOI the RCOG, which claims to be an official authority, refused to provide it - hiding behind the excuse that “they are not obliged to”.

Nice work if you can get it hey?

Because this is quite a long article here’s a little summary of where we are up to before the next section.

Wolfgang Wodarg and Mike Yeadon submitted a petition to the EMA in December 2020 criticising the COVID vaccines and including a bizarre and fake story that a likeness between the vaccine and the placental protein syncytin-1 would cause infertility.

The RCOG used the syncytin-1 story as ammunition to disparage and debunk skeptics who were raising reasonable safety concerns about using the COVID vaccines in pregnancy, thus paving the way for the coercion of pregnant women that followed. 

Mike Yeadon, who seemed to have been the person who invented the story, has deep ties to the pharma industry - especially Pfizer - and shady corporations with offshore holdings.

6. The EMA submission well-poisoning

So now we have got the background of the “authors” out of the way and set the scene that the people that wrote this document are not really up to the job we need to discuss what was in the “EMA petition” document that was poison to the well and used as fodder for the RCOG.

To make this easier we can split up the document into its respective parts.

Part 1: The rational introduction describing the limitations of the Pfizer COVID and quoting Dr Sin Hang Lee’s coherent submission to the FDA. Note that Sin Hang Lee is an expert in genomics and genetic vaccine contamination (a good guy).

Part 2: The Yeadon-Wodarg “extras” that are not mentioned at all in Dr Lee’s coherent FDA submission

Part 3: Verbatim copy (plagiarised) of Dr Lee’s concluding paragraphs to make the Yeadon-Wodarg submission look legit.

Part 4: The annexures which include Dr Lee’s FDA submission as well as a rational paper from a group of authors that include the excellent Kevin McKernan

The Yeadon-Wodarg submission is actually only 6 pages and the weird stuff starts at section C7 after they mention Dr Lee’s submission in section C6:

The end of the Yeadon-Wodarg petition in fact is a fully plagiarised version of Dr Sin Hang Lee’s FDA submission. It was produced 5 days later, presumably without Dr Lee’s permission or knowledge. Here are the plagiarised sections in case you don’t believe me:

Just to clarify, Dr Sin Hang Lee is not only a very legitimate scientist but his expertise is in the molecular biology of vaccines and he is one of the few scientists not bought out by the pharmaceutical industry.

He is in fact an expert witness in the HPV vaccination case brought against Merck and covered by Maryanne Demasi here:

But - the Yeadon-Wodarg (dodgy) version appeared only 5 days after the Lee version (kosher) which, based on the way pharma and the intel (or “Phintel”) communities work, means that it is likely that the dodgy version was designed to make the kosher version look crazy.

So we need to ask what was added in the Yeadon-Wodarg version compared to the Lee version that it plagiarised. For this we can ask an AI to compare the documents and pull out the Yeadon additions, and here they are

These are the four additions:

1. The vaccines might cause ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement)

2. The vaccines might cause PEG allergy

3. The vaccines contain a flourescent protein called mNeonGreen

4. The vaccines could produce a cross reaction to Syncytin-1 protein and this would cause permanent infertility

The first, ADE, is a legitimate criticism of respiratory viral vaccines - especially those of the SARS viruses. It means that after the vaccine is administered the immune response to subsequent exposure of the virus can cause an overblown immune response leading to death or a worsening of infection rather than protection against infection. It was a well known issue in SARS (the precursor to COVID) and there is nothing really contentious in this section, as if to provide some legitimacy to the additions. However, full blown ADE (where everybody would start dropping dead if they got COVID following vaccination) never happened on a large scale - it just sounded dramatic at the time.

Similarly the second claim that the vaccines might induce PEG (polyethylene gylcol) allergy - as any PEG containing product can do - is a legitimate question, although somewhat irrelevant in this context as the petition was supposed to be against stopping the trials (that had already concluded by the time of the petition).

However in the very same section that discusses the (rare but real) possibility of PEG allergy, we encounter an additional claim that is nothing to do with PEG at all. It introduces an idea that “Pfizer put mNeonGreen in the jabs”.

Wait, what the hell is mNeonGreen?

Well it’s a fluorescent reporter which is a bit like a flourescent dye used in the lab to see what proteins are doing in cells. It’s similar in a way to Luciferase which is a protein that it glows under the microscope so you can see what’s happening in the cell. And because of the name, “Luciferase in the jabs” was yet another story that was circulating to poison the well in early 2021, giving the fact checkers a field day - because, of course there was no luciferase in the jabs.

Of course whether or not there were “satanic connections in the jabs” is a spiritual matter and not one that is likely to be resolved in the scientific arena.

Suffice it to say, just like “Luciferase in the jabs” and its successor well-poisoning story “Graphene in the jabs”, there was no “mNeonGreen” in the jabs. In fact the genetic content of the jabs was very clearly investigated by our friend Kevin McKernan (at significant personal cost) and showed that the only thing that was in the jabs that they “forgot” to declare was the excessive amount of DNA plasmid contamination.

This is now beyond doubt having been published by multiple labs - and was presumably the real story they were trying to bury, Alex Jones style.

Of course intelligence agencies and pharma operatives (or “phintel”) love to hide behind “plausible deniability” which means that if they are caught with a lie, they can say it was a mistake. This is the actual wording from the document:

Pfizer/BioNTech is also inserting an ingredient derived from a marine invertebrate, mNeonGreen, into its vaccine. The ingredient has bioluminescent qualities, making it attractive for medical imaging purposes, but it is unclear why an injected vaccine would need to have that quality. mNeonGreen has unknown antigenicity.

In this case the mNeonGreen story was loosely based on a legal filing only two months prior, by the company that invented the reporter for lab testing in cell lines, that Wodarg-Yeadon bastardised to make into a “Luciferase in the jabs” storyline.

Mike Yeadon would have known very well that this was just a reporter enzyme used in lab testing and nothing to do with the actual production vaccines, because Mike had extensive experience of using fluorescent reporters just like these in his own lab. So he would have known that the flourescent reporter was just for testing the vaccine in cell lines prior to production.

The “mNeonGreen in the jabs” story was therefore deliberate and fake - and Mike knew it. And if he didn’t he would have known that the only way that mNeonGreen could have been in the final product was if there was significant plasmid DNA contamination, that they conveniently didn’t mention at all.

But the worst of the fake inclusions was the last - the Syncytin claim.

This was the claim that directly provided the RCOG and the fact checkers with the excuse to quash any concerns about using this new technology in pregnant women. So for the first time since thalidomide pregnant women were railroaded into taking an untested novel therapy that turned them (and potentially their babies) into spike protein factories - the very protein that the establishment was claiming was dangerous in “COVID”.

So where did this story come from?

Well we can answer this, because it’s in the document and shows that the claim started with a guy called Bill Gallaher..

Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Syncytin-1 (see Gallaher, B., “Response to nCoV2019 Against Backdrop of Endogenous Retroviruses” - http://virological.org/t/response-to-ncov2019- against-backdrop-of-endogenous-retroviruses/396), which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses. There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile. To my knowledge, Pfizer/BioNTech has yet to release any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, information regarding (potential) fertility-specific risks caused by antibodies is included.

This doesn’t seem that far-fetched because autoimmunity (where the body’s immune system reacts to itself) can happen when drugs and human proteins share similarities. However, not only is this rare but it requires a very close homology (the same amino acids at the same positions) in order to create this response.

Syncytin-1 and COVID spike protein don’t have this homology (similarity), so the story was fake - but in the next section I’ll show how it came about (and why it was fake).

7. Syncytin-1 and the Bill Gallaher Connection

For some background here is Bill Gallagher with his marine corps son Andrew, taken from his “altruistic” “free” document8 outlining the virology of SARS-COV-2 (the virus that causes COVID)

As far as I am aware Andrew is not a scientist and has never written a published paper. Bill, his dad, is not only a virologist but has worked on Ebola and more importantly the original SARS virus, attempting to develop a peptide inhibitor published in 2006. Although it seems reasonably likely as time goes on that SARS and MERS were also manufactured viruses, Bill appears to be the only person that doesn’t know this.

In fact, Bill Gallaher was so far down the “all the viruses out of China are from wet markets” rabbit hole he was one of the people that we would call the “COVID cover-upperers”. That is, Bill is one of the people who in 2020 were claiming to be experts telling the public that the COVID virus emerged by accident from some kind of intimate exchange between a bat and a pangolin - immortalised in this famous tweet aimed at Michael Worobey (another of the cover-up gang):

So, it’s not that Bill Gallaher was necessarily involved with the people who created the COVID virus, but it’s more likely that he was co-opted to run a disinformation campaign to avoid the kind of scrutiny from the public that the US government did not want.

And that’s because the US government funded the very gain of function research that resulted in a virus that was used to shut down the world - no longer a “conspiracy theory”, because it’s now part of the official US government statement:

Coincidentally, Bill’s institute is Tulane university which launched a COVID vaccine development program with his best buddy Robert F Garry (also of COVID cover-up fame9). So Bill Gallaher lied about the origins of COVID and is likely a spook to boot. But it’s even possible that he isn’t aware that he was co-opted to tell a story. It is just as likely that he was a fed a line, something like:

“Hey Bill, there are some crazies on the internet trying to say that the coronavirus was made in a lab, can you do an essay to debunk them please, it could get out of hand otherwise and people might die”

Most patriots, whose son was a marine, would step up to the plate. This might especially true if they thought that the SARS, Ebola and MERS viruses were “natural” - instead of deliberately-made pathogens that were spread by the military in biological weapons exercises.

As it happened they (the people running the military) weren’t able to get away with this because of those very crazies on the internet writing such articles as this one:

….which not only proved that COVID-19 was man-made but also discussed the spikey spikes of the spike protein which, as we pointed out, is a fusion protein.

What that means is, like velcro, the sticky-out bits make the protein fuse things - such as the virus to a cell or a cell to another cell. The latter is called a syncytium, which is a fusion of cells.

Here’s a diagram of what that means:

It’s probably easiest to compare these spikes to velcro, because they are designed to be sticky.

And… here’s the rub. Just like the many different brands of Velcro all with slightly different hook-and-eye configurations but achieving the same sticky result, there are different spikey fusion proteins - all achieving the same result.

And now we get to the finale.

8. The Syncytin Spike Scam

Just to catch up to where we are before we enter the final lap:

Yeadon and Wodarg published a petition to create a fake pretence of legitimacy, pointing out problems with the COVID vaccine trials.

The petition was a plagiarised version of Sin Hang Lee's document but with some bizarre additions.

The most bizarre of these concerned a placental protein (syncytin) that was supposed to cross-react with the COVID vaccines and render the world's women infertile. 

So what did Bill Gallaher, COVID cover-upperer-in-chief, say about Syncytin that was so impactful that Mike Yeadon not only put it in his “petition” but spread it around the world on his social media?

Well here it is, directly from Bill’s comments page on virological.org, the supposed “virologist’s chat group” that was really a cover for gain-of-function virologists to share their stories to cover up the man-made origins of COVID.

The claim is that the HERVW (Syncytin) peptide (sequence of amino acids) in this sequence is “directly related” to both the RaTG13 virus and the Wuhan virus. But there are two things wrong with this statement from Bill Gallaher (whose avatar is “P” for “Prof Bill”)

1. RaTG13 is a fake (synthetic) virus10 that only came into existence on Genbank (the NCBI repository for gene sequences) after COVID was released and people started asking questions as to where it came from.

2. The homology is a joke.

If you’re interested in why RaTG13 was a fake virus check out the footnotes but for the purposes of this article we need to focus on point 2.

Homology means where amino acids are similar between proteins. They don’t even need to be exactly the same amino acids, just from the same group with the same properties so that the final protein has the same structure.

But this isn’t even close, and Bill Gallaher is fabricating a ghost. Any similarity between these proteins is so superficial it’s not funny.

Worse, there are 1273 amino acids in the COVID spike protein and Bill’s little diagram shows about 60. It’s almost a random match up in the areas where there is a match - but he deliberately forgot to point something important out.

That is that syncytin, by its very nature as a fusion protein, has similarities to every other viral envelope (fusion) protein in existence. That includes HIV, Influenza, SARS and even Ebola. Here’s an identity parade for you:

And when it comes to proteins, anything that has a similar formation and function by necessity will have similar amino acid sequences in those parts of the protein that provide that formation.

So when Gallaher wrote that “COVID and Syncytin are directly related” he meant, as we said before, something akin to “A dog and a horse are directly related because they have 4 legs”.

For the real doubters (and of course the fact checkers that have so far failed to disprove a single article on this blog).. we can reuse our skills from our 2022 article and use BLAST to find out whether Gallaher and Yeadon are telling porkies11 or not.

Comparing the Wuhan spike protein with Syncytin-1 shows “no significant similarity”, because there is none over the whole protein. It’s like asking whether Eva Braun and Barack Obama look similar because they have the same nails.

And, sure, you can force BLAST to register some similarity by changing parameters to be really sensitive to nails, but then everything with a fusion protein will match, even influenza and HIV, which match more. So what Mike and Bill are saying would apply more to the influenza vaccine - which last time I looked wasn’t being touted as a “genocidal bioweapon” (Mike’s latest foray into well poisoning12).

So the way this worked was that Bill Gallaher set the scene to the idea that anything related to “COVID” could cross react with a human protein such as syncytin-1 (because syncytin-1 is a viral protein from its origin)…

And then Mike Yeadon came along and decided to convert that story into “everyone will become infertile”.

Which is part of his “thing” - he did the same thing with ivermectin here on the Delingpod show. If you watch this you with renewed scepticism you will see that he is both making these claims up and at the same time playing a role.

And whilst recanting his rubbish (ivermectin has never been linked to infertility and in fact is in widespread use in Africa where fertility is not known to be a problem) it’s worth noting that he has a dig at the doctors who were using repurposed drugs (and antibiotics) with a great deal of success during the early COVID waves. This includes the very respectable Pierre Kory and Robert Clancy as well as Paul Marik who won his famous court case against the FDA for their ridiculous and infamous smear campaign against the drug:

So if you are to assess Mike’s role in just this interview you would have to decide between these two options:

1. Doctors prescribing ivermectin and antibiotics for COVID (predominantly in the elderly at-risk), resulting in extremely low death rates, were in fact running a clandestine campaign to create male factor infertility through the use of ivermectin (in the elderly), even though ivermectin doesn’t cause infertility.

2. Mike Yeadon is telling a yarn.

Now of course it is possible that Mike just got it wrong and flipped on the ivermectin and exaggerated on syncytin-1, but it’s not stopping there.

Now viruses don’t exist and Hiroshima was made up. Apparently. Which would have sunk the Dutch court case on this alone.

There are more insidious links in the Ziarco story that make you realise that all is not as it seems with these “ex pharma” agents but we have had enough for today. I have more if needed, and which I’ll save for another day.

One thing I should say at this point, for balance and because I don’t actually know who is behind all this manufactured sensationalism: It is very possible that the clandestine financial pipeline associated with the sale of Ziarco served the purpose of kompromat on Mike Yeadon and that his bizarre statements are forced on him for the purpose of discrediting those that followed him. Alternatively they are intended to sound crazy because his job is now done and he needs to shake off all those followers to enjoy his retirement millions….

CONCLUSION

Either way, one thing is certain - and that is that the Syncytin-1 story was a fraud from its inception by Bill Gallaher and adoption by Mike Yeadon and Wolfgang Wodarg which then spread around the world faster than a Wuhan virus.

The story was used to silence people who rationally raised safety concerns about giving the genetic based COVID vaccines to pregnant women with no long term (or even short term) safety testing. And the rest, as we say, is history.

One day the medical establishment will look back at this and ask “how did it happen?” and then say “we must never allow this to happen again”.

Except it did: first with Thalidomide, then DES, then Accutane, then Valproate and Warfarin and others. And nobody ever seems to learn, when the next new “safe and effective” comes along.

Except this time Pharma got smart and conjured up a crazy story that could be used to discredit those who were rational, that knew their history and were warning of the risks.

Poisoning the well is the new black for the Pharma Industry.

We won’t forget.

Now, how’d you like a lovely apple?

Footnotes

1

Wodarg and Yeadon petition to the EMA 1st Dec 2020.

Wodarg Yeadon Ema Petition Pfizer Trial Final 01dec2020 En Unsigned With Exhibits

1.49MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

8

Analysis of Wuhan Coronavirus - Deja Vu. By William R Gallaher PhD and Andrew D Gallaher (USMC).

Gallaher Wuhan Coronavirus 020720 Updated Version

1.34MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

9

Robert F Garry senate testimony July 2023

Garry Testimony

235KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

10

Zenodo paper from Steve Quay outlining why RaTG13 was a contrived virus, designed to cover up for the origins of the Wuhan coronavirus. When cloned, this “virus” could not be made to transmit, confirming that it was not a naturally derived virus.

Ratg13 Paper

1.51MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

12

Mike was one of the famous five “biological weapons experts” who, because they are nothing like biological weapons experts, were laughed out of court in the Netherlands when they tried to derail a reasonable court case against the Dutch government by a last minute joinder after it had progressed through the first stage. Pure coincidence that these people seem to turn up just at the right moment to destroy any credibility to anything they touch.

Beschikking 20 08 2025 Engels Geredigeerd

305KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

“Pfizer’s vaccine is more than 90% effective”.

Headlines repeated around the world and more importantly by the regulators FDA, TGA, EMA and MHRA.

The “real” statistic was actually 95%. Yep, Pfizer and the FDA concluded - after one of the quickest and largest randomised controlled trials in pharma history - that receiving a Pfizer COVID vaccine would give you only 5% of the risk of “catching COVID” than someone who didn’t receive their product1.

Just to reiterate - this was about COVID infection. No claims on severity, hospitalisation or death were made by Pfizer. The FDA agreed that Pfizer’s trial showed that for every 100 people who were not vaccinated and “got COVID” only 5 vaccinated people would “get COVID”. And remember this is COVID infection (testing positive), not anything else.

FDA’s analysis of the available efficacy data from 36,523 participants 12 years of age and older without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to 7 days after dose 2 confirmed the vaccine was 95% effective (95% credible interval 90.3, 97.6) in preventing COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after the second dose (with 8 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group compared to 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group).

Putting this another way, for every vaccinated person you met who had COVID you should have met at least 24 vaccinated people that didn’t ever have COVID. Given that most of the vaccinated population actually “got COVID” - many of them multiple times, that sounds impossible, right?

That’s because it was.

Yet the trial itself showed 95% reduction in the risk of infection and was published in the infamous New England Journal of Medicine (the same journal that published the fraudulent Surgisphere study) on the 10th December 2020.

Dates Matter

As a background to the first red flag concerning this trial and subsequent “emergency approval” of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine it is worth noting some dates.

• The first patient recruited to the study was July 27th 2020.

• By 31st August 2020 half of the participants had been recruited, meaning that less than half the participants had follow-up of at least 75 days from the first injection. Given that you were supposed to need two weeks after the second injection (35 days) for it to “work” this means that half the participants had follow up of less than 47 days for the “effective dose”2.

• The original submission from Pfizer to the FDA happened on November 20th 2020. The “data cut-off” for the trial - the last day that COVID infections could be registered - was November 14th 2020.

• The VRBPAC meeting (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) at the FDA met on the 10th December 2020, the same day the trial was published.

• The VRBPAC assessment document3 for the Pfizer submission was written on the 7th December 2020, just two weeks after the submission was made - and having had to assess a trial with 44,000 participants.

This median of 47 days was the basis on which the approval was given, but it gets worse - much worse.

In fact we are going to show that the whole study was a sham and that there never was a benefit - at all, never mind “95% reduction in infection”

Here is the chart provided by Pfizer that they used to show that there was a 95% reduction in infection. It’s impressive. The red line is the “placebo” group and the blue line is the “vaccinated” group. And although they initially start off getting infected at the same rate - after about 10 days after the first jab, the vaccinated pretty much stop getting infected at all. A true miracle vaccine.

Note that his chart is by “day after dose 1” and not “day of the year” or “day of the trial”.

The point of mentioning the dates is not only to show that the approval was made on the basis of 47 days of follow-up for most patients but was also made in 1 day, because the VRBPAC meeting was the 10th December 2020 and the EUA approval was declared on the 11th December 2020. It is of course not possible that such a decision could have been made overnight and so the implication is that this was a pre-agreed approval and all that needed to happen was that Pfizer provide data that shows that, in the group that were followed up for more than 35 days, there were less infections in the vaccination group.

And we are going to see that this was all planned to happen by around the 20th of October, around 4 weeks before the data cut-off date.

What’s “COVID” according to Pfizer?

Here comes the next important part of the hustle.

