• “Brain Dead” is NOT Dead! LIVE people are murdered daily for organs and to “save money”
    You MUST KNOW that “no brain activity” means NOTHING except that doctors didn’t do the tests that would find the brain activity. Don’t let your loved one be killed.

    Brucha Weisberger
    BS”D

    From the beginning of time, people knew that cessation of heartbeat and breath meant death. This is the G-d-given definition, and it is logical. Since it’s real, this definition does not require anything to “prop it up.”

    Of course, G-d, Who creates life, is the only One Who has the authority to say when it ends, and to end it. Unfortunately, two motivations came into play in the 20th century to create a new, and false, “definition” of death.

    Marina Zhang at Epoch Times explains in her June 2024 article, “Brain-Dead People May Not Be Dead—Here’s Why.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/are-brain-dead-people-really-dead-5629496

    The definition of brain death, also known as death by neurological criteria, is when a person falls into a permanent coma, loses their brainstem reflexes and consciousness, and can’t breathe without stimulus or support.

    Yet a person’s heart can be beating, his or her organs functional, and he or she can fight off infection, grow, and even carry babies to term. (Delivery of a Healthy Baby from a Brain-Dead Woman After 117 Days of Somatic Support: A Case Report - PMC https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8141338/)

    Though they may exhibit no signs of consciousness, some areas of the brain may still work. About 50 percent of brain-death patients retain activity in their hypothalamus, which coordinates the body’s endocrine system and regulates body temperature.

    However, all of this stops if they are taken off life support.

    What is the big rush to declare death and take people off of breathing assistance?

    First, there is a need for transplant organs, and second, a wish to “save resources” by having people hurry up and die already.

    From Rachel Aviv’s article in the New Yorker, 2018: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die

    Until the nineteen-sixties, cardio-respiratory failure was the only way to die. The notion that death could be diagnosed in the brain didn’t emerge until after the advent of the modern ventilator, allowing what was known at the time as “oxygen treatment”: as long as blood carrying oxygen reached the heart, it could continue to beat. In 1967, Henry Beecher, a renowned bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, wrote to a colleague, “It would be most desirable for a group at Harvard University to come to some subtle conclusion as to a new definition of death.” Permanently comatose patients, maintained by mechanical ventilators, were “increasing in numbers over the land and there are a number of problems which should be faced up to.”

    Beecher created a committee comprising men who already knew one another: ten doctors, one lawyer, one historian, and one theologian. In less than six months, they completed a report, which they published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The only citation in the article was from a speech by the Pope. They proposed that the irreversible destruction of the brain should be defined as death, giving two reasons: to relieve the burden on families and hospitals, which were providing futile care to patients who would never recover, and to address the fact that “obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation,” a field that had developed rapidly; in the previous five years, doctors had performed the world’s first transplant of a pancreas, a liver, a lung, and a heart. In an earlier draft, the second reason was stated more directly: “There is great need for the tissues and organs of the hopelessly comatose in order to restore to health those who are still salvageable.” (The sentence was revised after Harvard’s medical dean wrote that “the connotation of this statement is unfortunate.”)

    In the next twelve years, twenty-seven states rewrote their definitions of death to conform to the Harvard committee’s conclusions. Thousands of lives were prolonged or saved every year because patients declared brain-dead—a form of death eventually adopted by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe—were now eligible to donate their organs. The philosopher Peter Singer described it as “a concept so desirable in its consequences that it is unthinkable to give up, and so shaky on its foundations that it can scarcely be supported.” The new death was “an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact,” he wrote.

    Legal ambiguities remained—people considered alive in one region of the country could be declared dead in another—and, in 1981, the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems proposed a uniform definition and theory of death. Its report, which was endorsed by the American Medical Association, stated that death is the moment when the body stops operating as an “integrated whole.” Even if life continues in individual organs and cells, the person is no longer alive, because the functioning organs are merely a collection of artificially maintained subsystems that will inevitably disintegrate. “The heart usually stops beating within two to ten days,” the report said.

    The commission’s staff philosopher, Daniel Wikler, a professor at Harvard and the first staff ethicist for the World Health Organization, told me that he didn’t think the commission’s theory of death was supported by the scientific facts it cited. “I thought it was demonstrably untrue, but so what?” he said. “I didn’t see a downside at the time.” Wikler told the commission that it would be more logical to say that death occurred when the cerebrum—the center for consciousness, thoughts, and feelings, the properties essential to having a personal identity—was destroyed. His formulation would have rendered a much broader population of patients, including those who could breathe on their own, dead.

    Despite Wikler’s reservations, he drafted the third chapter of the report, “Understanding the ‘Meaning’ of Death.” “I was put in a tight spot, and I fudged,” he told me. “I knew that there was an air of bad faith about it. I made it seem like there are a lot of profound unknowns and went in the direction of fuzziness, so that no one could say, ‘Hey, your philosopher says this is nonsense.’ That’s what I thought, but you’d never know from what I wrote.”

    So much for “brain dead” being a scientific definition.

    It is truly horrifying to contemplate that living, feeling people have their vital organs barbarically cut out while they are alive. Organs must be “harvested” from live donors in order to be viable. Live, in the true sense of the word - the heart is beating. (As you will see in this article, there is awareness, as well, even if the person cannot express it.)

    From Marina Zhang’s ET article:

    Among European anesthesiologists, there is an ongoing debate about whether brain-dead organ donors should be given consciousness blockers during organ procurement.

    Some argue that they should do so in case patients feel pain. Others disagree. Surprisingly, the anesthesiologists’ position is “not based on the claim that patients were incapable of experiencing pain,” but, instead, out of concern that the public might have doubts about the brain-death diagnosis, bioethicists Dr. Robert Truog and Franklin Miller (who has a doctorate in philosophy) wrote in their book, “Death, Dying, and Organ Transplantation.”

    Dr. Ronald Dworkin, a research fellow and anesthesiologist, wrote in an article on organ procurement that he chose to give consciousness blockers because he thought his patient “might still be a ‘little alive’, [sic] whatever that means.”

    Mr. Miller, who is also a professor of medical ethics in medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, said the label of brain death is misleading. He and Dr. Truog, professor of anesthesiology and director emeritus of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics, are of the opinion that brain-dead people are alive but likely will not regain consciousness and recover.

    See this chilling account by a doctor, in the ET article:

    It was 1989, and she was still a resident anesthesiologist, Dr. Heidi Klessig recalled in her book, “The Brain Death Fallacy.”

    One day, her attending anesthesiologist told her to prepare a brain-dead organ donor for organ removal surgery.

    Upon examining the patient, Dr. Klessig was surprised to find that the man looked exactly like every other critically ill, living patient and, in fact, better than most.

    “He was warm, his heart was beating, and his monitors showed stable vital signs,” Dr. Klessig wrote. “Nevertheless, on his bedside exam, he checked all the boxes for brain death, and the neurologist declared him ‘dead.’”

    Dr. Klessig’s supervising attending anesthesiologist asked her what anesthesia she was going to give the donor for the operation.

    Her answer was a paralyzing agent so the donor wouldn’t move during surgery, as well as some fentanyl to blunt the body’s responses to pain.

    The anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Well, are you going to give anything to block consciousness?”

    Dr. Klessig was stunned. Consciousness blockers are given to patients to ensure they aren’t awake and aware during an operation.

    Her education told her that brain-dead patients should not be conscious; apart from having a biologically active body, their minds were gone.

    “I looked at him and said, ‘Why would I do that? Isn’t he dead?’”

    Her attending anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Why don’t you give him something to block consciousness—just in case.”

    “I get a pit in my stomach every time I remember his face,” Dr. Klessig told The Epoch Times. “I remember him looking at me over his mask ... It seemed very confusing.

    Please don’t miss the extremely powerful video testimony above.

    It is horrific to realize that parents and other family members are routinely told that their child or loved one is “dead” because of absence of “brain activity” when in reality, the person is alive, and will die only when the family agrees to to having the respirator unplugged - in order words, to have their relative murdered.

    Someone that I know personally told me of an immensely tragic case that he was was involved with, in which a brain-injured child whom he was helping to heal after she had been declared “brain dead,” was murdered after he was removed from the premises. The child had been making progress towards recovery. He knows of many other similar cases. In one case, the child’s father witnessed with his own eyes the nurse giving the child an injection, after which the child’s heart stopped - but the nurse denied administering anything.

    This person that I know told me of a doctor in Louisiana, Dr. Paul Harch, who has helped scores of “brain dead” children and adults to become completely well again - using a walk-in hyperbaric oxygen chamber which accommodates people on life support.

    Dr. Harch uses a special test that can pick up brain activity not picked up on standard brain tests - but hospitals refuse to use it.

    Why do the powers-that-be want people dead, so badly?

    Here are some stories which clearly illustrate how very much alive people who are pronounced “brain dead” actually are. Most of them were collected on this website: https://www.respectforhumanlife.com/survivors

    Harrison Elmer: Three week old boy with meningitis had life support machine turned off - but staged a miracle recovery

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-week-old-boy-meningitis-6733061


    Harrison had become desperately ill after being struck down by meningitis and doctors said they could do no more.

    Scans showed he was completely brain dead.

    Heartbroken Samantha Baker, 22, and Adam Ellmer, 26, chose to take Harrison to a hospice so he could pass away peacefully by their side.

    But after the machine was turned off, little Harrison not only managed to breathe on his own, he began an incredible journey back to health.

    Now he is about to reach his third birthday, and is hitting all the milestones as expected.

    Samantha, a full-time mum, said: “When Harrison's life support was switched off we never imagined he would continue to breathe.

    “We were all so heartbroken when we were told he wasn't going to survive, it felt like a real miracle.

    “Despite surviving, doctors still warned us that he would never be able to walk or talk.

    “We were terrified but so thankful he had survived that we just took each day as it came.”

    Jahi Mcmath 2000 - 2018 Declared "Brain Dead" in the state of California in December 2013. She lived five more years in New Jersey post diagnosis


    Jahi’s case is particularly tragic because it didn’t have to happen - she had surgery to remove her tonsils, because of sleep apnea which caused her exhaustion and difficulty focusing. Her post-op observation was grossly lacking, and her unusual bleeding was ignored. Jahi hemorrhaged and lost her pulse. Doctors declared her “brain dead,” but her mother never gave up. She fought and fought against the furious medical “professionals:”

    On December 19th, ten days after the surgery, David Durand, the hospital’s senior vice-president and chief medical officer, held a meeting with the family. They asked Durand to allow Jahi to remain on the ventilator [for six more days], suggesting that the swelling in her brain might subside. Durand said no. They also asked that she be given a feeding tube. Durand dismissed this request, too. The idea that the procedure would help her recover was an “absurd notion,” he later wrote, and would only add to the “illusion that she is not dead.”

    When they persisted, Durand asked, “What is it that you don’t understand?” According to Jahi’s mother, stepfather, grandmother, brother, and Dolan, who took notes, Durand pounded his fist on the table, saying, “She’s dead, dead, dead.”

    Jahi’s mother wouldn’t give up, and moved Jahi to another state. Her family constantly spoke with her and stimulated her. Despite having a death certificate, Jahi was clearly alive. She would move her hands and feet in response to requests, and even began menstruating (a process mediated by the hypothalamus, near the front of the brain.)

    On the (MRI) scans, Machado observed that Jahi’s brain stem was nearly destroyed. The nerve fibres that connect the brain’s right and left hemispheres were barely recognizable. But large areas of her cerebrum, which mediates consciousness, language, and voluntary movements, were structurally intact.

    Unfortunately, Jahi passed away of liver failure after five years of devoted care and of progress.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die


    On Thursday, a senior doctor told the High Court she was "shocked" when a baby declared brain stem dead after two tests began breathing by himself two weeks later.

    The court heard that ventilation continued on the four-month-old after he was declared dead because there was an ongoing legal dispute.

    In July, doctors treating him at a London hospital were forced to rescind "the clinical ascertainment of death" after a nurse noticed the infant had independent rhythmic breathing.

    Mr Justice Hayden, who has been asked by Guys' and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust to decide what is in the baby's best interests, said the juxtaposition of a baby being declared dead but then breathing independently is "striking even for those of us experienced in these cases". He called the test "unreliable".

    The doctor said the "wording" of the test could be changed to include a warning about the test's reliability.

    She said she had approached the AMRC to explain what happened, saying it would be "problematic" if news of the test's unreliability "got out in the public domain".

    The brain stem test is a clinical test done when there is clear evidence of serious brain damage that cannot be cured. It is a series of mini tests to check the brain's automatic functions including reaction to light in the eyes, ice-cold water in the ear and a short period off a ventilator to see whether a patient attempts to take a breath.

    Lewis Roberts


    In March 2021, 18-year-old Lewis Roberts was declared brain stem dead after a road accident but began breathing independently hours before his organs were to be extracted for donation. Today he is well enough to play football and basketball.

    Last month his sister told Sky News the test is done too soon.

    "They rushed it through," she said.

    "Eight months ago he was sat in a wheelchair, his eyes were gone, he couldn't speak. From how he was then to how he is now, that just shows that the brain can heal given the time."

    https://news.sky.com/story/brain-death-test-in-uk-under-review-after-baby-declared-dead-began-breathing-independently-12681630

    It’s not only young people who can have miraculous recoveries. Here, a woman in her seventies who had a severe heart attack made a comeback after 6 days of a flat EEG.

    This story by Judy Doobov, from the book Small Miracles for the Jewish Heart, was republished on Chabad.org.

    After sustaining a severe heart attack in 1973, my grandmother sank into a deep coma and was placed on life support systems in the hospital. Her EEG was totally flat, indicating zero brain activity. She was hooked up both to a pacemaker that made her heart beat artificially and a respirator that made her lungs breathe artificially. But technically, as the doctors told me privately, she was basically as good as dead. "She'll never come out of the coma," they said, "and she's better off this way. If she did, her life would be meaningless. She'd exist in a purely vegetative state.

    Even though she was in her mid-seventies and had lived a full life, I refused to believe that my beloved grandmother could simply slip away like this. She was too feisty, too vital to just disappear into a coma. My instincts told me to start talking to her and keep chatting away. I stayed at her bedside day and night, and that's precisely what I did. I spoke to her all the time about my husband and our two small children, about other relatives, about her own life. I told her all the news that was circulating in Australia at the time. I also kept urging her to keep clinging to life, not to give up. "Don't you dare leave us!" I exhorted. "I need you, Mom needs you, your grandchildren need you. They're just beginning to get to know you. It's too soon for you to go!"

    It was hard for me to do battle for my grandmother's life, alone as I was. During the time that she fell ill, I was her only relative in Sydney. Her daughter (my mother) was away overseas on a trip, and my only sibling — a brother — lived in Israel. My husband was home caring for our children so that I could take my post at her bedside. I stood a solitary vigil, but that was not what placed such tremendous pressure on me. What was enormously difficult was being asked to make decisions alone. The emotional burden was huge.

    When four days passed with no signs of life flickering in either my grandmother's eyes or her hands, and no change recorded by the EEG, the doctors advised me to authorize the papers that would turn off the life support systems. I trembled to think that I held the power of consigning my grandmother to an early grave. "But she's really already dead," the doctors argued. "She's just being kept artificially alive by the pacemaker and the respirator. Keeping her hooked up to these machines is just a waste."

    "Well, listen," I said. "It's Thursday afternoon, and in the Jewish religion we bury people right away. My parents are overseas — practically two days away — and they would certainly want to be here for the funeral. But we don't do funerals on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. The earliest we could do the funeral would be on Sunday. So let me call my parents to get ready to fly home, and I'll sign the papers on Sunday." It was all very cold and calculating, but deep inside, my heart was aching.

    Meanwhile, I didn't let up. I kept talking up a storm. "Guess what, Grandma?" I gossiped. "You won't believe who ended up being your roommate here in the hospital! Stringfellow! Your next door neighbor at home, Mrs. Stringfellow, was just brought in with a serious condition. Isn't that a coincidence? She lives next door to you in Sydney and now she's your roommate here in the hospital!"

    On Saturday, I was at my usual post at my grandmother's bedside, getting ready to start a round of tearful goodbyes, when I thought I noticed her eyes blinking. I called a nurse and told her what I had seen. "It's just your imagination, dearie," the nurse said compassionately. "Why don't you go downstairs for some coffee, and I'll stay with her until you come back?"

    But when I returned, the nurse was brimming over with excitement herself. "You know," she said, "I think you may be right. I've been sitting here watching your grandmother, and I could swear I saw her blinking, too."

    A few hours later, my grandmother's eyelids flew open. She stared at me and then craned her neck to look at the empty bed on the other side of the room. "Hey," she yelled, "what happened to Stringfellow?"

    By the time my mother arrived at the hospital the next day, my grandmother was sitting up in bed, conversing cheerfully with the hospital staff, and looking perfectly normal. My mother glared at me, annoyed, sure I had exaggerated my grandmother's condition. "For this, I had to schlep all the way home?" she asked.

    Later, my grandmother told me that while she was in the "coma" she had heard every single word that was said to her and about her. She repeated all the conversations to me, and her retention was remarkable.

    "I kept shouting to you," she said, "but somehow you didn't hear me. I kept on trying to tell you, 'Don't bury me yet.'"

    After she was discharged from the hospital, my grandmother's quality of life remained excellent. She lived on her own as a self-sufficient, independent, and high-spirited lady and continued to live in this manner until her death sixteen years after I almost pulled the plug.

    https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/68197/jewish/Coma.htm

    How the world has spiraled downwards. When I read my husband the Australian miracle story above, which happened fifty years ago, he commented that today, the nurse who offered to “stay with grandma” while the granddaughter took a coffee break would likely have been the one to pull the plug in her absence.

    There are many more stories of survivors of a “brain death” diagnosis on the respectforhumanlife.com site. For example:

    Zack Dunlap


    21 year old Oklahoman Zack Dunlap was declared “brain dead” in November 2007 after a terrible ATV accident. It was so bad that brain matter was coming out of his ear, and a blood flow scan showed no blood flow to his brain. Zack heard the doctors pronounce his 'death'. Minutes before his organ harvest was about to begin, his grandmother prayed for him to live, and his cousin urged him to pray for himself. Within minutes, Zack’s cousin proved that he had reflexes. 48 days after he was declared dead, Zack left the rehab hospital, and lives a fully recovered life. You must read Zack’s entire miraculous story here: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23768436

    Taylor Hale


    14 year old Iowa girl Taylor Hale was injured in an accident. Her parents were told that she was brain dead and that her brain had “turned to mush;” now she is alive and well: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/daniel-finney/2015/05/12/waukee-faith-healing-graduation/27207307/

    Steven Thorpe


    21 year old Steven Thorpe was declared “brain dead” after a car accident in February 2008, after only two days in the hospital. His parents refused to accept the diagnosis, and demanded a second opinion. After four doctors confirmed the diagnosis, the family still refused to give up, and two weeks later, Steven woke up. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-17757112

    Trenton McKinley


    13 year old Alabama boy Trenton McKinley was diagnosed as “brain dead” in March 2018 after an accident caused severe brain trauma. His parents had signed papers for his organ donation. The day before the harvest surgery he started showing signs of life and began a long recovery.

    “A man from the UAB organ donation came and talked to us in the family conference room about donating five organs to UAB children's hospital that would save five other children. But just a day before doctors were set to end Trenton's life support, he showed signs of cognition, and now he's slowly going through recovery.”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trenton-mckinley-regains-consciousness-after-parents-sign-papers-to-donate-his-organs-2018-05-06/

    James Howard Jones


    James Howard-Jones was diagnosed “brain dead” after being attacked in April 2022. His family asked doctors to delay the organ donation for a week so James’ friends and family could say goodbye. Waiting the few extra days led to James waking up, despite his diagnosis.

    •Colleen S. Burns 1969 - 2011, was diagnosed "brain dead" after an attempted overdose in 2009. She awoke on the operating table minutes before her organs were to be harvested. Sadly, she passed away in 2011 of depression.

    I remember my disbelief and sadness in 2005 as brain-injured Terry Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death by her estranged husband - under a court order permitting him to do so.

    And today? That same horrific murder by starvation and dehydration is now an everyday story, “brain dead” or not.

    Terry Schiavo’s brother now campaigns for the right of brain-injured people to food and water, and has an organization to assist families facing brain-injury crisis. See https://terrischiavo.org/terri-schiavo-life-hope-network/ and https://www.lifeandhope.com/.

    What should family members do if faced with the unthinkable diagnosis of “brain death,” G-d forbid?

    Prayer to the One and only Creator of the world is the most effective avenue of all.

    Insist that your religious beliefs do not allow for discontinuation of life support.

    Keep fighting them off to give your loved one time to recover. Do not leave the patient alone, and watch the patient vigilantly, as medical personnel may take matters into their own hands.

    Treatments which have helped “brain dead” patients recover include:

    •hyperbaric oxygen therapy

    •ozone therapy

    •craniosacral visceral manipulations

    •lymphatic drainage therapy

    •transcranial low-level laser therapy (LLLT) or photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy

    •high doses of Omega 3 fatty acids, found in fish oil.

    From Unbekoming’s interview of Lourdes Lavoy, whose “brain dead” daughter is well today:

    When our daughter was hospitalized with a severe brain injury (brain dead), we were informed that the hospital would keep her alive until we could arrive and say our goodbyes. The hospital was unaware that I am Option C. I conducted my own research and discovered that high doses of omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil could potentially reverse severe brain damage. When we arrived at the hospital, it was not to say goodbye to our daughter, but to instruct the medical staff on how we were going to save her. Chris was respectful and considerate in his approach, but when I noticed that we were not deviating from the hospital's predetermined course of action, I intervened and was less than polite. This is a critical aspect of Option C that people must understand. Option C acknowledges the reality that the hospital does not have complete control over the measures taken to restore a patient's health. My daughter got a high dose of fish oil, as I demanded, and she is alive and well today. The hospital and its doctors cannot compel a patient to receive a particular treatment or dictate how they should proceed with their recovery.

    You can email Lourdes at [email protected]. https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/interview-with-lourdes-and-chris

    Please share and save lives!

