GileadGate Exposed
Rebekah Barnett's bombshell FOIA investigation uncovers a web of vested interests in the cover-up of an identified cancer risk related to specific COVID vaccines.
The bombshell exposé by
released today now confirms that a scientific report that showed a serious cancer risk from the COVID vaccines was suppressed under political pressure and not for reasons of scientific invalidity. The specific vaccines implicated were all “approved” by the FDA, TGA, MHRA and EMA without any assessment of carcinogenicity, that is, assessment of their risk of causing cancer1.The result of this cover up was that the population was denied information that informed them that the mRNA vaccines carried a risk of inducing cancer by a specific mechanism.
This one act of scientific corruption left the world population exposed to a potential cancer time bomb without their consent and showed that the drug regulators completely failed to do their job.
The fact that the people and institutions involved have vested interests in the very companies that were set to make a fortune from the impact of COVID, and the resulting mRNA vaccine industry that it spawned, implies that this cover up was deliberate and financially motivated.
The paper in question is this one from Umea university in Sweden, a highly respected institution.
And the point of contention is very nicely summarised by “Dr Been” Mobeen Syed (no relation 😊) who has a Youtube channel explaining much of the complex medical jargon and papers to the general public, in this video clip from Rebekah’s article:
If you don’t have the 4 minutes to spend the summary of what Dr Been says is this:
The mRNA vaccine product, the spike protein, goes into the nucleus and interferes with DNA repair by suppressing p53. If the cell doesn’t die as a result of this, cancer results.
Well, that’s bad. So bad in fact that Dr Been uses one word to describe what was done:
“WICKED”
He’s right. Let’s find out why
Welcome back to Gilead
The article that sparked off this whole story was post 2 years ago in this very substack
The gist of the article was that the paper was warning about a potential pandemic - not of a virus this time - but of cancer, related to the fact that using the whole spike protein in the COVID gene therapy vaccines (the vaccines that get your own cells to make spike protein, potentially for months on end) blocks the tumour suppressor p53.
p53 is commonly known as the “Guardian of the Genome” and your cells need it to repair DNA when it gets damaged. If it doesn’t repair then either the cell dies or it turns cancerous.
Every molecular biologist and oncologist knows this - including the editors (Eric Freed and Oliver Schildgen) of the very journal that Jiang & Mei published their paper in. So they knew that, even though the paper was primarily about lymphatic cells repairing their DNA, the findings had huge implications for the development of cancer in people who received the gene-based vaccines2.
And when I say “people” I mostly mean “women”, because p53 changes are overwhelmingly linked to breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancer. It doesn’t take much to do the maths to see that anything that increases the risk of these cancers is not only going to have a dramatic effect on cancer incidence (which has now been documented) but a dramatic effect on cancer deaths (also already documented).
And it was this inordinate bias to cancers affecting women - and the complete apathy that was implied - that resulted in the the “Welcome to Gilead” theme.
So, what did the investigation of Rebekah Barnett show?
Corroboration of a Cover-Up
In order to try to get to the bottom of what was going on with his paper, and why it was such a hot potato that it needed to be retracted under suspicious circumstances, Barnett not only spoke to Ya-Fang Mei (who appears to be the victim in this sordid episode) but put in a freedom of information request for the emails from the university underpinning the retraction.
The allegation was made by the supervising author (Mei) was that the first author had been blackmailed into signing a retraction notice.
This could be the first time that political pressure has been proven to have been exerted to force the retraction of a valid scientific paper of such significance. For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that political pressure (that is, pressure that can be applied for non-scientific reasons e.g. to protect a financial investment in a pharmaceutical company) exists is known about - and is specifically prohibited as a reason to retract a paper3 for obvious reasons.
The correct people to determine a retraction are the academic editors of a scholarly journal; the correct process is a clear series of steps for a scholarly evaluation of alleged problems in an article; and the correct reasons for retraction are in cases of scholarly fraud or massive error where correction and refutation are impossible.
By contrast, the incorrect people to determine a retraction are those who exert ownership control and lack scholarly authority; the incorrect process is an arbitrary and permanent removal of articles for the sake of public relations; and the incorrect reasons for a retraction are ideological disagreements or correctable mistakes.
Rebekah Barnett’s article and the FOI that underpins it clearly shows that the retraction only occurred because of manufactured political pressure which resulted in a forced “hostage” style request to retract by Hui Jiang (“the ghost”) that Ya-Fang Mei refused to agree to, correctly - as previously pointed out here.