For most of us, “COVID” is a clinical syndrome signified by a viral infection that causes symptoms. Those symptoms invariably involve a fever and lethargy. For some people it involves a cough or runny nose. And when “severe COVID” happens, if it does, that almost always involves a post-viral pneumonia - just like the 1918 “Spanish flu” and basically every other respiratory virus ever - as I wrote about extensively here.

If you don’t have any symptoms you can’t really have “COVID” or any similar illness of any significance. Testing positive on a PCR test is irrelevant if you don’t have symptoms (why are you even testing?) but if you do have symptoms it’s highly predictive of a viral infection with SARS-Cov-2.

So you would think that the definition of “COVID” in the Pfizer trial was something like “symptoms of respiratory viral infection with fever cough and a positive PCR or lateral flow test conducted at the local health authority” wouldn’t you?

Oh no. This is the case definition in the Pfizer protocol4.

Efficacy will be assessed .. If, at any time, a participant develops acute respiratory illness (see Section 8.13), for the purposes of the study he or she will be considered to potentially have COVID-19 illness.. the participant should contact the site, an in-person or telehealth visit should occur, and assessments should be conducted… will include a nasal (midturbinate) swab, which will be tested at a central laboratory using a reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test… The central laboratory NAAT result will be used for the case definition

There is one phrase hidden in there that not many people noticed but prompted this tweet over 3 years ago…

And the phrase of interest is “The central laboratory NAAT result will be used for the case definition”.

The tweet is basically asking why - when a large proportion of the trial participants were recruited in Argentina - you would send your “suspected COVID” swab all the way to New York.

Well the answer becomes obvious when you realise what the “central laboratory” is - it’s Pfizer’s lab in Pearl River, New York. How do we know that? Because it’s in the documents that Pfizer and the FDA tried to withhold for 75 years - until Aaron Siri took the FDA to court to provide those very same documents.

[It’s worth noting at this point that those documents in total work out at over 2 million pages, so I hope readers will forgive me for taking a long time (arguably 3 years) to produce this article which is based on analysing and verifying the data in them. It’s a lot of work, and anybody who’s looked at these files will know that it’s not possible to review them properly in 2 weeks]

And here is the confirmation5 that the “central laboratory” was at Pfizer’s vaccine HQ…

… Which means that the people that decided whether a swab would be marked as PCR positive or negative - which was the only test that mattered - were Pfizer.

Nothing to see there, obviously. But it gets better.

VRBPAC SHMERPAC

The FDA’s VRBPAC meeting was held on the 10th December 2020 and comprised a bunch of people who appeared completely incompetent - and in some cases didn’t appear to know what time of day it was, or how to use zoom.

Except Doran Fink, who gave a polished presentation, that almost looks like it was written for him, explaining how the FDA had been investigating this trial data “for months”. That was despite (supposedly) having no clinical data in that time - so that was not possible. To clarify, unblinding in the trial was not allowed to have happened until after November 14th, 2020, so it seems that Doran is throwing Pfizer under the bus by telling us that there was some way that Pfizer knew who was in which arm before the 14th November6.

Neither was it possible for Doran Fink himself to have analysed such a quantity of data because he had no experience in handling large clinical data sets, so it certainly wasn’t him that did that analysis.

Doran was rewarded with a plum job at Moderna for his efforts to put lipstick on the Pfizer trial data… and if that wasn’t good enough he’s now rocking it at the home of the pharma vaccine cartel - GSK. Absolutely nothing to see there then, because the “revolving door” corruption at the FDA is just part of the furniture.

And here he is at the VRBPAC meeting itself telling us how the FDA (i.e. Fink and friends) did a “thorough and extensive” review of the 44,000 participant study in no time at all but that actually he (and his elves) had been doing it for months. As well as working over thanksgiving - you know, just to really hammer it home that they’d been working on it.

Except that they didn’t need to work on anything because there is nothing at all to stop Pfizer ghost writing the whole “analysis” for them. It is certainly improbable that Doran Fink produced the 60-page document.

But the important bit is that Pfizer already knew by the 9th of November that the vaccine had “worked”. So did all those “mainstream” media outlets and the WEF.

Which was all a bit naughty because, if the data cut off was the 14th November Pfizer couldn’t have known before that date that they had achieved anything at all, unless the “unblinded team” that they conveniently had as part of their protocol had told them.

And although they had an “unblinded team” who knew which patients were in which groups they didn’t need that information, because they had another way of finding out, which we’ll come back to soon.

What Did Doran Do?

Well, apart from earning himself a cushy job with pharma (twice), after selling the COVID vaccine efficacy line to the world in order to get the EUA (emergency use authorization) approval done and dusted in less than 24 hours, the answer is likely not very much at all.

It is also worth an honourable mention to Moderna here, who managed to achieve a similar EUA approval only 7 days later (having played the same “central laboratory” trick). Yes, that’s right, while Fink and crew were giving up their thanksgiving Turkey to sift through the 44,000 clinical trial participants data for Pfizer they were also apparently “thoroughly assessing” the 30,000 participant Moderna trial. Either that, or any analysis they pretended to do was ghost written for them by pharma (again).

But getting back to the Doran Fink analysis of the Pfizer trial… At the VRBPAC meeting itself it was actually Susan K Wollersheim who gave the statistical presentation. Her ability to analyse a 44,000 participant clinical trial in record time is legendary as she has never published a clinical research study7. Therefore the probability of Wollersheim having analysed this 44,000 participant data is close to zero.

Here she is with her blue light filter glasses8 on noting that the FDA also had the inside information on the fabulous “95% efficacy” figure in October.

Of course only a cynic would suggest that this “miraculous” result could have been revealed to the US population before the 2020 election so that they didn’t have to set up special ballot drops but that’s a story for another day.

If you actually watch the VRBPAC monologue from the blue-tinted Wollersheim you can see that she is just reading a script. It’s no surprise because there is no way that these people were doing this analysis. They don’t have the skill set and the amount of work required is incredible - particularly for someone who is a practising doctor and therefore doesn’t have the time.

For context, what you will see below in my analysis is just a part of what we have been working on for over 3 years. When I say “we” I mean a handful of people with the skillset to look through the Pfizer data that was eventually released over 2 years by the FDA. That was the expedited release after the court quashed the FDA’s attempt to take 75 years to release that data. It is literally millions of pages and there is not a chance in hell that the Susan Wollersheims of the world could have provided a full re-analysis of the data in two weeks.

Just working on this one aspect of the Pfizer data fraud (the subject of this article) has taken me 3 years on and off. Similarly, spent around 2 years collecting examples of where Pfizer cheated enough to have influenced the results to the “right” answer just on the basis of “errors” alone.

In comparison, one of the data reviewers from the FDA, Ye Yang, the lead statistician at the FDA, concluded9 in just a few weeks:

No major statistical issues were identified for the safety data during review. A higher percentage of subjects in the BNT162b2 group reported solicited local and systemic reactions than placebo recipients in both the younger (16 to 55 years) and older (>55 years) adult age groups after each dose. There were no major imbalances in reported SAEs, AEs leading to withdrawal, or deaths between the treatment groups at one month and up to six months after the second dose or unblinding/data cut-off. (b) (6)

There is evidence of reactogenicity associated with BNT162b2; the overwhelming majority of events were of mild or moderate severity and short duration. There was no evidence of increased risk of unsolicited SAE or death associated with BNT162b2 in Study C4591001. I defer to Drs. Susan Wollersheim and Ann Schwartz’s clinical review memo on the overall safety conclusion for BNT162b2.

Nice job, Ye Yang. Not a single mention of Brook Jackson’s fraud complaint registered with the FDA in September 2020. Everything rosy in the garden.

So I think we can safely say that the FDA have no interest in looking for fraud in these kind of trials. In fact it’s very likely that the FDA didn’t analyse anything at all other than rehashing what Pfizer gave them.

What nobody has done is what I’m going to show you now.

The Pfizer Heist (aka “how they did it”)

Background

To understand what Pfizer needed to fake the trial result requires asking two questions:

1. How many infections should there have been in each group if the claims were true?

2. Did the antibody testing corroborate the numbers?

So, let’s start with looking at the number of positive tests according to Pfizer.

This is directly from Susan Wollersheim’s presentation, cropped for readability

I’ll just explain the numbers for a minute, because it’s important.

The first line shows 50 cases in the vaccine arm and 275 cases in the placebo arm for an overall efficacy of 82% (that is, 50 cases is 82% less than 275 cases for a similar number of participants in each arm).

[For the record, these numbers (50 vs 275) change slightly depending on which files from the Pfizer dump are used as you might notice in the charts below.]

The second line is where the 95% comes from, when counting cases only happening after 4 weeks from the first jab.

And this is where the miracle comes in because, basically, they stopped accumulating cases (in the vaccinated group only) for a specified time period in order to make the cut.

In order for this to happen there either had to be a magic trick or the vaccine really works (and your 24 vaccinated friends who got COVID must have imagined it).

Just to set the scene as to how the trick happens here’s a little reveal of a Penn & Teller (incidentally not nice people10) sketch where the punter believes that the magicians correctly guessed the right amount of money in her hand. In fact they had created the scene in such a way that whatever amount of money she picked up, the pizza guy would ask for the right amount.

And it’s a bit like that with the Pfizer C4591001 study which sold the vaccine to the world… They knew they were going to hit the “95% reduction” from the beginning.

I’ll show you.

The PCR Hustle

Let’s start with the PCR tests. This is a recreation of the PCR test results from one of the documents released in the first tranche of the Pfizer FOI release (in 2022), but instead of plotting the graph as “days from dose 1” we plot the graph from “days from the start of the study (i.e. 27th July)

You can see that the numbers match the provided data (275 vs 50 cases) so that’s a good sanity check and in fact we can recreate the “days from dose 1” graph from the same data11, just to confirm that we have the correct data.

Now, other than the the fact that the vaccine group has much fewer cases overall I hope you can tell that there is something else odd about the vaccinated line. Firstly, the cases start to accumulate at a similar rate to the unvaccinated and secondly there is a flattening in the middle, as if there’s a pause.

We can look at this better in this graph.

You should be able to see that up to the 6th September (about 5 weeks into the study when recruitment is increasing rapidly) there is a rapid rise in the number of cases in the vaccine arm and then this suddenly slows down until the 21st October when the rise rate goes back to normal. This only happens in the vaccinated group.

It’s as if someone switched the machine off, or turned it down somehow.

Now going back to our pizza analogy remember that the pizza delivery guy had to quickly adapt and print his ticket to match the amount of money that they knew the lady had picked up.

It’s the same here. In this chart the dotted line is the modelled12 (predicted) number of cases in the vaccine arm, assuming that the vaccine was 95% effective “after 4 weeks” as they said.

I have marked the inflection points on the curve and you might imagine the Pfizer people down at Pearl River doing something like this:

(A) “Oh shit Albert we haven’t had any cases at all people will think there is something up and we need some cases to be believable so we better start collecting them. Turn the machine up*”

(B) “Whoa Albert turn that machine down you’re going to catch up with those pesky placebos if you don’t watch out and we’ve got all the cases we need now to look convincing. Don’t get any more cases before the 20th October or we’re in the shit”

(C) “OK Albert you can turn the machine back up again now, the cases don’t count as long as they’re all recent recruits”

*By ”Up” of course I mean “Down” because the easiest way to impact whether you pick up any cases on a PCR test is just to adjust the Ct value (cycle threshold) for a positive test. If the Ct is very high (over 40) you will pick up a bunch of false positives and if it’s very low (say, less than 16) you will only pick up the real cases with a high viral load. Of course they wouldn’t know what the “sweet spot” would be which is why they would have had to change it as they went along.

And you might say “why didn’t they just record the tests as positive or negative in the case report forms?”.

Well that’s possible but some of the testing is automated so they can’t manually record false values for POSITIVE/NEGATIVE and if they did it might be very obvious on an audit.

What they could do was change the Ct threshold on the machine recording the tests so that they don’t record as positive. We don’t know whether that happened because the field that should have recorded it and should have been released in the Pfizer files (MBORRESU) is missing.

So convenient.

But one thing we DO know is that Pfizer knew which tests were coming in from which arm of the study (vaccinated or placebo) and that is because they had the blood tests from every person in the study at the Pearl River lab.

And all they had to do to identify which subject was vaccinated or not is test the blood.

We know this to be true because Castruita showed in 2023 that even after 4 weeks there was enough circulating RNA (or DNA) from the COVID-19 vaccines to be able to perform genomic sequencing13.

In a highly controlled pharma randomised trial the databases holding information about which patient took which treatment (in this case vaccine vs placebo) are locked. Unlocking them would create audit flags and so the FDA would be able to see that there had been tampering. So it wasn’t possible to just cheat in the database.

But, because Pfizer already had the blood samples from every participant at the same lab that they insisted that the “cases” send their swab samples to, it was easy for them to record which sample was in which arm of the study.

The placebo tests could therefore just continue on the standard test machine and the vaccine arm group (having been identified from their own record of who was who, based on the blood tests) on another machine. And because they knew from the placebo arm how many patients so far had got COVID, they just needed to adjust the “vaccinated” machine up or down according to the number of positive tests they needed. A bit like the pizza guy.

But, you’re going to say, this is “conspiracy theory” and “there is no way to prove it” right14?

Well unfortunately for Pfizer they made a few mistakes and the big one was failing to fix the N-antibody (Nab) tests at the same time.

NABs Schmabs

When you “get COVID” naturally, what happens is that your immune system produces two sets of antibodies.

One is directed against the spike protein (S-antibody) and the other is directed against the nucleocapsid (N-antibody). The nucleocapsid is inside the virus particle so in order to be exposed to it you need to have the virus spill its contents. This will usually happen when your immune system kills the virus, so a natural immune response provides both sets of antibodies (anti-S and anti-N).

In contrast, following vaccination the spike gets flooded with antibodies and the immune system may not get the same exposure to the Nucleocapsid as in natural immunity, so the chance of showing N-antibodies (“NABs”) after a post-vaccine infection (which weren’t supposed to happen of course) is much lower.

How do we know? Well the manufacturers told us.

Here is the chart from Lindsey Baden’s paper from the Moderna trial where they looked at exactly this question.

The chart shows the probability of a “Anti-N serology test” being positive during the Moderna vaccine trial and the bottom line is that at for most infections (other than the most severe, so about 95% of all recorded infections in the trial) the chance of testing positive on a Anti-N serology test was 2.3x lower (93% vs 40%) in the vaccinated group.

The same result was seen by Dhakal et al so this wasn’t just a ruse by Moderna to create some narrative that the COVID vaccines prevented severe disease (which was always the back up story and never shown in a randomised controlled trial). But the backup story by Baden shot Pfizer in the foot. So let’s look at what happened in the Pfizer trial.

Here are the N-antibody tests for each arm15

The blue dotted line is the total number of positive N-antibody tests in the vaccinated arm and is 11616 .

But wait, there were only 50 infected cases reported in the study by PCR.

That can’t be right surely?

You couldn’t have more than twice the number of cases of antibody-proven infection than PCR-documented infection in one group only - unless you were suppressing the PCR tests.

But it gets worse when you correct for the fact that, if you’re vaccinated, you have 2.3x less chance of showing N-antibody on a test.

So let’s correct the chart and show what the real infection rate was in the two groups.

Et voila…..

Well look at that. Pretty much identical curves17.

What that graph shows is that, even according to Pfizer’s own data, the antibody-documented infection rate in both arms was pretty much the same.

No “95% reduction in infection” at all.

It was only the recording of the PCR tests that was different.

So it was a scam.

But of course you’re not going to believe that it was a scam because the next thing you’re going to say is “well they said it reduced severity so it doesn’t matter”…

Well they didn’t say that. What they claimed was that the infection rate was less. But what Pfizer were actually saying was this:

In our large randomised controlled trial, the chance of a vaccinated person testing positive in our lab on our dedicated PCR machine was 95% less than an unvaccinated person testing positive.

It doesn’t sound such a good sell now does it?

But this isn’t the end of the matter, because I know you’re going jump up and down and demand that the Pfizer vaccine trial showed that there were less symptoms suggestive of COVID in the vaccinated.

So let’s go there.

Muh Symptoms

It was, in fact, the FDA that said (in their super intense thanksgiving-Turkey-sacrificing analysis that they spent at least 3 hours on)…

Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group. Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group. It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days postvaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.

“Suspected COVID” means that you felt like crap, had a fever, and probably had a cough or runny nose. Just like every other respiratory viral infection which you normally recover from in a week.

So in the first week after vaccination you were much more likely (42%) to feel like crap with symptoms that felt like COVID, but over the rest of the time you were slightly more likely to think you had COVID (13%) if you didn’t have the vaccine.

What a trade off.

And if you want to compare these “symptoms” you can see clearly from this graph that the first week is worse for the vaccinated and then over time the placebo group sort of do worse - but it’s probably not enough to make up for the first week’s disaster.

So, what exactly was this miracle vaccine preventing?

Well the worst thing about COVID, apart from the very small number of people who get post-viral pneumonia, is the fever - which makes you feel like crap and stops you going to work.

So presumably, if the MiracleVax™ was preventing this nasty viral infection by 95% then we should be able to see this reflected in the fevers. As in, if you take away all the statistical nuances and PCR tests and bla bla bla there MUST be a benefit for Pfizer’s victims customers of preventing the fevers that stop you going to work. Because otherwise, given there were no differences in overall deaths (actually the vaccinated group did marginally worse on that score too), then there has to be something that it actually worked for, given the dramatic 95% reduction in infection.

Right?

Who got the Fever?

Well, now we get into the nitty gritty of whether there was any way at all that the Pfizer trial “success” was real.. the fevers (and their sister symptoms chills, which if you’ve ever had a bad fever you will know is not something to be sniffed at).

You see, what the FDA failed to spot, whilst lauding the minor reduction in allocated “symptoms” from the vaccine, was the fever elephant in the room.

These are the numbers directly from the FDA’s review.

That is, there were over 1100 more fevers and over 2000 more reports of chills.

But you were stoked about the apparent 222 fewer people with “symptoms” in the vaccinated group, right?

It’s worth noting at this point that this was followed into the real world with reports of healthcare workers having to take time of sick from work - with vaccine related fevers - 29% reported in the report from Lidström from the Pfizer vaccine alone, and with up to 48% of health care workers taking time off work from all symptoms following vaccination.

So, let’s get this right.

Not only did the vaccine not prevent transmission - but you needed to take it to stop yourself getting sick enough that you couldn’t work, by getting sick enough that you couldn’t work. The memes sort of write themselves don’t they?

So what happens when we look at overall numbers of “fever or chills” in the whole trial irrespective of cause?

Because if our MiracleVax™ really did work, then the NEJM were right and overall there would be a bunch less fevers or chills in the vaccinated group.

Well here you go. Here’s the definitive analysis (that the FDA never did) looking at whether fever and chills - the major symptoms of “COVID” - were less in the placebo (blue) or vaccinated (red) arm.

Remember that this includes fevers and chills from all causes, including “COVID” and showed that the chance of getting fevers or chills if you were vaccinated was over double that of the unvaccinated.

It’s a slam dunk wouldn’t you say?

All that money spent, all the hand waving about how the COVID vaccine was “95% effective at preventing COVID (whilst not actually showing a mortality benefit)”, all the cheating at trial centres, all the suppression of dissent from people who actually knew what they were talking about…

All for a fraud that the CDC knew was a fraud the first time that not a single case was prevented in the largest public gathering after the vaccine rollout in Barnstable, Masschusetts in July 2021 - where a large COVID outbreak occurred in a fully vaccinated population18.

And not a single “expert” on any of the panels - who were desperate to cross Pfizer’s palm with the public’s silver so they could get their subsequent awards and promotions - spotted the massive and obvious scam, or realised how they did it.

Well, now you know.

1

Original EUA approval letter from the FDA to Pfizer, written on the 11th Dec 2020.

Pfizer Loa 051021

217KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

2

VRBPAC briefing document (FDA’s assessment of Pfizer’s trial)

Vrbpac 121020 Meeting Briefing Document Fda

1.13MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

4

Pfizer C4591001 protocol

Pfizer C4591001 Clinical Protocol Nov2020

1.31MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

5

Registered labs in the C4591001 protocol

125742 S1 M5 5351 C4591001 Interim Mth6 Interlab Standard

10.9MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

8

Blue light filter glasses do absolutely nothing so it is apt that the lead “researcher” for the FDA is gullible enough to have bought a pair

9

Ye Yang statistical review - Pfizer BLA application Sept 2021

Statistical Review Comirnaty

290KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

11

Reproduced plot in R from the original “positivity” data provided in the Pfizer data dump

18

In the Barnstable Massachusetts study (July 2021) the infected population were 74% fully vaccinated for a baseline population of 69% fully vaccinated, giving a derived vaccine efficacy of NEGATIVE 28%. That is, in this well matched group, you were 28% MORE likely to get COVID if you were vaccinated than unvaccinated, proving that the Pfizer claim of “100% efficacy against infection” in a study at a similar time was garbage.