    Share

    To help me continue my work, you may make a one-time gift here: https://ko-fi.com/truth613

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-146415265
    “Brain Dead” is NOT Dead! LIVE people are murdered daily for organs and to “save money” You MUST KNOW that “no brain activity” means NOTHING except that doctors didn’t do the tests that would find the brain activity. Don’t let your loved one be killed. Brucha Weisberger BS”D From the beginning of time, people knew that cessation of heartbeat and breath meant death. This is the G-d-given definition, and it is logical. Since it’s real, this definition does not require anything to “prop it up.” Of course, G-d, Who creates life, is the only One Who has the authority to say when it ends, and to end it. Unfortunately, two motivations came into play in the 20th century to create a new, and false, “definition” of death. Marina Zhang at Epoch Times explains in her June 2024 article, “Brain-Dead People May Not Be Dead—Here’s Why.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/are-brain-dead-people-really-dead-5629496 The definition of brain death, also known as death by neurological criteria, is when a person falls into a permanent coma, loses their brainstem reflexes and consciousness, and can’t breathe without stimulus or support. Yet a person’s heart can be beating, his or her organs functional, and he or she can fight off infection, grow, and even carry babies to term. (Delivery of a Healthy Baby from a Brain-Dead Woman After 117 Days of Somatic Support: A Case Report - PMC https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8141338/) Though they may exhibit no signs of consciousness, some areas of the brain may still work. About 50 percent of brain-death patients retain activity in their hypothalamus, which coordinates the body’s endocrine system and regulates body temperature. However, all of this stops if they are taken off life support. What is the big rush to declare death and take people off of breathing assistance? First, there is a need for transplant organs, and second, a wish to “save resources” by having people hurry up and die already. From Rachel Aviv’s article in the New Yorker, 2018: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die Until the nineteen-sixties, cardio-respiratory failure was the only way to die. The notion that death could be diagnosed in the brain didn’t emerge until after the advent of the modern ventilator, allowing what was known at the time as “oxygen treatment”: as long as blood carrying oxygen reached the heart, it could continue to beat. In 1967, Henry Beecher, a renowned bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, wrote to a colleague, “It would be most desirable for a group at Harvard University to come to some subtle conclusion as to a new definition of death.” Permanently comatose patients, maintained by mechanical ventilators, were “increasing in numbers over the land and there are a number of problems which should be faced up to.” Beecher created a committee comprising men who already knew one another: ten doctors, one lawyer, one historian, and one theologian. In less than six months, they completed a report, which they published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The only citation in the article was from a speech by the Pope. They proposed that the irreversible destruction of the brain should be defined as death, giving two reasons: to relieve the burden on families and hospitals, which were providing futile care to patients who would never recover, and to address the fact that “obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation,” a field that had developed rapidly; in the previous five years, doctors had performed the world’s first transplant of a pancreas, a liver, a lung, and a heart. In an earlier draft, the second reason was stated more directly: “There is great need for the tissues and organs of the hopelessly comatose in order to restore to health those who are still salvageable.” (The sentence was revised after Harvard’s medical dean wrote that “the connotation of this statement is unfortunate.”) In the next twelve years, twenty-seven states rewrote their definitions of death to conform to the Harvard committee’s conclusions. Thousands of lives were prolonged or saved every year because patients declared brain-dead—a form of death eventually adopted by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe—were now eligible to donate their organs. The philosopher Peter Singer described it as “a concept so desirable in its consequences that it is unthinkable to give up, and so shaky on its foundations that it can scarcely be supported.” The new death was “an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact,” he wrote. Legal ambiguities remained—people considered alive in one region of the country could be declared dead in another—and, in 1981, the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems proposed a uniform definition and theory of death. Its report, which was endorsed by the American Medical Association, stated that death is the moment when the body stops operating as an “integrated whole.” Even if life continues in individual organs and cells, the person is no longer alive, because the functioning organs are merely a collection of artificially maintained subsystems that will inevitably disintegrate. “The heart usually stops beating within two to ten days,” the report said. The commission’s staff philosopher, Daniel Wikler, a professor at Harvard and the first staff ethicist for the World Health Organization, told me that he didn’t think the commission’s theory of death was supported by the scientific facts it cited. “I thought it was demonstrably untrue, but so what?” he said. “I didn’t see a downside at the time.” Wikler told the commission that it would be more logical to say that death occurred when the cerebrum—the center for consciousness, thoughts, and feelings, the properties essential to having a personal identity—was destroyed. His formulation would have rendered a much broader population of patients, including those who could breathe on their own, dead. Despite Wikler’s reservations, he drafted the third chapter of the report, “Understanding the ‘Meaning’ of Death.” “I was put in a tight spot, and I fudged,” he told me. “I knew that there was an air of bad faith about it. I made it seem like there are a lot of profound unknowns and went in the direction of fuzziness, so that no one could say, ‘Hey, your philosopher says this is nonsense.’ That’s what I thought, but you’d never know from what I wrote.” So much for “brain dead” being a scientific definition. It is truly horrifying to contemplate that living, feeling people have their vital organs barbarically cut out while they are alive. Organs must be “harvested” from live donors in order to be viable. Live, in the true sense of the word - the heart is beating. (As you will see in this article, there is awareness, as well, even if the person cannot express it.) From Marina Zhang’s ET article: Among European anesthesiologists, there is an ongoing debate about whether brain-dead organ donors should be given consciousness blockers during organ procurement. Some argue that they should do so in case patients feel pain. Others disagree. Surprisingly, the anesthesiologists’ position is “not based on the claim that patients were incapable of experiencing pain,” but, instead, out of concern that the public might have doubts about the brain-death diagnosis, bioethicists Dr. Robert Truog and Franklin Miller (who has a doctorate in philosophy) wrote in their book, “Death, Dying, and Organ Transplantation.” Dr. Ronald Dworkin, a research fellow and anesthesiologist, wrote in an article on organ procurement that he chose to give consciousness blockers because he thought his patient “might still be a ‘little alive’, [sic] whatever that means.” Mr. Miller, who is also a professor of medical ethics in medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, said the label of brain death is misleading. He and Dr. Truog, professor of anesthesiology and director emeritus of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics, are of the opinion that brain-dead people are alive but likely will not regain consciousness and recover. See this chilling account by a doctor, in the ET article: It was 1989, and she was still a resident anesthesiologist, Dr. Heidi Klessig recalled in her book, “The Brain Death Fallacy.” One day, her attending anesthesiologist told her to prepare a brain-dead organ donor for organ removal surgery. Upon examining the patient, Dr. Klessig was surprised to find that the man looked exactly like every other critically ill, living patient and, in fact, better than most. “He was warm, his heart was beating, and his monitors showed stable vital signs,” Dr. Klessig wrote. “Nevertheless, on his bedside exam, he checked all the boxes for brain death, and the neurologist declared him ‘dead.’” Dr. Klessig’s supervising attending anesthesiologist asked her what anesthesia she was going to give the donor for the operation. Her answer was a paralyzing agent so the donor wouldn’t move during surgery, as well as some fentanyl to blunt the body’s responses to pain. The anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Well, are you going to give anything to block consciousness?” Dr. Klessig was stunned. Consciousness blockers are given to patients to ensure they aren’t awake and aware during an operation. Her education told her that brain-dead patients should not be conscious; apart from having a biologically active body, their minds were gone. “I looked at him and said, ‘Why would I do that? Isn’t he dead?’” Her attending anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Why don’t you give him something to block consciousness—just in case.” “I get a pit in my stomach every time I remember his face,” Dr. Klessig told The Epoch Times. “I remember him looking at me over his mask ... It seemed very confusing. Please don’t miss the extremely powerful video testimony above. It is horrific to realize that parents and other family members are routinely told that their child or loved one is “dead” because of absence of “brain activity” when in reality, the person is alive, and will die only when the family agrees to to having the respirator unplugged - in order words, to have their relative murdered. Someone that I know personally told me of an immensely tragic case that he was was involved with, in which a brain-injured child whom he was helping to heal after she had been declared “brain dead,” was murdered after he was removed from the premises. The child had been making progress towards recovery. He knows of many other similar cases. In one case, the child’s father witnessed with his own eyes the nurse giving the child an injection, after which the child’s heart stopped - but the nurse denied administering anything. This person that I know told me of a doctor in Louisiana, Dr. Paul Harch, who has helped scores of “brain dead” children and adults to become completely well again - using a walk-in hyperbaric oxygen chamber which accommodates people on life support. Dr. Harch uses a special test that can pick up brain activity not picked up on standard brain tests - but hospitals refuse to use it. Why do the powers-that-be want people dead, so badly? Here are some stories which clearly illustrate how very much alive people who are pronounced “brain dead” actually are. Most of them were collected on this website: https://www.respectforhumanlife.com/survivors Harrison Elmer: Three week old boy with meningitis had life support machine turned off - but staged a miracle recovery https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-week-old-boy-meningitis-6733061 Harrison had become desperately ill after being struck down by meningitis and doctors said they could do no more. Scans showed he was completely brain dead. Heartbroken Samantha Baker, 22, and Adam Ellmer, 26, chose to take Harrison to a hospice so he could pass away peacefully by their side. But after the machine was turned off, little Harrison not only managed to breathe on his own, he began an incredible journey back to health. Now he is about to reach his third birthday, and is hitting all the milestones as expected. Samantha, a full-time mum, said: “When Harrison's life support was switched off we never imagined he would continue to breathe. “We were all so heartbroken when we were told he wasn't going to survive, it felt like a real miracle. “Despite surviving, doctors still warned us that he would never be able to walk or talk. “We were terrified but so thankful he had survived that we just took each day as it came.” Jahi Mcmath 2000 - 2018 Declared "Brain Dead" in the state of California in December 2013. She lived five more years in New Jersey post diagnosis Jahi’s case is particularly tragic because it didn’t have to happen - she had surgery to remove her tonsils, because of sleep apnea which caused her exhaustion and difficulty focusing. Her post-op observation was grossly lacking, and her unusual bleeding was ignored. Jahi hemorrhaged and lost her pulse. Doctors declared her “brain dead,” but her mother never gave up. She fought and fought against the furious medical “professionals:” On December 19th, ten days after the surgery, David Durand, the hospital’s senior vice-president and chief medical officer, held a meeting with the family. They asked Durand to allow Jahi to remain on the ventilator [for six more days], suggesting that the swelling in her brain might subside. Durand said no. They also asked that she be given a feeding tube. Durand dismissed this request, too. The idea that the procedure would help her recover was an “absurd notion,” he later wrote, and would only add to the “illusion that she is not dead.” When they persisted, Durand asked, “What is it that you don’t understand?” According to Jahi’s mother, stepfather, grandmother, brother, and Dolan, who took notes, Durand pounded his fist on the table, saying, “She’s dead, dead, dead.” Jahi’s mother wouldn’t give up, and moved Jahi to another state. Her family constantly spoke with her and stimulated her. Despite having a death certificate, Jahi was clearly alive. She would move her hands and feet in response to requests, and even began menstruating (a process mediated by the hypothalamus, near the front of the brain.) On the (MRI) scans, Machado observed that Jahi’s brain stem was nearly destroyed. The nerve fibres that connect the brain’s right and left hemispheres were barely recognizable. But large areas of her cerebrum, which mediates consciousness, language, and voluntary movements, were structurally intact. Unfortunately, Jahi passed away of liver failure after five years of devoted care and of progress. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die On Thursday, a senior doctor told the High Court she was "shocked" when a baby declared brain stem dead after two tests began breathing by himself two weeks later. The court heard that ventilation continued on the four-month-old after he was declared dead because there was an ongoing legal dispute. In July, doctors treating him at a London hospital were forced to rescind "the clinical ascertainment of death" after a nurse noticed the infant had independent rhythmic breathing. Mr Justice Hayden, who has been asked by Guys' and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust to decide what is in the baby's best interests, said the juxtaposition of a baby being declared dead but then breathing independently is "striking even for those of us experienced in these cases". He called the test "unreliable". The doctor said the "wording" of the test could be changed to include a warning about the test's reliability. She said she had approached the AMRC to explain what happened, saying it would be "problematic" if news of the test's unreliability "got out in the public domain". The brain stem test is a clinical test done when there is clear evidence of serious brain damage that cannot be cured. It is a series of mini tests to check the brain's automatic functions including reaction to light in the eyes, ice-cold water in the ear and a short period off a ventilator to see whether a patient attempts to take a breath. Lewis Roberts In March 2021, 18-year-old Lewis Roberts was declared brain stem dead after a road accident but began breathing independently hours before his organs were to be extracted for donation. Today he is well enough to play football and basketball. Last month his sister told Sky News the test is done too soon. "They rushed it through," she said. "Eight months ago he was sat in a wheelchair, his eyes were gone, he couldn't speak. From how he was then to how he is now, that just shows that the brain can heal given the time." https://news.sky.com/story/brain-death-test-in-uk-under-review-after-baby-declared-dead-began-breathing-independently-12681630 It’s not only young people who can have miraculous recoveries. Here, a woman in her seventies who had a severe heart attack made a comeback after 6 days of a flat EEG. This story by Judy Doobov, from the book Small Miracles for the Jewish Heart, was republished on Chabad.org. After sustaining a severe heart attack in 1973, my grandmother sank into a deep coma and was placed on life support systems in the hospital. Her EEG was totally flat, indicating zero brain activity. She was hooked up both to a pacemaker that made her heart beat artificially and a respirator that made her lungs breathe artificially. But technically, as the doctors told me privately, she was basically as good as dead. "She'll never come out of the coma," they said, "and she's better off this way. If she did, her life would be meaningless. She'd exist in a purely vegetative state. Even though she was in her mid-seventies and had lived a full life, I refused to believe that my beloved grandmother could simply slip away like this. She was too feisty, too vital to just disappear into a coma. My instincts told me to start talking to her and keep chatting away. I stayed at her bedside day and night, and that's precisely what I did. I spoke to her all the time about my husband and our two small children, about other relatives, about her own life. I told her all the news that was circulating in Australia at the time. I also kept urging her to keep clinging to life, not to give up. "Don't you dare leave us!" I exhorted. "I need you, Mom needs you, your grandchildren need you. They're just beginning to get to know you. It's too soon for you to go!" It was hard for me to do battle for my grandmother's life, alone as I was. During the time that she fell ill, I was her only relative in Sydney. Her daughter (my mother) was away overseas on a trip, and my only sibling — a brother — lived in Israel. My husband was home caring for our children so that I could take my post at her bedside. I stood a solitary vigil, but that was not what placed such tremendous pressure on me. What was enormously difficult was being asked to make decisions alone. The emotional burden was huge. When four days passed with no signs of life flickering in either my grandmother's eyes or her hands, and no change recorded by the EEG, the doctors advised me to authorize the papers that would turn off the life support systems. I trembled to think that I held the power of consigning my grandmother to an early grave. "But she's really already dead," the doctors argued. "She's just being kept artificially alive by the pacemaker and the respirator. Keeping her hooked up to these machines is just a waste." "Well, listen," I said. "It's Thursday afternoon, and in the Jewish religion we bury people right away. My parents are overseas — practically two days away — and they would certainly want to be here for the funeral. But we don't do funerals on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. The earliest we could do the funeral would be on Sunday. So let me call my parents to get ready to fly home, and I'll sign the papers on Sunday." It was all very cold and calculating, but deep inside, my heart was aching. Meanwhile, I didn't let up. I kept talking up a storm. "Guess what, Grandma?" I gossiped. "You won't believe who ended up being your roommate here in the hospital! Stringfellow! Your next door neighbor at home, Mrs. Stringfellow, was just brought in with a serious condition. Isn't that a coincidence? She lives next door to you in Sydney and now she's your roommate here in the hospital!" On Saturday, I was at my usual post at my grandmother's bedside, getting ready to start a round of tearful goodbyes, when I thought I noticed her eyes blinking. I called a nurse and told her what I had seen. "It's just your imagination, dearie," the nurse said compassionately. "Why don't you go downstairs for some coffee, and I'll stay with her until you come back?" But when I returned, the nurse was brimming over with excitement herself. "You know," she said, "I think you may be right. I've been sitting here watching your grandmother, and I could swear I saw her blinking, too." A few hours later, my grandmother's eyelids flew open. She stared at me and then craned her neck to look at the empty bed on the other side of the room. "Hey," she yelled, "what happened to Stringfellow?" By the time my mother arrived at the hospital the next day, my grandmother was sitting up in bed, conversing cheerfully with the hospital staff, and looking perfectly normal. My mother glared at me, annoyed, sure I had exaggerated my grandmother's condition. "For this, I had to schlep all the way home?" she asked. Later, my grandmother told me that while she was in the "coma" she had heard every single word that was said to her and about her. She repeated all the conversations to me, and her retention was remarkable. "I kept shouting to you," she said, "but somehow you didn't hear me. I kept on trying to tell you, 'Don't bury me yet.'" After she was discharged from the hospital, my grandmother's quality of life remained excellent. She lived on her own as a self-sufficient, independent, and high-spirited lady and continued to live in this manner until her death sixteen years after I almost pulled the plug. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/68197/jewish/Coma.htm How the world has spiraled downwards. When I read my husband the Australian miracle story above, which happened fifty years ago, he commented that today, the nurse who offered to “stay with grandma” while the granddaughter took a coffee break would likely have been the one to pull the plug in her absence. There are many more stories of survivors of a “brain death” diagnosis on the respectforhumanlife.com site. For example: Zack Dunlap 21 year old Oklahoman Zack Dunlap was declared “brain dead” in November 2007 after a terrible ATV accident. It was so bad that brain matter was coming out of his ear, and a blood flow scan showed no blood flow to his brain. Zack heard the doctors pronounce his 'death'. Minutes before his organ harvest was about to begin, his grandmother prayed for him to live, and his cousin urged him to pray for himself. Within minutes, Zack’s cousin proved that he had reflexes. 48 days after he was declared dead, Zack left the rehab hospital, and lives a fully recovered life. You must read Zack’s entire miraculous story here: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23768436 Taylor Hale 14 year old Iowa girl Taylor Hale was injured in an accident. Her parents were told that she was brain dead and that her brain had “turned to mush;” now she is alive and well: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/daniel-finney/2015/05/12/waukee-faith-healing-graduation/27207307/ Steven Thorpe 21 year old Steven Thorpe was declared “brain dead” after a car accident in February 2008, after only two days in the hospital. His parents refused to accept the diagnosis, and demanded a second opinion. After four doctors confirmed the diagnosis, the family still refused to give up, and two weeks later, Steven woke up. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-17757112 Trenton McKinley 13 year old Alabama boy Trenton McKinley was diagnosed as “brain dead” in March 2018 after an accident caused severe brain trauma. His parents had signed papers for his organ donation. The day before the harvest surgery he started showing signs of life and began a long recovery. “A man from the UAB organ donation came and talked to us in the family conference room about donating five organs to UAB children's hospital that would save five other children. But just a day before doctors were set to end Trenton's life support, he showed signs of cognition, and now he's slowly going through recovery.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trenton-mckinley-regains-consciousness-after-parents-sign-papers-to-donate-his-organs-2018-05-06/ James Howard Jones James Howard-Jones was diagnosed “brain dead” after being attacked in April 2022. His family asked doctors to delay the organ donation for a week so James’ friends and family could say goodbye. Waiting the few extra days led to James waking up, despite his diagnosis. •Colleen S. Burns 1969 - 2011, was diagnosed "brain dead" after an attempted overdose in 2009. She awoke on the operating table minutes before her organs were to be harvested. Sadly, she passed away in 2011 of depression. I remember my disbelief and sadness in 2005 as brain-injured Terry Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death by her estranged husband - under a court order permitting him to do so. And today? That same horrific murder by starvation and dehydration is now an everyday story, “brain dead” or not. Terry Schiavo’s brother now campaigns for the right of brain-injured people to food and water, and has an organization to assist families facing brain-injury crisis. See https://terrischiavo.org/terri-schiavo-life-hope-network/ and https://www.lifeandhope.com/. What should family members do if faced with the unthinkable diagnosis of “brain death,” G-d forbid? Prayer to the One and only Creator of the world is the most effective avenue of all. Insist that your religious beliefs do not allow for discontinuation of life support. Keep fighting them off to give your loved one time to recover. Do not leave the patient alone, and watch the patient vigilantly, as medical personnel may take matters into their own hands. Treatments which have helped “brain dead” patients recover include: •hyperbaric oxygen therapy •ozone therapy •craniosacral visceral manipulations •lymphatic drainage therapy •transcranial low-level laser therapy (LLLT) or photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy •high doses of Omega 3 fatty acids, found in fish oil. From Unbekoming’s interview of Lourdes Lavoy, whose “brain dead” daughter is well today: When our daughter was hospitalized with a severe brain injury (brain dead), we were informed that the hospital would keep her alive until we could arrive and say our goodbyes. The hospital was unaware that I am Option C. I conducted my own research and discovered that high doses of omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil could potentially reverse severe brain damage. When we arrived at the hospital, it was not to say goodbye to our daughter, but to instruct the medical staff on how we were going to save her. Chris was respectful and considerate in his approach, but when I noticed that we were not deviating from the hospital's predetermined course of action, I intervened and was less than polite. This is a critical aspect of Option C that people must understand. Option C acknowledges the reality that the hospital does not have complete control over the measures taken to restore a patient's health. My daughter got a high dose of fish oil, as I demanded, and she is alive and well today. The hospital and its doctors cannot compel a patient to receive a particular treatment or dictate how they should proceed with their recovery. You can email Lourdes at [email protected]. https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/interview-with-lourdes-and-chris Please share and save lives! Share To help me continue my work, you may make a one-time gift here: https://ko-fi.com/truth613 https://substack.com/home/post/p-146415265
    SUBSTACK.COM
    “Brain Dead” is NOT Dead! LIVE people are murdered daily for organs and to “save money”
    You MUST KNOW that “no brain activity” means NOTHING except that doctors didn’t do the tests that would find the brain activity. Don’t let your loved one be killed.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 8390 Views
  • SocioWave Review | Get REAL Buyers With Cash In Hand


    Online communication is changing because of social technologies. Sociowave is a unique platform in this digital environment. Its various features and easy-to-use interface set it apart from its competitors. Users can monitor engagement and improve their strategy with real-time statistics and customizable dashboards.

    The ability to integrate with multiple social networks makes it easy to share content.

    Advanced scheduling methods ensure that your audience sees your messages at the best time. The platform’s commitment to privacy and data security reinforces its position as a trusted choice for consumers and businesses alike.


    Read More:
    https://dilip-review.com/sociowave-review/

    #HowtoMakeMoneywithSocioWave
    #SocioWavebyMeiiSapphire
    #MakeMoneywithSocioWave
    #HowDoesSocioWaveWork
    #SocioWaveHonestReview
    #SocioWaveScamorLegit
    #HowtoBuySocioWave
    #SocioWaveLiveDemo
    #SocioWaveDownload
    #SocioWaveUpgrades
    #SocioWaveSoftware
    #SocioWaveBonuses
    #SocioWaveReviews
    #SocioWavePreview
    #SocioWaveUpsells
    #SocioWaveReview
    #SocioWaveBonus
    #SocioWaveDemo
    #SocioWaveScam
    #SocioWaveLegit
    #SocioWaveOTO

    SocioWave Review | Get REAL Buyers With Cash In Hand Online communication is changing because of social technologies. Sociowave is a unique platform in this digital environment. Its various features and easy-to-use interface set it apart from its competitors. Users can monitor engagement and improve their strategy with real-time statistics and customizable dashboards. The ability to integrate with multiple social networks makes it easy to share content. Advanced scheduling methods ensure that your audience sees your messages at the best time. The platform’s commitment to privacy and data security reinforces its position as a trusted choice for consumers and businesses alike. Read More: https://dilip-review.com/sociowave-review/ #HowtoMakeMoneywithSocioWave #SocioWavebyMeiiSapphire #MakeMoneywithSocioWave #HowDoesSocioWaveWork #SocioWaveHonestReview #SocioWaveScamorLegit #HowtoBuySocioWave #SocioWaveLiveDemo #SocioWaveDownload #SocioWaveUpgrades #SocioWaveSoftware #SocioWaveBonuses #SocioWaveReviews #SocioWavePreview #SocioWaveUpsells #SocioWaveReview #SocioWaveBonus #SocioWaveDemo #SocioWaveScam #SocioWaveLegit #SocioWaveOTO
    DILIP-REVIEW.COM
    SocioWave Review | Get Real Buyers With Cash In Hand
    SocioWave Review - A modern software called SocioWave was created to help internet marketers, businesses and business owners attract free and
    0 Comments 0 Shares 9696 Views
  • NRAO - Astronomers Unveil Strong Magnetic Fields Spiraling at the Edge of Milky Way’s Central Black Hole:

    https://public.nrao.edu/news/astronomers-unveil-strong-magnetic-fields-spiraling-at-the-edge-of-milky-ways-central-black-hole/

    #EventHorizonTelescope #EHT #ALMA #PolarizedLight #RadioWave #SagittariusA #BlackHole #MagneticField #MatterJet #Astrophysics #Astronomy
    NRAO - Astronomers Unveil Strong Magnetic Fields Spiraling at the Edge of Milky Way’s Central Black Hole: https://public.nrao.edu/news/astronomers-unveil-strong-magnetic-fields-spiraling-at-the-edge-of-milky-ways-central-black-hole/ #EventHorizonTelescope #EHT #ALMA #PolarizedLight #RadioWave #SagittariusA #BlackHole #MagneticField #MatterJet #Astrophysics #Astronomy
    PUBLIC.NRAO.EDU
    Astronomers Unveil Strong Magnetic Fields Spiraling at the Edge of Milky Way’s Central Black Hole - National Radio Astronomy Observatory
    The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) collaboration has observed spirals of light escaping from the edge of the supermassive black...
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4671 Views
  • The COVID-19 Vaccine Antigen Is ANTHRAX
    Dr. Ariyana Love
    By Dr. Ariyana Love

    Covid-19 vaccines use self-replicating, programmable nanotechnology and synthetic, modified RNA (modRNA) otherwise known as Spike Protein.

    We are told that a vaccine antigen is used in the Covid-19 technology to “evoke an immune response” but what if the Covid-19 vaccine antigen is ANTHRAX?

    “…hardly any natural pathogens are really well suited to being biowarfare agents from a military point of view. Such a bioweapon must fulfill a variety of demands: it needs to be produced in large amounts, it must act fast, it must be environmentally robust, and the disease must be treatable… only a minority of natural pathogens are suitable for military purposes. “Anthrax is of course the first choice because the causative agent, B. anthracis, fulfills nearly all of these specifications.”

    Anthrax was developed by Russia in 1950. According to the NIH, the USSR’s ‘invisible anthrax’ was created by introducing an “alien gene” into the highly deadly Bacillus Anthracis bacteria. This means that Cross-Species-Genomics capability was acquired by governments before 1950. A lethal bacterium and an alien gene were genetically altered and blended together to produce the deadly bioweapon known as Anthrax. Russia’s Anthrax could be treated with antibiotics even several days after exposure, and thus it met the requirements under the Biological Weapons Convention.

    A bioweapon of choice, Anthony Fauci decided to increase Anthrax lethality and the NIH began genetic attenuation before 2006. Through GAIN-and-LOSS-of-Function the NIH produced a more drastic and deadly Anthrax that’s resistant to antibiotics and more.

    According to a University of Minnesota publication, the United States D.O.D smuggled shipments of live B anthracis spores from the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, to other labs in the United States and abroad (Source: USA Today). The U.S. Army sent shipments of live samples of Anthrax to 86 labs outside the U.S. over a period of 10 years (Source: The Daily Beast).

    Transfers of samples of live B anthracis and the H5N1 influenza bioweapon were sent from CDC labs to other labs. CDC correspondence released under the Freedom of Information Act shows that labs studying bioterror pathogens “have failed over and over to comply with important safety and security regulations.”

    The D.O.D. tried to cover for the CDC, claiming “system failure” was to blame for the lab leaks, but we already know that the D.O.D spearheaded this “Covid-19 vaccine” roll-out.


    Please see: Aerosolized inoculation of Anthrax – Aerosolized Intratracheal Inoculation of Recombinant Protective Antigen (rPA) Vaccine Provides


    In 2007, Anthony Fauci created the H7N9 bioweapon, otherwise known as the “influenza vaccine.” The NIH, CCP and the Israeli state collaborated through GAIN-and-LOSS-of-Function to produce the H7N9 “flu vaccine” and the new and improved “Aerosolized Anthrax Vaccine”.