Precisely the reason NOT to retract a scientifically sound paper. It is the final thread by which the failing process of peer-review is hanging, noting that the FOI also showed that three experts had approved the manuscript as valid.
Even more notable is that the head of the department, Nelson Gekara, had co-authored prior publications with Hui Jiang (who has now gone dark) using the very same established scientific techniques that the Jiang-Mei paper used, confirming its validity.
The Cover Up of the Cover Up
Those of you who have been following this blog of course will know that, as a direct consequence of this scandal, a freedom of information request was put in to the NIH in August 2022 for Eric Freed’s emails specifically in relation to this retraction.
The FOI was refused.
Of course it was. Because why would Eric Freed want anybody to see what he had written to Oliver Schildgen, or anyone else, to show his involvement in this corrupt process? I mean, you would think he would be happy to be transparent about this wouldn’t you?
Apparently not, as
published here:
The NIH did respond, in fact, to say that there were 490 pages of emails from Eric Freed in relation to the retraction. They just won’t provide them.
Bear in mind that in Barnett’s investigation Eric Freed was playing the role of “Oh OK whatever you guys say”, so 490 pages of emails is a hell of a lot.
So now the question is…
Does Eric Freed and the NIH of which he is an ambassador and senior researcher have any conflicts of interest that might make them want to remove this paper?
You know the answer already don’t you?
Gilead, Eric Freed and the NIH
Here’s a question:
If an editor of a journal, with the power to retract a paper showing that a new product carries significant risk, works for an institution that co-funds or directly manufactures that product, do they have a conflict of interest in retracting such a paper?
Just for fun I’ll drop in a poll
Eric Freed is a senior HIV researcher for the NIH.
And who makes one of the best selling HIV medications in the US?
A company that many of you might have heard of, and coincidentally shares the name of the subject of this very series of articles.
Gilead. Yep. Coincidentally the name of the home of the dystopian nightmare that renders women to be vassals of the state, to be discarded if they are unable to function as reproductive entities.
And home of the maker of drugs for p53-related cancers like breast cancer and lymphoma (no, you can’t make this up can you?).
But obviously, there would be no conflicts of interests with Eric Freed because he’s a HIV researcher, right?
Well, unless you want to ignore the fact that Gilead’s top selling drugs are actually HIV drugs, Gilead funds study authors that undermine cheap repurposed drugs for COVID so that they can sell their expensive and useless kidney-killer Remdesivir. And Gilead is involved everywhere the NIH are, claiming to be the biggest funder of HIV research - presumably so the NIH can insist that the US department of health continues to buy their drugs just like Tony Fauci did back in the day with AZT.
Maybe that’s why Gilead are trying to change their name - although “In Gillid” (as opposed to “at Gillid”) is still as creepy, if not more so, than the original.
And of course Gilead sponsor the HIV symposiums that Eric Freed organises with the NIH and NIAID
And just to cement the corrupt merry-go-round, remember that the NIH (your money) pays Moderna billions, and Moderna then pays the NIH (people like Eric Freed) hundreds of millions of dollars. And you won’t see a penny of your money, but you will be expected to pay your medical expenses if (when) it goes wrong.
Nice mafia-style set up, don’t you agree?
Note that these are not direct conflicts of interest. Freed may not receive a penny in personal funding, but his institute certainly does.
What he does get is a pally relationship with a drug company who has vested interests in ensuring that their expensive drugs are used in the very cancers that the Jiang-Mei study was showing to be a potential risk of the COVID vaccines.
And then there is this.
The Wuhan Connection
Because it isn’t enough that there is a significant affiliation with Gilead and the Pharma industry that has made billions of dollars on the back of a synthetic pandemic and ruined countless lives in the process, the connection with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, from where the virus emerged, is even stronger.
Eric Freed’s co-author in 2019 was none other than “bat lady” herself, the Wuhan researcher who not only was considered the originator of the SARS-Cov-2 virus but was intimately involved with Peter Daszak’s Ecohealth Alliance that claimed to have co-founded thousands of “bat virus” sequences as part of the PREDICT program that they later claimed to have never been funded for.
And here he is with the CCP’s representatives in Wuhan as well as Zengli Shi
For those not familiar with the way that scientific visits to China work, it should be remembered that once you are invited to China you are given the red carpet treatment on your arrival but are not free to explore China. The CCP will be your guide and you will be permanently noted as their friend (or foe), as part of the “thousand talents'“ program described here.