Cdc Barnstaple Mm7031e2 H

180KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

If you have been following the series of articles I have written on the (overly) complicated story of calculating miscarriage rates after any pharmaceutical is introduced to the pregnant population - but specifically the mRNA COVID vaccines - you will know that the serious people in this space have contended that the miscarriage rate has approximately doubled.

I have been saying this since 2021, when the CDC released a really shitty and confusing study on the “V-safe registry” that didn’t tell us anything at all, but was used to confuse people for 4 years. After seeing the twitter space bombarded with people who want to divert the narrative I wrote this two weeks ago.

Part of the reason to publish that is that is contains a list of the articles I have written on this very subject. I am confident that it will stand the test of time, outline who is poisoning the well and yet provide a consistent conclusion on the impact of the COVID vaccine rollout on miscarriage rates.

That is, miscarriage rates are around double what they should be.

The last article in the main series is this one:

And the main finding from the analysis that was performed to write the article (which was complex and not found elsewhere) is here:

That chart is a type of “survival analysis” and I explained in the article that, although it was an inappropriate way of conducting comparisons of miscarriages - because it overestimates the miscarriage rate - if you used the same technique for both cohorts you will actually see the difference.

Instead, what the pharma companies do is that they use one method to overestimate the background miscarriage rate and another method to estimate the miscarriage rate when their drug is rolled out, so you don’t notice that it is causing miscarriages.

Then, so that they can easily hide a miscarriage rate up to 20% and nobody will bat an eyelid they claim (like Viki Male here) that the normal background rate of miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy was 20%.

It isn’t.

In order to obfuscate, complicate and confuse, the pharma companies - and the useful minions who are paid millions of dollars to influence pregnant women and their doctors without declaring it…

….use data that is either confounded by multiple factors, or totally unverifiable, to reinforce the idea that the COVID vaccines were perfectly harmless in pregnancy despite failing animal studies.

So what’s new?

Well here we get to the new news, after I have been saying the same old old news for 4 years.

A blockbuster new study has been released by Josh Guetzkow and Retsef Levi which blows the lid off the COVID vaccine miscarriage data. Note that these are not “fringe researchers”. Retsef Levi has just been appointed to the CDC’s ACIP committee and Josh is an assistant professor in criminology.

And there has definitely been a crime committed.

You see, one of the main problems with the many reports that get pumped out by researchers - who are invariably linked to pharma companies either via research grants or direct payments - is that they cherry pick data that is unverifiable and shows what they want to show.

Such as this recent paper, which has this doozy at the end in the “conflicts” section that most people don’t read.

So they get away with selling junk - like telling us that the rate of birth defects didn’t increase after the COVID vaccines when the CDC data told us otherwise.

But now they are stuck, because Josh and Retsef have now published their data from Israel and they don’t have conflicts with the Pharma industry.

And their paper is a bombshell because it does one thing that nobody else has done - it compares to a directly comparable cohort who had flu vaccines in pregnancy.

And that cuts through all the confounders we normally see that complicate miscarriage risk assessments from observational data (such as women who smoke being less likely to take vaccines in pregnancy). The reason for that is because the same type of person who will take a COVID vaccine in pregnancy will almost certainly be the type of person who will take a flu vaccine in pregnancy - same age, smoking status, parity, obstetric history etc.

And what did it show?

Well, here’s the chart from the paper

And if you look carefully and spend some time you will see that the flu vaccine cohort has a “lower than expected” miscarriage risk and the COVID vaccine cohort has a “higher than expected” risk. The “expected” rates are similar.

No biggie, obviously, because it’s within the range of the “historical” rates, right?

Wrong. Of course you can't lower the miscarriage rate with a flu vaccine so what you are seeing is that the flu vaccine cohort represents the correct “baseline” to compare the new vaccine to. The “expected” rate is higher because it represents a different group of people than those who would take a vaccine in pregnancy.

When you compare these two vaccine cohorts, which are comparable (unlike the many other papers that we have discussed previously), you get something much more dramatic.

And it’s even more obvious in colour, so here it is.

For the stats people this is a very statistically significant difference in rates of miscarriage (with a p-value of 0.00085)..

And guess how much that little blip in the COVID vaccine rates is compared to the flu vaccine?

Approximately double.

Like we’ve been telling you for over 2 years, in multiple articles with multiple data sources.

But don’t worry, the TGA and MHRA and FDA are all over this. They’ve been monitoring the miscarriage rates in real time since the vaccine rollout started.

They have, haven’t they?

Maryanne Demasi, reports

Pregnant women deserve better than “trust us” science

In medicine, few assurances carry more emotional weight—or greater responsibility—than the claim that something is “safe during pregnancy…

Read more

a year ago · 143 likes · 30 comments · Maryanne Demasi, PhD

I have, however, had to interrupt that work to write this, which is annoying but necessary when fake news is running rampant through our groups whilst the world is distracted by an even faker Kabuki theatre show involving the US president and his on-off buddy the Tesla Twitter guy. At least the fight spawned a new batch of memes for the weekend.

Don’t worry if you missed all this by the way, it’s just a distraction.

Let’s focus

The bigger issue is the attempts by glow operators to bury the story that I have been reporting about for over 3 years: that is, that the data that exists (mostly impossible to verify) clearly shows an increase in miscarriage rate following COVID vaccination in early pregnancy.

I showed that in this article and just for the record this is the only definitive statistical analysis of the available V-safe pregnancy data that I have seen. Remember that V-safe was the CDC’s proactive and prospective data collection following the COVID vaccines, and they had a special database for pregnant women.

It’s an article that concluded a whole series of articles I wrote on the subject of the COVID vaccine studies relating to miscarriage and I’m going to list them in this article today as an archive so that you can access them when you need, and you’re going to need them.

The Real Miscarriage Rate

Here is the final graph from that article showing how concerning the Zauche (V-Safe) pregnancy registry data is - from the little bits that we were allowed to see (because the CDC never actually published the final data). The red line is the historical cohort before the COVID vaccines and the blue line is the V-safe data that was after the COVID vaccines and which the CDC said was “normal”.

The results of this analysis show that the miscarriage rate in the vaccinated group was about double that of historical documented control groups that were followed up prospectively (that is, after they are confirmed to be pregnant and then followed up).

Somewhere around 5-10% risk historically, compared to 15-20% in the vaccinated group (depending on how you measure miscarriage as outlined in the article). That’s bad, but a lot of people still don’t know those figures. Instead you are being told fake figures “over 80% miscarriages” which is intended to obscure the real story.

BUT

Not Just Miscarriages

It actually gets worse because it isn’t just the miscarriages that were affected.

In this article I also showed how the rate of birth defects in V-safe was also about twice the expected rate.

It seems that I was right, unfortunately:

This was just published last month by the CDC (who run the V-safe registry) - three years after they knew about it.

The overall rate of birth defects, which should be less than 2%, was 3.8%. 

Just let that sink in.

One in every 26 pregnancies following COVID vaccination had a birth defect.

As I clearly outlined in my article, this is a thalidomide level event.

These are the defects that were above historical levels (noting that “historical levels” include the time before routine ultrasound was a thing, when abnormalities would be undetected until birth):

Fifteen birth defects had a prevalence higher than the upper CI from the literature (i.e., Dandy Walker anomaly, hydrocephaly, cataract or other lens anomalies, cleft lip alone, microtia, Pierre Robin sequence, atrial septal defect, esophageal atresia or stenosis, exstrophy of urinary bladder, kidney agenesis, dysplasia or hypoplasia, other disorders of sexual development, craniosynostosis, cutis aplasia or other skin anomalies, amniotic bands, sacral or coccygeal teratoma)

And what we also knew from the thalidomide disaster was that miscarriages were higher (about double) in the thalidomide group. Those pregnancies that made it to birth were affected by birth defects at a rate about twice normal. This is effectively the same situation as that which the CDC has just published.

It’s a thalidomide level event.

Why is this not front page news?

Now we come to the reason that I have had to write this article today.

The reason you are not hearing about this is because the pharma companies and the government who told pregnant women that these products were safe, when they knew they were a huge risk.

Yet they didn’t tell us this. Instead we got this:

Multiple times. From multiple “fact check” sources who were “fact checking” the claim that the “COVID vaccines caused miscarriages in 82% of women”. That of course is impossible because that would have caused an obliteration of the birth rate, not just the small but significant drop seen in most countries.

So how this works is that someone feeds a fake story into groups like ours who try to share scientifically correct and verifiable information, in order to poison the well. If you aren’t aware of this technique of malinformation here’s ChatGPT’s explanation:

“Poisoning the well” doesn’t just mean attacking someone’s reputation. It can also mean spreading a distorted or exaggerated version of the truth first, so that when the real story comes out, it looks like part of a conspiracy or fake news.

It’s like setting a trap: they release a ridiculous version of what’s about to be exposed, wait for people to laugh at it or debunk it, and then when someone comes forward with the real version, no one believes it — because it already sounds like that “crazy story” they heard earlier.

And this is EXACTLY what happened here. Someone deliberately poisoned the well such that I ended up having to write an article explaining what had happened and to debunk the fake story. All the way back in September 2021.

The original story was attributed to the Daily Expose but without a named author and later appears to have been claimed by Coleen Huber (note the date), who should have known better, or Sasha Latypova. Latypova in various guises claims to be an ex-pharma exec or pharma whistleblower but spends a lot of her time on her substack and twitter desperately to attack any member of the “mouse army” (a grassroots group on twitter whose ethos is to expose pharma corruption). At last count, over 1000 twitter accounts had a mouse emoji. She has her work cut out.

The problem with “ex pharma” whistleblowers is that there is no such thing. There are good guys like David Healy and Phil Altman from the regulatory side of things who (as far as I know) don’t have NDA’s with pharma companies - but once you sign a pharma NDA you are bought for life. Nobody who has signed a pharma NDA can afford to buy their way out of it, it would cost millions of dollars, so they just keep quiet. When you hear from a “ex-pharma company whistleblower” ask them to share their NDA and see what happens. Furthermore, this particular “ex” pharma person seems to be very good at getting herself involved in COVID vaccine cases that then coincidentally fail.

So, why are we hearing “82% miscarriage rate” from such people?

It’s to poison the well, obviously.

It got so bad on twitter last week with the deposition of James Thorp, a very good guy who recently published a paper showing how the COVID vaccines were associated with much higher risks of pregnancy related reported1 adverse events compared to all other vaccines.

Here he is courtesy of a clip from Champagne Joshi. And he is right on pretty much everything he says here, except for the miscarriage rate. Even a seasoned obstetrician got hoodwinked by the fake news of “82% miscarriages” prompting a long explanation tweet from the Jikkyleaks account quoting these articles (which I’ll post in order below). James even quotes the V-safe pregnancy registry and the Pfizer PSUR and the vaccine postmarketing study (a requirement for FDA approval) but then mixes them all up and ends up with the 82% figure again, partly because someone has been pushing this number around COVID sceptic groups for 3 years.

So, was this enough to quash the fake news? Not a chance. A false story will be round the world ten times before the real story has had a chance to spread organically. In this case the writer Naomi Wolf comes along to push the fake story more.

And guess who she calls on to repeat the fake story?

The miscarriages are glowing

Well before I show you the clip it’s worth knowing why the word “glowing” is the theme of this piece. You see, there are not just pharma accounts helping poison the well but government intelligence agencies (supporting DARPA, the US military branch that took it upon themselves to develop and spread viruses to sell vaccines).

A “glowie” is an infiltrator. Someone who is working for a government or other vested interest agency but pretending to be a grass roots activist. This is intel 101.

Of course it’s not just intelligence agencies that infiltrate grass roots organisations, the US military (DARPA) have to do it too because their psychopathic behaviour in relation to COVID was exposed and the UK 77th brigade are now infamous. The pharma organisations are also on to this infiltration malarkey with the “Shots heard” style harassment groups which include doctors such as Viki Male and Kevin Ault (part of the ACIP committee at the CDC who help approve these vaccines), who were the very people promoting the COVID vaccines in pregnancy - knowing the risks.

So, who should turn up this week - within days of the CDC publishing a paper showing a near doubling of birth defects in the V-safe registry?

Welcome to the Naomi and Sasha show to distract you from that important news (clip from Youtube):

Not only are we being told was the fake 82% miscarriage rate, but apparently there is also now a 300% increase in stillbirths! That’s four times the expected rate.

No agency anywhere in the world has reported a quadrupling of the stillbirth rate of course. It’s totally made up. Because that’s what glowies do. The purpose is to poison the well and cover up the dual story of a significant increase in miscarriages and a significant increase in birth defects following the roll out of the COVID vaccination program - two things that were known to be a risk but never monitored by the drug regulators.

Remember that in order to reinforce Naomi’s “82% miscarriage” story that she is repeating from the sources mentioned above, she has recruited an “expert™” here who has no expertise at all in the field of pregnancy or medicine and has never published a paper as a first author.

So it’s not a great surprise that the expert™ totally leads Naomi up the garden path with “mistakes” and misunderstandings.

The catalogue of errors

These are the things just in that clip that she gets wrong and why:

1. “Every trial patient received an app called VSAFE”
   WRONG

   The V-safe study was performed AFTER the vaccine trials, and was applied to the general public AFTER the vaccine rollout, starting 14th Dec 2020 [link]

2. “Pregnancy was an exclusion from the clinical trials”
   MISSING CONTEXT

   This is technically true but although participants were not allowed to be pregnant on entry to the trial there were 144 pregnancies recorded during the Pfizer trial follow-up (where the women became pregnant after vaccination) in the first safety report up to June 2021 - which covers all the possible miscarriages from the Pfizer trial in 2020 [link]

3. “There were 3500 pregnant women in the Pfizer clinical trial”
   WRONG

   There were 3958 pregnant women registered in V-safe (in 2021, after the Pfizer trial). In the trial itself, of 21,754 female participants in the Pfizer study, only 8,077 were of reproductive age. Approximately 5% of women in this age group fall pregnant every year which would be around 400 women in the study expected to get pregnant in the subsequent year, nowhere near the made up 3500 number [data link]

4. “Out of the 3500 something like 1000 women submitted their results for pregnancy outcomes”
   WRONG

   In the V-safe NEJM study that the expert™ has confused with the Pfizer study there were 827 completed pregnancies reported, most of which were of women in late pregnancy when they received their vaccine (and therefore couldn’t be included in miscarriage calculations). In total there were 1,132 women in the V-safe study who received their vaccine in the first trimester. Because she didn’t read the paper, the expert™ doesn’t know this. That is the denominator that was supposed to be used to calculate miscarriages
   [v-safe paper here, explanation here]

5. “Of which something like 800 women were included in the paper published on v-safe outcomes”
   WRONG

   See (3) and (4) above. There were a total of 3958 women in the V-safe publication referred to, of whom 1132 received their vaccine in the first trimester

6. “The paper was actually fraudulently constructed”
   MIXED

   The paper was correctly reported, but in a way which allowed well-poisoners to misrepresent it. There were however missing participants who all could have had miscarriages but were excluded from the study for unknown reasons [explanation here]

7. “If you use the correct denominators to calculate the miscarriage rate the miscarriage rate was over 80%”
   WRONG

   If you use the correct denominator of pregnancies where the women received their vaccine in the first trimester (1132) then the 104 miscarriages clearly represent a miscarriage rate of 9.2%. There was however another missing 75 participants and including these may have pushed the rate up to a whopping 15% [explanation here]. Under neither of these circumstances could the miscarriage rate be anywhere near 80%. In fact, if the miscarriage rate was 80% there could not have only been a 3% drop in births in 2022 when most pregnant women had been forced to be vaccinated to keep their jobs [link]

8. “From the same data it is evident that still birth rates went up by about 300%”
   WRONG

   Although the UKHSA reports initially denied a rise in stillbirths in vaccinated women it became clear that there was a rise in stillbirth rate overall in the population from 20212 when compared to a trend of reducing stillbirths the previous decade, and no explanation has been provided. Here is the graph from the data available at the ONS reproduced in R

   

   As you can see, assuming the trendline (which might overestimate the rise slightly) there is about a 10-13% rise in the stillbirth rate over what might have been expected. A similar increase is seen in Australia in 2022. But a 10% increase is not a 300% increase. This is classic well poisoning and there is no source at all for the 300% claim. It’s nonsense and it’s easy to debunk by government and pharma, so good luck then trying to talk about a very significant 10% increase in the stillbirth rate. All that happens is the fact checkers lap up the fake story like this:

   

   And the conversation is over.

So I’m going to give the expert™ two half marks, which is a total of 1 out of 8. That’s a big fat fail. And it’s so bad that if she had ever gone to medical school she would have likely been kicked out in the first term.

So at this point we can conclude the following

There are chaos agents who are seeding fake stories about the miscarriage rates following COVID vaccination into online groups in order to discredit any rational discussion of this problem. 

The people behind those claims are very much aware of these articles and that the claims are false. 

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that this activity is intentional.

Just to make it clear, I have no idea who the people doing this are working for. I suspect that some of them are just carried away by the opportunity for click bait and sensationalism, like many journalists. Others are merely reposting what they see because they know that there is something wrong and because there was no prospective data released with transparency.

The remainder, well, they seem to be glowing as much as the placentas we encountered back in the last article I published on this subject.

Or even as much as the ovaries in the mice that were injected with the same lipid nanoparticles used for the COVID vaccines, all the way back in 2013

But maybe it’s just a misunderstanding.

If it is I sincerely hope that this (hopefully last) article on the subject stops the malinformation and we can get back to asking the right questions of the regulators without being burdened by fake news.

To make things easier I have listed below the full series of articles I have written on this subject with a short summary of what the focus of each was.

Please take a fraction of the time to read them as I have taken to write them, and please pass them on to a friend.

Full list of articles relating to miscarriage rates

[Sept 2021] The first article in the series, explaining how the 82% miscarriage rate was falsely calculated and how you can calculate correctly from the V-safe papers.

[Sept 2022] Comparing the theoretical “benefit” of the COVID vaccines to the established risk in terms of miscarriages needed to prevent one ICU admission (assuming they prevented any), assuming a conservative 5% increase in miscarriage rates

[Oct 2022] Updating the status of the suppressed V-safe pregnancy registry data, the involvement of the “mutton crew” and “shots heard” mafia in targeting anyone discussing miscarriages and a denied FOIA from the RCOG.

[Oct 2022] A super brief note highlighting how the neonatal death rate in Scotland jumped at the time of the COVID vaccine rollout in pregnancy, and public health Scotland thought it best not to investigate.

[Oct 2022] The first major article reporting not only on the huge increase in miscarriage rate associated with the Moderna vaccine but also on the 4% fetal abnormality rate, double the expected rate, in the V-safe data that was still being withheld and was within a suppressed report at the CDC. The slide set has since been removed from the CDC website (but is archived here).

A run down of the postmarketing surveillance document (PSUR) which contained pregnancy data from the Pfizer trial (C4591001) as well as data from pharmacovigilance. Includes a discussion of how the thalidomide scandal had very similar rates of miscarriage and birth defects to the COVID vaccine data being shown, as well as another discussion of James Thorps VAERS report paper, and how the TGA suppressed FOIA requests regarding the animal studies that showed an increase in fetal losses.

The first in a two part series performing statistical (survival) analysis on the available V-safe miscarriage data to confirm (again) that the miscarriage rate was double what it should be when analysed comparatively. And a dig into actually who is the US military affiliated Lauren Zauche, the consistent author on all the V-safe papers.

The second part of the series of statistical (survival) analysis with an in-depth look at how the thalidomide scandal unfolded and its similarities to the COVID vaccine rollout. Contains an introduction to #placentagate - where the regulators knew that these products reach the placenta. Finally it ties in together all the previous articles to prove that the miscarriage rate, when analysed in the same way as other studies, was double what it should have been.

A very important article outlining why all the studies used to “debunk” the increased miscarriage rate claim were falsely represented and plagued by conflicts of interest.

The second part in the “debunking Viki Male” series critiquing the largest paper claiming that miscarriages weren’t higher in the vaccinated cohorts. Huge conflicts of interest and bias underpinning the false claims, murky links to Jeffrey Epstein and Wellcome, and data laundering akin to the Surgisphere fake data scandal. Oh, and don’t forget a failed attempt to scrub the record.

Today’s article is hopefully going to answer the question about whether "Turbo Cancer” (a) exists and (b) is a consequence, or possible consequence of the imposition of a genetic vaccine platform on the global population.