    Ofir Israeli from the Israel Institute of Biological Research, sequenced the Bacillus anthracis V770-NP1-R Strain in 2014, creating a synthetic chemical bioweapon. The Israeli state oversaw the animal trials for the Anthrax “vaccine” and told us it was safe and effective. Meanwhile, the Israeli company called Sanofi Pasteur developed the first H7N9 “vaccine” and trialed it for the NIH in 2014. Also in 2014, the NIH developed the H7N9 “influenza vaccine” to be droplet transmissible.

    Simultaneously, in 2014 China achieved a 99% transmissibility of the H7N9 “flu vaccine”. China also trialed the first aerosolized intratracheal Anthrax “vaccine” on mice. The study revealed severe side effects.


    PLEASE SEE: NIH Using DEAD CORPSES To Make “Virus”; Gain Of Function Weaponized Dead Corpses


    The Israeli state, NIH and China turned their new and improved Anthrax bioweapon into an attenuated antigen to be used in vaccines under the guise of “evoking an immune response” and “vaccine immunity.” The nations have been intentionally poisoned with biowarfare.

    In March 2022, the Russian military discovered that the Covid-19 bioweapons are being developed in U.S. biolabs in Ukraine. This includes the plague, Ebola, Filoviruses’, Anthrax and more. Anthrax causes hemorrhaging. So does Ebola and Marburg.

    Ebola is used in the J&J and Sinovax jabs, while Filovirus is used in Moderna. Ebola and Marburg are both Anthrax. H7N9 is used in all “flu vaccines” while Anthrax is being used as a “vaccine adjuvant” in all Covid-19 jabs and swabs.

    Through Loss-Of-Function, genetic deletions were performed inside the B. anthracis bacteria to improve replication of the bacteria in vivo. This ensured hospital protocols would not work to stop the Anthrax from replicating inside the human body after inoculation due to it being antibiotic resistant.

    The B. anthracis bacteria was also genetically modified to survive in insect hosts so as not to sporulate before it’s injected into the human host by a Bill Gates GMO mosquito which is part of DARPA’s weaponized insect project called The Sentinels.

    Incidentally, the CDC owns the Anthrax isolate patent that was funded by the U.S. Government. This is treason. The CDC also says that a bioterrorist attack would most likely be Anthrax.

    Please see: Malaria Parasites In “Vaccines” Target Placenta, Kill Babies In Utero

    SPIKE PROTEIN IS AEROSOLIZED ANTHRAX

    There are 232 B. anthracis genomes that are currently available in the GenBank database. There’s an Anthrax “vaccine” for cattle and two strains are licensed for use in humans. There exist two patents for an “Aerosolized Anthrax Vaccine.”

    The first Anthrax “vaccine” patent for humans is partly owned by the U.S. Government. The second is a “Recombinant Anthrax Vaccine”.

    “The spores of the toxigenic, nonencapsulated B. anthracis STI-1 strain and the cell-free PA-based “vaccines” consisting of aluminum hydroxide-adsorbed supernatant material from cultures of the toxigenic, nonencapsulated B. anthracis strain V770-NPI-R or alum-precipitated culture filtrate from the Sterne strain. Each of these Anthrax toxins are being used for “cellular entry in humans“. The LF is a metalloprotease recently shown to cleave the amino termini of the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinases 1 and 2, which results in their inactivation.”

    The above quote from the Recombinant Anthrax Vaccine patent reveals that the poisonous Anthrax “antigen” is being used to genetically modify the genome of humans (cellular entry into humans). By cleaving to the amino termini, protein kinases 1 and 2 are inactivated. This is accomplished by genetic deletions.

    The molecular basis of Anthrax “vaccines” includes “spores and DNA plasmids” that are entering human cells.

    The following quote about the Anthrax “protective antigen” is particularly revealing:

    “PA (protective antigen) is the common receptor binding domain of the toxins and can interact with the two different effector domains, EF and LF, to mediate their entry into target cells (14).”

    Anthrax is being used to “regulate gene expression by binding to DNA sequences and modulating transcriptional activity through their effector domains”.

    Pharma has essentially found a way to encode any synthetic proteins into the human genome from any species they want, including bacteria. The “Aerosolized Anthrax Antigen” is being encoded into target cells to make those cells produce the chemical drug called Anthrax. This is how the Anthrax “vaccine” is aerosolized. Once a person is inoculated with the Covid-19 bioweapon through subcutaneous injection or nasopharyngeal delivery with contaminated PCR swabs, the weapon system will begin genetic deletions and encoding the genome of target cells with the Anthrax spike protein. A person begins producing the toxic spike protein and shedding Anthrax into the air, exposing everyone to Inhalation Anthrax. It’s a weapon system that is intentionally aerosolized.

    This study admits that the Anthrax spores from B. anthracis STI-1 strain and B. anthracis strain V770-NPI-R used in the “aerosolized Anthrax vaccines” are toxigenic. The Sterne strain which is used to inoculate our food supply (animals) is also genotoxic.

    This NIH study explains how a “replicon” of the Bacillus anthracis bacteria was cloned into an Escherichia coli (E. coli) “vector” using cross-species-genomics. These two bacteria were synthetically fused together to enhance lethality.

    ALHYDROGEL

    According to the “aerosolized Anthrax vaccine” patents, the so-called “vaccine adjuvant” used is a DARPA weapon system called Alhydrogel.

    Hydrogel technology was developed over many years during a collaboration between DARPA and Profusa, a private biotech company specializing in the development of tissue-integrated biosensors. In 2018, DARPA published a video revealing their intention to use this biosensing technology for both military and public health.

    In the Alhydrogel invention, Anthrax was fused together into a nanogel called Alhydrogel, consisting of fibrous nanoparticles (Nanofibers) that are “antigen specific to CD4+ T cells”.

    In layman’s terms, the nanorobots are intentionally programmed to target and alter the genome of CD4-T cells, inducing cell death. This essential part of our immune system (T-cells) stop foreign invaders from entering our cells. Destroying our T-cells enables the government’s operating system to take root in the body and quicken death.

    Alhydrogel is infused with 750 μg of aluminum, making it magnetic. Nanofibers are used for self-assembly and electrospinning, for tissue engineering and delivery of drugs and chemicals into the brain. Being magnetic and nanotech based, the Alhydrogel can replicate everywhere in the body and wire a new neural network.

    Astonishingly, Alhydrogel is already the most widely used vaccine adjuvant! There are many Alhydrogel patents that contain toxic cocktails that will overwhelm anyone’s immune system.

    This Alhydrogel patent demonstrates it’s use of the B anthracis bacteria, E. coli, N. gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia, Staphylococcus, TB and more. It also contains the H5N1 influenza bioweapon, RNA, DNA synthesis and Polysorbate 80 for Blood Brain Barrier (BBB) permeability. This begs the question, where do venereal diseases come from?

    This Nature article reveals that 2% Alhydrogel is used in all Covid-19 “vaccines”. Previously, aluminum salts were the only adjuvants licensed for vaccine use in humans in the U.S. In recent decades, nanoparticle adjuvants in hydrated gels were introduced. The article continues by saying that the “influenza vaccine” was the first to use Alhydrogel.

    “Aluminum salt-based adjuvants such as alhydrogel have been a mainstay of vaccines for decades” boasts Christopher B. Fox and colleagues at the Infectious Disease Research Institute in Seattle, USA.

    Both nanoparticles and Anthrax have been used in vaccines for decades already, without the Informed Consent of the public.

    Alhydrogel was improved and transformed into the Nanoalum adjuvant.

    Here, we introduce a top-down manufacturing process—high-pressure microfluidization—to generate aluminum oxyhydroxide nanoparticles, hereupon referred to as nanoalum, using the clinically approved Alhydrogel adjuvant as the precursor.

    Alhydrogel is also carried in the lipid coating of nanoparticles.

    The “Aerosolized Anthrax Vaccines” also contain SEQ ID NO: 1 which is owned by the Pirbright Institute (Bill & Melinda Gates). SEQ ID NO: 1 contains the world’s most deadly genetically modified parasites.


    Please see: MEGA BOMBS! GMO Parasites Are The mRNA Vector!


    ANTHRAX SYMPTOMS AND TREATMENT

    Anthrax has been deployed on the population by three methods; injection, inhalation and skin penetration. The mortality rate for Anthrax varies depending on the method of exposure. It’s approximately 20% fatality for cutaneous Anthrax and 25–75% for Gastrointestinal Anthrax. Inhalation Anthrax is by far the worst with a fatality rate that is 80% or higher. Inhalation Anthrax is what we’re all being exposed to from the Covid-19 jabs and contaminated PCR swabs.

    Antibiotics constitute the mainstay of treatment against Anthrax, despite the fact that they won’t work to stop its replication due to the NIH, China and Israel’s GAIN-and-LOSS-of-Function enhancements (antibiotic resistance).

    Pharmaceutical experimental genotoxic drugs such as Oblitoxaximab and Raxibacumab are being touted as Anthrax treatments but these are monoclonal antibodies. We know from the monoclonal antibody patents that they’re also the “mRNA vaccine” weapon system. Anytime you inject recombinant proteins or modRNA into humans, it’s extremely toxic and will be rejected by our immune system 100% of the time.


    Please read: Monoclonal Antibodies Is mRNA Gene Knockdown Tech, Encoding HIV – Patent Review


    Pharma wants us to believe that the only known effective “prevention” against Anthrax is the Anthrax “vaccine”. However, the Anthrax “vaccine” inoculation given to U.S. military troops was a horrific disaster. U.S. Army statistics that were never published, show the Anthrax “vaccine” induces turbo cancers.

    The toxicological harms of Anthrax are many. It causes severe heart issues. Could this be a contributing factor to Myocarditis and Pericarditis?

    Anthrax also coagulates the blood.

    “Pathophysiological changes associated with anthrax lethal toxin included loss of plasma proteins, decreased platelet count, slower clotting times, fibrin deposits in tissue sections, and gross and histopathological evidence of hemorrhage. These findings suggest that blood vessel leakage and hemorrhage lead to disseminating intravascular coagulation and/or circulatory shock as an underlying pathophysiological mechanism.”

    Read more here and here.

    Anthrax induces hemorrhaging. So this explains all the excessive bleeding people have experienced over the last 4 years, following Covid-19 inoculation and from aerosolized exposure, otherwise known as the “shedding” phenomenon. This is a result of Inhalation Anthrax.

    It becomes clear that the newly dubbed “White Lung Syndrome” and the Chinese ‘pneumonia’ outbreak is none other than Inhalation Anthrax. Mycoplasma pneumonia is on the rise, and it’s listed on Pfizer’s internal documentation as a known Adverse Effect of the Covid-19 inoculation.


    This study reveals that Mycoplasma Pneumonia is aerosolized. WHO also confirms this phenomenon is Mycoplasma Pneumonia.

    All naturally occurring bacterium have cell walls. Mycoplasmas are spherical to filamentous cells with no cell walls. It’s genetically manipulated in a laboratory by GAIN-of-Function for the purpose of enhancing replication inside the human body, making it more lethal.

    Mice “treated” with anthrax lethal toxin (LT) exhibit hemorrhage and liver damage. Monocyte procoagulant responses to anthrax peptidoglycan are reinforced by proinflammatory cytokine signaling and histological lesions in the spleen.

    Anthrax has already been tested on the public. According to the NIH, Anthrax spores were intentionally released into “some environments” in NYC during 9/11. According to the NIH, the FBI launched an investigation called “Amerithrax”. It was “one of the largest and most complex (investigation) in the history of law enforcement”, according to the FBI.

    Heroine users in Europe have been tested with Injection Anthrax.

    Our skies are sprayed with smart dust and chemicals daily. Our governments have launched an all-out war against their constituents. We are being poisoned in a myriad of ways, so please keep this in mind:

    “Anthrax is easy to produce in large quantities, highly lethal, relatively easy to develop as a weapon, easily spread over a large area, easily stored and dangerous for a long time. Given appropriate weather and wind conditions, 50 kilograms of aerosolised anthrax spores released from an aircraft along a 2 kilometer line could create a lethal cloud of anthrax spores that would extend beyond 20 kilometers downwind. The aerosol cloud would be colorless, odorless and invisible following its release. Given the small size of the spores, people indoors would receive the same amount of exposure as on the street. There are currently no atmospheric warning systems to detect an aerosol cloud of anthrax spores. The first sign of a bioterrorist attack would most likely be patients presenting with symptoms of inhalation anthrax. A 1970 analysis by World Health Organization concluded that the release of aerosolized anthrax upwind to a population of 5,000,000 could lead to an estimated 250,000 casualties, of whom as many as 100,000 could be expected to die. A later analysis, by the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress estimated that 130,000 to 3 million deaths could occur following the release of 100 kilograms of aerosolized anthrax over Washington D.C., making such an attack as lethal as a hydrogen bomb.”

    TREATMENT

    If you have been inoculated with Covid-19 or PCR swabbed, and you are suffering from heart pain, unusual bleeding, skin rashes and abrasions, it could be Injection Anthrax. If you are “unvaccinated” and hemorrhaging from being around “vaccinated”, then you may have been exposed to Inhalation Anthrax.

    Many doctors, including myself, have documented persistent bleeding rectally, violent bleeding vaginally, nasally and in the eyes. Since October 4th, I have received many reports of a red eye syndrome where the entire eye is blood-red. This makes sense because eye tissue is more sensitive. If you have been exposed to Inhalation Anthrax, you may feel hot and severely flushed, and you may break out in big, red splotches on your skin, followed by a completely red eye in the morning.

    Although they don’t get much attention, “anti-toxins have long been considered an essential ‘adjunctive’ therapy, and remain so”, according to the NIH. Anti-toxins are the natural medicines that detox poisons. In other words, you need an effective natural medicine detox protocol.

    I have been successfully detoxing people from the Covid-19 bioweapons for three years. Since I began treating people presenting with Anthrax poisoning with strong antibacterials, my clients are experiencing quicker detox results. If you would like to schedule a consultation with me, please do so through my online booking system.

    Please follow me on Telegram @drloveariyana and X @drloveariyana.

    If you would like to donate to my research, please do so here.


    UPDATE: My Anthrax article is now fully edited and published on Substack. Please review and SHARE.

    The Covid-19 Vaccine Antigen Is ANTHRAX

    Read more:
    https://open.substack.com/pub/drloveariyana/p/the-covid-19-vaccine-antigen-is-anthrax?r=2juwfo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-covid-19-vaccine-antigen-is-anthrax.html
    The COVID-19 Vaccine Antigen Is ANTHRAX Dr. Ariyana Love By Dr. Ariyana Love Covid-19 vaccines use self-replicating, programmable nanotechnology and synthetic, modified RNA (modRNA) otherwise known as Spike Protein. We are told that a vaccine antigen is used in the Covid-19 technology to “evoke an immune response” but what if the Covid-19 vaccine antigen is ANTHRAX? “…hardly any natural pathogens are really well suited to being biowarfare agents from a military point of view. Such a bioweapon must fulfill a variety of demands: it needs to be produced in large amounts, it must act fast, it must be environmentally robust, and the disease must be treatable… only a minority of natural pathogens are suitable for military purposes. “Anthrax is of course the first choice because the causative agent, B. anthracis, fulfills nearly all of these specifications.” Anthrax was developed by Russia in 1950. According to the NIH, the USSR’s ‘invisible anthrax’ was created by introducing an “alien gene” into the highly deadly Bacillus Anthracis bacteria. This means that Cross-Species-Genomics capability was acquired by governments before 1950. A lethal bacterium and an alien gene were genetically altered and blended together to produce the deadly bioweapon known as Anthrax. Russia’s Anthrax could be treated with antibiotics even several days after exposure, and thus it met the requirements under the Biological Weapons Convention. A bioweapon of choice, Anthony Fauci decided to increase Anthrax lethality and the NIH began genetic attenuation before 2006. Through GAIN-and-LOSS-of-Function the NIH produced a more drastic and deadly Anthrax that’s resistant to antibiotics and more. According to a University of Minnesota publication, the United States D.O.D smuggled shipments of live B anthracis spores from the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, to other labs in the United States and abroad (Source: USA Today). The U.S. Army sent shipments of live samples of Anthrax to 86 labs outside the U.S. over a period of 10 years (Source: The Daily Beast). Transfers of samples of live B anthracis and the H5N1 influenza bioweapon were sent from CDC labs to other labs. CDC correspondence released under the Freedom of Information Act shows that labs studying bioterror pathogens “have failed over and over to comply with important safety and security regulations.” The D.O.D. tried to cover for the CDC, claiming “system failure” was to blame for the lab leaks, but we already know that the D.O.D spearheaded this “Covid-19 vaccine” roll-out. Please see: Aerosolized inoculation of Anthrax – Aerosolized Intratracheal Inoculation of Recombinant Protective Antigen (rPA) Vaccine Provides In 2007, Anthony Fauci created the H7N9 bioweapon, otherwise known as the “influenza vaccine.” The NIH, CCP and the Israeli state collaborated through GAIN-and-LOSS-of-Function to produce the H7N9 “flu vaccine” and the new and improved “Aerosolized Anthrax Vaccine”. Ofir Israeli from the Israel Institute of Biological Research, sequenced the Bacillus anthracis V770-NP1-R Strain in 2014, creating a synthetic chemical bioweapon. The Israeli state oversaw the animal trials for the Anthrax “vaccine” and told us it was safe and effective. Meanwhile, the Israeli company called Sanofi Pasteur developed the first H7N9 “vaccine” and trialed it for the NIH in 2014. Also in 2014, the NIH developed the H7N9 “influenza vaccine” to be droplet transmissible. Simultaneously, in 2014 China achieved a 99% transmissibility of the H7N9 “flu vaccine”. China also trialed the first aerosolized intratracheal Anthrax “vaccine” on mice. The study revealed severe side effects. PLEASE SEE: NIH Using DEAD CORPSES To Make “Virus”; Gain Of Function Weaponized Dead Corpses The Israeli state, NIH and China turned their new and improved Anthrax bioweapon into an attenuated antigen to be used in vaccines under the guise of “evoking an immune response” and “vaccine immunity.” The nations have been intentionally poisoned with biowarfare. In March 2022, the Russian military discovered that the Covid-19 bioweapons are being developed in U.S. biolabs in Ukraine. This includes the plague, Ebola, Filoviruses’, Anthrax and more. Anthrax causes hemorrhaging. So does Ebola and Marburg. Ebola is used in the J&J and Sinovax jabs, while Filovirus is used in Moderna. Ebola and Marburg are both Anthrax. H7N9 is used in all “flu vaccines” while Anthrax is being used as a “vaccine adjuvant” in all Covid-19 jabs and swabs. Through Loss-Of-Function, genetic deletions were performed inside the B. anthracis bacteria to improve replication of the bacteria in vivo. This ensured hospital protocols would not work to stop the Anthrax from replicating inside the human body after inoculation due to it being antibiotic resistant. The B. anthracis bacteria was also genetically modified to survive in insect hosts so as not to sporulate before it’s injected into the human host by a Bill Gates GMO mosquito which is part of DARPA’s weaponized insect project called The Sentinels. Incidentally, the CDC owns the Anthrax isolate patent that was funded by the U.S. Government. This is treason. The CDC also says that a bioterrorist attack would most likely be Anthrax. Please see: Malaria Parasites In “Vaccines” Target Placenta, Kill Babies In Utero SPIKE PROTEIN IS AEROSOLIZED ANTHRAX There are 232 B. anthracis genomes that are currently available in the GenBank database. There’s an Anthrax “vaccine” for cattle and two strains are licensed for use in humans. There exist two patents for an “Aerosolized Anthrax Vaccine.” The first Anthrax “vaccine” patent for humans is partly owned by the U.S. Government. The second is a “Recombinant Anthrax Vaccine”. “The spores of the toxigenic, nonencapsulated B. anthracis STI-1 strain and the cell-free PA-based “vaccines” consisting of aluminum hydroxide-adsorbed supernatant material from cultures of the toxigenic, nonencapsulated B. anthracis strain V770-NPI-R or alum-precipitated culture filtrate from the Sterne strain. Each of these Anthrax toxins are being used for “cellular entry in humans“. The LF is a metalloprotease recently shown to cleave the amino termini of the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinases 1 and 2, which results in their inactivation.” The above quote from the Recombinant Anthrax Vaccine patent reveals that the poisonous Anthrax “antigen” is being used to genetically modify the genome of humans (cellular entry into humans). By cleaving to the amino termini, protein kinases 1 and 2 are inactivated. This is accomplished by genetic deletions. The molecular basis of Anthrax “vaccines” includes “spores and DNA plasmids” that are entering human cells. The following quote about the Anthrax “protective antigen” is particularly revealing: “PA (protective antigen) is the common receptor binding domain of the toxins and can interact with the two different effector domains, EF and LF, to mediate their entry into target cells (14).” Anthrax is being used to “regulate gene expression by binding to DNA sequences and modulating transcriptional activity through their effector domains”. Pharma has essentially found a way to encode any synthetic proteins into the human genome from any species they want, including bacteria. The “Aerosolized Anthrax Antigen” is being encoded into target cells to make those cells produce the chemical drug called Anthrax. This is how the Anthrax “vaccine” is aerosolized. Once a person is inoculated with the Covid-19 bioweapon through subcutaneous injection or nasopharyngeal delivery with contaminated PCR swabs, the weapon system will begin genetic deletions and encoding the genome of target cells with the Anthrax spike protein. A person begins producing the toxic spike protein and shedding Anthrax into the air, exposing everyone to Inhalation Anthrax. It’s a weapon system that is intentionally aerosolized. This study admits that the Anthrax spores from B. anthracis STI-1 strain and B. anthracis strain V770-NPI-R used in the “aerosolized Anthrax vaccines” are toxigenic. The Sterne strain which is used to inoculate our food supply (animals) is also genotoxic. This NIH study explains how a “replicon” of the Bacillus anthracis bacteria was cloned into an Escherichia coli (E. coli) “vector” using cross-species-genomics. These two bacteria were synthetically fused together to enhance lethality. ALHYDROGEL According to the “aerosolized Anthrax vaccine” patents, the so-called “vaccine adjuvant” used is a DARPA weapon system called Alhydrogel. Hydrogel technology was developed over many years during a collaboration between DARPA and Profusa, a private biotech company specializing in the development of tissue-integrated biosensors. In 2018, DARPA published a video revealing their intention to use this biosensing technology for both military and public health. In the Alhydrogel invention, Anthrax was fused together into a nanogel called Alhydrogel, consisting of fibrous nanoparticles (Nanofibers) that are “antigen specific to CD4+ T cells”. In layman’s terms, the nanorobots are intentionally programmed to target and alter the genome of CD4-T cells, inducing cell death. This essential part of our immune system (T-cells) stop foreign invaders from entering our cells. Destroying our T-cells enables the government’s operating system to take root in the body and quicken death. Alhydrogel is infused with 750 μg of aluminum, making it magnetic. Nanofibers are used for self-assembly and electrospinning, for tissue engineering and delivery of drugs and chemicals into the brain. Being magnetic and nanotech based, the Alhydrogel can replicate everywhere in the body and wire a new neural network. Astonishingly, Alhydrogel is already the most widely used vaccine adjuvant! There are many Alhydrogel patents that contain toxic cocktails that will overwhelm anyone’s immune system. This Alhydrogel patent demonstrates it’s use of the B anthracis bacteria, E. coli, N. gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia, Staphylococcus, TB and more. It also contains the H5N1 influenza bioweapon, RNA, DNA synthesis and Polysorbate 80 for Blood Brain Barrier (BBB) permeability. This begs the question, where do venereal diseases come from? This Nature article reveals that 2% Alhydrogel is used in all Covid-19 “vaccines”. Previously, aluminum salts were the only adjuvants licensed for vaccine use in humans in the U.S. In recent decades, nanoparticle adjuvants in hydrated gels were introduced. The article continues by saying that the “influenza vaccine” was the first to use Alhydrogel. “Aluminum salt-based adjuvants such as alhydrogel have been a mainstay of vaccines for decades” boasts Christopher B. Fox and colleagues at the Infectious Disease Research Institute in Seattle, USA. Both nanoparticles and Anthrax have been used in vaccines for decades already, without the Informed Consent of the public. Alhydrogel was improved and transformed into the Nanoalum adjuvant. Here, we introduce a top-down manufacturing process—high-pressure microfluidization—to generate aluminum oxyhydroxide nanoparticles, hereupon referred to as nanoalum, using the clinically approved Alhydrogel adjuvant as the precursor. Alhydrogel is also carried in the lipid coating of nanoparticles. The “Aerosolized Anthrax Vaccines” also contain SEQ ID NO: 1 which is owned by the Pirbright Institute (Bill & Melinda Gates). SEQ ID NO: 1 contains the world’s most deadly genetically modified parasites. Please see: MEGA BOMBS! GMO Parasites Are The mRNA Vector! ANTHRAX SYMPTOMS AND TREATMENT Anthrax has been deployed on the population by three methods; injection, inhalation and skin penetration. The mortality rate for Anthrax varies depending on the method of exposure. It’s approximately 20% fatality for cutaneous Anthrax and 25–75% for Gastrointestinal Anthrax. Inhalation Anthrax is by far the worst with a fatality rate that is 80% or higher. Inhalation Anthrax is what we’re all being exposed to from the Covid-19 jabs and contaminated PCR swabs. Antibiotics constitute the mainstay of treatment against Anthrax, despite the fact that they won’t work to stop its replication due to the NIH, China and Israel’s GAIN-and-LOSS-of-Function enhancements (antibiotic resistance). Pharmaceutical experimental genotoxic drugs such as Oblitoxaximab and Raxibacumab are being touted as Anthrax treatments but these are monoclonal antibodies. We know from the monoclonal antibody patents that they’re also the “mRNA vaccine” weapon system. Anytime you inject recombinant proteins or modRNA into humans, it’s extremely toxic and will be rejected by our immune system 100% of the time. Please read: Monoclonal Antibodies Is mRNA Gene Knockdown Tech, Encoding HIV – Patent Review Pharma wants us to believe that the only known effective “prevention” against Anthrax is the Anthrax “vaccine”. However, the Anthrax “vaccine” inoculation given to U.S. military troops was a horrific disaster. U.S. Army statistics that were never published, show the Anthrax “vaccine” induces turbo cancers. The toxicological harms of Anthrax are many. It causes severe heart issues. Could this be a contributing factor to Myocarditis and Pericarditis? Anthrax also coagulates the blood. “Pathophysiological changes associated with anthrax lethal toxin included loss of plasma proteins, decreased platelet count, slower clotting times, fibrin deposits in tissue sections, and gross and histopathological evidence of hemorrhage. These findings suggest that blood vessel leakage and hemorrhage lead to disseminating intravascular coagulation and/or circulatory shock as an underlying pathophysiological mechanism.” Read more here and here. Anthrax induces hemorrhaging. So this explains all the excessive bleeding people have experienced over the last 4 years, following Covid-19 inoculation and from aerosolized exposure, otherwise known as the “shedding” phenomenon. This is a result of Inhalation Anthrax. It becomes clear that the newly dubbed “White Lung Syndrome” and the Chinese ‘pneumonia’ outbreak is none other than Inhalation Anthrax. Mycoplasma pneumonia is on the rise, and it’s listed on Pfizer’s internal documentation as a known Adverse Effect of the Covid-19 inoculation. This study reveals that Mycoplasma Pneumonia is aerosolized. WHO also confirms this phenomenon is Mycoplasma Pneumonia. All naturally occurring bacterium have cell walls. Mycoplasmas are spherical to filamentous cells with no cell walls. It’s genetically manipulated in a laboratory by GAIN-of-Function for the purpose of enhancing replication inside the human body, making it more lethal. Mice “treated” with anthrax lethal toxin (LT) exhibit hemorrhage and liver damage. Monocyte procoagulant responses to anthrax peptidoglycan are reinforced by proinflammatory cytokine signaling and histological lesions in the spleen. Anthrax has already been tested on the public. According to the NIH, Anthrax spores were intentionally released into “some environments” in NYC during 9/11. According to the NIH, the FBI launched an investigation called “Amerithrax”. It was “one of the largest and most complex (investigation) in the history of law enforcement”, according to the FBI. Heroine users in Europe have been tested with Injection Anthrax. Our skies are sprayed with smart dust and chemicals daily. Our governments have launched an all-out war against their constituents. We are being poisoned in a myriad of ways, so please keep this in mind: “Anthrax is easy to produce in large quantities, highly lethal, relatively easy to develop as a weapon, easily spread over a large area, easily stored and dangerous for a long time. Given appropriate weather and wind conditions, 50 kilograms of aerosolised anthrax spores released from an aircraft along a 2 kilometer line could create a lethal cloud of anthrax spores that would extend beyond 20 kilometers downwind. The aerosol cloud would be colorless, odorless and invisible following its release. Given the small size of the spores, people indoors would receive the same amount of exposure as on the street. There are currently no atmospheric warning systems to detect an aerosol cloud of anthrax spores. The first sign of a bioterrorist attack would most likely be patients presenting with symptoms of inhalation anthrax. A 1970 analysis by World Health Organization concluded that the release of aerosolized anthrax upwind to a population of 5,000,000 could lead to an estimated 250,000 casualties, of whom as many as 100,000 could be expected to die. A later analysis, by the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress estimated that 130,000 to 3 million deaths could occur following the release of 100 kilograms of aerosolized anthrax over Washington D.C., making such an attack as lethal as a hydrogen bomb.” TREATMENT If you have been inoculated with Covid-19 or PCR swabbed, and you are suffering from heart pain, unusual bleeding, skin rashes and abrasions, it could be Injection Anthrax. If you are “unvaccinated” and hemorrhaging from being around “vaccinated”, then you may have been exposed to Inhalation Anthrax. Many doctors, including myself, have documented persistent bleeding rectally, violent bleeding vaginally, nasally and in the eyes. Since October 4th, I have received many reports of a red eye syndrome where the entire eye is blood-red. This makes sense because eye tissue is more sensitive. If you have been exposed to Inhalation Anthrax, you may feel hot and severely flushed, and you may break out in big, red splotches on your skin, followed by a completely red eye in the morning. Although they don’t get much attention, “anti-toxins have long been considered an essential ‘adjunctive’ therapy, and remain so”, according to the NIH. Anti-toxins are the natural medicines that detox poisons. In other words, you need an effective natural medicine detox protocol. I have been successfully detoxing people from the Covid-19 bioweapons for three years. Since I began treating people presenting with Anthrax poisoning with strong antibacterials, my clients are experiencing quicker detox results. If you would like to schedule a consultation with me, please do so through my online booking system. Please follow me on Telegram @drloveariyana and X @drloveariyana. If you would like to donate to my research, please do so here. UPDATE: My Anthrax article is now fully edited and published on Substack. Please review and SHARE. The Covid-19 Vaccine Antigen Is ANTHRAX Read more: https://open.substack.com/pub/drloveariyana/p/the-covid-19-vaccine-antigen-is-anthrax?r=2juwfo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-covid-19-vaccine-antigen-is-anthrax.html
    Angry
    1
    1 Comments 1 Shares 32902 Views
  • The University of Iowa Collegium Tubum featured the works of Moses Hogan, Katahj Copley, Omar Thomas, Fats Waller, and Duke Ellington at The U.S. Army Band 2024 Tuba-Euphonium Workshop; John Manning, conducting. #UIowa #Iowa #Hawkeyes #CollegiumTubum #Tubum #Euphonium #Tuba #TEW2024 #TEW #Music
    The University of Iowa Collegium Tubum featured the works of Moses Hogan, Katahj Copley, Omar Thomas, Fats Waller, and Duke Ellington at The U.S. Army Band 2024 Tuba-Euphonium Workshop; John Manning, conducting. #UIowa #Iowa #Hawkeyes #CollegiumTubum #Tubum #Euphonium #Tuba #TEW2024 #TEW #Music
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4631 Views
  • DIRE WARNING TO THE WORLD FROM BIO-WARFARE EXPERT PROFESSOR FRANCIS BOYLE