I should credit here again the excellent
who discovered Freed’s connection to Wuhan as well as the corruption involved with suppressing early treatments for COVID in their excellent documentary “Epidemic of Fraud”So we now have Eric Freed, potentially beholden to the Wuhan Institute of Virology - and certainly a friend of Gilead Sciences - both entities of which were central to the COVID pandemic (syndemic) and the manipulation of the public into accepting novel gene therapy vaccines as the only “way out” of “COVID”… as the chief editor responsible for retracting a sound scientific article that raised safety concerns over those very same vaccines. And who then refused to release his emails on the subject under a legally binding request to do so.
No conflicts at all then.
And if you thought that was problematic… wait for the finale
The CRISPR Connection
The ultimate kick in the teeth to the millions of people that may now develop an artificially induced cancer as a consequence of an undisclosed gene therapy that failed in its primary aim (to prevent COVID) and for which the trial underpinning it claimed false efficacy due to over a hundred manipulations of its data…
Was the undisclosed conflicts of interest of the very University that is now alleged to have forced the retraction of this paper. That is, the claim was effectively that the university (or somebody with sufficient influence at the university) held a proverbial gun to the head of the first author to make him request a retraction that was nonsensical on its face.
For this we just need to step back a little and remember where the real pot of gold is - CRISPR gene editing technology, an industry literally worth trillions of dollars.
I exposed it in “How many coincidences” and the result of that exposure was a relentless attack by certain groups connected to the Broad Institute - home of the CRISPR gene editing technology corporations and next door to Moderna. I can’t imagine why.
How many coincidences...
This is a deep dive into the possibility that similarities in the design of the genetic COVID vaccines that magically appeared overnight in February 2020 were more than coincidental. The findings are significant because they imply collusion, not competition, between all the vaccine companies who shared a (yet to be determined) common goal.
In that article I exposed how the CRISPR gene editing corporations are able to capitalise on the back of the gene therapy vaccine rollout either by diagnostics or therapeutics and their business model - requiring the coerced uptake of the genetic vaccines to billions of people - could be worth trillions of dollars. By highlighting safety concerns over the gene therapy vaccines we are a risk to their empire - and their stock price - as the public not only rejects these vaccines but all gene therapies due to the perceived corruption involved in the enforced vaccine rollout.
I noted that the two main players in this are the Broad Institute in Massachusetts (Boston, East Coast US) and the Innovative Genomics Institute (UC Berkeley, California, West Coast US) who have been battling it out for the trillion dollar patent rights to CRISPR technology.
But what I did not mention is that there is one other centre in the world which is interested in CRISPR gene therapy technology. That centre is now home to one of the original inventors of CRISPR technology, Emmanuelle Charpentier.
This person.
So, have you been paying attention?
If you have, you’ll realise that Charpentier’s home is Umea university - the very university embroiled in the retraction scandal that we have been writing about for 2 years, and that we are now dubbing “GileadGate”. And now you know that the university that unknowingly hosted this research study was a node for the CRISPR industry…
There was never a chance in hell that Ya-Fang Mei’s research was going to be allowed to see the light of day once the scientific community and then the public realised that it showed that the COVID genetic vaccines could induce cancer by suppression of p53.
But Schildgen must have missed the implication, so he approved the paper. It was only after Dr Been had exposed the finding in November 2021 that the proverbial shit hit the fan.
Then 490 pages of emails between Eric Freed and as-yet-unnamed-entities were written, the corporate machine was commissioned to get that paper retracted at all costs and the world’s public (particularly women) never got to find out that they risked ovarian, breast, pancreatic and a whole host of other cancers by taking a whole-spike gene therapy sold as a vaccine.
For your safety, of course.
Welcome to Gilead.
The gene-based vaccines include the DNA vaccines (Astrazeneca, J&J, Sputnik, Covidshield) and the RNA vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna). The whole-spike protein based vaccines (Novavax) are likely to have the same effect but this has not been specifically investigated to date. Spikogen, a protein based vaccine approved in Iran may not have the same effect as it does not contain one of the nuclear localisation signal elements seen in the whole-spike vaccines.
Wilson, J.K. The Right to Retract and the Danger of Retractions. Soc 60, 167–175 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00822-3
Safe (for those not taking it) and effective (for causing strokes, cardiomyoparhy, MI, neurodengenerative diseases, and of course, cancer) at depopulation.
Incredible reporting. Is there any worldly power capable to bring charges against these conspirators?