Turbo Cancer is a Myth: Wikipedia

The first thing that need clearing up is “where did the Turbo Cancer phrase come from?”

If you’re in the field you might think this is a made up term but it really exemplifies the idea of a rapidly progressive cancer, that is one that is progressing or spreading much faster than you would be used to. Most oncologists know how the cancers they treat progress and so can give you an idea of what to expect. A prostate cancer in an elderly person for instance would normally take years to progress, so getting growing secondaries in a few months would be unusual. Similarly for a small breast cancer that was surgically removed or treated with radiotherapy which would be expected to be cured with the first line of treatment.

So you would think “Turbo Cancer” would be embedded in the oncologists lexicon from old, but it isn’t. In fact the first mentions were coming from twitter towards the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023. Here is Dr Charles Hoffe talking about it back in January 2023 as a relatively new phenomenon.

Now Charles is a family doctor rather than an oncologist, but there were certainly oncologists noticing a pattern of rapidly progressive cancers around that time, such as the highly respected Angus Dalgleish who was basically forced out of his position for talking about it, and more recently James Royle a colorectal surgeon who clearly laid out the evolution of this new phenomenon on John Campbell’s Youtube channel here

Here’s Angus Dalgleish talking about it in more depth on Sky News on the 24th November here

So if it wasn’t a term in common use in oncology (it still doesn’t appear on PubMed) and oncologists were talking about it in early 2023, surely it’s actually a thing? Well not according to Wikipedia. Here’s what it says as of today:

Ah, well that seals it then. It’s an “anti-vaccination conspiracy theory”. Because wikipedia articles like this are written by oncologists and scientists aren’t they?

Well here is the author, Guy Chapman, moose knuckle included.

He has a long history of controversy over his role as a wikipedia editor and really exemplifies the problem with wikipedia. That is, amateurs and those with a political narrative can ensure that that narrative prevails.

The Big Guns Roll In

Presumably the discussions on twitter sparked the interest of the pharma cartel because Helen Petousis-Harris (New Zealand’s chief “vaccinologist”) soon rolled up in her Pfizer sponsored virtual Bentley to debunk us all by creating a new substack account just to embarrass us all on our own turf. Then fell completely flat on her face.

If you really want to spend ten minutes on the internet equivalent of pulling your own teeth out with rusty pliers you could check it out here (archived here because it is likely that she will delete it, it’s that embarrassing)

So, who is Helen Petousis-Harris?

Well she’s a VACCINOLOGIST. And not just any vaccinologist but a “leading vaccinologist” according to Stuff magazine

And here she is explaining the mechanism of action with those fluffy and friendly lipid nanoparticles (the things that get the RNA - and the residual DNA that they forgot to clean up - directly into your cells) but failing to mention that transfection (the delivery of foreign genetic material into your cells otherwise known as gene therapy1) is a seriously risky business when applied to a live human.

Apart from rejoicing in the fluffy “nifty” nanoparticles Helen also gets lost in the excitement of the -70 degree freezers that were never actually used (presumably because Pfizer only cared about injecting the contaminant DNA into the population, which is not affected by storage temperature).

Anyway, obviously Helen is a real expert. Because she’s a “vaccinologist”. And what’s a vaccinologist? Well, it’s someone who did a two week course at the Merieux Foundation, which is wholly funded by the pharmaceutical corporations and pharma-linked NGO’s like the Gates Foundation and Wellcome trust to give out “certificates of vaccinology” to anyone who is prepared to sell their soul and spend two weeks in their institute singing Kumbaya and stuff.

The Merieux foundation credit themselves with the Brazilian meningitis vaccination drive in 1974 failing to remember that meningitis cases and deaths went up the following year despite (or because of) the vaccination drive which followed an almost identical model to the Brazilian COVID vaccination drive in 2022, ultimately resulting in forced vaccination of the population including children.

So what does the data say?

There are only two options in this space, either Helen Petousis-Vaccinology and her cronies with their pharma sponsored diplomas are correct, or there is a real risk of cancer related to the genetic vaccine platform.

And, obviously we would know if there was a cancer spike wouldn’t we, because our beloved government would be all over it.

Except they aren’t, and we have them on record saying so. Back in 2021 to encourage everyone to “get vaccinated” this is the kind of thing that we were sold2 about safety monitoring after the vaccine roll out:

The TGA has overall responsibility for monitoring the safety of medicines and vaccines in Australia. Just this week, the TGA released its plans for monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

This includes the timely collection and management of reports of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, an ability to urgently detect any safety concerns and to communicate safety issues to the public.

But what did the TGA (and by default the MHRA and FDA etc) actually do?

I’ll give you a clue.

That’s right. They did absolutely nothing. Actually worse than nothing because they went out of their way to deflect and obfuscate with multiple redacted FOIs.

Here’s a classic highlighted by the excellent Senator Rennick showing that the TGA had produced an FOI with 70 blacked out pages. Für unsere Sicherheit3, presumably.

So what did the TGA say they had done in terms of monitoring for cancer signals?

Absolutely nothing of course.

Here is the TGA’s response to a simple FOI request asking what monitoring they undertook in relation to specific cancers (TGA FOI 5275). They don’t hold incidence data related to cancer.

That’s it. Carry on. Nothing to see here. And no safety monitoring.

So, in order to see whether there have been any cancer signals we either have to listen to doctors who are talking about Turbo Cancers or if you don’t believe them you have to go to the available data.

Now I talked about this way back in 2022 already in response to the Australian Bureau of Statistics data which had already shown a signal for an increase in cancer deaths…

And independent analyst Ethical Skeptic has been shouting from the rooftops about this based on his assessment of the available CDC data for 2 years.

To make this problem even harder to solve, no country provides real time cancer data.

Sure, they could do it for “COVID” but the same labs that supposedly provided the “real time COVID data” are apparently unable to provide “real time cancer data” even though the mechanisms to do this are no more complex that tracking pap smears.

If they can do it for COVID, they can do it for cancer diagnoses. So either the COVID real time data was fake, or they are choosing not to monitor cancer diagnoses.

But getting back to the question, in Australia there are annual releases of hospital episode data and although this is not exactly cancer data we can see where the bodies are being hidden, if not buried.

It’s far from easy to do because each year the AIHW which supplies the data manages to change the categories to make it really difficult to track. But I’m sure it’s accidental. Anyway here you are4.

As you can see from the graph, which looks at only the events in the hospital statistics that are cancer-related and significantly elevated from a baseline, there are a whole bunch of them that could indicate a safety signal for cancer. And bear in mind these data already fit in with the known concerns about cancer risk associated with the COVID vaccines and which were suppressed.

But do you know who hasn’t done this work?

The TGA, the MHRA, the FDA or any of the government entities that are being paid to protect us from corporations that only care about making a quick buck. Nope, that analysis was too difficult for them despite having all the resources available in real time.

Not only have they not done the necessary pharmacovigilance that they promised us, but the regulators didn’t even bother with animal testing for cancer.

No, seriously. It’s in their own documents. They literally excuse by saying that because this genetic therapy biologic is called “vaccine” they don’t need to do cancer studies - because vaccines don’t cause cancer, dontyaknow?

This is what the TGA said:

Now don’t you just feel safe?

“Not expected to have genotoxic potential”

But the question is, could such a drug (a biological mRNA therapy with or without plasmid DNA contamination) induce cancer in its recipient?

Well you’re in the right place to get the answer.

Is it plausible that mRNA vaccines cause cancer?

So putting this another way, the question you should be asking, knowing now that the regulators never test for carcinogenicity (the ability of a drug to induce cancer)…

Are there any feasible mechanisms for the COVID mRNA vaccines to cause cancer if administered in a lipid nanoparticle vector?

Obviously there are only two options here - yes or no. So in the interests of fairness I’ll give you the pharma-government narrative first.

Here is what Helen Petousis-Harris says5 in the official rebuttals which are repeated time and time and time again (ad nauseum) by the media (who gain a lot of financial compensation from the pharma industry but claim to be bastions of independence).

Cancer occurs when cells divide out of control. Normally, there are genes that regulate the way in which cells divide, either by speeding it up or slowing it down. To cause cancer, a vaccine would need to interfere with the DNA, particularly the genes that control cell division. There are no components in the vaccine that can do this.

The vaccine cannot, and does not, cause cancer.

In contrast, we have two vaccines in widespread use that prevent cancer, human papillomavirus and hepatitis B vaccines.

Before I debunk Helen Petousis-Harris I’ll just say that it is worth noting the techniques used to “debunk” the claim that there are documented mechanisms for mRNA or DNA genetic therapy products to cause cancer.

What the “factcheckers” do is one of two techniques.

One is a strawman where they find a social media post that says something about the link between COVID vaccines and cancer, and then addresses some detail of the post whilst ignoring the main issue of whether the risk exists.

More commonly though we get something like this:

Well, there is “no evidence” because you specifically didn’t look for it.

Unfortunately it’s left to us to look for it on limited resources and using delayed data as shown above. Bear in mind that we have touched on some of the ways that the plasmid contamination of the COVID vaccines can cause cancer here:

And just to reinforce the point here is a slide from William Makis MD6 outlining a non-exhaustive list of ways in which mRNA vaccines of this type and with this proven level of DNA contamination can cause cancer… (and by extension that means can also accelerate cancers that are in their early stages or in remission).

In other words all these mechanisms can create “turbo cancers” given the right circumstances

And what are those mechanisms?

Well here are just some from Andrew’s list with references as always (some of these have been covered before so the substack links are provided)

(1) Insertional mutagenesis from plasmid DNA contamination

(2) Suppression of p53 and related DNA repair proteins

(3) Increase of PD-L1 and IgG4 shift

(4) Activation of cGAS-STING pathways

(5) Activation of microRNA pathways (oncomirs)

(6) SV40 promoter activity

(7) Suppression of TLR pathways

And don’t just take our word for it.

Here’s our exalted AI (on the verge of being your doctor, researcher, oncologist bla bla) in the form of GPT4 outlining7 just 5 examples of how one of those mechanisms - insertional mutagenesis - can cause cancer.

1. LMO2 Activation in T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (T-ALL) (ref)

2. MYC Activation in Burkitt Lymphoma (ref)

3. TERT Activation in Multiple Cancers (ref)

4. CCND1 Activation in Mantle Cell Lymphoma (ref)

5. RET Activation in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma (PTC) (ref)

And again, don’t just take our word for it.

Here is GPT4’s summary of the paper “Mechanisms of Oncogenesis” by Guleria & Sambyal from 2023 with the prompt “summarise in a table the mechanisms of oncogenesis as outlined in this paper”. Note this is not GPT4 providing the answers to the mechanism question, it is just summarising a peer reviewed paper on the subject.

And if you really want to know how complex this can be our friend Genervter has been working for 3+ years on the pathways disturbed by just the COVID mRNA vaccines resulting in a 7-part substack and another friend Doorless Carp has a 3-part substack just on the subject of the possible mechanisms of cancer arising from interfering with cell pathways using genetic technology biologics.

To get a taste of how complex the cellular pathways that are impacted by messing about with cellular RNA are… here is a simplified (no, I’m not kidding) slide from Genervter’s extensive investigation.

On that slide is just one pathway known to be impacted by COVID RNA vaccines - the Ras-Raf-MAPK pathway - yet it’s one of the most famous pathways involved with the development of cancer. You really don’t want to mess with that unless you know what you are doing, trust me - people have been trying for decades.

So if you think Pfizer and Moderna can just pop along with a gene therapy that doesn’t impact these complex pathways an analogy would be to take a chain saw to a set of blinking traffic lights and say “there, we fixed that blinking light” - and expect nothing else to go wrong.

And yes, again, it’s a gene therapy. The ASGCT, which is the world’s leading gene therapy authority says so (as does legislation from around the world). Here is a clip from their video (sponsored by Pfizer) which clearly describes gene therapy as using DNA or RNA to produce proteins from your cells, which is exactly what the COVID vaccines do.

So just to summarise where we have got to so far:

"Turbo cancer is a myth" is fake news written by a guy who has no qualifications to write it.  

There are a myriad of mechanisms for the COVID genetic vaccines to cause cancer or accelerate existing cancer.

The presence of plasmid DNA contamination is the most important factor making these therapies high risk for cancer.

The authorities are not looking for increases in cancer incidence but the data that exist shows that cancers have increased already.

High profile scientists are brought out to suppress this information but without any knowledge of the mechanisms involved

Don’t take our word for it

Although genetic therapies don’t need to change your DNA to have their effect, the presence of such massive plasmid contamination in the COVID vaccines significantly increases the risk of DNA integration, one of the mechanisms by which cancers can occur.

So, did the regulators look for DNA integration or alteration following COVID vaccines?

Of course not. But they don’t tell you this - you have to sue them for the information.

And yet again, I don’t want you just to take my word for this - the pharma corporations know that this is a problem. It’s in their SEC filings and patents.

And not only did they know about this problem (well this is just one mechanism, there are so many others) they deliberately hid it by hiding the dangerous parts of the plasmid map (the blueprint for making the RNA) that they submitted to the regulators in every country. It’s not even an accident - you can’t generate these maps from standard software without them automatically annotating the dangerous cancer-causing SV40 sequences.

So they took them out before submitting these maps to the FDA, TGA, EMA and MHRA. Of course, what else do you expect from a company that has been convicted of criminal healthcare fraud?

Furthermore, the plasmid contamination problem that Pfizer tried to hide in this way was known about by the FDA two decades ago. Here is what they said about the presence of plasmid contamination and risk of cancer in 2007:

Theoretical concerns regarding DNA integration include the risk of tumorigenisis if insertion reduces the activity of a tumor suppressor or increases the activity of an oncogene. In addition, DNA integration may result in chromosomal instability through the induction of chromosomal breaks or rearrangements.

We recommend that the sensitivity of this assay be sufficient to quantify <100 copies of plasmid per microgram of host DNA. A claim of “non-persistence” requires that the amount of plasmid at each site falls below this limit of quantification.

And how much did the pharma companies and regulators eventually admit to being present in the COVID vaccines (the “safe” 10ng limit)?

A lot. In the GPT discussion referenced earlier, here is the calculation of how much “100 copies per mcg” is in relation to how much was actually in the products

That’s right. Ignoring the fact that independent analysis has identified plasmid DNA contamination of over 10x the allowed limit, the official limit for DNA contamination is nearly two million copies of plasmid DNA. And you only need one plasmid to disrupt the DNA in one cell to cause cancer.

The odds are stacked against you, but nobody told you that when they labelled it a “vaccine” did they?

Worse still, if that contaminating plasmid contains an SV40 element your risk of cancer shoots up. The FDA and TGA and EMA know this, because SV40 contamination of vaccines has happened before.

It’s important to understand that the contamination of the COVID vaccines doesn’t include the whole SV40 virus but the “SV40 promoter/enhancer” which is literally the most dangerous part of the whole virus from a molecular biology perspective. This is because it will turn on any gene it gets next to and never turn it off. If that’s a cell cycle gene and it is active the result will be unregulated growth of any affected cells - which is cancer.

And it’s not just us saying this is a huge risk, every AI engine says so too as does this paper from December. The only people that don’t seem to know about this are the regulators.

But Helen Petousis-Harris says vaccines prevent cancers!

Well now we know what we know let’s go back to the NZ Queen of vaccinology’s statement above:

To cause cancer, a vaccine would need to interfere with the DNA, particularly the genes that control cell division… There are no components in the vaccine that can do this.

Well, clearly Helen doesn’t know what she’s talking about because I have listed above (with evidence from multiple sources) that there are elements that can interfere with DNA AND integrate with it AND cause disruption of cell division genes under the right circumstances.

But because Helen is a “vaccinologist” - not a molecular biologist - she doesn’t care to gain knowledge about such things as p53 and MAPK pathways. Vaccinologists just regurgitate the pharma line that “vaccines don’t cause cancer” completely ignoring that the COVID vaccines are gene therapy, not vaccines.

Even then, it is not known whether “vaccines don’t cause cancer” because there has never been a long term randomised controlled trial to look at this question, which is what is needed: it took 50 years for the realisation that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) caused breast cancer after the pharma companies spent billions (and are still trying) telling us that it didn’t.

So I guess in one way she is right. If you don’t look for cancers and hide your head in the sand you won’t find them. This has a legal term - wilful blindness - and is a form of gross negligence.

Furthermore Helen Petousis-Harris has form. In 2016, a very honourable senior scientist - Dr Sin Han Lee, who had discovered concerning levels of plasmid contamination of HPV vaccines - released a public affidavit alleging serious misconduct from Petousis-Harris and her Pharma cronies including lying in legal documents.

Yet we recently found out the true character of Petousis-Harris after a brutal take down of her false claims on twitter led to her deleting her twitter account and then creating a substack account to try to fight back. Except the substack article that she wrote was not only written by ChatGPT (without declaration) but the prompts used to write the article were switched so that it was clear that parts of the response had been copied and pasted in places to make it look like ChatGPT was giving answers supporting her, when it wasn’t. It was blatant manipulation and she was busted by the mouse who asked her to share the chat link….

…following which she promptly deleted her twitter account then reactivated her account later with a change of name to the ridiculous “Trash Trawler”. No I’m not kidding (you can trace twitter accounts by various methods to show it’s the same account).

This single unnecessary and ridiculous act demonstrated that Helen Petousis-Harris was prepared to fabricate an article to get her way and totally vindicates Dr Sin Han Lee.

But there is more to the story involving Helen Petousis-Harris because one of the reasons that she is rolled out by the media is because she is now director of the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) which is a consortium put together by Big Pharma corporations to tell the population that all their vaccine products are safe.

And of course the GVDN finds that the COVID vaccines are perfectly safe. Which might have something to do with the fact that the GVDN is part of the “Vaccine Safety Net” which is another conglomerate of organisations that include the “Vaccine Confidence Project” whose partners include this motley crew who I’m sure are going to tell you when their drugs are killing people or causing cancers.

And the reason that we know that the GVDN data, published last year completely ignoring the epidemic of cancers, is pharma derived junk, is this universal statement from “large EMR datasets that we have no control over”:

In case you don’t know why that’s a problem you would have to read the last article about synthetic data sets curated and cleaned by pharma companies and regurgitated by academics who have no idea whether they are fake or not.

Anyway, back to our GVDN chief Helen. Here she is in 2021 on mainstream TV telling the population that despite people dying after the vaccine it’s not related to the vaccine. Because there is no chance that any of these vaccinologists will admit that any vaccine may cause deaths. [2:19]

Of course Helen’s funding by these pharma companies is never mentioned in any of her appearances, but it’s there. You just have to look for it.

But the “Global Vaccine Data Network” is totally superfluous and seems to be an obvious front for Pharma, who can use it to push their cleaned up version of thae actual vaccine safety monitoring programs such as VAERS (and equivalents around the world).

VAERS of course is the official vaccine safety database. It is the one that was agreed to by pharma when they bullied the US government into removing all liability for vaccines. And what does VAERS say about deaths following COVID vaccines in comparison to other vaccines? Well it says that there are around 50x the number of death reports per million doses of vaccine for COVID vaccines. If you look carefully at Jessica’s slide you will see this tiny orange column for influenza vaccine deaths compared to the stonking one on the right for COVID vaccines.

So on one hand we have Helen Petousis-Harris’s GSK-backed groups telling us that there are no deaths from COVID vaccines. And on the other the official VAERS data reporting portal telling us that there are at least 50x the number of death reports made to official government reporting portals. I wonder who we should believe?

It might also be worth mentioning here that Helen Petousis-Harris was famously caught in emails obtained under FOI8 knowing about the increased risk of pertussis in infants whose mothers received the vaccines in pregnancy yet failing to declare this to the public. Maybe she will be remembered as Helen “Pertussis-Harris”.

But to close the loop on the GVDN here is their official pre-bunk of this article

And in the cancer section, just to reaffirm that the author (Helen) doesn’t actually understand this (and why she deleted her tweets and then twitter account) she quotes this graph to “prove that there is no increase in cancers” (contrary to the ABS and AIHW data that I have shown).

It looks like a slam dunk for Helen except for the fact that she didn’t read the bit on the right of her own graph that says

2020-2023 data are estimated

Neither did she go to the source data at the AIHW which tells you that they are not reporting the bit that we are interested in, because these are projections from pre-COVID (vaccine) data.

Yet here is the actual death certificate data (the only other up-to-date cancer related data available) sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

So we have multiple official source data telling us that there has been a significant increase in cancer incidence and cancer deaths since 2021, and the only source telling us that there isn’t is controlled by Pharma and some guy with a moose knuckle.

Who could have predicted that?

And don’t get me wrong, it’s not just Helen Petousis-Harris and the GVDN. The actuaries told us too. Yes that’s right the same actuaries who starred in a previous article that upset them a lot around the time that the Australian Actuaries Institute deleted their twitter account when their conflicts of interest were exposed.