    Dire warning to the world from bio-warfare expert Professor Francis Boyle
    Biowarfare is modern day genocide and jabs are the method of deployment. Both the bioweapon, spike protein and the mRNA delivery system are
    harmful to humans.
    According to Professor Francis Boyle all BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs need to be shut down immediately. They serve no purpose but
    to develop offensive biological weapons. He says the Frankenstein shots are a Nuremberg crime against humanity.
    Listen to the podcast, as Professor Francis Boyle reveals the antidote
    they were working on for SARS-COV-2, a virus that had HIV inserts and gain of function. We ask Professor Boyle if biological weapons have been genetically targeted. Professor Boyle also reveals who is funding both the vaccine development and the biological weapons research, and how that research made it’s way to China, where it was leaked months earlier than officially reported.
    Professor Francis Boyle’s credentials are extensive. He also drafted the S.993 - Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that made it a
    felony, punishable by lifetime imprisonment for any one working on US soil, to be involved in biological weapons development. https://rumble.com/v4739z9-smbpassionshare.localdataworkvideo-pod-castprofessor-boylerendersfracis-boy.html
    Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He received an AB (1971) in Political Science from the University of Chicago, then a JD degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and AM and PhD degrees in Political Science from Harvard University. He practiced tax and international tax with Bingham, Dana & Gould.
    Quotes from the interview

    "Yes, and as you correctly pointed out. This is like flying AIDS""I don't call them vaccines. They are frankenshots. Everyone is making
    money and that's what is behind this and in addition, many of these people believe in eugenics. That the fewer human beings, the better."
    "These so called vaccines, frankenshots give people live particles,
    cells of covid19 which is an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain of function properties to make it more lethal, and more infectious. And HIV in there too!"

    Professor Boyle and others have been working to get criminal indictments for all those involved in the bioweapons deployment both in the lab of
    the weaponized virus and the frankenshots. https://rumble.com/v4739z9-smbpassionshare.localdataworkvideo-pod-castprofessor-boylerendersfracis-boy.html JANUARY / 3 / 2024 = Archbishop Carlo Vigano = ON THE GLOBAL DEPOPULATION PLAN EXPOSED . Archbishop Vigano: For the past four years, we have been witnessing the implementation of a criminal plan of world depopulation, achieved through the creation of a false pandemic and imposition of her false vaccine, which you now know to be a biological weapon of mass destruction https://rumble.com/v44yj43-archbishop-carlo-vigan.html

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/DeXfOzDWkKyb/
    DIRE WARNING TO THE WORLD FROM BIO-WARFARE EXPERT PROFESSOR FRANCIS BOYLE Dire warning to the world from bio-warfare expert Professor Francis Boyle Biowarfare is modern day genocide and jabs are the method of deployment. Both the bioweapon, spike protein and the mRNA delivery system are harmful to humans. According to Professor Francis Boyle all BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs need to be shut down immediately. They serve no purpose but to develop offensive biological weapons. He says the Frankenstein shots are a Nuremberg crime against humanity. Listen to the podcast, as Professor Francis Boyle reveals the antidote they were working on for SARS-COV-2, a virus that had HIV inserts and gain of function. We ask Professor Boyle if biological weapons have been genetically targeted. Professor Boyle also reveals who is funding both the vaccine development and the biological weapons research, and how that research made it’s way to China, where it was leaked months earlier than officially reported. Professor Francis Boyle’s credentials are extensive. He also drafted the S.993 - Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that made it a felony, punishable by lifetime imprisonment for any one working on US soil, to be involved in biological weapons development. https://rumble.com/v4739z9-smbpassionshare.localdataworkvideo-pod-castprofessor-boylerendersfracis-boy.html Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He received an AB (1971) in Political Science from the University of Chicago, then a JD degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and AM and PhD degrees in Political Science from Harvard University. He practiced tax and international tax with Bingham, Dana & Gould. Quotes from the interview "Yes, and as you correctly pointed out. This is like flying AIDS""I don't call them vaccines. They are frankenshots. Everyone is making money and that's what is behind this and in addition, many of these people believe in eugenics. That the fewer human beings, the better." "These so called vaccines, frankenshots give people live particles, cells of covid19 which is an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain of function properties to make it more lethal, and more infectious. And HIV in there too!" Professor Boyle and others have been working to get criminal indictments for all those involved in the bioweapons deployment both in the lab of the weaponized virus and the frankenshots. https://rumble.com/v4739z9-smbpassionshare.localdataworkvideo-pod-castprofessor-boylerendersfracis-boy.html JANUARY / 3 / 2024 = Archbishop Carlo Vigano = ON THE GLOBAL DEPOPULATION PLAN EXPOSED . Archbishop Vigano: For the past four years, we have been witnessing the implementation of a criminal plan of world depopulation, achieved through the creation of a false pandemic and imposition of her false vaccine, which you now know to be a biological weapon of mass destruction https://rumble.com/v44yj43-archbishop-carlo-vigan.html https://www.bitchute.com/video/DeXfOzDWkKyb/
    0 Comments 0 Shares 11653 Views
  • EXCLUSIVEInside NIH virus lab in Montana - that has eerie ties to Wuhan - where US scientists inject pigs and monkeys with EBOLA and other dangerous bio-agents
    By Alexa Lardieri U.S. Deputy Health Editor Dailymail.Com 14:57 GMT 27 Jan 2024 , updated 14:57 GMT 27 Jan 2024

    Photos obtained by a watchdog group show experiments performed on animals
    NIH lab in Montana was previously found to have been experimenting with SARS
    REVEALED: NIH lab experimented with coronaviruses from Wuhan in 2018
    Photos and videos obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com show US government-funded researchers experimenting on animals at a controversial lab in Montana where risky virus research is carried out.

    Advertisement
    Advertisement
    Images and video footage obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and shared exclusively with this website show researchers sedating monkeys and pigs and giving them injections, as well as piglets housed in small and unsanitary cages.

    Top Stories by Daily Mail 01:00 Admiral Rob Bauer: 'The next 20 years will not be hunky dory' MailOnline explains the top myths and facts surrounding Diabetes Prince William visits Kate as she spends her third day in hospital Crack appears in block of flats where 88 homes are being bulldozed Kate in hospital after undergoing abdominal surgery PETER HITCHENS: We don't wantdeath or blackouts, end the march to war
    While there is no suggestion any of the footage shows illegal activity, it gives an eerie glimpse into what goes on at the National Institutes of Health's Rocky Mountain Lab (RML), which has come under scrutiny in recent months.

    Last year, this website revealed that RML in Montana had been experimenting with SARS-like viruses a year before the Covid pandemic, and while that research has stopped, current projects involving other deadly pathogens with the potential to spark a new pandemic are still being carried out at the lab.

    These include injecting pigs with Ebola and infecting monkeys with Covid-19 and studying how they react to Hemorrhagic Fever, which involves vomiting blood, internal bleeding, bleeding in the brain and from the eyes, nose and mouth.

    The documents reveal NIH scientists proposed infecting two- to three-week old piglets with reston virus (REBOV), a family of pathogens that could cause Ebola, for a project to take place between 2017 and 2020
    The documents reveal NIH scientists proposed infecting two- to three-week old piglets with reston virus (REBOV), a family of pathogens that could cause Ebola, for a project to take place between 2017 and 2020
    The White Coat Waste project obtained photos of animal experiments on monkeys and pigs at the National Institutes of Health's Rocky Mountain Lab in Montana
    The White Coat Waste project obtained photos of animal experiments on monkeys and pigs at the National Institutes of Health's Rocky Mountain Lab in Montana
    The National Institutes of Health's Rocky Mountain Lab in Montana was previously found to have been experimenting with SARS-like viruses in 2018
    The National Institutes of Health's Rocky Mountain Lab in Montana was previously found to have been experimenting with SARS-like viruses in 2018
    Piglet experiments were to be carried in two parts, first infecting the pigs with REBOV via their noses - as seen in the photos above
    Piglet experiments were to be carried in two parts, first infecting the pigs with REBOV via their noses - as seen in the photos above
    The footage was obtained through a FOIA request by the White Coat Waste Project (WCW), which has campaigned against risky virus research and cruel animal experiments.

    The RML was first revealed to be experimenting with deadly pathogens in WCW's first batch of documents provided to this website last year.

    Previous documents from WCW revealed that in 2018, NIH researchers infected bats at the Rocky Mountain Lab with a 'SARS-like' virus as part of a collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is at the center of the Covid cover-up scandal.

    They showed US taxpayer money was used to experiment with coronaviruses from the Chinese lab thought to be the source of the Covid pandemic more than a year before the global outbreak.

    The NIH, under Dr Anthony Fauci's leadership, infected 12 Egyptian fruit bats with a 'SARS-like' virus called WIV1 at RML.

    The WIV1-coronavirus was shipped from the Wuhan lab the FBI believes caused the Covid pandemic and was tested on bats acquired from a 'roadside' Maryland zoo.

    Senators probe Fauci-run virus lab in Montana where US scientists were infecting bats with Covid-like viruses shipped in from WUHAN in 2018 - years before the pandemic


    Senators are demanding answers about a laboratory in Montana where US taxpayer money was used to manipulate coronaviruses before the pandemic.

    The research determined the novel virus could not cause a 'robust infection,' but is more evidence of ties between the US government and the Wuhan lab, as well as the funding of dangerous virus research across the globe.

    Advertisement
    Advertisement
    Following the WCW's investigation and DailyMail.com's reporting, Republican Senators Joni Ernst, from Iowa, and Eric Schmitt, from Missouri, sent a letter to the NIH demanding 'to learn more about potentially risky research' carried out by scientists at RML.

    Most recently, Sen Ernst wrote another letter, along with Rep Mike Gallagher, to the Pentagon demanding a review of the $50million in grants the US is sending to Chinese pandemic research institutions, including those based in Wuhan.

    The senator said in a statement: 'Taxpayers deserve to know how much of their money is being shipped to China and why Washington continues collecting and creating deadly super viruses — both of which could pose threats to our national security.'

    While the 'SARS-like' virus research has stopped, current projects involving other deadly pathogens with the potential to spark a new pandemic are still being carried out at the lab.

    As part of WCW's current lawsuit, the NIH was compelled to send the group records of its experiments taking place at RML.

    The documents reveal NIH scientists proposed infecting two- to three-week old piglets with reston virus (REBOV), a family of pathogens that could cause Ebola, a virus with a death rate of up to 90 percent, for a project to take place between 2017 and 2020.

    The project, 'The role of Arterivirus co-infection in the pathogenesis of Reston Ebola Virus in swine', was to test how the co-infection of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) and REBOV increased the virus' transmissibility and severity.

    The experiment was to be carried out in two parts, first infecting the pigs with REBOV via their noses - as seen in photos.

    On day three and between days five and 10 after inoculation, four animals were to be euthanized so necropsies could be performed.

    The remaining animals were to be euthanized on day 28. Then, researchers proposed inoculating pigs with PRRSV and REBOV several days later to observe their behavior and take vitals then euthanize them on day 28.

    One study was to evaluate up to three species of nonhuman primates as potential animal models for Covid-19. For each species, one group of eight animals would be inoculated with a high dose of the virus via the eyes, nose or mouth
    One study was to evaluate up to three species of nonhuman primates as potential animal models for Covid-19. For each species, one group of eight animals would be inoculated with a high dose of the virus via the eyes, nose or mouth
    In documents obtained by WCW, scientists proposed experimenting on non-human primate that included infecting monkeys with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and Covid-19
    In documents obtained by WCW, scientists proposed experimenting on non-human primate that included infecting monkeys with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and Covid-19
    In documents obtained by WCW, scientists proposed experimenting on non-human primate that included infecting monkeys with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and Covid-19
    In documents obtained by WCW, scientists proposed experimenting on non-human primate that included infecting monkeys with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and Covid-19
    Advertisement
    Advertisement
    While experimental 'manipulations' were to take place while the pigs were under anesthesia, the researchers said, 'Since we are evaluating these animals as potential models of disease progression, we are unable to alleviate the signs of disease.'

    Symptoms of these diseases include fever, breathing problems, weight loss, diarrhea, excessive or internal bleeding, coughing up or vomiting blood and neurological disorders that could be fatal.

    Researchers said: 'The illness experienced by animals exposed to these viruses must not be treated with analgesics because treatment will interfere with studying the disease manifestation and ultimate outcomes of infection.'

    In additional documents obtained by WCW, scientists proposed experiments between 2019 and 2022 on non-human primate that included infecting monkeys with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, a tick-borne virus that causes a life-threatening fever, muscle and joint pain, liver and kidney failure or pulmonary failure.

    The proposal said: 'In previous studies animals were scored for... reduced movement in cage and edema that on rare instances was of severity sufficient to impair function of internal organs such as the lungs and intestines.

    'Since the objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of DNA vaccine candidates against CCHFV and contains necessary irrelevant DNA control group it is expected that some or animals will develop clinical signs and may suffer pain and distress.

    'The illness experienced by the animals exposed to CCHFV must not be treated with analgesics because treatment could interfere with the disease manifestation and the outcome of vaccination.'

    Photos show piglets housed in small and unsanitary cages
    Photos show piglets housed in small and unsanitary cages
    Photos show piglets housed in small and unsanitary cages
    Photos show piglets housed in small and unsanitary cages
    A third proposal for experiments between 2020 and 2023 was titled 'Nonhuman primate model development for the novel coronavirus emerging in Wuhan, China.'

    The aim was to evaluate up to three species of nonhuman primates as potential animal models for Covid-19. For each species, one group of eight animals would be inoculated with a high dose of the virus via the eyes, nose or mouth - as seen in photos.

    The primates were to be evaluated and have their vitals taken and on day three, four would be euthanized. The remaining were to be monitored for disease progression.

    Advertisement
    Advertisement
    The proposal read: 'Infection with 2019-nCoV may cause mild to severe disease in nonhuman primates. Signs of illness may include fever, malaise, fatigue cough and heavy breathing potentially resulting in acute respiratory distress; the infection may be fatal.

    'However, in this study we are unable to alleviate the disease manifestations potentially associated with 2019-nCoV infection as treatment would interfere with the outcome of the study.'

    Justin Goodman, the senior vice president of the White Coat Waste Project told DailyMail.com: 'Our successful lawsuit has pierced the veil of secrecy around the NIH’s dangerous, wasteful, and cruel maximum pain animal experiments with deadly bioagents that have up to 100 percent kill rates in humans.

    'We’ve uncovered how NIH gain-of-function researchers linked to EcoHealth and the Wuhan lab import primates to the Rocky Mountain Lab from Fauci’s Monkey Island in South Carolina, infect them with viruses including Ebola and COVID, and then completely withhold pain relief while the animals suffer excruciating deaths.

    'Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent in barbaric NIH animal labs that can cause a devastating lab leak and pandemic right here in the US.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13008119/montana-lab-scientists-experimenting-dangerous-pathogens.html
    EXCLUSIVEInside NIH virus lab in Montana - that has eerie ties to Wuhan - where US scientists inject pigs and monkeys with EBOLA and other dangerous bio-agents By Alexa Lardieri U.S. Deputy Health Editor Dailymail.Com 14:57 GMT 27 Jan 2024 , updated 14:57 GMT 27 Jan 2024 Photos obtained by a watchdog group show experiments performed on animals NIH lab in Montana was previously found to have been experimenting with SARS REVEALED: NIH lab experimented with coronaviruses from Wuhan in 2018 Photos and videos obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com show US government-funded researchers experimenting on animals at a controversial lab in Montana where risky virus research is carried out. Advertisement Advertisement Images and video footage obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and shared exclusively with this website show researchers sedating monkeys and pigs and giving them injections, as well as piglets housed in small and unsanitary cages. Top Stories by Daily Mail 01:00 Admiral Rob Bauer: 'The next 20 years will not be hunky dory' MailOnline explains the top myths and facts surrounding Diabetes Prince William visits Kate as she spends her third day in hospital Crack appears in block of flats where 88 homes are being bulldozed Kate in hospital after undergoing abdominal surgery PETER HITCHENS: We don't wantdeath or blackouts, end the march to war While there is no suggestion any of the footage shows illegal activity, it gives an eerie glimpse into what goes on at the National Institutes of Health's Rocky Mountain Lab (RML), which has come under scrutiny in recent months. Last year, this website revealed that RML in Montana had been experimenting with SARS-like viruses a year before the Covid pandemic, and while that research has stopped, current projects involving other deadly pathogens with the potential to spark a new pandemic are still being carried out at the lab. These include injecting pigs with Ebola and infecting monkeys with Covid-19 and studying how they react to Hemorrhagic Fever, which involves vomiting blood, internal bleeding, bleeding in the brain and from the eyes, nose and mouth. The documents reveal NIH scientists proposed infecting two- to three-week old piglets with reston virus (REBOV), a family of pathogens that could cause Ebola, for a project to take place between 2017 and 2020 The documents reveal NIH scientists proposed infecting two- to three-week old piglets with reston virus (REBOV), a family of pathogens that could cause Ebola, for a project to take place between 2017 and 2020 The White Coat Waste project obtained photos of animal experiments on monkeys and pigs at the National Institutes of Health's Rocky Mountain Lab in Montana The White Coat Waste project obtained photos of animal experiments on monkeys and pigs at the National Institutes of Health's Rocky Mountain Lab in Montana The National Institutes of Health's Rocky Mountain Lab in Montana was previously found to have been experimenting with SARS-like viruses in 2018 The National Institutes of Health's Rocky Mountain Lab in Montana was previously found to have been experimenting with SARS-like viruses in 2018 Piglet experiments were to be carried in two parts, first infecting the pigs with REBOV via their noses - as seen in the photos above Piglet experiments were to be carried in two parts, first infecting the pigs with REBOV via their noses - as seen in the photos above The footage was obtained through a FOIA request by the White Coat Waste Project (WCW), which has campaigned against risky virus research and cruel animal experiments. The RML was first revealed to be experimenting with deadly pathogens in WCW's first batch of documents provided to this website last year. Previous documents from WCW revealed that in 2018, NIH researchers infected bats at the Rocky Mountain Lab with a 'SARS-like' virus as part of a collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is at the center of the Covid cover-up scandal. They showed US taxpayer money was used to experiment with coronaviruses from the Chinese lab thought to be the source of the Covid pandemic more than a year before the global outbreak. The NIH, under Dr Anthony Fauci's leadership, infected 12 Egyptian fruit bats with a 'SARS-like' virus called WIV1 at RML. The WIV1-coronavirus was shipped from the Wuhan lab the FBI believes caused the Covid pandemic and was tested on bats acquired from a 'roadside' Maryland zoo. Senators probe Fauci-run virus lab in Montana where US scientists were infecting bats with Covid-like viruses shipped in from WUHAN in 2018 - years before the pandemic Senators are demanding answers about a laboratory in Montana where US taxpayer money was used to manipulate coronaviruses before the pandemic. The research determined the novel virus could not cause a 'robust infection,' but is more evidence of ties between the US government and the Wuhan lab, as well as the funding of dangerous virus research across the globe. Advertisement Advertisement Following the WCW's investigation and DailyMail.com's reporting, Republican Senators Joni Ernst, from Iowa, and Eric Schmitt, from Missouri, sent a letter to the NIH demanding 'to learn more about potentially risky research' carried out by scientists at RML. Most recently, Sen Ernst wrote another letter, along with Rep Mike Gallagher, to the Pentagon demanding a review of the $50million in grants the US is sending to Chinese pandemic research institutions, including those based in Wuhan. The senator said in a statement: 'Taxpayers deserve to know how much of their money is being shipped to China and why Washington continues collecting and creating deadly super viruses — both of which could pose threats to our national security.' While the 'SARS-like' virus research has stopped, current projects involving other deadly pathogens with the potential to spark a new pandemic are still being carried out at the lab. As part of WCW's current lawsuit, the NIH was compelled to send the group records of its experiments taking place at RML. The documents reveal NIH scientists proposed infecting two- to three-week old piglets with reston virus (REBOV), a family of pathogens that could cause Ebola, a virus with a death rate of up to 90 percent, for a project to take place between 2017 and 2020. The project, 'The role of Arterivirus co-infection in the pathogenesis of Reston Ebola Virus in swine', was to test how the co-infection of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) and REBOV increased the virus' transmissibility and severity. The experiment was to be carried out in two parts, first infecting the pigs with REBOV via their noses - as seen in photos. On day three and between days five and 10 after inoculation, four animals were to be euthanized so necropsies could be performed. The remaining animals were to be euthanized on day 28. Then, researchers proposed inoculating pigs with PRRSV and REBOV several days later to observe their behavior and take vitals then euthanize them on day 28. One study was to evaluate up to three species of nonhuman primates as potential animal models for Covid-19. For each species, one group of eight animals would be inoculated with a high dose of the virus via the eyes, nose or mouth One study was to evaluate up to three species of nonhuman primates as potential animal models for Covid-19. For each species, one group of eight animals would be inoculated with a high dose of the virus via the eyes, nose or mouth In documents obtained by WCW, scientists proposed experimenting on non-human primate that included infecting monkeys with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and Covid-19 In documents obtained by WCW, scientists proposed experimenting on non-human primate that included infecting monkeys with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and Covid-19 In documents obtained by WCW, scientists proposed experimenting on non-human primate that included infecting monkeys with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and Covid-19 In documents obtained by WCW, scientists proposed experimenting on non-human primate that included infecting monkeys with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and Covid-19 Advertisement Advertisement While experimental 'manipulations' were to take place while the pigs were under anesthesia, the researchers said, 'Since we are evaluating these animals as potential models of disease progression, we are unable to alleviate the signs of disease.' Symptoms of these diseases include fever, breathing problems, weight loss, diarrhea, excessive or internal bleeding, coughing up or vomiting blood and neurological disorders that could be fatal. Researchers said: 'The illness experienced by animals exposed to these viruses must not be treated with analgesics because treatment will interfere with studying the disease manifestation and ultimate outcomes of infection.' In additional documents obtained by WCW, scientists proposed experiments between 2019 and 2022 on non-human primate that included infecting monkeys with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, a tick-borne virus that causes a life-threatening fever, muscle and joint pain, liver and kidney failure or pulmonary failure. The proposal said: 'In previous studies animals were scored for... reduced movement in cage and edema that on rare instances was of severity sufficient to impair function of internal organs such as the lungs and intestines. 'Since the objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of DNA vaccine candidates against CCHFV and contains necessary irrelevant DNA control group it is expected that some or animals will develop clinical signs and may suffer pain and distress. 'The illness experienced by the animals exposed to CCHFV must not be treated with analgesics because treatment could interfere with the disease manifestation and the outcome of vaccination.' Photos show piglets housed in small and unsanitary cages Photos show piglets housed in small and unsanitary cages Photos show piglets housed in small and unsanitary cages Photos show piglets housed in small and unsanitary cages A third proposal for experiments between 2020 and 2023 was titled 'Nonhuman primate model development for the novel coronavirus emerging in Wuhan, China.' The aim was to evaluate up to three species of nonhuman primates as potential animal models for Covid-19. For each species, one group of eight animals would be inoculated with a high dose of the virus via the eyes, nose or mouth - as seen in photos. The primates were to be evaluated and have their vitals taken and on day three, four would be euthanized. The remaining were to be monitored for disease progression. Advertisement Advertisement The proposal read: 'Infection with 2019-nCoV may cause mild to severe disease in nonhuman primates. Signs of illness may include fever, malaise, fatigue cough and heavy breathing potentially resulting in acute respiratory distress; the infection may be fatal. 'However, in this study we are unable to alleviate the disease manifestations potentially associated with 2019-nCoV infection as treatment would interfere with the outcome of the study.' Justin Goodman, the senior vice president of the White Coat Waste Project told DailyMail.com: 'Our successful lawsuit has pierced the veil of secrecy around the NIH’s dangerous, wasteful, and cruel maximum pain animal experiments with deadly bioagents that have up to 100 percent kill rates in humans. 'We’ve uncovered how NIH gain-of-function researchers linked to EcoHealth and the Wuhan lab import primates to the Rocky Mountain Lab from Fauci’s Monkey Island in South Carolina, infect them with viruses including Ebola and COVID, and then completely withhold pain relief while the animals suffer excruciating deaths. 'Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent in barbaric NIH animal labs that can cause a devastating lab leak and pandemic right here in the US.' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13008119/montana-lab-scientists-experimenting-dangerous-pathogens.html
    WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK
    Inside NIH lab where US scientists experiment with dangerous pathogens
    Photos and videos obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com show US researchers experimenting on animals (pictured) at a controversial lab in Montana where risky virus research is carried out.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 17101 Views
  • Chinese Scientists Create COVID Strain That’s 100% Lethal in ‘Humanized’ Mice
    Scientists at the Beijing University of Chemical Technology created a mutated pangolin coronavirus capable of replicating in the lung and brain tissue of genetically engineered mice and killing the mice within eight days. Critics of the study questioned the value of what they called a high-risk gain-of-function experiment.

    John-Michael Dumais
    pangolin covid strain lethal mice feature
    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    Chinese scientists have created a mutated pangolin coronavirus that is 100% lethal in “humanized” mice, raising biosafety concerns around risky gain-of-function research.

    The preprint study demonstrated the virus’ ability to replicate in lung and brain tissue, concluding that severe neurological infection likely caused the mice’s deaths.

    According to scientists at the Beijing University of Chemical Technology, the SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin variant “GX_P2V C7” was derived from a previously cloned virus that mutated in lab-grown cell cultures.

    When intranasally inoculated into mice bioengineered to express human ACE2 receptors, the virus killed all of the mice within eight days.

    The researchers warned their finding “underscores a spillover risk of GX_P2V into humans” and concluded that this research could provide an alternative model for investigating the pathogenic mechanisms of emerging coronaviruses.

    Dr. Marty Makary, Johns Hopkins professor of surgery and author of “The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care — and How to Fix It,” took to X (formerly known as Twitter) to comment on the study:

    Dr. James Thorp, whose medical experience includes 44 years in obstetrics and fetal maternal medicine, and the author of more than 245 scientific papers, wrote on X, “Sure appears like a lab-created bioweapon to me. Am I missing something? Do you believe that this research is being done for the good of humanity? Have we collectively gone insane?”

    Many on X wondered whether this kind of research would result in the outbreak of the theoretical “Disease X” predicted by the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and other globalist organizations.

    Chinese study ‘scientifically totally pointless’

    Francois Balloux, Ph.D., chair in Computational Biology Systems Biology at University College London, responded to the study with the following tweet:

    Richard Ebright, Ph.D., professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, told The Defender he agreed with Professor Balloux’s assessment:

    “I note that the preprint does not specify the biosafety level and biosafety precautions used for the research. … The absence of this information raises the concerning possibility that part or all of this research, like the research in Wuhan in 2016-2019 that likely caused the COVID-19 pandemic, was recklessly performed without the minimal biosafety protections essential for research with a potential pandemic pathogen.”

    The Chinese paper comes on the heels of a recent study documenting the escape of 16 pathogens from biosafety laboratories between 2000 and 2021, which resulted in at least 316 infections and eight deaths — not including the global impact of the likely leak of SARS-CoV-2.

    Ebright noted that while China took steps to strengthen biosafety regulations after the COVID-19 disaster, the U.S. did not, “due to opposition and obstruction by [Dr. Anthony] Fauci and [Dr. Francis] Collins.” Collins is the former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    “I am surprised that high-risk, low-value research, such as the research in this preprint, continues in China today, likely with inadequate biosafety protections, even after the strengthening of biosafety regulations,” Ebright said.

    Brian Hooker, Ph.D., senior director of science and research at Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender that he agreed with Ebright’s concern about the lack of biosafety documentation accompanying the study, and said this type of research is “extremely dangerous given the potential for lab leaks or other catastrophes.”

    “The investigators claim that this is not gain-of-function research — that is simply not true,” Hooker said. “Given the high level of mutation of these RNA viruses, the mere experimentation involving the eight infected, humanized mice could select for mutations that interact more robustly with the human ACE2 receptor.”

    Christina Parks, Ph.D., a science educator with a degree in cellular and molecular biology, posted a video about the study, saying, “This is gain-of-function research. There’s no two ways about it.”

    “This particular variant is not causing lung infection [in the mice], it’s destroying their brains in a matter of hours and days, and causing 100% lethality. … and not just any mice, mice that have been [engineered] to be more like humans,” she said.

    Justin Kinney, Ph.D., co-founder of Biosafety Now, an organization that seeks tighter regulations for gain-of-function research, told The Epoch Times the research described in the paper was not technically gain-of-function “because the China-based scientists did not purposely enhance the virus to be more pathogenic or transmissible.”

    “The research is still very dangerous,” Kinney said. He also expressed concern that the paper did not identify the biosafety level at which the work was performed.

    Kinney, who also serves as associate professor of quantitative biology at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, on Jan. 10 testified in the Wisconsin State Assembly in favor of a bill that would prohibit gain-of-function research that enhances potential pandemic pathogens and would require researchers to file reports with state and local officials.

    Hooker raised concerns about the potential military applications of the research. “There are also links to the effort in the Chinese military where offensive bioweapons can be developed,” he said.

    One of the study’s authors, Yigang Tong, was trained by the Chinese military, worked in military-run labs and co-authored a 2023 paper with Shi Zhengli, a senior scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) also about a pangolin virus infecting transgenic mice.

    University of Illinois international law professor Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender the Chinese study looked to him like “a biowarfare arms race between PRC [People’s Republic of China] and USA.”

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    Humanized mice and the ACE2 receptor

    In the Chinese study, the mice were genetically engineered to produce human ACE2 receptors.

    ACE2 — short for angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 — is a protein found on the surface of many human cells, especially those in the lungs, blood vessels, heart, kidney and gastrointestinal tract.

    The ACE2 receptor acts as the entry point for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, to get into cells and start infection. The spike protein on the surface of the coronavirus directly binds to ACE2 receptors, allowing the virus access into the host cell where it can replicate.

    In the Chinese study, testing verified the presence of viral antigens spreading in both the pulmonary and cerebral regions over time. However, the findings showed largely an absence of major inflammatory responses or tissue damage.

    While lung viral titers decreased by day six post-infection in the humanized mice, the study reported “exceptionally high” genome copies in neural tissue, signaling lethal neurological invasion.

    Quantitative testing identified significant viral loads across organ systems, but most notably in the brain.

    The infected mice additionally displayed symptoms like sluggishness, white eyes, 10% weight loss and ruffled fur shortly before death.

    In records obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request in 2021, a proposal by EcoHealth Alliance described a plan to sequence the spike protein at the WIV from bat coronaviruses for the purpose of “creating mutants to identify how significantly each would need to evolve to use ACE2.”

    EcoHealth Alliance received a $3.3 million grant from NIH for a project called “Understanding the Risk of Coronavirus Emergence” that ran at the WIV from 2013 through 2018.

    The research involved infecting “humanized” mice with SARS-like coronaviruses.

    Boyle, in a recent interview with The Defender, said that he believed the SARS-CoV-2 virus was developed through gain-of-function research to be an offensive biological warfare weapon before it leaked out of the WIV lab.

    Boyle said that labs doing this kind of work anywhere in the world “must be shut down immediately before we have another COVID-19 pandemic.”

    Chinese Scientists Create COVID Strain That’s 100% Lethal in ‘Humanized’ Mice

    “Sure appears like a lab-created bioweapon to me. Am I missing something? Do you believe that this research is being done for the good of humanity? Have we collectively gone insane?” — Dr. James Thorp



    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/beijing-scientists-pangolin-covid-variant-lethal-mice/

    Join @ShankaraChetty
    Chinese Scientists Create COVID Strain That’s 100% Lethal in ‘Humanized’ Mice Scientists at the Beijing University of Chemical Technology created a mutated pangolin coronavirus capable of replicating in the lung and brain tissue of genetically engineered mice and killing the mice within eight days. Critics of the study questioned the value of what they called a high-risk gain-of-function experiment. John-Michael Dumais pangolin covid strain lethal mice feature Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. Chinese scientists have created a mutated pangolin coronavirus that is 100% lethal in “humanized” mice, raising biosafety concerns around risky gain-of-function research. The preprint study demonstrated the virus’ ability to replicate in lung and brain tissue, concluding that severe neurological infection likely caused the mice’s deaths. According to scientists at the Beijing University of Chemical Technology, the SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin variant “GX_P2V C7” was derived from a previously cloned virus that mutated in lab-grown cell cultures. When intranasally inoculated into mice bioengineered to express human ACE2 receptors, the virus killed all of the mice within eight days. The researchers warned their finding “underscores a spillover risk of GX_P2V into humans” and concluded that this research could provide an alternative model for investigating the pathogenic mechanisms of emerging coronaviruses. Dr. Marty Makary, Johns Hopkins professor of surgery and author of “The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care — and How to Fix It,” took to X (formerly known as Twitter) to comment on the study: Dr. James Thorp, whose medical experience includes 44 years in obstetrics and fetal maternal medicine, and the author of more than 245 scientific papers, wrote on X, “Sure appears like a lab-created bioweapon to me. Am I missing something? Do you believe that this research is being done for the good of humanity? Have we collectively gone insane?” Many on X wondered whether this kind of research would result in the outbreak of the theoretical “Disease X” predicted by the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and other globalist organizations. Chinese study ‘scientifically totally pointless’ Francois Balloux, Ph.D., chair in Computational Biology Systems Biology at University College London, responded to the study with the following tweet: Richard Ebright, Ph.D., professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, told The Defender he agreed with Professor Balloux’s assessment: “I note that the preprint does not specify the biosafety level and biosafety precautions used for the research. … The absence of this information raises the concerning possibility that part or all of this research, like the research in Wuhan in 2016-2019 that likely caused the COVID-19 pandemic, was recklessly performed without the minimal biosafety protections essential for research with a potential pandemic pathogen.” The Chinese paper comes on the heels of a recent study documenting the escape of 16 pathogens from biosafety laboratories between 2000 and 2021, which resulted in at least 316 infections and eight deaths — not including the global impact of the likely leak of SARS-CoV-2. Ebright noted that while China took steps to strengthen biosafety regulations after the COVID-19 disaster, the U.S. did not, “due to opposition and obstruction by [Dr. Anthony] Fauci and [Dr. Francis] Collins.” Collins is the former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). “I am surprised that high-risk, low-value research, such as the research in this preprint, continues in China today, likely with inadequate biosafety protections, even after the strengthening of biosafety regulations,” Ebright said. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., senior director of science and research at Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender that he agreed with Ebright’s concern about the lack of biosafety documentation accompanying the study, and said this type of research is “extremely dangerous given the potential for lab leaks or other catastrophes.” “The investigators claim that this is not gain-of-function research — that is simply not true,” Hooker said. “Given the high level of mutation of these RNA viruses, the mere experimentation involving the eight infected, humanized mice could select for mutations that interact more robustly with the human ACE2 receptor.” Christina Parks, Ph.D., a science educator with a degree in cellular and molecular biology, posted a video about the study, saying, “This is gain-of-function research. There’s no two ways about it.” “This particular variant is not causing lung infection [in the mice], it’s destroying their brains in a matter of hours and days, and causing 100% lethality. … and not just any mice, mice that have been [engineered] to be more like humans,” she said. Justin Kinney, Ph.D., co-founder of Biosafety Now, an organization that seeks tighter regulations for gain-of-function research, told The Epoch Times the research described in the paper was not technically gain-of-function “because the China-based scientists did not purposely enhance the virus to be more pathogenic or transmissible.” “The research is still very dangerous,” Kinney said. He also expressed concern that the paper did not identify the biosafety level at which the work was performed. Kinney, who also serves as associate professor of quantitative biology at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, on Jan. 10 testified in the Wisconsin State Assembly in favor of a bill that would prohibit gain-of-function research that enhances potential pandemic pathogens and would require researchers to file reports with state and local officials. Hooker raised concerns about the potential military applications of the research. “There are also links to the effort in the Chinese military where offensive bioweapons can be developed,” he said. One of the study’s authors, Yigang Tong, was trained by the Chinese military, worked in military-run labs and co-authored a 2023 paper with Shi Zhengli, a senior scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) also about a pangolin virus infecting transgenic mice. University of Illinois international law professor Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender the Chinese study looked to him like “a biowarfare arms race between PRC [People’s Republic of China] and USA.” RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now Humanized mice and the ACE2 receptor In the Chinese study, the mice were genetically engineered to produce human ACE2 receptors. ACE2 — short for angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 — is a protein found on the surface of many human cells, especially those in the lungs, blood vessels, heart, kidney and gastrointestinal tract. The ACE2 receptor acts as the entry point for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, to get into cells and start infection. The spike protein on the surface of the coronavirus directly binds to ACE2 receptors, allowing the virus access into the host cell where it can replicate. In the Chinese study, testing verified the presence of viral antigens spreading in both the pulmonary and cerebral regions over time. However, the findings showed largely an absence of major inflammatory responses or tissue damage. While lung viral titers decreased by day six post-infection in the humanized mice, the study reported “exceptionally high” genome copies in neural tissue, signaling lethal neurological invasion. Quantitative testing identified significant viral loads across organ systems, but most notably in the brain. The infected mice additionally displayed symptoms like sluggishness, white eyes, 10% weight loss and ruffled fur shortly before death. In records obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request in 2021, a proposal by EcoHealth Alliance described a plan to sequence the spike protein at the WIV from bat coronaviruses for the purpose of “creating mutants to identify how significantly each would need to evolve to use ACE2.” EcoHealth Alliance received a $3.3 million grant from NIH for a project called “Understanding the Risk of Coronavirus Emergence” that ran at the WIV from 2013 through 2018. The research involved infecting “humanized” mice with SARS-like coronaviruses. Boyle, in a recent interview with The Defender, said that he believed the SARS-CoV-2 virus was developed through gain-of-function research to be an offensive biological warfare weapon before it leaked out of the WIV lab. Boyle said that labs doing this kind of work anywhere in the world “must be shut down immediately before we have another COVID-19 pandemic.” 🚨 Chinese Scientists Create COVID Strain That’s 100% Lethal in ‘Humanized’ Mice “Sure appears like a lab-created bioweapon to me. Am I missing something? Do you believe that this research is being done for the good of humanity? Have we collectively gone insane?” — Dr. James Thorp ⬇️ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/beijing-scientists-pangolin-covid-variant-lethal-mice/ Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    Chinese Scientists Create COVID Strain That’s 100% Lethal in ‘Humanized’ Mice
    Scientists at the Beijing University of Chemical Technology created a mutated pangolin coronavirus capable of replicating in the lung and brain tissue of genetically engineered mice and killing the mice within eight days. Critics of the study questioned the value of what they called a high-risk gain-of-function experiment.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 11555 Views
  • Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight
    Debbie Lerman
    When everyone from the President to your primary care doctor declared loudly and wholeheartedly in December 2020 that the newly FDA-authorized Covid mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” – what were those claims based on?

    In this article, I will review the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots. I will use the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process.

    The analysis will show that:

    The Covid mRNA vaccines were acquired and authorized through mechanisms designed to rush medical countermeasures to the military during emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction.
    These mechanisms did not require the application of, or adherence to, any laws or regulations related to vaccine development or manufacturing.
    The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.)
    What all of this means is that none of the laws or regulations that we count on to protect us from potentially harmful, or deadly, medical products was applied to the Covid mRNA vaccines. The assertion of “safe and effective” was based entirely on aspirations, opinions, beliefs, and presumptions of government employees.

    In Part 1 of this article I will provide a summary of the main contractual and legal points and explain how they excluded any requirements for regulatory oversight. In Part 2, I will go through a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation.

    Contractual Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines

    When the US government entered into its Covid vaccine agreement with Pfizer, which was acting on behalf of the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, the agreement encompassed a minimum of 100 million doses of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” and a payment of at least $1.95 billion. The agreement also allowed for future procurement of hundreds of millions of additional doses.

    That’s a lot of money for a lot of items, especially since the vaccines had not yet been tested, approved, or manufactured to scale and, as the agreement stated, were purely “aspirational.”

    Obviously, this is not normal procedure. But, then, those were not normal times. The government declared that we were “at war” with a catastrophically dangerous virus that would kill millions and millions of people of all ages unless we could develop “medical countermeasures” (a military term) and get everyone to take them as quickly as possible.

    In keeping with the declaration of war, it was a military framework that was used for acquiring the aspirational products that became known as Covid mRNA vaccines.

    Military Acquisition

    The government side to the agreement with Pfizer was the Department of Defense (DoD), represented by a convoluted chain of parties, each operating as a subcontractor, or co-contractor, for the next.

    You’ll find details about the role of each of these military procurement groups in Part 2 of this article. The important point to recognize is that all of these bodies are charged exclusively with military objectives: “ensuring military readiness,” “enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel,” and “supporting the Army and Unified Land Operations, anytime, anywhere.”

    This is crucial, because the laws and procedures governing military procurement have a very different set of assumptions and cost-benefit considerations than those used in civil society.

    In fact, agencies governing civilian and public health, like the NIH, NIAID and HHS, do not have the authority to grant certain types of special acquisition contracts, which is why the Covid vaccine contracts had to be overseen by the Department of Defense.

    Thus, HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities … which HHS lacked.” [ref]

    What are “OTA authorities?”

    Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA)

    (NOTE: OTA is used interchangeably to refer to Other Transaction Agreement and Other Transaction Authority.)

    The OTA is a procurement method that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.”

    What types of transactions are we talking about?

    First and foremost, the OTA acquisition structure “operates outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations.” This means no federal laws related to government purchases apply to OTAs. Such laws generally involve things like ensuring competition, accounting standards, cost management, record-keeping and labor practices. For purchases of medical products, they also include things like oversight of research on human subjects and privacy laws.

    Why is it a good idea to bypass all these acquisition regulations? For the military, OTAs can provide “access to state-of-the-art technology solutions from traditional and non-traditional defense contractors.” More specifically, according to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), OTAs are designed to “avoid many of the hurdles that scare away private industry,” including “burdensome regulations.”

    The second defining aspect of OTAs is that they apply to projects that are

    …directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of personnel of the Department of Defense or improving platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces.

    In other words, OTA is not a pathway for government acquisitions primarily intended for civilian populations.

    In fact, from the time of OTA inception in 1958 until Covid, the vast majority of OTAs were awarded for weapons, military supplies, and information technologies. For example, in an overview from 2013-2018, the top OTAs dealt with underwater weapons, ground vehicles, rocket propulsion systems, and “technologies related to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or the information that rides on it.”

    What About OTAs for Medical Products?

    In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.”

    Broadly speaking, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” Furthermore, such technologies could include “animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis, assays, diagnostic technologies, or other platform technologies.”

    Note that there is a mention of FDA licensing, which means a medical product cannot be purchased through OTA without any FDA involvement. The extent of that involvement will be discussed in the section on Regulations below.

    But before we get to the FDA, just looking at what an OTA can be applied to, it does not look like manufacturing 100 million doses of anything is even in the ballpark.

    Pfizer’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA)

    DoD can make three types of agreements under OTA: research, prototypes, and manufacturing. Importantly, according to National Defense Magazine, the agreements (which are “other than contracts”) are supposed to start with prototypes and then move “from prototypes to production contracts.” In other words, you start with an OTA for a prototype and then get an actual production contract.

    In contrast, the agreement between Pfizer and the US government, routed through the Department of Defense and the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, classified what Pfizer agreed to deliver as a “prototype project” and “manufacturing demonstration.” As stated in the agreement:

    The intent of this prototype project is to demonstrate that Pfizer has the business and logistics capability to manufacture 100M doses of its currently unapproved mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine for the Government [(b)(4) redaction]

    So the military acquisition branch of the government is paying Pfizer to show that it can manufacture 100 million doses of a never-before produced or tested product, while also acquiring those 100 million doses, and potentially hundreds of millions more. The “prototype” somehow includes not just the manufacturing process, but also the 100 million doses created through that process.