Well according to this report everything is hunky-dory. The only problem is that the “lack of excess mortality” quoted is based on a comparison to 2023. No, really. So mortality deaths didn’t jump in 2024 when compared to 2023. Well blow me down with a feather.

The cancer section (which whitewashed the impact of excess mortality due to cancer) was written by Adele Groyer, who notably posted this meaningless chart as proof of absence of an impact of the COVID vaccines on cancer deaths as it completely ignores the pre-vaccine baseline and the big red alert boxes in the cancer section of its own chart…

… and the irony of this whitewashing of the COVID vaccine and turbo cancers question became stark just a few months later when Adele died at 44 of what appears to be a very rapidly progressive cancer. Bear in mind that it is very unusual to succumb so quickly to cancer in this age group because of their ability to tolerate the most aggressive treatments.

The frustration of course is that those of us that are trying to find out why there is a sudden increase in cancers, particularly in the small but significant number of rapidly progressive cancers reported, are thwarted by the very groups that are supposed to be independent.

“But vaccines prevent cancer - look at HPV and Hepatitis”

In this last section I’m just going to address this common call from the “vaccinologists” armed with their 2-week diplomas. To remind you I’ll requote our Helen from earlier.

In contrast, we have two vaccines in widespread use that prevent cancer, human papillomavirus and hepatitis B vaccines.

Is this true?

Well, the answer is that it is not proven. And even if it was proven you would have to show that for a each vaccine, any downstream side effects or risk of cancer (e.g. from the presence of plasmids that shouldn’t be there) was outweighed by any protection from cancer of the vaccine itself. Bear in mind that the HPV and Hepatitis vaccines are also recombinant vaccines and therefore potentially subject to the same risks we are discussing here and in the previous article:

So it’s not enough to say “this treatment prevents death from road accidents in the Amazon forest” if it increases your risk of death from snake bites.

There are two vaccines that are referred to above - the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer and the Hepatitis B vaccine to prevent liver cancer. Both are relatively uncommon cancers in the developed world with a cumulative lifetime incidence of less than 2%. But reducing the incidence of this cancers is important. About 50% of liver cancers are thought to be related to Hepatitis B and up to 90% of cervical cancers are related to the HPV types in the current vaccines. So preventing these would be great.

There is only one problem, that not a single randomised controlled trial of repute shows that this happens. In the case of HPV we would love to see a drop in cervical cancer incidence but it hasn’t yet happened despite Australia being the first to roll out the HPV vaccine program in 2007.

The arguments for the lack of significant impact to date of the HPV vaccine are too complex for this article but it just goes to show that preventing cancer is multi-factorial and not as simple as people like Larry Ellison or Tedros might think. For instance if reliance on HPV vaccination has the effect of discouraging screening (which is proven to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality) the overall impact could be to increase not decrease cervical cancer rates. Like preventing car crashes in the Amazon forest.

But wait, didn’t the huge randomised controlled trials for the HPV vaccine show a reduction in pre-cancers of the cervix at least?

Well here’s the thing. When you look at the rates of cervical pre-cancer from the later HPV9 study and compare it to the rates in the original HPV4 study the rates of all-cause pre-cancer are essentially the same, around 14 per 1000 person-years.

Note that this information is buried in the supplementary data, it’s not front and centre. And note also that this is a similar bait-and-switch that we showed the pharma companies pulling in the Israeli COVID data.

And this is the kind of problem we’re faced with. In order to get a working treatment for anything we need clear open and transparent data so that we don’t spend all our resources on things that end up not being as effective as the drug company initially claimed and we can actually look for the thing that would be more effective. Instead, we end up relying on the golden calf of the likes of GSK and Merck who drain the coffers and ensure that independent pharma companies - who might actually care whether their products worked - are ignored or pushed out of the scene altogether.

Are Turbo Cancers Real Then?

Well I think there is enough information in this article for you to have made a decision on this. That comes down to whether you believe the sparse data that the government are unable to hide against the data that you are freely given but is underpinned by the very corporations that make the drugs.

What is certain is :

1. that the regulators did not monitor the population for cancers after the rollout of a novel vaccine technology

2. that multiple mechanisms are proven to exist that can cause new cancers or enhance existing cancers and that relate to these technologies

3. that the regulators were unaware of the complexity of these mechanisms when they approved the vaccines

4. that there is a huge network of propaganda underpinned by pharma whose job is to silence any discussion of this issue

But I think the most effective image of the last 3 years to resolve this debate is that of Professor Michel Goldman, who published his own case report following his COVID mRNA vaccines. After his first set of vaccines he developed lymphoma. And not believing that “Turbo Cancer” could be a thing he dutifully got his booster.

The rest, as they say, is history.

4

AIHW collated data include R code to collate from AIHW DRG data cube files (need to be saved as csv for each year with name AIHW_DRG_yyyy.csv)

Aihw Separations 2015 2022

397KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

Download

8

Source article https://www.vaccinssansaluminium.org/autisme-et-vaccination-la-fin-dun-mythe/

And it was prompted by this question posted by the amusingly enigmatic Jurassic Carl:

Followed by a suitably captioned version of the famous Litovchenko painting of Charon carrying souls across the river Styx as encountered in Greek mythology such as in Homer’s Odyssey.

Of course most will know that Hades is the god of the underworld and not exactly a good guy to be revered. Which is why all these terms are lapped up by people who really want to bash you with their demonic symbolism. And it’s really not the sort of thing you want to see in medicine.

Which made OHDSI (Odyssey, get it?) so creepy when we saw all the names they had attached to its derivates some time back… “White Rabbit”, “Rabbit in a Hat” and HADES at the end of the whole pipeline. All very fluffy stuff really, if you’re into the Greek underworld stuff1.

What the Hell is OHDSI?

I have to jump in early here to explain what OHDSI is so you will understand the rest of the story, which is a doozy. You see OHDSI is an organisation or a framework that is supposedly intended to curate health data from multiple institutions, so researchers can use that data for honest research.

In general, when you go to a hospital you carry with you a whole bunch of useful health data such as your age, ethnicity, drug history, medical history, family history, smoking etc etc. In theory we can use all that information from the billions of people entering hospital to see what drugs and risk factors might influence health outcomes.

Sounds good right? Unfortunately every hospital has its own database and they don’t usually talk to each other. So one way around this is to use common fields and languages (such as the OMOP model noted above) and try and get databases to talk to each other.

But in that process there needs to be ethical approval to skim your data, because you didn’t agree to it being shared with people that you don’t know, such as the Jeffrey Epstein affiliated group in the UK processing your personal data via China, right?

And getting ethical approval to skim health data in multiple countries at the same time is pretty much impossible, and was how we busted Surgisphere - currently the biggest medical fraud scandal in history.

And you don’t have to believe me about this idea that collating data from multiple systems in multiple countries is neigh on impossible - listen to the people trying to do it. According to Lora Frayling2 from the creepily named but NHS-based Simulacrum they fake it. In her words

“Data release processes can be inefficient, time-consuming and sometimes infeasible”

Note the partners for the HDI in the slide above - including NHS digital (linked to HDRUK, the data skimming organisation headed by Ben Goldacre) and the UKHSA.

When the going gets too tough, fake it till you make it with synthetic data.

Yes, that’s right. The data isn’t real. Sure, real data might go into the system but what comes out after the “White Rabbit” and “Rabbit in a hat” has dealt with it is anybody’s guess.

And who is behind all this stuff?

Pharma of course. They don’t even hide it

If you want to join these people and their “data collaboration” you can - of course you have to jump through hoops to do it and be from an approved institute (where Pharma holds the purse strings and can keep an eye on what you’re doing).

Just join the journey (into the underworld, presumably)…

Whilst we’re here with the whole Greek stuff going on it’s worth noting that these guys chose the Caduceus as their symbol. If you don’t know your Caduceus from your Asclepius, you should read Clare Craig’s substack article3. Suffice to say - Caduceus = bad, Asclepius = good. Of course, Pharma tends to choose the caduceus as their logo.

Which I guess nicely ties into the whole “Hades” theme [eye roll]

So what has this got to do with Surgisphere? Pretty much everything really.

Surgisphere and the Big Data Con

Surgisphere was supposed to be one of the first incarnations of this idea that a huge data repository could be used to generate health data for research. It was on superficial inspection some sort of shell company and couldn’t possibly have handled the amount of data that they said they had access to, but the head of the company was a wide boy who went round the world telling people how cool this all was.

Pretty much everything about Surgisphere (registered as QuartzClinical) has been scrubbed from the internet but here is the Crunchbase archive of its employees.

They were supposed to be managing such a massive data repository (millions of patients, such that they found 98,000 hospitalised with COVID). All this supposedly managed by one doctor. Not happening, sorry.

Despite that, Sapan Desai was welcomed with a fanfare around the world including Brisbane in 2018 espousing how super this data repository was, earning Desai “The international grand prize in healthcare quality by the International Hospital Federation in 2015.”. Shame I missed the conference.

Despite the smiles he turned out to be a total fraud and have no idea how to verify the data set that he was handed on a plate (by someone, we still don’t know who). It was totally fabricated but he sold it to the world as real. And if we hadn’t made a fuss, he could have gotten away with it.

But he didn’t. For those who want to revisit the history Chris Martenson pretty much got the internet warriors together in one video that led to the demise and exposure of Desai. You might recognise some of the players (of course censored in the aftermath).

The bottom line from the Surgisphere fraud is this

The Surgisphere fraud was able to happen because:

(1) the authors claimed to use Electronic Health Record (EHR) data that could not be audited or verified and refused to release the data for public inspection.

(2) they used the backing of big institutions to support their authenticity, but those institutions were themselves conflicted by huge pharma payments.

It was a recipe for disaster and all that needed to happen for it to happen again was the same recipe.

And sure enough, we didn’t need to wait long. But before I go into that I just need to explain the Data Transparency Problem

The Data Transparency Problem

If you want to run a study, particularly to promote a drug (which by nature means that you are advertising a benefit), then you need to have data that is verifiable. Otherwise pharma can just make claims that their drugs work and can make a fortune on a fraud.

For a registered Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) it is actually very difficult for Pharma to cheat. This is because the software used for the trial participants is locked and would need to be hacked. There are other ways to cheat of course, but it is not straightforward.

However, observational studies (where institutes look at the outcomes of interventions after the event rather than in a controlled trial) are very susceptible to data manipulation because you are now simply relying on the probity of the people collecting the data, there is no locked down software barrier to prevent them from either outright fraud or subconsciously manipulating the data to be favourable to a preconceived idea. A good example is the recent Scottish HPV vaccination study which was claimed to have shown an impact of the HPV vaccine but the authors skewed the data with older women in the unvaccinated arm, which is the main risk factor for developing cervical cancer.

To counter this problem the ICJME in 2016 asked for full data transparency

The proposal read as follows:

ICMJE proposes to require authors to share with others the deidentified individual-patient data (IPD) underlying the results presented in the article (including tables, figures, and appendices or supplementary material) no later than 6 months after publication.

A backlash ensued and within a year the proposal had been watered down to “authors must report a data sharing proposal and publish a data sharing statement”. Yawn.

What that meant was that the 2016 proposals were totally ignored and gave a blank cheque to pharma, because no studies would be mandated to release their data for public inspection as the 2016 proposal had requested.

The OpenSafely Hydroxychloroquine Scam

In a further twist of irony, the person who was the most vocal about making trial data open and transparent was Ben Goldacre. He was so forthright on this he sold books on it and did interviews even until 2016.

Yet something changed soon after this when he was appointed to head up HDRUK with the Epstein-affiliated Nicole Junkermann on the board and was given a prominent position at Oxford university (academic home of the UK vaccine industry).

HDRUK was an institute convened by the UK health minister (Matt Hancock) and the NHS in order to collate the health data of UK NHS patients (without their explicit consent) for research purposes. It was linked to a repository overseen by Ben Goldacre called OpenSafely run out of Oxford which was supposed to be used by researchers for the same purpose of giving them access to patient level data.

You may notice that the partners are interesting - Nuffield/Oxford is the home of the Astrazeneca vaccine and TPP is a Chinese company running the software your GP types into. EMIS is another health records company.

So Opensafely can take your health data and do what it wants with it, including having it processed in China.

The first thing that OpenSafely did was publish a paper during COVID that, like the Surgisphere paper did, tried to show that hydroxychloroquine was not effective for COVID. Except it conveniently left out the fact that the population it studied had less than half the mortality of the rest of the UK for COVID during this time, at 0.2%.

In that paper was a massive list of conflicts of interest but the worst irony was the Data Sharing Statement, for which 4 years earlier Goldacre was the most vocal proponent of full data transparency. But, no, you can’t see this data. Just trust us that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work (when it clearly did with such a low fatality rate).

As far as the parallels to the Surgisphere paper go (it was successful at stopping all trials conducted around the world for hydroxychloroquine in COVID) this paper of Goldacre’s, which fulfilled the criteria necessary to create a fraudulent paper listed above, helped stop any chance of hydroxychloroquine research being resurrected.

But there was one other paper that was even worse. That was the Lane paper, by first author Jennifer Lane - an otherwise unheard of orthopaedic registrar.

Published in the same journal (Lancet Rheumatology) as the Goldacre OPENsafely paper and making an impossible claim:

The impossible claim was that they (meaning Jennifer Lane as the first author, without any formal grounding in research) found a cohort of nearly a million hydroxychloroquine users from 14 databases in the world of whom one third (over 300,000 people) were also taking azithromycin.

The result of the study was that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increased your risk of death.

The problem was, that the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin is not used as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis or any condition. The whole paper had no basis on which to find such a cohort of 300,000 people - international databases or not.

And no, you can’t see the data. And guess who provided it? OHDSI did. It’s in their data non-sharing statement (which sounds like they are sharing data but they aren’t because the patient-level data is blocked).

In fact this study was so impossible, outside of the 300,000 combined drug users, that it came with a 136 page appendix. Appendices of this length are in practice only ever seen in pharma studies, they would never be generated by a lone researcher working even as part of a clinical group. In this case the group co-authors are mostly related to the OHDSI group with big players such as Patrick Ryan curating the data for Jennifer Lane and with a lot of influence from IQVIA, the largest medical data curator in the world and data handler for a number of vaccine studies. The conflicts and acknowledgements read like a who’s-who for the Pharma industry and the first author probably had no idea what she was being fronted for. The paper has “pharma written and pharma curated” all over it.

So just to summarise what the existence of these Surgisphere-like papers means

1. Curated data sets are created by entities linked to pharma corporations taking in genuine health data (without express consent)

2. New data is synthesised by OHDSI or Opensafely (both using the same models) based on existing input data, but with the ability to manipulate as required

3. The data sets are NEVER released for public inspection (data sharing)

4. Papers are published by major institutes which are usually funded by pharma interests and appear to be genuine

For those who prefer this pictorially…

And for whatever reason the three groups that were determined to show you that hydroxychloroquine didn’t work (when we know that it did) were:

Surgisphere (proven fake),

OPENsafely (data withheld) and

OHDSI-IQVIA (data withheld).

All those organisations had these two things in common:

(1) the authors claimed to use Electronic Health Record (EHR) data that could not be audited or verified and refused to release the data for public inspection.

(2) they used the backing of big institutions to support their authenticity, but those institutions were themselves conflicted by huge pharma payments.

The Grand Finale - Penn and Everything

The realisation of the above was brought to the fore by this paper released recently, which ostensibly claims that the COVID mRNA (specifically Pfizer) vaccine prevented “long COVID” in kids by 95%. Here’s the headline

If you have been following along you should realise that the “Real-world effectiveness” label is a cliché from OHDSI-type publications.

Note that this is the same Patrick Ryan as featured in the Jennifer Lane paper earlier, and works for Janssen (which is Johnson & Johnson, one of the biggest pharma corporations in the world).

So, is this paper from University of Pennsylvania another OHDSI curated data set?

It sure is.

And apart from claiming that the COVID vaccines prevented “long COVID” using data that we are not allowed to see4….

the study itself claimed that the reason that “long COVID” was prevented by the COVID vaccines is that the COVID vaccines had a 96% efficacy at preventing infection. Here’s their data.

There is of course no possibility that this is real.

Even similarly “stacked” data from the CDC couldn’t get above 50% by fixing the data and most notably the whole “COVID vaccines prevent infection” dogma was destroyed when the CDC released the Massachusetts study which proved that the vaccines did not prevent infection.

Most people will remember that the narrative at that time shifted away from “prevents infection” to “prevents death”, partly as a result of the Massachusetts study which showed that there was no reduction in infection rate in the vaccinated during the “Delta” outbreak.

It seems that OHDSI didn’t get the memo though because their data was published in 2024 and claimed a 96% effectiveness against preventing infection, which had never been achieved anywhere.

So it was not possible.

It would mean that for every vaccinated person that you know that got COVID, there would be 24 vaccinated people that you knew that never got COVID.

Nobody knows a group of people like that - the claim is provably fake.

But it tells us one really really important thing.

You see there is a famous principle in law (e.g. US v Throckmorton) known as “Fraud vitiates everything”. It means that if someone lies about something, or uses false information that they pass off as real, then the presumption falls that any information derived from that is also false (or fraudulent).

And this applies to ALL the observational studies used to tell you that the COVID vaccines prevented infection.

All of them.

That applies to the University of Pennsylvania Yong Chen study quoted above, all the way back to the first study pretending that COVID vaccines prevented infection (92% quoted efficacy) by Dagan in Israel.

Bear in mind this study was thoroughly debunked by Prof Mark Reeder but shows the extent that invested interests will go to to create studies based on data that they claim is real but cannot be verified by anybody independently.

So, what did the UPenn researchers do when it was pointed out to them that their data was not verifiable, not credible, and because it was curated by Pharma via OHDSI almost certain to be Surgisphere-level junk?

They delete their accounts

Or, worse still, ignore and deflect. The worst example of this has to be handed to Jeffrey Morris, co-author on the Yong Chen “96% efficacy against infection” paper and co-author on multiple papers espousing the “real world effectiveness” of the COVID vaccines (all based on curated data which cannot be verified). His institute, University of Pennsylvania, is a well know Pharma money pit and hosts Drew Weissman the co-inventor of the very technology that was never tested but that you were forced to take to keep your job, even though it didn’t work. But I’m sure that’s just coincidence.

What isn’t coincidence is the use of the Alice in Wonderland analogy when your whole data set was subject to “White Rabbit Data Synthesis”

The response to which was damning from Grok, twitter’s AI - which explains the controversy and the derisory response

OHDSI and Data Synthesis: The post mentions "White Rabbit" and "Rabbit in a Hat," which are tools used in the OHDSI (Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics) suite for data profiling and mapping. These tools are part of a framework designed to handle and analyze observational health data within the OMOP (Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership) Common Data Model. They help in understanding and transforming source data into a standardized format for analysis.

Controversy Over Data Privacy and Integrity: The user @Jikkyleaks expresses skepticism about the integrity of the data used in studies funded by pharmaceutical companies, suggesting that these data sets might be curated or manipulated. This skepticism is part of a broader discussion on data privacy and transparency in medical research, where access to raw data for independent verification is often limited.

Comparison with Medical Scandals: The post draws a parallel to historical medical data scandals, like the one involving Google DeepMind and NHS patient data, implying that similar issues could be present with the data sets used by OHDSI. This comparison highlights concerns about how health data is handled, shared, and potentially misused by third parties, echoing past incidents where patient data privacy was compromised.

Yet the twitter spat is irrelevant.

What this all means is that ALL the observational studies that were relied upon by public authorities to reinforce the false claim that the COVID vaccines prevented infection (and therefore the results of infection) must be considered fake unless their data is open to public scrutiny. 

Now that’s a problem, because all those studies were relied upon by every defendant in every vaccine mandate case in the courts, and every government dictat that mandated your vaccine for work relied on those very publications.

How do we find out whether these studies are fake?

It will require government or legal action, because they are all hidden behind the same data “non-sharing” agreements.

The worse offenders are those that have the two criteria listed above but I’ll repeat again here:

(1) the authors claimed to use Electronic Health Record (EHR) data that could not be audited or verified and refused to release the data for public inspection.

(2) they used the backing of big institutions to support their authenticity, but those institutions were themselves conflicted by huge pharma payments.

I’ll add a third

(3) the authors are affiliated directly or indirectly with OPENsafely, OHDSI or IQVIA and/or have never verified their data against real-life patients

These criteria encompass most if not all of the observational studies that were relied upon by the courts and the government to impose vaccine mandates on the population and to prop up the pharma corporations’ false claims.

Every paper that fulfils these criteria must be allowed to be independently verified and if they are found to be fraudulent there has to be criminal consequences.

If not, we will rapidly approach our descent into pharma hell.

I’m not going peacefully.

[Note: For those on twitter the conversation is running under the hashtags #OHDSI, #EMRgate, #OHDSIgate, #PennGate and probably a few others]

2

Synthetic Data slides from Lora Frayling at Simulacrum/HDI UK

Synthetic Data Lora Frayling 2

1.53MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Two things have happened this week that - when combined - are going to shine the light on a decades-long scandal that the pharmaceutical corporations, particularly those making vaccines, appear desperate to suppress.

In fact, if they are unable to keep a lid on the information in this article, the floodgates may open to the largest pharma lawsuits in history.

The Port Hedland Incident

The first of these events is the dramatic passage of the Port Hedland council motion1 in Australia last week to

(1) recognise that there is unacceptable levels of plasmid DNA contamination of the “mRNA” COVID vaccines and
(2) to inform recipients of said vaccines, and health practitioners, of this contaminant.

[The story is covered by the excellent Alison Bevage here including articles from Rebekah Barnett and Julian Gillespie with more details on the background to the vote here and Russell Broadbent MP’s letter to the Prime Minister here]

Of the two councillors that voted to continue to keep the citizens in the dark on this issue, one was the mayor who managed to get himself embroiled in a scandal of his own in 2022 whilst on a video meeting with a school board receiving some Vietnamese strawberries in a rather unorthodox manner. There was no suggestion at the time of writing that Mayor Carter’s voting decision was in any way compromised by his holiday escapades. It should be recognised however that Mayor Carter did dye his hair for last week’s event (in case you don’t recognise him).

Note that Port Hedland council is not just any council, it presides over one of the most economically powerful areas of Australia. So this is not just any council vote and because the motion also carried that the information on the plasmid (DNA) contamination scandal be distributed to health practitioners this would likely be the first time that health practitioners are formally being advised of this significant danger. That is, although we have been shouting about this since #plasmidgate was first exposed in early 2023 the story has been heavily suppressed. I’ll explain more about plasmids below.

The Gardasil Incident

The second thing that has happened is the bombshell exposé released today by Maryanne Demasi of exactly the same problem in the Gardasil HPV vaccinations discovered all the way back in 2011.

Yes, those are the same HPV vaccinations that you were told were safe when your daughter’s school sent out flyers which just forgot to mention the residual plasmid DNA known by the FDA to be a contaminant in the Gardasil vaccine (and others, which we will come to).

At the same time the official information leaflets told you that there were products in there that didn’t really have an explanation - they just omitted the bit where some of these ingredients just happen to be chemicals that can act as transfection agents, which can carry DNA into the cells of the recipients - potentially permanently.

I’ll just point out in passing that in that list is a lot of HPV antigen to take in one injection - 270 micrograms. For comparison, the Hepatitis B vaccine (Engerix) has 20 micrograms. It’s equivalent to being injected with 13 injections of Hep B vaccine, each of a different strain. Of course nobody has ever looked at whether having that much antigen or having 9 strains of antigen at the same time is safe in the short or long term. The FDA’s Paul Offit (who has millions of dollars of vested interests in the vaccine industry) said so, but has so far declined to take the 10,000 vaccines in one go that he also claims is safe. A recent dramatic illustration of how, although vaccines in comparison to most drugs are relatively safe, there is no such thing as an absolutely safe drug is highlighted by the shocking event that befell Alexis Lorenze - who turned purple within 3 hours of a meningococcal vaccine (containing 5 different strains) given at a time when she was already acutely unwell2.

However concerning the overloading of the immune system with multiple strains (each of which has to recruit a different set of immune cells to deal with) might be, what we’re interested in here is the bit down at the bottom. The quiet part. Here it is:

Amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate is included in the vaccine as an adjuvant. Adjuvants are included to improve the immune response of vaccines.

The other ingredients in the vaccine suspension are: sodium chloride, histidine, polysorbate 80 (E433), borax (E285) and water for injections

In fact, we’re not even interested in all of those. We’re just interested in the ones that can act as transfection agents.

What the hell is a transfection agent?

Briefly, in order to get nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) into a cell you need to transfect the cell. It’s how the mRNA vaccines work, by transferring foreign genetic material (RNA or DNA) into the cell - a process that should not normally happen.

I’ve covered it all here if you have time:

Although human cells are generally protected from being “infected” with foreign nucleic acid there are methods that are used in labs to bypass these protection mechanisms to get foreign DNA into cells (which is where the “transfection” term comes in).

The methods are basically any of:

1. to punch a hole in the cell wall so that you can carry the DNA into the cell

2. to use a chemical usually required by the cell to carry the DNA into the cell like a trojan horse

3. to electrocute the cell (electroporation)

Apart from electrocution, which is somewhat impractical for whole human use, the only ways to get DNA into cells is to use a chemical agent that facilitates the process. The commonest of these are “cationic” particles, i.e. those made up of positively charged components. Another option is detergents or soaps, which literally punch holes in cells and provided they survive that process you will get your transfection.

So why does this matter?

It matters if you don’t want a lab-reagent plasmid transferred into your cells that can cause cancer or other genetic diseases. That’s right. The reason that lab plasmids are not allowed into the general circulation is that they contain elements that can cause havoc in human cells. In the presence of a transfection agent that process of transfer is almost guaranteed.

What most people don’t realise is that there are a LOT of substances that can act as transfection agents - chemicals that can transfer that DNA into cells. The commonly known ones are:

1. Lipids (lipofectamine, lipid nanoparticles)

2. Calcium Phosphate

3. Gold and Silver nanoparticles

These are all positively charged (cationic) particles and are either lipids or metallic anions (yes Calcium is a metal) and are highly efficient transfection agents.

But they are not the only ones. You see, all you really need is the right circumstances and usually a positively charged particle (with an appropriate zeta potential) to carry your nucleic acid into your cell - because the inside of the cell that you want to get to is a relatively negative charge, and opposites attract.

So which other agents can be used for transfection, that are not commonly regarded as transfection agents?

Here’s a little list to remember - it includes either transfection agents that can act alone, or agents that are enhancers of transfection where other agents exist.

1. Polysorbate (Tween), which is a surfactant/emulsifier (reference)

2. Metallic cations including Aluminium, Zirconium and Cerium (reference3)

3. Soaps such as saponins used as the “novel” adjuvant in Novavax (reference)

4. Histidine, a positively charged amino acid (reference)

Do you notice anything (apart from the fact that each of those claims is referenced)?

They are all adjuvants for vaccines, and pretty much every vaccine has at least one of these but some have more than one. They are everywhere.

And the strange thing is that nobody really knows how they work, so why are they even there?

Shouldn’t the vaccine antigens - present in huge doses - be enough to induce immunity without needing these risky additional substances?

Well we may be able to answer that, at least with a cynical hat on soon.. but did you notice something else? Here, I’ll give you a clue.

3. Metallic cations including Aluminium…

That’s right. Aluminium (Aluminum for my US readers) can act as a transfection agent, yet it is the commonest adjuvant used in nearly all vaccines and for which the reason it works is not really known.

And for those doubters who think I’m making this up, here is the paper4 from Nils Link (2007) that shows it.

And here’s the very impressive graph of the transfection rates for Aluminium nanoparticles in HEK293 cells5, the same cells that Pfizer used to show their lipid nanoparticles could transfect cells at the same 90% rate.

In other words, Aluminium nanoparticles were as effective for transfection and binding of DNA as lipid nanoparticles.

Now, none of this will matter unless

1. The vaccine is created by recombinant technology (i.e. a protein or RNA vaccine derived from a plasmid coding for the viral or bacterial antigen of interest)

2. There is residual DNA from that plasmid in the vaccine

Which leaves us with a bit of an oops because, as mentioned above, the FDA knew that there was residual plasmid DNA in Gardasil (the HPV vaccine).

No biggie though, right? Aluminium is “just an adjuvant”.

Coincidentally, Gardasil’s HPV vaccine competitor - Cervarix - pretty much had the same system with an Aluminium-Lipid complex “adjuvant” which easily passes the criteria for a transfection agent.

So why the obsession with Aluminium nanoparticle adjuvants?

Well now it gets murkier, because the Link et al. paper discussed above was published in 2007, before Gardasil plasmid DNA - that was not meant to be there - was discovered hanging around in vaccine recipients long after receiving their vaccine6.

And that Link et al. paper was not by an organisation unfamiliar with looking into this, because very conveniently the same university popped up with a paper a few years earlier that showed that the “vaccines did not transfect plasmid DNA”.

Weird eh? I mean, why would they even be looking at that if these vaccines were just proteins and had no residual DNA or products in them that could act as transfection agents?

Here’s the paper - published in April 1999, coincidentally just a year after Andrew Wakefield’s contentious publication highlighting potential safety concerns over the combined MMR vaccine:

The lead author is Susanne Gonser, who was pretty much a one-hit wonder after writing a couple of papers and then moving into the world of pharma.

The problem with this paper is that it is short, poorly written and reinforces the complete lack of experience of the lead author who had never written a paper before and pretty much never touched the subject again. The paper has no transfection graphs and we are expected to believe that every vial tested with a plasmid had zero transfections. That wouldn’t happen. Even naked plasmids transfect a small amount, so zero is an unlikely number.

Furthermore, the chosen cell line is just weird. Nobody uses this cell line.

Just to illustrate this point I ran a Pubmed search for various different cell lines and their mentions. This is the result - only 2 papers on Pubmed with the search term “SW684 cells” and they are both written after that 1999 paper.

So why on earth would a paper come out in 1999 showing that “vaccine adjuvants can’t transfect plasmids in human cancer cells” using a cell line that nobody had ever used in a publication, and was subsequently rebutted by a paper from the same institute7?

Is it because the authors knew that these cell transfections were going to fail
(a) because some cells - like the chosen cell line - just don’t transfect easily
(b) if they did this experiment in the absence of Calcium they knew that it wouldn’t work anyway.

Add to that the fact that getting zeroes in all those tests is pretty much impossible in a real world lab scenario like this then what you have is a planned pre-bunk paper which was intended to get ahead of a story.

The story was buried for 25 years. And the story is this:

Every single recombinant vaccine that:
- uses a plasmid for its production and
- contains an adjuvant
has the risk of permanently transfecting (transferring plasmid DNA into) the cells of the recipient of that vaccine.

What’s a Plasmid Between Friends?

If you’ve got this far you might be asking yourself (prompted by professional debunkers such as Flora Teoh who are themselves funded by Pharma lobby groups):

What can be so bad about a plasmid?
If the regulators say it’s safe it must be safe, surely?

Well, there is some history there.

You see, plasmids are meant to be used in the lab. They are a lab DNA product that have multiple DNA inserts in them, mostly suited to their use in the bacteria they are adapted for. You really don’t want this lab material in your cells mixing with your cellular DNA. Trust me, you really don’t. Just like you don’t want to inject sodium hydroxide or hydrogen chloride.

Here’s what one of the COVID plasmids looks like via Kevin McKernan’s plasmid map. It’s a circular DNA. Cute, if you’re a lab nerd.

The plasmid contains DNA encoding the foreign viral spike protein (the red bit). That’s bad enough of course because this thing is asking you to continually produce spike protein from your own cells.

There’s more though. It also contains DNA coding for “NeoR/KanR” (the green bit) - which is an antibiotic resistance gene that can get into the environment via E Coli in your gut and create antibiotic-resistant superbugs. Fab.

If those two nasty things aren’t enough (and one of many reasons why plasmids are not meant to enter the public domain) you should be able to see the white arrow with “SV40 promoter” labelled.

Well, now that’s REALLY bad.

Why? Because the SV40 promoter/enhancer (the bit of the SV40 virus that makes genes go into overdrive) is used in lab experiments to turn genes on and never switch them off. They are used purposefully to get as much gene product out of cells as possible. Essentially flogging the cell until it drops.

The problem with this is that human cells were not designed to continually produce proteins via an SV40 promoter, which is why humans don’t have them.

The SV40 came from African Green Monkey cells, and it is known to cause cancer8. Like, a LOT of cancer.

It does this partly because it has a cancer causing protein in its make up but partly because its genetics include the very SV40 promoter that is in those COVID vaccine plasmids - the same genetic sequences that cause genes to go into overdrive - and if that’s a cell cycle gene then the cell will never stop dividing.

That is cancer. And that is why you do not put plasmids containing any part of SV40 or other oncogene into a human therapeutic. It’s an absolute no-no (unless you’re a psychopath of course).

How do we know this? Because the vaccine industry did it before.

Not only that, but ALL the drug regulators know about it - here’s the TGA’s report from 2004 explaining that SV40 contamination of polio vaccines carried such a risk of cancer that they needed to follow up the population for over 40 years. From ONE incident.

Tga Sv40 Alerts Medicine Polio Vaccine 041214

569KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

If you prefer a visual version of the story from someone who was on the ground at the time, here is a 15 minute snippet of an interview with neurosurgeon-turned-blogger Jack Kruse, who explains how the scandal of SV40 contamination of polio vaccines links back to the assassination of JFK. No, I’m not kidding.

It’s a riveting interview and every part of his story checks out including the reference to Bernice Eddy - who was the NIH epidemiologist who blew the whistle on the Cutter incident (where children were actually paralysed by the polio vaccine). Of course - because this is how it works - this discovery led to her censure.

Despite threats to her own career she then exposed the cancer-causing properties of SV40 viral contamination of polio vaccines - since which there is still no definitive proof that the world has ever been rid of the risk of cancer that arose from this one DNA contamination incident.

In fact, one highly regarded blogger and analyst has shown, with good evidence, that the increase in cancer incidence over time maps quite well to SV40 DNA contamination of polio vaccines in the 60s. We do not of course know whether this is true, but what we do know is that none of the regulators want us to talk about it, or provide the data on which we might be able to assess its validity.

So now you know about SV40 I’ll just recap the most important take-home message about the Cutter incident and SV40 polio vaccine contamination scandals, which is this:

The drug regulators who approve vaccines, and the vaccine makers who make them, have no liability for their decisions.  

The liability rests with you, the recipient. 

If you develop cancer as a result of a pharmaceutical which is designated as a vaccine, you cannot sue the manufacturers and you will not be able to prove it.   

You’re on your own. Until you die. 

Now don’t get me wrong. There may be valid reasons to accept these risks and essentially sign the most pervasive disclaimer of all time (mostly without your knowledge) - but that would rely on you being provided all the information.

And it appears that furnishing you with that information, in order to make an informed decision as to whether you should engage in this one-way contract, is prohibited.

Because, until you read this article, you probably didn’t realise that adjuvants in recombinant vaccines can act as transfection agents.

That information is NOT IN ANY PRODUCT INFORMATION SHEET OF ANY VACCINE IN PRODUCTION.

Now, that might be a problem for vaccine manufacturers because, although they are legally indemnified against claims arising from their product - they are NOT indemnified against fraud. Because FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING. It might sound corny, but it is a central tenet of law. Essentially it means that if you lie about your contract you abdicate any claim to that contract.

It also relates to “duty of disclosure” - which basically means that if you deliberately withhold relevant facts, you commit fraud. Well, that’s a problem for the pharmaceutical corporations because the law that indemnifies them against claims in relation to vaccine injury no longer apply if they KNOWINGLY withhold information.

Like KNOWING about the presence of SV40 or plasmids in their vaccines and the consequences of those contaminants.

Of course, the regulators wouldn’t hide any knowledge of contaminants in vaccine would they? Of course not. That’s why Pfizer knowingly withheld the SV40 sequence in the plasmid map they submitted to the European regulator (EMA).

That’s not all there was in terms of provable contamination (ignoring the fake stories on twitter of nanobots and the like)…

For example, you know about the fact that metallic fragments were found in COVID vaccines that resulted in deaths but was withheld from the public9 by the TGA, right?

Hilariously, just to reassure you that there was nothing nasty in the vaccines, the UK’s MHRA provided this answer to another FOIA request asking for the tests that they conducted to look for contaminants. They literally just held them up against the wall.

From the world of “you can’t make this stuff up” this is what the MHRA actually said in response to the request, the full document of which is attached below10.

At the behest of the MHRA (DMRC) some vials were received by NIBSC for a visual inspection test. The visual inspection test itself is not invasive – it is a review against two monochrome backgrounds to observe particulate matter visible to the naked eye – the content (composition) of a vaccine is not examined.

And of course, if you ask the regulators for the tests they used to look for DNA contamination you get this.

Just to summarise this section before the final bombshell in the next section, let’s recap:

Plasmids are a lab-based product intended to create excessive activation of genes, particularly when they contain SV40 promoters. 

If those plasmids or gene products were to end up in vaccine products, they carry a significant risk of causing cancer or other severe disease. 

Lab regulations and protocols prohibit the distribution of plasmids to the general public, but the governments and pharma corporations don't seem to care, simply taking the word of the pharma companies that their products are safe. 

The regulators attempts to monitor contamination are woefully inadequate. 

It’s Safe, Right?

So now we know what plasmids are and what they can do, we need to consider the final piece of the puzzle that will be necessary to make the world stop and take notice of what has been happening for decades - which is this:

If there is residual DNA (plasmid) in a vaccine, and that vaccine also contains a transfection agent as an adjuvant, then your cells are going to be transfected by that plasmid.

I’ll just go over that again.

The residual DNA is a danger to you if there is a transfection agent present, because it will allow that plasmid DNA to enter your cells11.

Now, obviously the vaccine manufacturers would not KNOWINGLY let this happen would they?

Well, so far we have the following vaccines made from plasmid DNA which is known to be present in the final product:

• COVID vaccines and lipid nanoparticles (transfection agent)

• Gardasil vaccines and aluminium-lipid complex adjuvant (transfection agent)

• Novavax and saponin adjuvant (transfection agent)

Each of those products bizarrely and coincidentally contains chemicals that can transfect the cells of the recipient leading to integration of the manufacturers’ plasmid DNA into the person’s cells.

Surely that’s just a coincidence? Surely it’s not ALL recombinant vaccines that are affected?

Well, let’s try another one - Engerix B.

Engerix B was the first “recombinant vaccine” (a vaccine using a protein synthesised by recombinant DNA technology i.e. plasmids), against hepatitis B.

These are the “non-active” constituents:

In a super bizarre coincidence, Engerix contains two chemical adjuvants that just happen to act as transfection agents - Aluminium Hydroxide and Polysorbate 20 (see below).

What are the odds? Well now we have:

• COVID vaccines and lipid nanoparticles (transfection agent)

• Gardasil vaccines and aluminium-lipid complex adjuvant (transfection agent)

• Novavax and saponin adjuvant (transfection agent)

• Engerix-B and aluminium hydroxide and polysorbate 20

Shall we try another one?

How about Shingrix, a recombinant zoster (shingles) vaccine? Surely that won’t have any products listed as “adjuvants” that could act as transfection agents? That would just be too coincidental… yet here we are:

• Polysorbate 80 (transfection agent)

• Saponin (transfection agent)

• Cholesterol, Lipid A (lipid transfection agents).

You get the drift.

It’s almost as if - and call me crazy if you want - but it just seems odd that these recombinant vaccines need these additional agents to work. Like it’s intentional. Or just another coincidence to add to the list of coincidences.

The whole concept of a vaccine was supposed to be to provide a tiny amount of a pathogen, safely, that in itself would stimulate the immune system to protect against infection. Instead it became:

“We have recombinant DNA products that will only really work if we add multiple transfection agents that can get the contaminant DNA into your cells, and try and hide them by calling them adjuvants”

Of course, the pharma corporations definitely don’t want us talking about this. Apart from the bizarre Gonser paper quoted above, their lapdog “debunking” site fullfact.org tells you all you need to know about the gazillion additives in vaccines.

It’s a pretty long article considering most of those vaccines are supposed to only contain “a little bit of antigen to provide immunity”, but it’s worth reading just to see how ridiculous it is.

Here’s is the section on polysorbate - a chemical which has no good reason to be in a recombinant vaccine.

The information is portrayed as some “antivax crazy scare” in the headline and then a calm, but irrelevant explanation. There is however no issue normally with drugs containing separate parts because you just shake the vial, so the explanation is nonsense. It just a coincidence that Polysorbates happen to also be transfection agents, and that fullfact.org are heavily funded by pharma-linked foundations.

So what does this all mean?

If you’ve read this far, well done.

If you’ve skipped to here you’ll need to go back and see what this is all about because it may turn out to be the biggest bombshell in vaccine history.

The summary of the findings above, in conjunction with what we now know about DNA contamination in the COVID vaccines, is this:

All recombinant vaccines contain adjuvants that can act as transfection agents, delivering contaminant plasmid DNA into the cells of the person receiving the product. Transfected plasmids can cause cancer.