    Nowhere in the history of Other Transaction Agreements is there anything remotely resembling this conflation of a prototype (“a preliminary model of something,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and the manufacturing of millions of exemplars of that prototype. Actually, it is unclear from the wording of the OTA whether the “prototype” applies to the mRNA Covid vaccine, the mRNA platform for manufacturing the vaccine, the actual manufacturing of 100 million vaccines, or all of the above.

    Regulatory Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines

    What about regulatory oversight of the development and manufacturing processes?

    For pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, this would include: 1) clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the products, and 2) compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices to ensure what is in each dose is actually what is supposed to be in each dose.

    Who is responsible for this type of oversight in the context of Pfizer’s OTA?

    Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting ongoing and planned clinical trials, and with its collaboration partner, BioNTech, will seek FDA approval or authorization for the vaccine, assuming the clinical data supports such application for approval or authorization.

    What are the FDA requirements “for approval or authorization?”

    According to the Pfizer OTA, those requirements are whatever it takes to “grant an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) under Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

    In fact, the two regulations applied to the authorization of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccines were EUA and its partner, the PREP Act, which grants legal immunity from prosecution to anyone who has anything to do with the vaccines, unless they commit outright fraud.

    Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

    EUA is a very special way to authorize a medical countermeasure in very specific types of emergencies. It was designed, according to the Department of Justice, to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against – among other CBRN agents – potential biowarfare/bioterror agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague.

    As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, “Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization.” The article continues,

    The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic.

    You can read about the details of EUA regulations in part 2 of this article. In summary, an Emergency Use Authorization can be granted by the Food and Drug Administration once the HHS and/or DoD have declared that there is an attack, threat of an attack, or national security threat created by a CBRN agent (a weapon of mass destruction).

    Significantly, as the Harvard Law article explains, EUA was not intended to cover brand-new vaccines:

    The only vaccine ever to have received an EUA prior to the current pandemic was AVA, an anthrax vaccine that had already been formally approved for other purposes.

    This is extremely important: EUA was meant for dire situations of warfare or terrorism, not to protect the entire population from naturally occurring pathogens. For this reason, EUA products do not require the type of legal safety oversight that is applied in civilian contexts by the FDA.

    And without adherence to legal safety standards in clinical trials and manufacturing, there is no way of knowing whether the products, in this case the Covid mRNA vaccines, are actually safe.

    No Legal or Regulatory Standards Apply to the FDA’s Decision to Grant EUA

    Here’s the kicker about EUA: because it was intended to be issued only in war and WMD-related emergencies, there are no legal requirements for how it is issued, beyond the determination of the FDA that such authorization is appropriate. No legal standards for how clinical trials are conducted. No laws regulating the manufacturing processes. Only “reasonable beliefs” based on whatever evidence is available to the FDA at the time that it makes its determination.

    This is how it is described in U.S. Code 360bbb-3, which covers EUA:

    Criteria for issuance of authorization

    An agent referred to in a declaration [by the HHS Secretary] can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition
    Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that
    The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating or preventing such disease or condition
    The known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the CBRN agent(s)
    There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product
    In Its EUA Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, the FDA recommends that EUA applications contain information about clinical trials, manufacturing processes, potential risks, etc. Crucially, as stated at the top of every page, these are merely “nonbinding recommendations.”

    It’s up to the EUA applicant to decide what information to submit, and it’s up to the FDA to decide whether that information meets the “statutory requirements” (as stated above).

    PREP Act

    If you agree to develop, manufacture, and sell hundreds of millions of aspirational products to the government under the contract-like Other Transaction Agreement and bioterror-contingent Emergency Use Authorization, you need very good liability protection.

    This is provided by the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act that was designed to go hand-in-hand with EUA. Again, it is possible to envision a bioterrorism scenario, like an anthrax attack, in which the government needs to get lots of countermeasures very quickly. Many people will inevitably die in the attack, but if there’s a chance that the countermeasure will work, it needs to get made and distributed as quickly as possible. If it has some bad side effects, or even if it kills some people, one could argue that the manufacturer should not be held liable.

    Clearly, this was never intended to apply to a new, untested vaccine used to counter a naturally occurring virus in hundreds of millions of people.

    What, then, are the standards for determining the necessity of a PREP Act declaration?

    Here’s how the Health and Human Services (HHS) website describes the factors considered by the HHS Secretary:

    In deciding whether to issue a PREP Act Declaration, HHS must consider the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administering, licensing, and use of the countermeasure recommended in the Declaration. HHS may also consider other relevant factors.

    As with the EUA determination, there are no legally binding standards or directives for issuing a PREP Act. If the products made under EUA cause harm or death, no one involved in making or administering those products can be held accountable, as long as there is accompanying PREP Act protection.

    Conclusion

    The BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were authorized for use in the entire population of the United States based on the application of the following sequence of agreements and determinations:

    Department of Defense uses “contract-like” Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to buy aspirational products. DoD is not responsible for overseeing clinical trials or manufacturing. Pfizer is responsible for getting authorization from the FDA.
    The FDA is permitted to issue Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer for mRNA vaccines because the HHS Secretary declares that there is an emergency that warrants EUA.
    FDA makes its EUA determination based on whatever evidence and considerations it feels are appropriate, given the emergency situation. There are no legal standards that apply to the FDA’s considerations, except that it believes the product may be effective, the benefits outweigh the risks based on available information, and there is no alternative product.
    The Health and Human Services Secretary grants total legal immunity through the PREP Act to anyone involved in developing, making, shipping, or administering the vaccines, based on his determination that there is an emergency that justifies this action.
    That’s what the “safe and effective” claim for the BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines was based on in December 2020, when millions of people – including children and pregnant women – were mandated to take the injections. Objectors were ridiculed, silenced, ostracized, and fired. Harms and deaths were, and continue to be, covered up, uninvestigated, and uncounted.

    Questions About the Legality of the EUA for Covid mRNA Vaccines

    It sounds like something in this whole process must be illegal, right?

    So far, trying to charge pharmaceutical companies with wrongdoing related to Covid vaccines has failed, because the EUA + PREP combo means they were not required to apply any legal/regulatory standards to their clinical studies or manufacturing processes.

    But what about the government?

    Since the OTA, EUA, and PREP regulations are intended for use during a catastrophic CBRN emergency, we might ask ourselves: did the US government believe SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered potential bioweapon? Did the government use what we might consider an extra-legal (in civilian terms) acquisition and authorization process based on the assumption that the entire population was threatened by the equivalent of a bioterrorism or biowarfare attack? It sure seems like they did. And if so, did they have a legal obligation to inform the public of this situation in order to resort to the OTA and EUA procurement and authorization pathway?

    Moreover, even if the government considered Covid-19 to be a disease caused by a potential bioterror agent, how could the HHS Secretary justify an Emergency Use Authorization that required him to determine that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security” when it was known that Covid-19 was deadly almost exclusively in old and infirm populations?

    In December 2020 the following facts were known about Covid-19 without a reasonable doubt:

    The infection fatality rate (IFR) for the entire population was less than 1%.
    The IFR for anyone under 55 was 0.01% or lower.
    The IFR for children was near zero.
    [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref]

    A disease that has significant potential to affect national security has to be very severe, especially in its effect on the military. Yet in December 2020 military-aged people were known to be at nearly no risk from Covid-19. And still the HHS Secretary determined that there was an emergency that warranted EUA for the mRNA vaccines. And all military personnel were mandated to get the injections.

    I hope that by publishing this information as widely as possible we can eventually find a way to demand some measure of accountability.

    Acknowledgements

    Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt have been trying to draw attention to this shocking legal and regulatory framework for a long time. I am deeply grateful for, and indebted to, their in-depth research and tireless work to disseminate this information.

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Author

    Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight Debbie Lerman When everyone from the President to your primary care doctor declared loudly and wholeheartedly in December 2020 that the newly FDA-authorized Covid mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” – what were those claims based on? In this article, I will review the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots. I will use the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. The analysis will show that: The Covid mRNA vaccines were acquired and authorized through mechanisms designed to rush medical countermeasures to the military during emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction. These mechanisms did not require the application of, or adherence to, any laws or regulations related to vaccine development or manufacturing. The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.) What all of this means is that none of the laws or regulations that we count on to protect us from potentially harmful, or deadly, medical products was applied to the Covid mRNA vaccines. The assertion of “safe and effective” was based entirely on aspirations, opinions, beliefs, and presumptions of government employees. In Part 1 of this article I will provide a summary of the main contractual and legal points and explain how they excluded any requirements for regulatory oversight. In Part 2, I will go through a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Contractual Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines When the US government entered into its Covid vaccine agreement with Pfizer, which was acting on behalf of the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, the agreement encompassed a minimum of 100 million doses of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” and a payment of at least $1.95 billion. The agreement also allowed for future procurement of hundreds of millions of additional doses. That’s a lot of money for a lot of items, especially since the vaccines had not yet been tested, approved, or manufactured to scale and, as the agreement stated, were purely “aspirational.” Obviously, this is not normal procedure. But, then, those were not normal times. The government declared that we were “at war” with a catastrophically dangerous virus that would kill millions and millions of people of all ages unless we could develop “medical countermeasures” (a military term) and get everyone to take them as quickly as possible. In keeping with the declaration of war, it was a military framework that was used for acquiring the aspirational products that became known as Covid mRNA vaccines. Military Acquisition The government side to the agreement with Pfizer was the Department of Defense (DoD), represented by a convoluted chain of parties, each operating as a subcontractor, or co-contractor, for the next. You’ll find details about the role of each of these military procurement groups in Part 2 of this article. The important point to recognize is that all of these bodies are charged exclusively with military objectives: “ensuring military readiness,” “enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel,” and “supporting the Army and Unified Land Operations, anytime, anywhere.” This is crucial, because the laws and procedures governing military procurement have a very different set of assumptions and cost-benefit considerations than those used in civil society. In fact, agencies governing civilian and public health, like the NIH, NIAID and HHS, do not have the authority to grant certain types of special acquisition contracts, which is why the Covid vaccine contracts had to be overseen by the Department of Defense. Thus, HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities … which HHS lacked.” [ref] What are “OTA authorities?” Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA) (NOTE: OTA is used interchangeably to refer to Other Transaction Agreement and Other Transaction Authority.) The OTA is a procurement method that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” What types of transactions are we talking about? First and foremost, the OTA acquisition structure “operates outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations.” This means no federal laws related to government purchases apply to OTAs. Such laws generally involve things like ensuring competition, accounting standards, cost management, record-keeping and labor practices. For purchases of medical products, they also include things like oversight of research on human subjects and privacy laws. Why is it a good idea to bypass all these acquisition regulations? For the military, OTAs can provide “access to state-of-the-art technology solutions from traditional and non-traditional defense contractors.” More specifically, according to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), OTAs are designed to “avoid many of the hurdles that scare away private industry,” including “burdensome regulations.” The second defining aspect of OTAs is that they apply to projects that are …directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of personnel of the Department of Defense or improving platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces. In other words, OTA is not a pathway for government acquisitions primarily intended for civilian populations. In fact, from the time of OTA inception in 1958 until Covid, the vast majority of OTAs were awarded for weapons, military supplies, and information technologies. For example, in an overview from 2013-2018, the top OTAs dealt with underwater weapons, ground vehicles, rocket propulsion systems, and “technologies related to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or the information that rides on it.” What About OTAs for Medical Products? In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” Broadly speaking, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” Furthermore, such technologies could include “animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis, assays, diagnostic technologies, or other platform technologies.” Note that there is a mention of FDA licensing, which means a medical product cannot be purchased through OTA without any FDA involvement. The extent of that involvement will be discussed in the section on Regulations below. But before we get to the FDA, just looking at what an OTA can be applied to, it does not look like manufacturing 100 million doses of anything is even in the ballpark. Pfizer’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) DoD can make three types of agreements under OTA: research, prototypes, and manufacturing. Importantly, according to National Defense Magazine, the agreements (which are “other than contracts”) are supposed to start with prototypes and then move “from prototypes to production contracts.” In other words, you start with an OTA for a prototype and then get an actual production contract. In contrast, the agreement between Pfizer and the US government, routed through the Department of Defense and the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, classified what Pfizer agreed to deliver as a “prototype project” and “manufacturing demonstration.” As stated in the agreement: The intent of this prototype project is to demonstrate that Pfizer has the business and logistics capability to manufacture 100M doses of its currently unapproved mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine for the Government [(b)(4) redaction] So the military acquisition branch of the government is paying Pfizer to show that it can manufacture 100 million doses of a never-before produced or tested product, while also acquiring those 100 million doses, and potentially hundreds of millions more. The “prototype” somehow includes not just the manufacturing process, but also the 100 million doses created through that process. Nowhere in the history of Other Transaction Agreements is there anything remotely resembling this conflation of a prototype (“a preliminary model of something,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and the manufacturing of millions of exemplars of that prototype. Actually, it is unclear from the wording of the OTA whether the “prototype” applies to the mRNA Covid vaccine, the mRNA platform for manufacturing the vaccine, the actual manufacturing of 100 million vaccines, or all of the above. Regulatory Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines What about regulatory oversight of the development and manufacturing processes? For pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, this would include: 1) clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the products, and 2) compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices to ensure what is in each dose is actually what is supposed to be in each dose. Who is responsible for this type of oversight in the context of Pfizer’s OTA? Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting ongoing and planned clinical trials, and with its collaboration partner, BioNTech, will seek FDA approval or authorization for the vaccine, assuming the clinical data supports such application for approval or authorization. What are the FDA requirements “for approval or authorization?” According to the Pfizer OTA, those requirements are whatever it takes to “grant an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) under Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” In fact, the two regulations applied to the authorization of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccines were EUA and its partner, the PREP Act, which grants legal immunity from prosecution to anyone who has anything to do with the vaccines, unless they commit outright fraud. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) EUA is a very special way to authorize a medical countermeasure in very specific types of emergencies. It was designed, according to the Department of Justice, to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against – among other CBRN agents – potential biowarfare/bioterror agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, “Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization.” The article continues, The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. You can read about the details of EUA regulations in part 2 of this article. In summary, an Emergency Use Authorization can be granted by the Food and Drug Administration once the HHS and/or DoD have declared that there is an attack, threat of an attack, or national security threat created by a CBRN agent (a weapon of mass destruction). Significantly, as the Harvard Law article explains, EUA was not intended to cover brand-new vaccines: The only vaccine ever to have received an EUA prior to the current pandemic was AVA, an anthrax vaccine that had already been formally approved for other purposes. This is extremely important: EUA was meant for dire situations of warfare or terrorism, not to protect the entire population from naturally occurring pathogens. For this reason, EUA products do not require the type of legal safety oversight that is applied in civilian contexts by the FDA. And without adherence to legal safety standards in clinical trials and manufacturing, there is no way of knowing whether the products, in this case the Covid mRNA vaccines, are actually safe. No Legal or Regulatory Standards Apply to the FDA’s Decision to Grant EUA Here’s the kicker about EUA: because it was intended to be issued only in war and WMD-related emergencies, there are no legal requirements for how it is issued, beyond the determination of the FDA that such authorization is appropriate. No legal standards for how clinical trials are conducted. No laws regulating the manufacturing processes. Only “reasonable beliefs” based on whatever evidence is available to the FDA at the time that it makes its determination. This is how it is described in U.S. Code 360bbb-3, which covers EUA: Criteria for issuance of authorization An agent referred to in a declaration [by the HHS Secretary] can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating or preventing such disease or condition The known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the CBRN agent(s) There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product In Its EUA Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, the FDA recommends that EUA applications contain information about clinical trials, manufacturing processes, potential risks, etc. Crucially, as stated at the top of every page, these are merely “nonbinding recommendations.” It’s up to the EUA applicant to decide what information to submit, and it’s up to the FDA to decide whether that information meets the “statutory requirements” (as stated above). PREP Act If you agree to develop, manufacture, and sell hundreds of millions of aspirational products to the government under the contract-like Other Transaction Agreement and bioterror-contingent Emergency Use Authorization, you need very good liability protection. This is provided by the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act that was designed to go hand-in-hand with EUA. Again, it is possible to envision a bioterrorism scenario, like an anthrax attack, in which the government needs to get lots of countermeasures very quickly. Many people will inevitably die in the attack, but if there’s a chance that the countermeasure will work, it needs to get made and distributed as quickly as possible. If it has some bad side effects, or even if it kills some people, one could argue that the manufacturer should not be held liable. Clearly, this was never intended to apply to a new, untested vaccine used to counter a naturally occurring virus in hundreds of millions of people. What, then, are the standards for determining the necessity of a PREP Act declaration? Here’s how the Health and Human Services (HHS) website describes the factors considered by the HHS Secretary: In deciding whether to issue a PREP Act Declaration, HHS must consider the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administering, licensing, and use of the countermeasure recommended in the Declaration. HHS may also consider other relevant factors. As with the EUA determination, there are no legally binding standards or directives for issuing a PREP Act. If the products made under EUA cause harm or death, no one involved in making or administering those products can be held accountable, as long as there is accompanying PREP Act protection. Conclusion The BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were authorized for use in the entire population of the United States based on the application of the following sequence of agreements and determinations: Department of Defense uses “contract-like” Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to buy aspirational products. DoD is not responsible for overseeing clinical trials or manufacturing. Pfizer is responsible for getting authorization from the FDA. The FDA is permitted to issue Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer for mRNA vaccines because the HHS Secretary declares that there is an emergency that warrants EUA. FDA makes its EUA determination based on whatever evidence and considerations it feels are appropriate, given the emergency situation. There are no legal standards that apply to the FDA’s considerations, except that it believes the product may be effective, the benefits outweigh the risks based on available information, and there is no alternative product. The Health and Human Services Secretary grants total legal immunity through the PREP Act to anyone involved in developing, making, shipping, or administering the vaccines, based on his determination that there is an emergency that justifies this action. That’s what the “safe and effective” claim for the BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines was based on in December 2020, when millions of people – including children and pregnant women – were mandated to take the injections. Objectors were ridiculed, silenced, ostracized, and fired. Harms and deaths were, and continue to be, covered up, uninvestigated, and uncounted. Questions About the Legality of the EUA for Covid mRNA Vaccines It sounds like something in this whole process must be illegal, right? So far, trying to charge pharmaceutical companies with wrongdoing related to Covid vaccines has failed, because the EUA + PREP combo means they were not required to apply any legal/regulatory standards to their clinical studies or manufacturing processes. But what about the government? Since the OTA, EUA, and PREP regulations are intended for use during a catastrophic CBRN emergency, we might ask ourselves: did the US government believe SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered potential bioweapon? Did the government use what we might consider an extra-legal (in civilian terms) acquisition and authorization process based on the assumption that the entire population was threatened by the equivalent of a bioterrorism or biowarfare attack? It sure seems like they did. And if so, did they have a legal obligation to inform the public of this situation in order to resort to the OTA and EUA procurement and authorization pathway? Moreover, even if the government considered Covid-19 to be a disease caused by a potential bioterror agent, how could the HHS Secretary justify an Emergency Use Authorization that required him to determine that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security” when it was known that Covid-19 was deadly almost exclusively in old and infirm populations? In December 2020 the following facts were known about Covid-19 without a reasonable doubt: The infection fatality rate (IFR) for the entire population was less than 1%. The IFR for anyone under 55 was 0.01% or lower. The IFR for children was near zero. [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref] A disease that has significant potential to affect national security has to be very severe, especially in its effect on the military. Yet in December 2020 military-aged people were known to be at nearly no risk from Covid-19. And still the HHS Secretary determined that there was an emergency that warranted EUA for the mRNA vaccines. And all military personnel were mandated to get the injections. I hope that by publishing this information as widely as possible we can eventually find a way to demand some measure of accountability. Acknowledgements Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt have been trying to draw attention to this shocking legal and regulatory framework for a long time. I am deeply grateful for, and indebted to, their in-depth research and tireless work to disseminate this information. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.)
    0 Comments 0 Shares 17243 Views
  • Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two
    Debbie Lerman
    In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process.

    I showed that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted to these products based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with

    no binding legal standards,
    no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and
    no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms.
    In this follow-up article, I will provide a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation.

    Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA): A Military Acquisition Pathway

    The agreement between the US government, represented by the Department of Defense (DoD), and Pfizer, representing the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, for the purchase of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” was not an ordinary acquisition contract.

    It was an agreement under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) – an acquisition pathway that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.”

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    A thorough review of the use of OTA by the DoD, including its statutory history, can be found in the February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service report. This report, along with every other discussion of OTA, specifies that it is an alternative acquisition path for defense and military purposes. It is not intended, nor has it ever been used before Covid, for anything intended primarily for civilian use.

    If you look for OTA laws in the US Code, this is the path you will go down:

    Armed Forces -> General Military Law -> Acquisition -> Research and Engineering -> Agreements -> Authority of the DoD to carry out certain prototype projects

    This legal pathway very clearly shows that OTA laws are intended for acquisition of research and engineering prototypes for the armed forces.

    According to the DARPA website,

    The Department of Defense has authority for three different types of OTs: (1) research OTs, (2) prototype OTs, and (3) production OTs.

    These three types of OTs represent three stages of initial research, development of a prototype, and eventual production.

    Within those three types, there are specific categories of projects to which OTA can apply:

    Originally, according to the OTA Overview provided by the DoD, the Other Transaction Authority was “limited to apply to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD.”
    OTA was later expanded to include “any prototype project directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces.”
    So far, none of that sounds like an acquisition pathway for millions of novel medical products intended primarily for civilian use.

    Is There any Exception for Civilian Use of OTA That Might Apply to Covid mRNA Vaccines?

    The FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) contained a section that gave Other Transaction Authority to “the head of an executive agency who engages in basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects” that “have the potential to facilitate defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack.”

    This provision was extended until 2018, but does not appear to have been extended beyond that year. Also, note that even in this exceptional case of non-DoD use of OTA, the situation must involve terrorism or an attack with weapons of mass destruction (CBRN).

    What Other OTA Laws Might Apply?

    The 2019 CRS report cited above provides this chart, showing that a few non-DoD agencies have some OTA or related authorities:


    According to this table, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has some research and development (R&D) Other Transaction Authorities. The law pertaining to the OT Authority of HHS is 42 U.S.C. §247d-7e.

    Where is this law housed and what does it say?

    The Public Health and Welfare -> Public Health Service -> General Powers and Duties -> Federal-State Cooperation -> Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) -> Transaction Authorities

    So there is a place in the law related to civilian health and welfare where OTA might be applicable, although it is valid only for research and development, not prototypes or manufacturing.

    The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority

    with respect to a product that is or may become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product, activities that predominantly—

    (i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical development of the product; and

    (ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] or under section 262 of this title.

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    The “regulatory requirements” enumerated in the law mean that it would be impossible for BARDA/HHS to enter into agreements – even just R&D – for any medical products (like the mRNA vaccines) that did not undergo rigorous safety testing and strict manufacturing oversight.

    HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws

    To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular:

    OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing.
    The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing.
    Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety.
    In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products.

    So what did HHS do?

    As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24)

    What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products?

    As discussed, OTA is intended to help the military get equipment and technology without lots of bureaucratic hassle. None of the original laws pertaining to OTA mentioned anything other than “platforms, systems, components, or materials” intended to “enhance the mission effectiveness of military personnel.”

    But five years before Covid, an exceptional use of OTA was introduced:

    In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” [FDA = Food & Drug Administration]

    As described in the 2015 announcement, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” The list of agents included the top biowarfare pathogens, such as anthrax, ebola, and marburg.

    The announcement went on to specify that “enabling technologies can include animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis (multiple routes of exposure), assays, diagnostic technologies or other platform technologies that can be applied to development of approved or licensed MCMs [medical countermeasures].”

    Although this still does not sound anything like the production of 100 million novel vaccines for civilian use, it does provide more leeway for OTA than the very limited Other Transaction Authority given to HHS.

    While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.”

    Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all.

    Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

    Here’s how the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) describes its EUA powers:

    Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3) allows FDA to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents.

    With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria).

    It’s extremely important to understand that these EUA powers were granted in 2004 under very specific circumstances related to preparedness for attacks by weapons of mass destruction, otherwise known as CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) agents.

    As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health,

    Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization. After the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax mail attacks, Congress enacted the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. The act called for billions of dollars in appropriations for purchasing vaccines in preparation for a bioterror attack, and for stockpiling of emergency countermeasures. To be able to act rapidly in an emergency, Congress allowed FDA to authorize formally unapproved products for emergency use against a threat to public health and safety (subject to a declaration of emergency by HHS). The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic.

    The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued:

    a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents;
    a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with—
    a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or
    an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces;
    a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or
    the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad.
    Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.”

    Could SARS-CoV-2 qualify as such an agent?

    If you look for the definition of “biological agents” in the US Legal Code, you will go down the following pathway:

    Crimes and Criminal Procedure -> Crimes -> Biological Weapons -> Definitions

    So in the context of United States law, the term “biological agents” means biological weapons, and the use of such agents/weapons is regarded as a crime.

    Wikipedia provides this definition:

    A biological agent (also called bio-agent, biological threat agent, biological warfare agent, biological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, fungus, or toxin that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW).

    On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines?

    It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen.

    Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines.

    Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was

    C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.

    When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded:

    the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)…

    There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.”

    It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists.

    Looking at all of the EUAs for hundreds of Covid-related medical products, it is very difficult to see how the HHS secretary could justify the claim that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of US citizens living abroad” in most, if not all, of these cases.