This plasmid DNA transfection problem was known about at least as far back as 1999.

It has taken 25 years, a manufactured pandemic, an intrepid journalist, a group of dissident scientists and a council meeting on the other end of the world12 to expose it.

The pharma companies knew about the problem and have tried to suppress it, as have the multitude of agencies who have tried to ridicule, threaten and harass those scientists over the years who have tried to raise the alarm.

If there is ever a lesson to be learned from this debacle it is this:

No pharmaceutical corporation or government agency must be allowed to suppress safety information, that the public would want to know, ever again.

It's time for the information floodgates to open, and the lawsuits to follow

1

Motion in full here, carried 5-2

Agenda Scm 11102024

188KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

3

Inorganic Nanoparticles for the Transfection of Mammalian Cells

Biotech Bioengineering 2007 Link Inorganic Nanoparticles For Transfection Of Mammalian Cells And Removal Of Viruses

808KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

8

SV40 – An Obscure Monkey Virus and the Golden Age of Molecular Biology, Thomas Berger. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-85487-4_7

Sv40 An Obscure Monkey Virus And The Golden Age Of Molecular Biology

241KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

9

TGA FOI 3717

Foi 3717 Notice Of Decision Redacted

505KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

10

MHRA FOI 21/1180 re contaminants

Foi 21 1180 Reply

121KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

12

Not to mention the endless hours put in by the legal team to bring this scandal to the public:

Jules On The Beach

New Australian Covid Documentary & Update on the GMO Case

good substack Folk…

Read more

2 years ago · 177 likes · 42 comments · Julian Gillespie

This has been a tricky one to write because there are so many moving parts that effectively converge on one whole… so perhaps a TLDR as an introduction is warranted.

The COVID "pandemic" was created in order to sell a novel and otherwise untestable product line to the global population. Although successful in that aim the chickens are starting to come home to roost with millions of excess deaths globally. 

Somebody other than the instigators needs to take the blame so there needed to be a new merry-go-round of scapegoats to sow confusion long enough that the instigators never end up paying. 

Cue, the Actuaries. 

So where to start to unravel this mess in a cogent way?

Let’s start by attributing the blame to “COVID” shall we?

“COVID is responsible”

This was a recent headline in the Business Times which drew the attention of the excellent Senator Rennick on twitter recently:

On the face of it, this statement raised no eyebrows at all. After all, we all know that “COVID” is still killing people, don’t we?

Well, it shouldn’t be.

Firstly, the global population has now been exposed to multiple bouts and variations of this cold-like virus and it’s no longer “novel” which was the scary prospect sold to the world back in 2020 when the entities that knew exactly where it came from needed to scare the world into believing there was no possible treatment.

Remember this?

It was a report of a walk through at Elmhurst hospital in New York where thousands of patients were supposedly dying every minute - even though that was impossible and the video itself shows very few patients and unused ventilators.

It was a lie.

Here’s the actual video from the NY Times youtube channel (just in case they delete it)

You can see empty beds and unused wrapped ventilators and no patients being pushed round in emergency or stacking up in ED. They also reference the “tent outside” which relates to the Samaritan’s purse tent hospital that ended up never being used (because there was no excess of sick patients).

So Colleen Smith’s narrative in this video was an outright lie.

Purely coincidentally, of course, Colleen Smith’s specialty is medical simulation. That is, making up scenarios where people pretend to be ill and need a doctor’s intervention. Great for training medical students. Not so good if you’re using it to overinflate a pandemic.

The point being, when we were sold this pandemic as being dangerous and requiring unprecedented measures of containment it was because we were told that we have never been exposed to this virus and therefore it’s as dangerous as bringing a cold to an Amazon tribe. But that wasn’t the case at all - even back then - and it’s definitely not the case now after most countries have been infected many times over.

Secondly, particularly in Australia where the population has been vaccinated multiple times over and nearly 100% of Australians have been vaccinated1, the population was also told that the vaccinations would stop the pandemic and it would stop the deaths.

So, how can a population that is nearly 100% vaccinated still be dying “of COVID”, and worse, why did the deaths from “COVID” get worse after the vaccine rollout (as we discussed here and here).

Of course the predictable response is heard in cries of “you opened up the country that’s why there were so many COVID cases”.. except that there is a problem with that because we were told that the COVID vaccine was 95% effective at stopping infection, and apart from the obvious fraud that we have exposed previously in those studies it seems that only Brad Hazzard - health minister for New South Wales - knew that COVID cases were going to explode immediately after the vaccine booster rollout.

I wonder how he knew? Because the epidemiologists didn’t know - only Brad Hazzard, the health minister who imposed COVID vaccines by force coercion consent on the population2, knew.

How smart is he?

And here is the original clip where he makes the Nostradamus-like prediction.

He was right of course - the vaccination booster rollout imparted to the population of Australia such unparalleled protection that the case rate increased by 20 times as we already discussed here.

So, now Australia has a situation where it “opened up” believing that that vaccine would offer protection against infection, transmission and death - and it didn’t do any of those.

So who’s to blame? If it’s “COVID” and the deaths are ongoing then we are talking over 40,000 deaths in Australia alone, and over 10 million deaths worldwide.

Now it gets interesting

(1) If the vaccine manufacturers (and DARPA who commissioned them) committed fraud in selling their vaccine as a method of preventing infection (which they did) they may be criminally and financially liable for a huge number of deaths

(2) If the vaccines “worked” and the deaths “would have been worse without the vaccines”3 then the entities that created the virus must be responsible.

Of course, any questioning of the real world effectiveness of the “95% effective at stopping infection” COVID vaccines resulted in conflation and obfuscation from the two main sources of vaccine data - the UKHSA4 and NSW health.

The UKHSA famously stopped publishing COVID data by vaccination status when their famous “table 14” showed that vaccinated people were getting COVID at 3x the rate as the unvaccinated people5.

Although this was dramatic by March 2022, it had already become obvious by September 2021 that the vaccines were not preventing infection (although the introduction to the UKHSA documents insisted that they were, even though their own data was showing the opposite - hence why it was buried in table 14 at the end of the document).

So, in September 2021 the media was brought in6 to propagandise explain to the population why a higher rate of COVID in vaccinated people didn’t actually mean that the vaccine wasn’t working. Here’s a classic example:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000zkzq

The narrator gets into a pretzel trying to explain why the very same data source that was being used to tell you that the vaccine worked - because it didn’t show what they wanted to - now can’t be relied on.

The clip also introduces Adele Groyer (around 14:30) - an Actuary and prominent member of the UK-based COVID 19 Actuaries Group. She is tragically no longer with us having succumbed to a rapidly progressing cancer. Adele was one of the main opponents of the (never-investigated) proposal that the vaccine rollout directly or indirectly led to an increase in cancer deaths, despite being a documented factor in the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports for excess deaths that we discussed here in 2022.

A similar denial of “anything but the vaccines” in relation to excess deaths in most Western countries following the vaccine rollout famously came out of the Australian Actuaries institute, who seem to be very friendly with the COVID-19 Actuaries Response Group….

With the other partner involved here being “Actuarial Eye” - who unironically embedded an eye of Horus into their website meta data, presumably “just for fun”.

But the combined Actuaries report7 itself was a hoot.

Not only did they point out that deaths in 2020 (the scary pandemic year) were lower than expected but nonchalantly claimed that there were 3000 excess deaths in 2021 and around 20,000 predicted for 2022 - the year of publication (2023 was to become worse of course)…

…but what did the combined might of these expert actuaries organisations come up with as the cause of these excess deaths?

Well, COVID of course. And the impact of the “COVID measures” (which were a government intervention - that will be important later). These included:

“Pandemic-Influenced lifestyle changes” (apparently we ate too much during lockdowns)

“Undiagnosed COVID-19” (because you can die without symptoms of a respiratory disease, according to the actuaries).

“Delayed deaths from other causes” (apparently people could hold off dying during the scary COVID pandemic year and choose to die the following year)

In fact, surprisingly because the Actuaries are obsessed by it, nobody died of “Climate Change” in this report.

And the other thing that they didn’t die of - OBVIOUSLY - is the COVID vaccines. Because, as the COVID 19 UK group had already said - only 14 people died from the COVID vaccines8.

Naturally this would be believable if it wasn’t for the fact that there were ultimately over 1000 reports of death following vaccination reported to Australia’s vaccination safety database - of which the majority appear to have no verifiable record of investigation as a FOIA on exactly this question was refused back in 20229.

Who’s Responsible for “COVID”?

Well, this one should be easy because we exposed proof of the source of “COVID” with a famous two part series which eventually spawned this Daily Mail article and the #ModernaGate hashtag back in 2022:

Two years later and the COVID select committee are finally getting round to asking the right questions of the right people who were clearly and provably involved with the labs that created the virus as well as the viruses themselves.

So, this now raises another question. That is, who foots the bill?

Just before we answer this it’s worth understanding exactly what happened and I’ll try and summarise it here:

Researchers involved with "Gain of Function" also known as "Pandemic preparedness" research have been creating viruses, or clones of viruses (DNA versions from which fully working RNA viruses can be made), for years. 

This "research" has created "Lab Leaks" which is code for the deliberate or negligent release of viruses into the environment. 

This time it resulted (whether naturally or with assistance) in global spread and the declaration of a "pandemic". The eventual result of that - either directly or indirectly - was millions of deaths and the destruction of global economies. 

Now this article is not going to discuss how those deaths arose (because we have already done that) but for the sake of argument let’s take the actuaries role and say it was because of “COVID”. The adverse result of “COVID” was:

Deaths from COVID infection (mostly indirect due to pneumonia)

Deaths from the disruption of societal function

Deaths from pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions

Financial losses related to the interruption to the economy

Psychological and physical injury not amounting to death

Well, that is going to amount to a big bill and some criminal prosecutions.

So, who should pay?

Let’s see if a cartoon helps

Who is Going to Pay the Bill?

All the relevant players are in the meme, including one or two that you might not know so I’ll have to introduce them.

DARPA: The US Dept of Defense quango that underwrites most of the illegal gain of function (biological weapons development) around the world.

ECOHEALTH: Peter Daszak’s organisation that recruits multiple university virology departments around the world to pretend to swab bat bums in Laos and other places.

REINSURERS and INSURERS: Insurers are the insurance companies that provided “Pandemic Insurance” plans. Reinsurers are the insurers to the insurers.

I’m going to focus on the last group but before I do I’ll just reiterate what is going on so you can see where we’re headed next

If chaos can be implemented in the blame game over COVID, nobody will ever have to pay a dime in compensation and nobody will ever go to jail. 

Those are the lessons learnt from thalidomide, agent orange, the Iraq war and a hundred other government-corporate interventions that caused immeasurable death and disability.  

Now, let me guess, this is the first time you’ve heard of “reinsurance”?

So isn’t it funny that it pops up as a discussion point in one of the more trusted accounts exposing COVID origins here:

For reference, Michael Worobey was one of the primary instigators (along with Tony Fauci and a few other now infamous characters) of the “it came from a pangolin-bat-snake get together” story, which everybody now knows was a lie

So why would people like Worobey also be getting involved in reinsurance disputes?

To answer this we should know what the reinsurance companies role was….

“Blue Canaries” is another anonymous account helping expose the truth about this pandemic cartel and wrote a fantastic thread here explaining how the game works.

Here’s my translation:

Find monkey-bat viruses to take to lab (MB = Metabiota).
Gain of Function monkey-bat viruses infected into people (EA = Ecohealth Alliance).
Sold Pandemic Insurance (Metabiota)
Sold Surveillance (Metabiota)
Virus labs in Ukraine and China
Release in planes and airports
People get sick and wear masks
Roll out the Tik Tok hospital dancers (to paradoxically create the perception of a deadly pandemic)
Vaccinate everybody
Create more money
More sickness results

And here’s the first post of the longer thread that shows how Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca company links into Metabiota, providing a direct line from the US government corruption pipeline (Joe Biden) to Metabiota and the US biolabs in Ukraine and China.

The thread (archived here) shows all the links between Nathan Wolfe’s Metabiota and Ecohealth Alliance.

Nathan Wolfe - who you may never have heard of - is of course highly connected, one of the “100 most influential people in the world”. Here he is with Ghislaine Maxwell, second-in-line to blackmailer-in-chief Jeffrey Epstein at the Time Gala.

Here is a short description of his role from this article

He is the epicenter of the Deep State bio network.

Not only is he the founder of Biden’s Metabiota, he is a WEF member, DoD employee, sat on the board of Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance involved in Wuhan, funded by DARPA, Gates Foundation, funded Ghislaine Maxwell’s TerraMar project with the Clintons, member of The Edge Foundation collecting microbes and housing animal viruses all over the world, AND Russia have accused him directly of being the key player in creating SARS-CoV-2 from a bat coronavirus he discovered in Ukraine.

I should remind you that the Edge Foundation is basically Jeffrey Epstein’s blog used by the “Skeptics society” (a dubious collection of pharma-obsessed scientists who have historically used their scientific credentials to protect pedophiles). Terra Mar is Ghislaine Maxwell’s company which ran a submarine to Epstein Island, coincidentally for the Skeptics society and their science friends.

What are Reinsurers?

So now we get to the crux of what has been going on in the background of this “COVID pandemic” situation.

From the Insurance Information Handbook:

Reinsurance is insurance for insurance companies. It’s a way of transferring some of the financial risk insurance companies assume in insuring cars, homes and businesses to another insurance company, the reinsurer.

For context, bear in mind that “insurance” companies are the people that sell you life, disability and employment insurance. They have no control over whether a “pandemic” or other event occurs that creates a huge drain on their resources from deaths or disability.

As it happened, there was no discernible pandemic that resulted in natural losses in 2020. However, there has been since, with excess deaths reported around the world following the COVID vaccine rollout that was meant to “stop the pandemic” but appears instead to have been temporally associated with, if not contributory to, its perpetuation.

As a result of something that has happened over the last 3 years, excess deaths have gone crazy in most countries in the world.

And that something is being attributed to “COVID”. But we know that “COVID” was a pandemic created by biolab gain of function research conducted through Metabiota, DARPA and the Wuhan institute of virology. So shouldn’t they pay for the consequences of all these excess deaths that are going to bring insurance companies to their knees through life insurance and disability claims?

Well, fortunately insurance companies can insure themselves against such spikes in unprecedented claims. And the companies that underwrite these are reinsurance companies. You can tell them from their names most of which end in “Re”: Munich Re, Swiss Re, Gen Re are examples. And most of the reinsurance business runs through a super corporation called Berkshire Hathaway, run by Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett is one of the world’s richest men having made a fortune from “a textile company”. He is apparently a philanthropist who partnered with Bill Gates, which provides significant influence over what happens with the virology-to-vaccine pipeline. Of course his hundreds of billions of dollars of personal wealth are - just like Jeffrey Epstein’s - genuine earnings and nothing at all to do with cronyism in the US government.

Now, although you might think that the reinsurance companies would take a hit during a “devastating pandemic” the opposite happened. From August 2020:

Go figure. And in another amazing coincidence, pandemic bonds just failed to meet their July 2020 deadline for “not having a pandemic” maturity. Pandemic bonds were created in 2017, conveniently just as Metabiota (linked to Ecohealth) and the reinsurance cartel were creating a perfect storm for a pandemic.

And now that you know who the players are, this headline will make some sense:

And to hammer the point home, from the article:

One of the world’s largest reinsurance companies, Munich Re, and In-Q-Tel, an investor that focuses on the development of tech to support the U.S. intelligence community, recently signed “strategic agreements” with Metabiota, according to a statement from the firm.

So we have the CIA (via In-Q-Tel10) running a scheme whereby the very people running biolabs in Ukraine11 (and by implication China and other places) were linked directly to the people creating “pandemic prediction software” for reinsurance companies to scam insurance companies into paying huge amounts in pandemic insurance, that they could only make money on if they never had to pay out.

If we try and simplify this complex web the results might look something like this, excluding the many equivalent and ancillary players - one of which we will come to shortly:

And if you want a more detailed network chart here is the official version from the Russian military who are really not happy that US biolabs were being run on their doorstep to fund the pharmaceutical companies.

And the push back from Voa News fact check really does the US government no favours:

Kirillov said, “Washington uses outside actors to hide the objectives of research. These are contracting and intermediary organizations (Metabiota, Quicksilver, EkoHealth Alliance, more than 20 companies) and businesses of the so-called Big Pharma.”

That is false.

U.S. laboratories in Ukraine, African countries, and elsewhere work in cooperation with national authorities to predict and prevent bioterrorism, and outbreaks of diseases that pose a threat to public health.

The U.S. uses a transparent system making the labs and their research publicly accessible.

Really? What transparent system?

The transparent system that despite legislation (FOIA) requiring that documents are released on demand, result in huge swathes of redactions12 to cover up enquiries on activities like EcoHealth Alliance. They claimed to have not received funding for their psychopathic “bat vaccine” program (AKA creation of SARS-CoV-2) yet are on record as having received funding covering the exact same period.

And “work in cooperation to PREDICT and PREVENT bioterrorism and outbreaks”.

Really? Where was the prediction of COVID despite hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in research by sketchy organisations like the “PREDICT consortium” telling us that bat viruses are a danger to us… when they are instead just a tool to create a gravy train of funding to their own organisations to prop up the pharma corporations who then make money producing vaccines for diseases that would never have existed without this “research”.

And it’s not just Ecohealth and the PREDICT consortium that are indelibly linked with Metabiota. Here’s everybody’s friend Raina Macintyre and her co-worker and latest recruit to UNSW Deepti Gurdasani promoting Metabiota’s “pandemic prediction” software along with their own.

Note that Deepti Gurdasani is well known for trolling COVID sceptics13 on twitter in her brief time registered as a doctor in the UK. Despite endlessly promoting the COVID vaccines it appears that she doesn’t have that much confidence in them if the CNN article is to be believed:

Deepti Gurdasani has spent the past two years debunking Covid-19 myths and misinformation on TV and online… She says she has not been into a shop, restaurant or movie theater – or any other indoor space, aside from her own home – in the two years since, because she fears catching the virus could be fatal.

And just to add a bit of symbolic context this is the creepy logo of UNSW’s EPIWATCH at the Kirby Institute which received millions of dollars in funding from government, Big Pharma and the bizarre Vitalik Buderin who donated over $5m himself. Just for philanthropy, of course.

Yet despite the billions of dollars laundered into Metabiota, EPIWATCH, PREDICT, Ecohealth, DARPA, DTRA and all the other organisations that suck up huge amounts of your money to “predict and prevent” pandemics…. they all failed to predict this pandemic in any meaningful way.

But don’t expect any refunds. The money has gone.

So, interestingly, has the Metabiota website describing their epidemiology tool despite it being promoted as “outstanding” by Munich Re all the way back to 201514.

Oh well. I’m sure someone made a few quid.

And now just to recap where we are up to before we come to the final section:

The reinsurance companies and the US government were enjoined in a network that created novel viruses, as well as the insurance policies that were sold to cover losses from pandemics that they had the capacity to create. 

If they could create the fear of an imminent pandemic, then create a pandemic that wasn't that deadly and so not have to pay out - the reinsurance companies could clean up. 

Yet instead of losing huge amounts of money, how did Munich Re (the largest reinsurer) and Berkshire Hathaway (the king of reinsurance, whose subsidiaries include Gen Re) do during the last 5 years when they should have been destroyed by pandemic insurance claims?

They doubled their stock price. Of course they did.

So how can they possibly make money on selling pandemic insurance yet not paying out when there was the “worst pandemic since Spanish flu”?

Well, here’s where their friends the Actuaries come in.

The Actuaries Cartel

Now we get back to where we were at the start, with the actuaries telling us that the deaths were all from this entity called COVID (which was nobody’s fault, you know) and now isn’t really causing excess deaths.

As you can see, there are “no excess deaths” because the Actuaries Institute have decided that the post-COVID death figures (which in Australia are 20,000 a year higher than they should be) are now the baseline. It’s the New World Order of actuarial statistics.

And it’s not just them.

Another group that is indelibly linked to the actuaries - because there are basically only actuaries left after the virologists realised the group had been usurped - is PANDA who we met previously - trying to gaslight us into believing that biological weapons research doesn’t and never did exist.

So the new narrative is “THERE WAS NO PANDEMIC” and if you dare to push back against that narrative you will be attacked.

And because “THERE WAS NO PANDEMIC” (🙄) that obviously means that whoever created COVID did nothing wrong too, get it?

So the question then becomes, as always, cui bono? (Who benefits - also known as “follow the money”)

Well the Actuaries and the reinsurance companies definitely tickle each others’ bellies. As an example here’s Gen Re sponsoring PANDA’s Actuarial Society meeting.