    Additional “Statutory Criteria” for FDA to Grant Emergency Use Authorization

    Once the HHS Secretary declares that there is a public health emergency that warrants EUA, based on one of the four situations listed in the law, there are four more “statutory criteria” that have to be met in order for the FDA to issue the EUA. Here’s how the FDA explains these requirements:

    Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition
    For FDA to issue an EUA, the CBRN agent(s) referred to in the HHS Secretary’s EUA declaration must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.

    NOTE: This criterion repeats the specification of a CBRN agent, which is legally defined as a weapon used in committing a crime.

    Evidence of Effectiveness
    Medical products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions that can be caused by a CBRN agent(s) identified in the HHS Secretary’s declaration of emergency or threat of emergency under section 564(b).

    The “may be effective” standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the “effectiveness” standard that FDA uses for product approvals. FDA intends to assess the potential effectiveness of a possible EUA product on a case-by-case basis using a risk-benefit analysis, as explained below.

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    LEGAL QUESTION: How can anyone legally claim that a product authorized under EUA is “safe and effective” if the legal standard for EUA is “may be effective” and the FDA declares that this is a “lower level of evidence” than the standard used for regular product approvals?

    Risk-Benefit Analysis
    A product may be considered for an EUA if the Commissioner determines that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.

    In determining whether the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, FDA intends to look at the totality of the scientific evidence to make an overall risk-benefit determination. Such evidence, which could arise from a variety of sources, may include (but is not limited to): results of domestic and foreign clinical trials, in vivo efficacy data from animal models, and in vitro data, available for FDA consideration. FDA will also assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, given the current state of scientific knowledge.

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    LEGAL NOTE: There is no legal standard and there are no legal definitions for what it means for “known and potential benefits” to outweigh “known and potential risks.” There is also no qualitative or quantitative legal definition for what constitutes acceptable “available evidence” upon which the risk-benefit analysis “may be” based. There could be zero actual evidence, but a belief that a product has a lot of potential benefit and not a lot of potential risk, and that would satisfy this “statutory requirement.”

    No Alternatives
    For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need.

    LEGAL QUERY: Aside from the egregious and potentially criminal vilification/outlawing of alternative Covid-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, at what point was there an approved alternative for “preventing Covid-19” (the only thing the mRNA vaccines were purchased to do) – Paxlovid, for instance – which would render an EUA for the mRNA vaccines no longer legal?

    Here’s how all of these “statutory criteria” were satisfied in the actual Emergency Use Authorization for the BioNTEch/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines:

    I have concluded that the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 when administered as described in the Scope of Authorization (Section II) meets the criteria for issuance of an authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act, because:

    SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, including severe respiratory illness, to humans infected by this virus;
    Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19, and that, when used under the conditions described in this authorization, the known and potential benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine when used to prevent COVID-19 outweigh its known and potential risks; and
    There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19.
    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    NOTE: The only context in which the FDA weighed the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine, and in which the FDA determined it “may be effective” was in preventing Covid-19.

    There is no consideration, no evidence of actual or potential benefit, and no determination that there is any potential effectiveness for the vaccine to do anything else, including: lowering the risk of severe disease, lowering the risk of hospitalization, lowering the risk of death, lowering the risk of any conditions actually or potentially related to Covid-19.

    THEREFORE, one might reasonably question the legality of any claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” in the context of anything other than “when used to prevent COVID-19” – which the vaccines were known NOT TO DO very soon after they were introduced.

    If people were told the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” at anything other than preventing Covid-19, and if they were threatened with any consequences for failure to take the vaccine for anything other than preventing Covid-19, might they have a legitimate argument that they were illegally coerced into taking an unapproved product under fraudulent claims?

    Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products

    Once we have the EUA-specific emergency declaration, and once the FDA declares that the product may be effective and that whatever evidence is available (from zero to infinity) shows that its benefits outweigh its risks (as determined by whatever the FDA thinks those might be), there is one more layer of non-safety, non-efficacy related regulation.

    Here’s how a 2018 Congressional Research Service report on EUA explains this:

    FFDCA §564 directs FDA to impose certain required conditions in an EUA and allows for additional discretionary conditions where appropriate. The required conditions vary depending upon whether the EUA is for an unapproved product or for an unapproved use of an approved product. For an unapproved product, the conditions of use must:

    (1) ensure that health care professionals administering the product receive required information;

    (2) ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered receive required information;

    (3) provide for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the product; and

    (4) provide for record-keeping and reporting by the manufacturer.

    LEGAL QUESTION: What exactly is the “required information?” We know that people were informed that the vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization. But were they told that this means “a lower level of evidence” than is required for “safe and effective” claims on other medical products? Were they informed that there are different levels of “safe and effective” depending on whether a product has EUA or another type of authorization?

    NOTE: The law requires that there be a way to monitor and report adverse events. However, it does not state who monitors, what the standards are for reporting, and what the threshold is for taking action based on the reports.

    EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway

    As researcher/writer Sasha Latypova has pointed out, many people were confused by EUA, because it sounds a lot like EAU, which stands for “Expanded Access Use.” This is a type of authorization given to medical products when there is urgent need by a particular group of patients (e.g., Stage IV cancer patients whose life expectancy is measured in months) who are willing to risk adverse events and even death in exchange for access to an experimental treatment.

    Emergency Use Authorization is in no way related to, nor does it bear any resemblance to, Expanded Access Use.

    The various legal pathways for authorizing medical products are neatly presented in a table highlighted by legal researcher Katherine Watt. The table is part of a 2020 presentation for an FDA-CDC Joint Learning Session: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures.


    Comparison of Access Mechanisms
    This table shows very clearly that the EUA process is unlikely to provide information regarding product effectiveness, is not designed to provide evidence of safety, is not likely to provide useful information to benefit future patients, involves no systematic data collection, requires no retrospective studies, no informed consent, and no institutional review board.

    Moreover, in a 2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academic publication, also highlighted by Watt, entitled “Medical Countermeasures: Dispensing Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model – Workshop Summary” we find this statement on p. 28:

    It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process.

    Does this mean that approvals of Covid-19 countermeasures that were based on EUAs were illegal? Does it mean that there is no legal way to claim an EUA product is “safe and effective” because it is NOT PART OF THE DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS?

    Conclusion

    It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population.

    Therefore, the adherence to regulations and oversight that we expect to find when a product is deemed “safe and effective” for the entire civilian population was not legally required.

    Can this analysis be used to challenge the legality of the “safe and effective” claim by those government officials who knew what EUA entailed? Are there other legal ramifications?

    I hope so.

    Importantly, in legal challenges to Covid mRNA vaccines brought so far, there have been no rulings (that I am aware of) on whether military law, like OTA and EUA, can be applied to civilian situations. However, there has been a statement by District Court Judge Michael Truncale, in his dismissal of the case of whistleblower Brook Jackson v. Ventavia and Pfizer, that is important to keep in mind.

    Here the judge acknowledges that the agreement for the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines was a military OTA, but he refuses to rule on its applicability to the non-military circumstances (naturally occurring disease, 100 million doses mostly not for military use) under which it was issued:

    The fact that both military personnel and civilians received the vaccine does not indicate that acquiring the vaccine was irrelevant to enhancing the military’s mission effectiveness. More importantly, Ms. Jackson is in effect asking this Court to overrule the DoD’s decision to exercise Other Transaction Authority to purchase Pfizer’s vaccine. But as the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized, the “complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments.” Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973). Thus, it is “difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Id. This Court will not veto the DoD’s judgments concerning mission effectiveness during a national emergency.

    This is just one of many legal hurdles that remain in the battle to ultimately outlaw all mRNA products approved during the Covid-19 emergency, and any subsequent mRNA products whose approval was based on the Covid-19 approval process.

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Author

    Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight-part-two/
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two Debbie Lerman In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. I showed that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted to these products based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. In this follow-up article, I will provide a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA): A Military Acquisition Pathway The agreement between the US government, represented by the Department of Defense (DoD), and Pfizer, representing the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, for the purchase of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” was not an ordinary acquisition contract. It was an agreement under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) – an acquisition pathway that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” [BOLDFACE ADDED] A thorough review of the use of OTA by the DoD, including its statutory history, can be found in the February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service report. This report, along with every other discussion of OTA, specifies that it is an alternative acquisition path for defense and military purposes. It is not intended, nor has it ever been used before Covid, for anything intended primarily for civilian use. If you look for OTA laws in the US Code, this is the path you will go down: Armed Forces -> General Military Law -> Acquisition -> Research and Engineering -> Agreements -> Authority of the DoD to carry out certain prototype projects This legal pathway very clearly shows that OTA laws are intended for acquisition of research and engineering prototypes for the armed forces. According to the DARPA website, The Department of Defense has authority for three different types of OTs: (1) research OTs, (2) prototype OTs, and (3) production OTs. These three types of OTs represent three stages of initial research, development of a prototype, and eventual production. Within those three types, there are specific categories of projects to which OTA can apply: Originally, according to the OTA Overview provided by the DoD, the Other Transaction Authority was “limited to apply to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD.” OTA was later expanded to include “any prototype project directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces.” So far, none of that sounds like an acquisition pathway for millions of novel medical products intended primarily for civilian use. Is There any Exception for Civilian Use of OTA That Might Apply to Covid mRNA Vaccines? The FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) contained a section that gave Other Transaction Authority to “the head of an executive agency who engages in basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects” that “have the potential to facilitate defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack.” This provision was extended until 2018, but does not appear to have been extended beyond that year. Also, note that even in this exceptional case of non-DoD use of OTA, the situation must involve terrorism or an attack with weapons of mass destruction (CBRN). What Other OTA Laws Might Apply? The 2019 CRS report cited above provides this chart, showing that a few non-DoD agencies have some OTA or related authorities: According to this table, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has some research and development (R&D) Other Transaction Authorities. The law pertaining to the OT Authority of HHS is 42 U.S.C. §247d-7e. Where is this law housed and what does it say? The Public Health and Welfare -> Public Health Service -> General Powers and Duties -> Federal-State Cooperation -> Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) -> Transaction Authorities So there is a place in the law related to civilian health and welfare where OTA might be applicable, although it is valid only for research and development, not prototypes or manufacturing. The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority with respect to a product that is or may become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product, activities that predominantly— (i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical development of the product; and (ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] or under section 262 of this title. [BOLDFACE ADDED] The “regulatory requirements” enumerated in the law mean that it would be impossible for BARDA/HHS to enter into agreements – even just R&D – for any medical products (like the mRNA vaccines) that did not undergo rigorous safety testing and strict manufacturing oversight. HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular: OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing. The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing. Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety. In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products. So what did HHS do? As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24) What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products? As discussed, OTA is intended to help the military get equipment and technology without lots of bureaucratic hassle. None of the original laws pertaining to OTA mentioned anything other than “platforms, systems, components, or materials” intended to “enhance the mission effectiveness of military personnel.” But five years before Covid, an exceptional use of OTA was introduced: In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” [FDA = Food & Drug Administration] As described in the 2015 announcement, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” The list of agents included the top biowarfare pathogens, such as anthrax, ebola, and marburg. The announcement went on to specify that “enabling technologies can include animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis (multiple routes of exposure), assays, diagnostic technologies or other platform technologies that can be applied to development of approved or licensed MCMs [medical countermeasures].” Although this still does not sound anything like the production of 100 million novel vaccines for civilian use, it does provide more leeway for OTA than the very limited Other Transaction Authority given to HHS. While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.” Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Here’s how the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) describes its EUA powers: Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3) allows FDA to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria). It’s extremely important to understand that these EUA powers were granted in 2004 under very specific circumstances related to preparedness for attacks by weapons of mass destruction, otherwise known as CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) agents. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization. After the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax mail attacks, Congress enacted the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. The act called for billions of dollars in appropriations for purchasing vaccines in preparation for a bioterror attack, and for stockpiling of emergency countermeasures. To be able to act rapidly in an emergency, Congress allowed FDA to authorize formally unapproved products for emergency use against a threat to public health and safety (subject to a declaration of emergency by HHS). The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued: a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with— a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces; a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad. Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.” Could SARS-CoV-2 qualify as such an agent? If you look for the definition of “biological agents” in the US Legal Code, you will go down the following pathway: Crimes and Criminal Procedure -> Crimes -> Biological Weapons -> Definitions So in the context of United States law, the term “biological agents” means biological weapons, and the use of such agents/weapons is regarded as a crime. Wikipedia provides this definition: A biological agent (also called bio-agent, biological threat agent, biological warfare agent, biological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, fungus, or toxin that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW). On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines? It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen. Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines. Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents. When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded: the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)… There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.” It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists. Looking at all of the EUAs for hundreds of Covid-related medical products, it is very difficult to see how the HHS secretary could justify the claim that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of US citizens living abroad” in most, if not all, of these cases. Additional “Statutory Criteria” for FDA to Grant Emergency Use Authorization Once the HHS Secretary declares that there is a public health emergency that warrants EUA, based on one of the four situations listed in the law, there are four more “statutory criteria” that have to be met in order for the FDA to issue the EUA. Here’s how the FDA explains these requirements: Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition For FDA to issue an EUA, the CBRN agent(s) referred to in the HHS Secretary’s EUA declaration must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. NOTE: This criterion repeats the specification of a CBRN agent, which is legally defined as a weapon used in committing a crime. Evidence of Effectiveness Medical products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions that can be caused by a CBRN agent(s) identified in the HHS Secretary’s declaration of emergency or threat of emergency under section 564(b). The “may be effective” standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the “effectiveness” standard that FDA uses for product approvals. FDA intends to assess the potential effectiveness of a possible EUA product on a case-by-case basis using a risk-benefit analysis, as explained below. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL QUESTION: How can anyone legally claim that a product authorized under EUA is “safe and effective” if the legal standard for EUA is “may be effective” and the FDA declares that this is a “lower level of evidence” than the standard used for regular product approvals? Risk-Benefit Analysis A product may be considered for an EUA if the Commissioner determines that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In determining whether the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, FDA intends to look at the totality of the scientific evidence to make an overall risk-benefit determination. Such evidence, which could arise from a variety of sources, may include (but is not limited to): results of domestic and foreign clinical trials, in vivo efficacy data from animal models, and in vitro data, available for FDA consideration. FDA will also assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, given the current state of scientific knowledge. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL NOTE: There is no legal standard and there are no legal definitions for what it means for “known and potential benefits” to outweigh “known and potential risks.” There is also no qualitative or quantitative legal definition for what constitutes acceptable “available evidence” upon which the risk-benefit analysis “may be” based. There could be zero actual evidence, but a belief that a product has a lot of potential benefit and not a lot of potential risk, and that would satisfy this “statutory requirement.” No Alternatives For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need. LEGAL QUERY: Aside from the egregious and potentially criminal vilification/outlawing of alternative Covid-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, at what point was there an approved alternative for “preventing Covid-19” (the only thing the mRNA vaccines were purchased to do) – Paxlovid, for instance – which would render an EUA for the mRNA vaccines no longer legal? Here’s how all of these “statutory criteria” were satisfied in the actual Emergency Use Authorization for the BioNTEch/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines: I have concluded that the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 when administered as described in the Scope of Authorization (Section II) meets the criteria for issuance of an authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act, because: SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, including severe respiratory illness, to humans infected by this virus; Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19, and that, when used under the conditions described in this authorization, the known and potential benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine when used to prevent COVID-19 outweigh its known and potential risks; and There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19. [BOLDFACE ADDED] NOTE: The only context in which the FDA weighed the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine, and in which the FDA determined it “may be effective” was in preventing Covid-19. There is no consideration, no evidence of actual or potential benefit, and no determination that there is any potential effectiveness for the vaccine to do anything else, including: lowering the risk of severe disease, lowering the risk of hospitalization, lowering the risk of death, lowering the risk of any conditions actually or potentially related to Covid-19. THEREFORE, one might reasonably question the legality of any claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” in the context of anything other than “when used to prevent COVID-19” – which the vaccines were known NOT TO DO very soon after they were introduced. If people were told the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” at anything other than preventing Covid-19, and if they were threatened with any consequences for failure to take the vaccine for anything other than preventing Covid-19, might they have a legitimate argument that they were illegally coerced into taking an unapproved product under fraudulent claims? Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products Once we have the EUA-specific emergency declaration, and once the FDA declares that the product may be effective and that whatever evidence is available (from zero to infinity) shows that its benefits outweigh its risks (as determined by whatever the FDA thinks those might be), there is one more layer of non-safety, non-efficacy related regulation. Here’s how a 2018 Congressional Research Service report on EUA explains this: FFDCA §564 directs FDA to impose certain required conditions in an EUA and allows for additional discretionary conditions where appropriate. The required conditions vary depending upon whether the EUA is for an unapproved product or for an unapproved use of an approved product. For an unapproved product, the conditions of use must: (1) ensure that health care professionals administering the product receive required information; (2) ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered receive required information; (3) provide for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the product; and (4) provide for record-keeping and reporting by the manufacturer. LEGAL QUESTION: What exactly is the “required information?” We know that people were informed that the vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization. But were they told that this means “a lower level of evidence” than is required for “safe and effective” claims on other medical products? Were they informed that there are different levels of “safe and effective” depending on whether a product has EUA or another type of authorization? NOTE: The law requires that there be a way to monitor and report adverse events. However, it does not state who monitors, what the standards are for reporting, and what the threshold is for taking action based on the reports. EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway As researcher/writer Sasha Latypova has pointed out, many people were confused by EUA, because it sounds a lot like EAU, which stands for “Expanded Access Use.” This is a type of authorization given to medical products when there is urgent need by a particular group of patients (e.g., Stage IV cancer patients whose life expectancy is measured in months) who are willing to risk adverse events and even death in exchange for access to an experimental treatment. Emergency Use Authorization is in no way related to, nor does it bear any resemblance to, Expanded Access Use. The various legal pathways for authorizing medical products are neatly presented in a table highlighted by legal researcher Katherine Watt. The table is part of a 2020 presentation for an FDA-CDC Joint Learning Session: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures. Comparison of Access Mechanisms This table shows very clearly that the EUA process is unlikely to provide information regarding product effectiveness, is not designed to provide evidence of safety, is not likely to provide useful information to benefit future patients, involves no systematic data collection, requires no retrospective studies, no informed consent, and no institutional review board. Moreover, in a 2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academic publication, also highlighted by Watt, entitled “Medical Countermeasures: Dispensing Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model – Workshop Summary” we find this statement on p. 28: It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process. Does this mean that approvals of Covid-19 countermeasures that were based on EUAs were illegal? Does it mean that there is no legal way to claim an EUA product is “safe and effective” because it is NOT PART OF THE DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS? Conclusion It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population. Therefore, the adherence to regulations and oversight that we expect to find when a product is deemed “safe and effective” for the entire civilian population was not legally required. Can this analysis be used to challenge the legality of the “safe and effective” claim by those government officials who knew what EUA entailed? Are there other legal ramifications? I hope so. Importantly, in legal challenges to Covid mRNA vaccines brought so far, there have been no rulings (that I am aware of) on whether military law, like OTA and EUA, can be applied to civilian situations. However, there has been a statement by District Court Judge Michael Truncale, in his dismissal of the case of whistleblower Brook Jackson v. Ventavia and Pfizer, that is important to keep in mind. Here the judge acknowledges that the agreement for the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines was a military OTA, but he refuses to rule on its applicability to the non-military circumstances (naturally occurring disease, 100 million doses mostly not for military use) under which it was issued: The fact that both military personnel and civilians received the vaccine does not indicate that acquiring the vaccine was irrelevant to enhancing the military’s mission effectiveness. More importantly, Ms. Jackson is in effect asking this Court to overrule the DoD’s decision to exercise Other Transaction Authority to purchase Pfizer’s vaccine. But as the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized, the “complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments.” Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973). Thus, it is “difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Id. This Court will not veto the DoD’s judgments concerning mission effectiveness during a national emergency. This is just one of many legal hurdles that remain in the battle to ultimately outlaw all mRNA products approved during the Covid-19 emergency, and any subsequent mRNA products whose approval was based on the Covid-19 approval process. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight-part-two/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 16992 Views
  • How to Fake Pandemics in 4 Easy Steps
    A masterclass by the DOD showman, James Giordano.

    Sasha Latypova
    Who here still believes covid was a real viral pandemic? Or even an epidemic? Welcome! We don’t judge! Actually we do - you are an idiot if after 4 years of this charade you still believe that was an epidemic. The data is clear that there was none, US Government/Trump announced “public health emergency” based on about 40 cases in China without any significant evidence of real illness or economic impact. State governors announced public health emergencies based on nothing. In Ohio it was 3 cases of covid that became the basis for shutting down the entire state. This is because declarations of public health emergency, by law, require no evidence that an emergency exists. Opinion of one unelected bureaucrat is all that’s needed.

    The US Government then provided massive funding to fake-PCR label “covid” cases and murder people in hospitals with remdesivir+vent protocols while denying early effective treatment, as well as fake PCR-attributing covid causes to anything including motor vehicle deaths and gun homicides. Coquin de Chien John Beaudoin is a great resource on learning about this fraud-and-murder event labeled as “pandemic”, and if you have not yet subscribed to his stack, I recommend you do so.

    Pandemics do not exist at all. They are not possible in nature. Had they been possible, we would not be here. At this point I am asked - but the plague! The smallpox! The cholera! The answer is - these are diseases related to lack of sanitation, crowding, infestation with rats and fleas, human and animal waste polluting the drinking water. Once these problems are addressed, epidemics do not exist. And these diseases never caused global pandemics anyway. The “Spanish flu” was also a fake pandemic, a narrative manufactured probably decades after.

    Pandemics are also not possible via “science” and what is called gain-of-function research which amounts to mostly ridiculous attempts at software enabled sorcery, making soups of chemicals mixed with literally shit, as I discussed in my previous article. Yes, toxic chemicals and shit can cause poisoning, but this does not spread by itself. Of course, these labs should be shut down as a waste of money and a local health hazard (mostly to those working in the labs).

    Big thanks to Meryl Nass for pointing to this important piece of data published by the Lancet:

    A new study reports 309 lab acquired infections and 16 pathogen lab escapes between 2000 and 2021, several deaths/ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

    https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247%2823%2900319-1 https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/a-new-study-reports-309-lab-acquired-infections-and-16-pathogen-lab-escapes-between-2000-and-2021/#post-heading The CDC collects about 200 reports per year of lab accidents, leaks, escaped infected animals or infected staff. So this report is a gross un…

    Read more

    23 days ago · 160 likes · 64 comments · Meryl Nass

    I think the Lancet was trying to make the opposite point vs the one they actually made. The paper identified 51 scary pathogen “leaks” from labs worldwide (mostly in North America and China). Additionally, CDC collects reports of about 200 of these “escapes” a year in the US (so Lancet paper is a severe under-count of these potentially apocalyptic events). This many dangerous leaks of dangerous pathogens a year! We should have world ending catastrophes every week, right?

    Lancet says it did not result in anything like this… There were 8 deaths (bad and tragic, and in lab workers themselves), and many “exposures” (imaginary concept in public health to justify throwing political dissidents and other random people into quarantine camps). There was one incident in China where 10,000 people acquired bacterial infection. OK, that’s bad too, but did China lock down? Did Europe and US close all flights from China? How come with such large “outbreak” nothing travelled by air and killed half the world? I mean with the coof, the entire world locked down after 40 cases or so!

    Why, with seemingly plenty of opportunities for lab leaks, do pandemics happen only on command from the WHO? And only after all key countries practiced those exact pandemics numerous times in table top exercises?

    All pandemics to date have been faked by the military-industrial globalist cabal (with numerous witting and unwitting participants):

    Sorry, RFK Jr., despite your desire to appear middle ground by including a lie with a majority truthful statement, covid “pandemic” was also faked, using the same basic script, actors and funding.

    What is the pandemic script?

    Let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth. Here is a DOD showman James Giordano. He is not a real scientist, his business is spinning clickbait science propaganda. In this lecture he is explaining how to fake pandemics in four easy steps in a video from 2017 “Neurotechnology in National Defense”:

    Step 1: Poison a few people in a few geographic locations (“sentinel cases”) with a drug (chemical toxin or bio-toxin) that causes “highly morbid” central nervous system (CNS) effects . [I told you “covid” was a synthetic toxin, didn’t I?]

    Step 2: Pretend it was “a bug, a virus modified with CRISPR Cas9” (what James means here is - “oops, forget what I just told you 45 seconds ago about A DRUG. I really-really mean a bioengineered GOF virus!!”)

    Step 3: Use the “REAL BUG” - the Internet! Broadcast on social media that everyone is infected with a “highly lethal agent” that has “asymptomatic, prodromal effects” - anxiety, sleeplessness and worry. When you worry - those are the signs that you have a “lethal asymptomatic infection”. M-kay. That means the undergraduate students in a garage someplace released the bioweapon. Or it “leaked” from BSL4 facility in Wuhan (that sounds scarier, doesn’t it?), and it got to you all the way in Iowa. Believe!!!

    Step 4: All hypochondriacs and “worried-well” run to their doctors and flood the hospital ERs, yay! Now we can get them with the fake PCR-remdesivir-ventilator protocol! and call it “covid”!