And bear in mind that Gen Re is the reinsurance company whose research department is run by Louis Roussow from the Covid 19 Actuaries group who claims to have recruited Adele Groyer mentioned at the start of this article, just before she contracted cancer that rapidly became terminal.

What a close family these actuaries are.

And talking of family, the other actuary of note - the primary author of the Australian actuaries report (the “nobody did anything wrong” report) - is Karen Cutter whose prior company received millions of dollars from the Australian government at the start of COVID. In fact, Finity consulting were given a contract worth $2,365,000 just in Feburary 2021 for “Actuarial Studies of Lifetime Health Cover and Risk Equalisation” amongst other highly lucrative contracts from the Australian government15.

Now, imagine receiving a total of $22m from the Australian government and then having influence on the writing of a report that tells the public that the Australian government enforced on their population a product that resulted in more than 40,000 excess deaths.

Not gonna happen.

So is the Actuaries institute “independent”? Not a chance. Which would likely explain why they deleted their twitter account16 when the Finity links were exposed.

You are not going to see an independent and honest report from any of the actuarial groups that are either paid by government contracts or have any vested interests with reinsurance companies. That includes: The Actuaries Institute of Australia, The Covid 19 Actuaries Group (UK) and the Actuarial Society of South Africa (ASSA) which is affiliated with PANDA.

Do you see how this works yet? I’ll help you.

“There was no pandemic really”
”Biological weapons programs don’t exist”
”Gain of Function viruses aren’t real”
”Nobody died from the vaccines”
”COVID caused some deaths but it was nobody’s fault”
”All the deaths were due to government policy”

All add up to:

“Nobody did anything wrong, therefore nobody needs to pay and nobody should go to jail.”

The exception to “nobody needs to pay” will, of course, be “the government” as long as this is confined to financial penalties and not criminal convictions. Because nobody cares if “the government” pays because that means you’re paying.

It’s monopoly money, until it needs to be repaid - by your children.

So, there you have it. The actuaries, reinsurance companies, US DOD, NIH, biolab research groups and all the huge corporations that benefited financially from COVID don’t need to answer for any of their crimes. And the confusion and chaos sown by PANDA and similar groups (which prompted the #ProjectPANDA hashtag on twitter) will solve the problem… because by the time people have realised exactly what happened and who was responsible those people will have sailed off into the sunlight to yet another island in the Caribbean.

Nice work if you can get it.

Are you ready for another pandemic yet?

Footnotes

1

https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/vaccination-numbers-and-statistics

Covid 19 Vaccine Rollout Update 12 July 2024

465KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

2

The first vaccine mandate for health care workers. Judged “coercion is consent’ by “Justice” Robert Beech-Jones in Kassam vs Hazzard Oct 2021

Public Health (covid 19 Vaccination Of Health Care Workers) Order 2021 210826 9

250KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

5

The last UKHSA vaccine surveillance report showing COVID cases by vaccine status - week 13 2022.

Ukhsa Vaccine Surveillance Report Week 13

1.21MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

7

2022 Actuaries Institute Report

Arg Excess Mortality In Australia 1

1.03MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

9

TGA FOI 2471 - refusal of request for the anonymised investigation records of the first 14 deaths following vaccination in the under 65 age group.

D21 2853864 Foi 2471 Decision Letter Practical Refusal Redacted

322KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

15

Finity consulting full list of contract awards from Australian government departments up to June 2024 (src: APH parliamentary library)

Finity Consulting

25.7KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

Download

A private government report obtained this week in response to questions over the decision to kill over 500,000 chickens in Victoria, Australia shows that the people making the decision had no verifiable evidence of a high risk infectious outbreak. 

The chicken farms that were claimed to be infected were so distant from any possible bird source that it was unlikely or impossible to have happened without deliberate intervention or manipulation of testing. 

The CSIRO, the Australian equivalent of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is the closest possible source of the "outbreak" and it is not the first time they have been involved in the emergence of "new" viruses. 

The chicken cull would appear to be a manufactured crisis. 

This week I received a copy of a government document sent in response to questions about this unusual event in Australia - the culling of 500,000 chickens:

Now, you might think that isn’t that much of a story - after all our food safety is paramount, so if there is a flock of chooks that is infected we need to act early and cull them, right?

Not so fast. Bird flu is called bird flu because it affects birds. And just as the FDA told us that we are not horses (despite having to take this tweet and webpage down after a court order), we are not birds either. So except in rare and odd circumstances (or some psychopathic scientist decides to make it adapt to humans) bird flu is zero risk to the human population. And once that chook has gone through the fryers at KFC any trace of the chookie sniffles will be long gone anyway.

So what event was so catastrophic that half a million chickens had to be culled (that is, killed, not to be eaten but to be disposed of without ever touching the food chain)?

Apparently an outbreak in three farms of H7N3 bird flu1, with another farm 100km away affected by a different H7 strain - H7N9. And according to WAHIS (the animal outbreak monitoring agency) these are the only outbreaks this year in Australia - and they have appeared almost as far South as you can possibly get.

Near a place called Geelong (in the same state as Melbourne).

Now the interesting thing about the city of Geelong for those who pay attention is that it is the home of Australia’s version of the Wuhan Institute of Virology - the CSIRO. Which of course is completely coincidental because there are obviously other routes that a bird-borne infectious outbreak can take other than being created by a scientific institute famous for manipulating identifying “novel” bat viruses.

As most bird flus are supposed to originate in Asia here is a nice map view of the route that the infected birds would take to get to Geelong. It’s a long way to fly, which may be why there isn’t any “naturally occurring” H5N1 (Asian Bird Flu) in Australia2. And if there were infectious diseases coming from Asia, you would see them in Queensland or the Northern Territories first.

In fact most Asian birds tend not to migrate to Australia at all, which is partly why Australian birds are different from the rest of the world including such oddities as the Kookaburra, Black Swan, Cassowary and Ibis (commonly known as a bin chook for its uncanny ability to get food out of public dustbins).

So, if Australia is going to get H5N1 Bird Flu naturally it is going to be a bit of a tall order…

Unless…

The clucky Bird Flu perpetrators come through the back door, from Antarctica.

Well of course Australia’s national broadcaster the ABC is one step ahead of you there with this amazingly clever prebunking video including CNN-level “dead-birds-in-a-row” staged dead bird carnage images, to really make you think it’s bad out there.

And if you REALLY aren’t sure how DEADLY this is, we are not only going to show you dead pelicans lined up on snow but WE ARE GOING TO PUT 100 MILLION KILLED IN RED - and make it look like the COVID dashboard.

There. Are you scared yet? No? Well we haven’t finished. Certainly Jo Sillince, CEO of the “Australian Chicken Growers Council” isn’t, because she appears in both the ABC’s news article telling us how scary this could all be AND in the video above telling us that the main risk is from Antarctica.

So, if you’re not scared of Joanne, or the ABC, you damn well better be because there is BIRD FLU COMING FROM ANTARCTICA TO KILL THE CHICKENS.

And, not wanting to point out the obvious or anything but getting bird flu from Antarctica is not that easy. You see the major migration patterns of birds don’t really include a pathway from Antarctica to Australia.

And even if the odd Antarctic Albatross were to accidentally find its way to the coffee shops of Melbourne it would have struggled to pick up an Asian bird flu in the snowy wastes of Antarctica.

And then there are the penguins. Penguins are birds, in case you didn’t know. They can fly but only in the fluid medium of water (most birds fly in the fluid medium of water vapour, i.e. air). So they could make it to the south coast of Australia to drop their bird flu droppings - but not much further without a long walk. And if you saw a family of penguins on the road to Geelong I’m pretty sure you would have seen it in the news.

And just before we start with the real story of what is going on I need to give some background on Michelle Wille, friend and multiple co-author of Edward Holmes, multiple co-author of the EcoHealth scientists discussed further below.

Michelle is the senior scientist in the “Antarctic Chickens” video above and essentially runs the “scary virus” campaigns in Australia, sucking up huge amounts of funding for “pandemic preparedness” which never actually prevents pandemics.

Here she is attempting to scare the beejezus out of you with an article in the Conversation, which hosted the very same buddy Eddie Holmes two years ago with a similar story telling us how we were all crazy for thinking that COVID came from a lab. Except it turns out that it did.

Can you see how this works?

1. Create virus using either an existing virus, or a novel virus, or a manipulated virus

2. Create scare about virus, even if it’s not that dangerous (if at all)

3. Create bogeyman conspiracy theorist for public ridicule if anybody questions the creation of a virus

4. Rinse and repeat, taking in millions of dollars of public funding to “prevent” the next scary virus that you don’t prevent at all

The Crazy Explanations

So could there be another explanation than Antarctic chickens flying over the Southern Ocean and infecting their temperate brethren?

Well, given that the CSIRO is in the very neighbourhood that the majority of the outbreaks are we might want to look there to see if, perhaps, they might possibly have had anything to do with a N7N3 outbreak next door, or if in fact a H7N3 outbreak is of any consequence at all.

So let’s look at the two scenarios (which are not mutually exclusive) but before we do just a little reminder of the reason for the title for those that are not old enough to remember one of the most awarded films of all time.

I was contemplating captioning it, but I’ll leave it like this for now.

Crazy Explanation 1 (the Scary Spillover Virus)

In this scenario this specific and scary influenza strain leaked from the CSIRO and got onto the farm, killed some birds and so a lockdown had to be imposed.

Sounds familiar?

Maybe they had to go in white suits and weld the chicken coop door closed and there will be videos soon of chickens (non-Antarctic variety) dropping down dead on the farm path. With masks on.

The problem is that the CSIRO has form. It was rightly implicated as a co-contributor to the Wuhan SARS-Cov-2 origins in Sharri Markson’s exposé two years ago which you can see in this 10 minute clip from Sky News

Now of course for any institution to be involved with manipulating viruses in order to make them “different” for a specific purpose you would expect that they would be affiliated with one of those DURC programs.. that is, “Dual Use Research of Concern” which is WHO-speak for “we are saying that we are making vaccines but actually we are working with the US military doing, you know, US military stuff”.

And, if they were doing such things you would probably find a trail of involvement with the following institutions, which enjoy funding from the US military through DARPA (the progeny of Operation Paperclip as discussed recently)

Phew. No CSIRO here, just the usual suspects UC Davis, EcoHealth (Peter Daszak’s organisation implicated in the origin of COVID) and Metabiota, the organisation linked to Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca3. All super nice people. And all working under the umbrella of the fluffy sounding:

“OneHealth Institute”.

It’s all very “sustainable goals” - aka global fascism - under the umbrella of “global health”. Except these people want to be in charge of your global health, whether you consent or not.

Now, if the person involved in creating the COVID virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was commonly known as “BatWoman” her equivalent at the CSIRO would be Gary Crameri.

You could previously see him talking about the CSIRO’s fabulous achievement finding the “origin of the virus SARS” back in the day but the ABC deleted the video in 20204, presumably because there was something in it that implicated either Crameri or the CSIRO in gain of function (DURC) research. At least you get to hear what Gary had to say because the ABC forgot to delete the audio.

Of course there is no reason to believe or confirm that “Chinese horseshoe bats” created SARS any more than a Pangolin and a bat created “COVID”5, but what we do know is that Gary Crameri was one of the authors on this seminal paper and you can see who the other authors are here:

For those not aware, Lin-Fa Wang and Peter Daszak are the prime movers in the Ecohealth Alliance (the main protagonist implicated in the creation of COVID) along with Zeng-Li Shi from Wuhan. Of course the authors declare “no conflicts of interest” but back in the day taking money from US military funding sources USAID and PREDICT was probably not considered a “conflict”, presumably because at that time very few people knew that the US military were continuing to commit war crimes by manipulating pathogens in contravention of the BWC.

If you read the above note at the end of their paper it is also worth knowing that “State Key Program” is the CCP’s (Chinese Communist Party’s) scientific funding stream.

Further reading into Lin-Fa Wang shows that his primary affiliation is with Duke University in Singapore from where he runs the PREPARE program, essentially Asia’s version of the PREDICT program and similar to the PREEMPT program. All of these are essentially schemes that funnel hundreds of millions of dollars from the US taxpayer via USAID and DARPA (Paperclip’s nightmare progeny) to scientists to (purportedly) swab bat bums and never actually ever create a single drug of benefit to the people funding them.

Note that the above DARPA grant included a CSIRO-linked company called “Autonomous Therapeutics” who make “Encrypted RNA” which isn’t at all creepy and really doesn’t sound likely military hardware does it?

Well, whatever it isn’t, it certainly is a vaccine company and this is what we find constantly.

▶Public money goes to clandestine military organisations
▶The military pays academic institutions to conduct “viral research” to “prepare for a pandemic”
▶A pandemic of varying severity happens, annually
▶More viral research happens as a result of the “pandemic”
▶New vaccines are pushed on the public to “counteract the pandemic” that never would have happened if they hadn’t been making viruses.
▶The proceeds from the vaccines go to the scientists and pharma companies who used public money to do the research

Nice money laundering job if you can get it. It’s called “double dipping”.

All the institutions and people involved are of course chummy with each other and they all want to tell us how important they are. Here is Colin Carlson from UC Davis (again), who declares “no conflicts of interest” despite his institute being funded by the Rockefeller foundation, who are basically BigPharma and having received $100m from USAID for “pandemic preparedness” under the “OneHealth” (aka Ecohealth) umbrella6.

So, now you know who most of the players are in this “pandemic preparedness” racket it is worth knowing that the team from the CSIRO have form with “finding viruses” that then are used to create “new vaccines”. The very same people did this with the Hendra virus (conveniently discovered in Australia in 1994 and appearing in very sporadic Ebola-like outbreaks) and for which the CSIRO’s “Hendra team” won an award for creating a vaccine, marketed by Zoetis (the veterinary branch of Pfizer) in 2013. The vaccine itself was authorised in 2012, just one year (conveniently) after a sudden and dramatic increase in cases over an 8 week period in 2011, where there were more cases than the 20 years prior.

Of course the vaccine was “safe and effective” (unless you ask the horse owners) and for a disease that was rare, yet enforced on the horse trainers as a mandate. Does that sound familiar? No vaccine = No veterinary service.

Furthermore, if you’re paying attention you will see the same players involved - Linfa Wang and Gary Crameri along with the department head Deborah Middleton.

And these are the same people (with the addition of Hume Field of Ecohealth) who incidentally “discovered a novel strain of Hendra-like virus from bats” in 2012, which they called the Cedar Virus.

The Cedar virus was not only totally new, but the very same people patented it. Which means it was also synthetic (because you can’t patent something that exists in nature unless you manipulate it in some way to make it different). Of course it is purely coincidental that this group also created a totally novel bat cell line only two years earlier, by adding the oncogenes SV40 and hTERT to bat cells.

And where did the funding for that “let’s make a bat cell line we can passage viruses through” work come from? The US military of course7, via a guy called Chris Broder and the NIAID (Tony Fauci’s organisation). You really can’t make this stuff up.

And why am I telling you about all these people linked to the CSIRO and OneHealth?

It’s because last week, while we were being dripfed guano from the ABC about Antarctic chickens, there was a meeting held about the “urgent risk of H5N1 bird flu in Australia” - which of course the scene had been set by the culling of birds because of an “outbreak” of a totally different bird flu (H7 remember?).

And who was hosting this meeting? One Health of course, cleverly disguised as the “Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology” but which is just one big web of vested interest microbiology groups coordinating with OneHealth.

The big players were here - including Dr Michelle Wille who is the person in the ABC video early telling us that the scary bird flu is coming from the Antarctic Chickens or whatever. Here she is too, receiving an award for her work with Eddie Holmes in 20208:

To make sure everybody sings from the correct hymn sheet OneHealth now have their own department at NSW Health (the main health body in Australia who drive most policy) - although you can’t find it. It only exists in certain documents, such as the program above (full program posted in footnotes)9.

The head of OneHealth-NSWHealth is Keira Glasgow who was on that panel.

And also on the panel is Frank Wong from the CSIRO showing the audience how scary H5N1 (the one that really can’t get to Australia without external help from “scientists”) is.

Notice the “spillover” idea where the bird flu suddenly turns into a mammalian high risk pathogen. That doesn’t happen without help of places like the CSIRO. It’s just a thing you see in movies and in labs. It happens in labs because viruses are repeatedly passaged through specific cell types, like the ones that the CSIRO created for this purpose. For example, the “UK variant of COVID” (N501Y) was made this way in 202010.

But there are two important things to note at this point

1. The “scary” flu strain is H5N1, but it can’t get to Australia unless somebody brings it here - or makes it here

2. The not-so-scary one is H7N3, which is the excuse the government used to cull 500,000 chickens.

The second of these, H7N3, is essentially endemic and so we are going to discuss it in the next section.

But H5N1 is problematic and given that Australia is naturally protected from it, the last thing you would want is the CSIRO doing live experiments with H5N1.

Well, it’s too late. Because they already are. From our government report:

Q: Were any experiments being conducted using live H5N1, H7N9 or H7N3 influenza, or clones of these 3 strains of influenza, at the CSIRO during 2021–24?

A: During the relevant time period, CSIRO staff working in high biocontainment conditions and to strict regulatory measures conducted live virus experimental work with a range of H5N1 subtypes to improve our understanding of the virus. No experiments were done with live H7N3 or H7N9 viruses.

Bingo.

The CSIRO, who have been deeply involved in discovering, manipulating and synthesising high risk viruses are now telling us that H5N1 is coming to Australia.

Yet because it is not possible to arrive in Australia naturally we are going to risk bringing it to Australia by "science", conducting high risk studies on a virus that does not need to be studied in Australia. 

The only conclusion is that any H5N1 outbreak in Australia can now be assumed to originate at the CSIRO

Now you have got this far, nurse Ratched just need to check that you have taken your meds and you are not going to revolt at the next bit which outlines the more likely explanation of what happened in Victoria (as opposed to what might happen).

Crazy Explanation 2 (the Endemic Virus)

This explanation is much simpler but shows how the propaganda works. If you’ve been paying attention you would realise that all the bluster is about scary H5N1, which isn’t in Australia (at least not in any meaningful way), which can’t infect humans without manipulation and for which “vaccines” are already on their way 🙄.

Yet the cull of 500,000 birds was made mostly on the basis of an outbreak of H7N3 near Geelong. That is, a H7 bird flu.

Well, H7 is a different kettle of Antarctic chickens altogether. According to a recent paper from the very same people that are discussed above (Michelle Wille, Eddie Holmes, Frank Wong) conducting research at same institutions (CSIRO and others with funding from the Australian Government and NIAID grants), H7 appears to be pretty much endemic in Australia.

Here’s the paper

And here is the distribution of types according to the paper, showing a pretty strong distribution of H7 types amongst all the various strains detected

And in the supplementary there is this pretty chart, which shows the probability of sequencing a particular genome from a sample that “tests positive” by PCR.

It’s very enlightening, and shows that the more strongly the PCR test is positive (by a lower Ct value), the more likely that the sample can produce a valid sequence. This was also well known during “COVID” where the CDC dictated that for a positive “COVID test” any value of Ct greater than 28 was pretty useless for gene sequencing11.

For the same reason, most infectious samples are found where the Ct value is well below 25 cycles. This is because the PCR test can pick up non-infectious fragments of RNA and can’t differentiate those from actively infectious particles. However, the lower the value the more likely the infectious particles are to be intact and hence infectious.

The higher the Ct threshold (the Ct value below which you call the test positive), the more likely to you are to be picking up non-infectious junk. As you can see from the chart, the point at which the test moves from “likely infectious” to “picking up junk” is somewhere around 30-35 at most.

So, the government was asked what values they were using to detect Antarctic Chicken Flu on the bird farms that they have isolated it from.

This is what was returned:

Information regarding the following 6 questions has been requested from CSIRO, the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) and Agriculture Victoria:  

1.    How many individual animals have been tested at each of the three sites (ie Terang, Meredith and Lethbridge)? 
2.    How many chickens at each site were found to have tested positive?
3.    How many individual cases of each H7N9 and H7N3 were found at each site? 
4.    How many deaths (due to infection, not cull) have been recorded at each site?

Questions 1-4: Confirming these are questions best directed to Agriculture Victoria as CSIRO does not have this information

5.    If PCR was the primary testing modality, is it yet known at what Ct value were the tests performed or claimed to be positive at?

Ct values for realtime PCR assays have to be interpreted in the context of the test system for which they have been validated and do not provide an absolute comparator outside of that context. The assays used by CSIRO's Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, which are validated as a part of our ISO 17025 accredited quality system, are considered to be positive for a Ct value of 40 or below, negative for a Ct value above 45 and indeterminate between these values. Other laboratories will however establish their own cutoff values in accordance with their own accreditation systems.