    PS. For extra fun play a game of confusing messages and denial with CDC. Does this explain Fauci’s flip-flop on masks early on in 2020 - you bet it does!

    There is a “step 0” that’s required for this plan to really work out - that is constant brainwashing of the masses, programming their brains to respond to some key trigger words in a predictable fashion. Here is one such example (“Blacklist”, 2014):

    I think the 5th horseman is called “ScienceMAD” and he rides a Chimera, something like this:

    Chimera with a Male Andalusian horse and a face of a goose again Stock Image
    Now, let’s hear from the field operative, the real practitioner. Here is now famous Indiana Jones by name of Michael Callahan, the CIA agent with a cover of “infectious disease doctor” explaining his job very clearly. You see, his job is to make prophecies of what viruses with pandemic potential will “inevitably emerge” (wink wink) and then make “vaccines” for them almost immediately. I think it is clear that he is not a real scientist either, but a “prophet” of sorts.

    https://twitter.com/LivewithAndy/status/1701987736406675770


    In a related post I discussed another cabal thespian whose amplua includes pretending to be an infectious disease doctor, too - Col Matt Hepburn, evangelizing the crowd at TED:

    "Pandemic Preparedness" - a Government Protection Racket

    "Pandemic Preparedness" - a Government Protection Racket
    Meet Col Matt Hepburn who in 2020 leads an effort for the Department of Defense called Enabling Technologies. Enabling Technologies rapidly develops new vaccines and treatments against future (!) infectious disease challenges. Matt can predict the future and “protect” you from it.

    Read full story

    This racket is so profitable that they are getting tired of coming up with names for their fake “novel viruses” and fake pandemics and are simply switching to “Disease X” here and here. Oh, and look at that - a new bill in Congress:

    Image
    Image
    I am also tiered of repeating how utterly stupid it is to “predict” vital pandemics, especially of “unknown but deadly nature”, so I am going to refer you to this good piece of writing explaining this nonsense.

    The X Files: A Primer on the Next Plandemic

    My recent or only-intermittent readers may not buy this, but I truly do try to be sympathetic to the people who fell (and continue to fall, bless their trusting little hearts) for the wickedest and most prolific propaganda campaign in history. I have attempted to exonerate or at least understand the medical professionals who—despite overwhelming, irrefu…

    Read more

    3 days ago · 72 likes · 55 comments · Jenna McCarthy

    My own assessment of what Disease X means - the cabal has been and is planning to continue using chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons (yes, CBRN weapons, all of them) on populations in increasing scale and variety. These are internationally prohibited activities that the criminals in US Government and other governments are engaged in by renaming them into “health events” and “preparedness”. Is this dangerous? Yes, just as any act of terrorism. However, we can really get prepared for their “preparedness” by dispelling their fake fear narratives of mutating invisible self-spreading bullshit, and staying alert, utilizing common sense, not relying on their murderous “healthcare” and helping each other.

    Art for today: Portrait of a young man, 14x18 in.



    https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-in-4-easy-steps?utm_medium=ios
    How to Fake Pandemics in 4 Easy Steps A masterclass by the DOD showman, James Giordano. Sasha Latypova Who here still believes covid was a real viral pandemic? Or even an epidemic? Welcome! We don’t judge! Actually we do - you are an idiot if after 4 years of this charade you still believe that was an epidemic. The data is clear that there was none, US Government/Trump announced “public health emergency” based on about 40 cases in China without any significant evidence of real illness or economic impact. State governors announced public health emergencies based on nothing. In Ohio it was 3 cases of covid that became the basis for shutting down the entire state. This is because declarations of public health emergency, by law, require no evidence that an emergency exists. Opinion of one unelected bureaucrat is all that’s needed. The US Government then provided massive funding to fake-PCR label “covid” cases and murder people in hospitals with remdesivir+vent protocols while denying early effective treatment, as well as fake PCR-attributing covid causes to anything including motor vehicle deaths and gun homicides. Coquin de Chien John Beaudoin is a great resource on learning about this fraud-and-murder event labeled as “pandemic”, and if you have not yet subscribed to his stack, I recommend you do so. Pandemics do not exist at all. They are not possible in nature. Had they been possible, we would not be here. At this point I am asked - but the plague! The smallpox! The cholera! The answer is - these are diseases related to lack of sanitation, crowding, infestation with rats and fleas, human and animal waste polluting the drinking water. Once these problems are addressed, epidemics do not exist. And these diseases never caused global pandemics anyway. The “Spanish flu” was also a fake pandemic, a narrative manufactured probably decades after. Pandemics are also not possible via “science” and what is called gain-of-function research which amounts to mostly ridiculous attempts at software enabled sorcery, making soups of chemicals mixed with literally shit, as I discussed in my previous article. Yes, toxic chemicals and shit can cause poisoning, but this does not spread by itself. Of course, these labs should be shut down as a waste of money and a local health hazard (mostly to those working in the labs). Big thanks to Meryl Nass for pointing to this important piece of data published by the Lancet: A new study reports 309 lab acquired infections and 16 pathogen lab escapes between 2000 and 2021, several deaths/ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247%2823%2900319-1 https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/a-new-study-reports-309-lab-acquired-infections-and-16-pathogen-lab-escapes-between-2000-and-2021/#post-heading The CDC collects about 200 reports per year of lab accidents, leaks, escaped infected animals or infected staff. So this report is a gross un… Read more 23 days ago · 160 likes · 64 comments · Meryl Nass I think the Lancet was trying to make the opposite point vs the one they actually made. The paper identified 51 scary pathogen “leaks” from labs worldwide (mostly in North America and China). Additionally, CDC collects reports of about 200 of these “escapes” a year in the US (so Lancet paper is a severe under-count of these potentially apocalyptic events). This many dangerous leaks of dangerous pathogens a year! We should have world ending catastrophes every week, right? Lancet says it did not result in anything like this… There were 8 deaths (bad and tragic, and in lab workers themselves), and many “exposures” (imaginary concept in public health to justify throwing political dissidents and other random people into quarantine camps). There was one incident in China where 10,000 people acquired bacterial infection. OK, that’s bad too, but did China lock down? Did Europe and US close all flights from China? How come with such large “outbreak” nothing travelled by air and killed half the world? I mean with the coof, the entire world locked down after 40 cases or so! Why, with seemingly plenty of opportunities for lab leaks, do pandemics happen only on command from the WHO? And only after all key countries practiced those exact pandemics numerous times in table top exercises? All pandemics to date have been faked by the military-industrial globalist cabal (with numerous witting and unwitting participants): Sorry, RFK Jr., despite your desire to appear middle ground by including a lie with a majority truthful statement, covid “pandemic” was also faked, using the same basic script, actors and funding. What is the pandemic script? Let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth. Here is a DOD showman James Giordano. He is not a real scientist, his business is spinning clickbait science propaganda. In this lecture he is explaining how to fake pandemics in four easy steps in a video from 2017 “Neurotechnology in National Defense”: Step 1: Poison a few people in a few geographic locations (“sentinel cases”) with a drug (chemical toxin or bio-toxin) that causes “highly morbid” central nervous system (CNS) effects . [I told you “covid” was a synthetic toxin, didn’t I?] Step 2: Pretend it was “a bug, a virus modified with CRISPR Cas9” (what James means here is - “oops, forget what I just told you 45 seconds ago about A DRUG. I really-really mean a bioengineered GOF virus!!”) Step 3: Use the “REAL BUG” - the Internet! Broadcast on social media that everyone is infected with a “highly lethal agent” that has “asymptomatic, prodromal effects” - anxiety, sleeplessness and worry. When you worry - those are the signs that you have a “lethal asymptomatic infection”. M-kay. That means the undergraduate students in a garage someplace released the bioweapon. Or it “leaked” from BSL4 facility in Wuhan (that sounds scarier, doesn’t it?), and it got to you all the way in Iowa. Believe!!! Step 4: All hypochondriacs and “worried-well” run to their doctors and flood the hospital ERs, yay! Now we can get them with the fake PCR-remdesivir-ventilator protocol! and call it “covid”! PS. For extra fun play a game of confusing messages and denial with CDC. Does this explain Fauci’s flip-flop on masks early on in 2020 - you bet it does! There is a “step 0” that’s required for this plan to really work out - that is constant brainwashing of the masses, programming their brains to respond to some key trigger words in a predictable fashion. Here is one such example (“Blacklist”, 2014): I think the 5th horseman is called “ScienceMAD” and he rides a Chimera, something like this: Chimera with a Male Andalusian horse and a face of a goose again Stock Image Now, let’s hear from the field operative, the real practitioner. Here is now famous Indiana Jones by name of Michael Callahan, the CIA agent with a cover of “infectious disease doctor” explaining his job very clearly. You see, his job is to make prophecies of what viruses with pandemic potential will “inevitably emerge” (wink wink) and then make “vaccines” for them almost immediately. I think it is clear that he is not a real scientist either, but a “prophet” of sorts. https://twitter.com/LivewithAndy/status/1701987736406675770 In a related post I discussed another cabal thespian whose amplua includes pretending to be an infectious disease doctor, too - Col Matt Hepburn, evangelizing the crowd at TED: "Pandemic Preparedness" - a Government Protection Racket "Pandemic Preparedness" - a Government Protection Racket Meet Col Matt Hepburn who in 2020 leads an effort for the Department of Defense called Enabling Technologies. Enabling Technologies rapidly develops new vaccines and treatments against future (!) infectious disease challenges. Matt can predict the future and “protect” you from it. Read full story This racket is so profitable that they are getting tired of coming up with names for their fake “novel viruses” and fake pandemics and are simply switching to “Disease X” here and here. Oh, and look at that - a new bill in Congress: Image Image I am also tiered of repeating how utterly stupid it is to “predict” vital pandemics, especially of “unknown but deadly nature”, so I am going to refer you to this good piece of writing explaining this nonsense. The X Files: A Primer on the Next Plandemic My recent or only-intermittent readers may not buy this, but I truly do try to be sympathetic to the people who fell (and continue to fall, bless their trusting little hearts) for the wickedest and most prolific propaganda campaign in history. I have attempted to exonerate or at least understand the medical professionals who—despite overwhelming, irrefu… Read more 3 days ago · 72 likes · 55 comments · Jenna McCarthy My own assessment of what Disease X means - the cabal has been and is planning to continue using chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons (yes, CBRN weapons, all of them) on populations in increasing scale and variety. These are internationally prohibited activities that the criminals in US Government and other governments are engaged in by renaming them into “health events” and “preparedness”. Is this dangerous? Yes, just as any act of terrorism. However, we can really get prepared for their “preparedness” by dispelling their fake fear narratives of mutating invisible self-spreading bullshit, and staying alert, utilizing common sense, not relying on their murderous “healthcare” and helping each other. Art for today: Portrait of a young man, 14x18 in. https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/how-to-fake-pandemics-in-4-easy-steps?utm_medium=ios
    SASHALATYPOVA.SUBSTACK.COM
    How to Fake Pandemics in 4 Easy Steps
    A masterclass by the DOD showman, James Giordano.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 18853 Views
  • What you need to know to participate in the 2024 Iowa caucuses....More ready
    http://tinyurl.com/2024lowa
    What you need to know to participate in the 2024 Iowa caucuses....More ready👇 http://tinyurl.com/2024lowa
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1346 Views
  • Israel, Gaza Genocide, Holocaust Hysteria
    And a Grand Unified Theory of wildly esoteric topics

    Kevin Barrett

    Israel’s genocide trial at the ICJ is the big story for tomorrow’s False Flag Weekly News. I’ll also be discussing it with Ron Unz on tonight’s live radio show in the context of his new article “American Pravda: Israel and the Holocaust Hoax.” Ron follows another broadminded physicist, Josh Mitteldorf, who proposes a sort of Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory of esoteric topics (UFOs, ESP, breakaway civilizations, etc.) in his article “Anomalies, mysteries, conspiracies…maybe they are all related.” Listen live, noon to 2 pm Eastern, on Revolution.Radio.


    New Quora post:

    What would you say to people who argue that the election of Morocco to lead the United Nations Human Rights Council demonstrates the council's lack of credibility?

    Kevin Barrett

    writer (2017–present) 20h

    It is unfortunate that South Africa’s government, whose prosecution of Israel for genocide is a monumental step forward for human rights, is bad-mouthing Morocco out of jealousy.

    There are very few nations on Earth with commendable human rights records. Morocco’s, like almost all other nations’, is a mixed bag. But overall it compares favorably with the competition. Moroccan police, security, soldiers, and government officials are (in general) vastly more decent, humane, and personable in their treatment of ordinary people than are, say, their US equivalents.

    One of the reasons I moved to Morocco is because basic freedoms are no longer respected in the USA. My American academic career was destroyed because certain powerful interest groups didn’t like my research on 9/11. Those same interest groups later rolled back free speech on the internet. They imposed draconian lockdowns, masking, and mandatory vaccinations. And they have terrorized American professors who support Palestine.

    Here in Morocco I can say pretty much whatever I like as long as I don’t insult the King or deny Morocco’s sovereignty over its territory. If there is ever another biowar scamdemic, I know that the enforcement of Orwellian measures will be, at worst, sporadic and desultory.

    Morocco doesn’t send its armed forces all over the world massacring people like the US does. It doesn’t imprison people for questioning World War II propaganda, like Europe does. It generally doesn’t treat political troublemakers with brutality the way many other Arab countries do.

    The worst thing you can say about Morocco is that it is trying to have good relations with the genocidal state of Israel. That’s unfortunate, but doesn’t detract from the fact that Morocco is overall a pretty good country with regard to respect for human rights.


    Finally, Cat McGuire along with her sister and friend visited us in Saidia this week and became the first guests of Al-Khadir International House. After they left I asked them to send a picture of me and Cat. I meant Cat McGuire, of course, but they sent this instead:


    Muse the Cat greets his legion of fans

    https://open.substack.com/pub/kevinbarrett/p/israel-gaza-genocide-holocaust-hysteria?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    Israel, Gaza Genocide, Holocaust Hysteria And a Grand Unified Theory of wildly esoteric topics Kevin Barrett Israel’s genocide trial at the ICJ is the big story for tomorrow’s False Flag Weekly News. I’ll also be discussing it with Ron Unz on tonight’s live radio show in the context of his new article “American Pravda: Israel and the Holocaust Hoax.” Ron follows another broadminded physicist, Josh Mitteldorf, who proposes a sort of Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory of esoteric topics (UFOs, ESP, breakaway civilizations, etc.) in his article “Anomalies, mysteries, conspiracies…maybe they are all related.” Listen live, noon to 2 pm Eastern, on Revolution.Radio. New Quora post: What would you say to people who argue that the election of Morocco to lead the United Nations Human Rights Council demonstrates the council's lack of credibility? Kevin Barrett writer (2017–present) 20h It is unfortunate that South Africa’s government, whose prosecution of Israel for genocide is a monumental step forward for human rights, is bad-mouthing Morocco out of jealousy. There are very few nations on Earth with commendable human rights records. Morocco’s, like almost all other nations’, is a mixed bag. But overall it compares favorably with the competition. Moroccan police, security, soldiers, and government officials are (in general) vastly more decent, humane, and personable in their treatment of ordinary people than are, say, their US equivalents. One of the reasons I moved to Morocco is because basic freedoms are no longer respected in the USA. My American academic career was destroyed because certain powerful interest groups didn’t like my research on 9/11. Those same interest groups later rolled back free speech on the internet. They imposed draconian lockdowns, masking, and mandatory vaccinations. And they have terrorized American professors who support Palestine. Here in Morocco I can say pretty much whatever I like as long as I don’t insult the King or deny Morocco’s sovereignty over its territory. If there is ever another biowar scamdemic, I know that the enforcement of Orwellian measures will be, at worst, sporadic and desultory. Morocco doesn’t send its armed forces all over the world massacring people like the US does. It doesn’t imprison people for questioning World War II propaganda, like Europe does. It generally doesn’t treat political troublemakers with brutality the way many other Arab countries do. The worst thing you can say about Morocco is that it is trying to have good relations with the genocidal state of Israel. That’s unfortunate, but doesn’t detract from the fact that Morocco is overall a pretty good country with regard to respect for human rights. Finally, Cat McGuire along with her sister and friend visited us in Saidia this week and became the first guests of Al-Khadir International House. After they left I asked them to send a picture of me and Cat. I meant Cat McGuire, of course, but they sent this instead: Muse the Cat greets his legion of fans https://open.substack.com/pub/kevinbarrett/p/israel-gaza-genocide-holocaust-hysteria?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    Israel, Gaza Genocide, Holocaust Hysteria
    And a Grand Unified Theory of wildly esoteric topics
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 10123 Views
  • CV19 Bioweapon Vax is Not Genocide, It’s Extinction – Karen Kingston

    The data shows millions have been disabled or murdered by the CV19 bioweapon/vax so far. Is it going to get worse? Kingston says, “Unfortunately, it is going to get worse. The worst is yet to come

    Lioness of Judah Ministry

    One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:

    By Greg Hunter  April 29, 2023 

    Karen Kingston is a biotech analyst and former Pfizer employee who understands complicated medical and biological contracts.  Kingston also understands what it takes to make or defend a legal case against Big Pharma.  

    She has years of experience on multiple levels.  Kingston contends you do not need new laws to stop the CV19 mRNA technology.  Everybody simply needs to understand the CV19 vax and the mRNA technology are proven bioweapons.  

    The data shows millions have been disabled or murdered by the CV19 bioweapon/vax so far.  Is it going to get worse?  Kingston says, “Unfortunately, it is going to get worse.  The worst is yet to come. . . . 

    The FDA did have to prove that these were safe.  Based on the information that they had in October and November of 2020, they should have never moved forward . . . with the trials.  So, they broke the law.  They knew it would cause all these disabilities and deaths. . . . I predicted a 25% myocarditis rate in July of 2021.  I have heard experts say we may be looking at 100%  . . . if they got two or three shots.  So, it’s going to get bad.”

    Big Pharma and government are allowing mRNA technology (the same deadly bioweapon in the CV19 injections) to be put into the entire food supply.  Kingston contends this is to turn humans into trans-humans in something called “Directed Evolution.”  Kingston explains, “Directed Evolution is forcing the evolution of humans to merge with DNA from reptiles, insects and artificial intelligence.  It’s the bio-digital merger.  This is what this is, and there are multi-trillion dollar industries around this. . . . There is a whole bio-data division in DARPA in the U.S. military.  It is about merging the bio-digital with humans.”

    Many have been calling the CV19 bioweapon/vax that features technology poison such as graphene as a genocide.  Kingston contends it is far more than that.  Kingston says, “This is not for the benefit of humanity.  This is going to lead to our extinction.  I just do not know why people do not understand that.”

    Kingston demonstrates the electromagnetic properties of mRNA on a beef steak.  The quarter she uses sticks to a part of the meat where the mRNA had assembled because the mRNA creates a magnetic field.  (All patents Kingston has reviewed prove, without a doubt, mRNA is an electromagnetic device.)  

    Kingston says there is no need to pass new laws to stop evil Big Pharma, government and food producers from putting this in our food.  mRNA is a bioweapon, and it is illegal to put this in anyone’s food.  Kingston says, “It’s not that you want informed consent about mRNA technology in your food,  every state has laws on the books where weapons of biowarfare cannot contaminate the food supply.  I think what is most important is that we seize these mRNA injections.  

    Once we seize the shots and we get legal custody of that to show American citizens and global citizens what the technology is in the shots, then we can start shutting it down around the globe.  Not just in the ‘vaccine’ market, but show this is what is being put into our food supply and why all of this needs to stop.”

    Kingston contends the FDA and CDC knew early on mRNA CV19 bioweapon injections were going to cause a long list of serious debilitating and deadly diseases.  They continue to push the mRNA bioweapon on every aspect of our lives with no end in sight.

    Kingston predicts by 2030, there will be 200 million disabled or murdered Americans by mRNA and CV19 bioweapon/vax injections.”

    There is much more in the 1-hour and 4-minute interview.

    Share

    Give a gift subscription

    Related articles: 

    Transhumanism, Nanotechnology, and Cybernetics

    DARPA Unmasked

    BOMBSHELL: Whistleblower Exposes US DOD Plan To Exterminate Population

    SATANIC Mass Sacrifice: DESPITE Known Harms CDC Adds COVID-19 Vaccine to Routine Immunization Schedule for Children and Adolescents. Are you AWAKE yet? Our battle is SPIRITUAL

    SHOCKING - Here is What Really is in the Vaccines

    SECRET HISTORY: Military Spraying the Flu, RULE 23 and BIO WARFARE on Citizens

    The Number of People Dying With Strange Fibrous Clots is Increasing - Embalmer

    Coming Soon to a Hospital Near You: Curing Anxiety by Injecting Your Brain With Graphene Oxide

    Satanic Pfizer: The Occult Symbolism Found On The Pfizer Mural. They Are Mocking Us

    The Inventor of the Polio Vaccine Wanted To Depopulate the World

    How the Medical Establishment Is Working With the Cabal To Facilitate Global Genocide



    https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/cv19-bioweapon-vax-is-not-genocide?publication_id=581065&isFreemail=true
    CV19 Bioweapon Vax is Not Genocide, It’s Extinction – Karen Kingston The data shows millions have been disabled or murdered by the CV19 bioweapon/vax so far. Is it going to get worse? Kingston says, “Unfortunately, it is going to get worse. The worst is yet to come Lioness of Judah Ministry One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi: By Greg Hunter  April 29, 2023  Karen Kingston is a biotech analyst and former Pfizer employee who understands complicated medical and biological contracts.  Kingston also understands what it takes to make or defend a legal case against Big Pharma.   She has years of experience on multiple levels.  Kingston contends you do not need new laws to stop the CV19 mRNA technology.  Everybody simply needs to understand the CV19 vax and the mRNA technology are proven bioweapons.   The data shows millions have been disabled or murdered by the CV19 bioweapon/vax so far.  Is it going to get worse?  Kingston says, “Unfortunately, it is going to get worse.  The worst is yet to come. . . .  The FDA did have to prove that these were safe.  Based on the information that they had in October and November of 2020, they should have never moved forward . . . with the trials.  So, they broke the law.  They knew it would cause all these disabilities and deaths. . . . I predicted a 25% myocarditis rate in July of 2021.  I have heard experts say we may be looking at 100%  . . . if they got two or three shots.  So, it’s going to get bad.” Big Pharma and government are allowing mRNA technology (the same deadly bioweapon in the CV19 injections) to be put into the entire food supply.  Kingston contends this is to turn humans into trans-humans in something called “Directed Evolution.”  Kingston explains, “Directed Evolution is forcing the evolution of humans to merge with DNA from reptiles, insects and artificial intelligence.  It’s the bio-digital merger.  This is what this is, and there are multi-trillion dollar industries around this. . . . There is a whole bio-data division in DARPA in the U.S. military.  It is about merging the bio-digital with humans.” Many have been calling the CV19 bioweapon/vax that features technology poison such as graphene as a genocide.  Kingston contends it is far more than that.  Kingston says, “This is not for the benefit of humanity.  This is going to lead to our extinction.  I just do not know why people do not understand that.” Kingston demonstrates the electromagnetic properties of mRNA on a beef steak.  The quarter she uses sticks to a part of the meat where the mRNA had assembled because the mRNA creates a magnetic field.  (All patents Kingston has reviewed prove, without a doubt, mRNA is an electromagnetic device.)   Kingston says there is no need to pass new laws to stop evil Big Pharma, government and food producers from putting this in our food.  mRNA is a bioweapon, and it is illegal to put this in anyone’s food.  Kingston says, “It’s not that you want informed consent about mRNA technology in your food,  every state has laws on the books where weapons of biowarfare cannot contaminate the food supply.  I think what is most important is that we seize these mRNA injections.   Once we seize the shots and we get legal custody of that to show American citizens and global citizens what the technology is in the shots, then we can start shutting it down around the globe.  Not just in the ‘vaccine’ market, but show this is what is being put into our food supply and why all of this needs to stop.” Kingston contends the FDA and CDC knew early on mRNA CV19 bioweapon injections were going to cause a long list of serious debilitating and deadly diseases.  They continue to push the mRNA bioweapon on every aspect of our lives with no end in sight. Kingston predicts by 2030, there will be 200 million disabled or murdered Americans by mRNA and CV19 bioweapon/vax injections.” There is much more in the 1-hour and 4-minute interview. Share Give a gift subscription Related articles:  Transhumanism, Nanotechnology, and Cybernetics DARPA Unmasked BOMBSHELL: Whistleblower Exposes US DOD Plan To Exterminate Population SATANIC Mass Sacrifice: DESPITE Known Harms CDC Adds COVID-19 Vaccine to Routine Immunization Schedule for Children and Adolescents. Are you AWAKE yet? Our battle is SPIRITUAL SHOCKING - Here is What Really is in the Vaccines SECRET HISTORY: Military Spraying the Flu, RULE 23 and BIO WARFARE on Citizens The Number of People Dying With Strange Fibrous Clots is Increasing - Embalmer Coming Soon to a Hospital Near You: Curing Anxiety by Injecting Your Brain With Graphene Oxide Satanic Pfizer: The Occult Symbolism Found On The Pfizer Mural. They Are Mocking Us The Inventor of the Polio Vaccine Wanted To Depopulate the World How the Medical Establishment Is Working With the Cabal To Facilitate Global Genocide https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/cv19-bioweapon-vax-is-not-genocide?publication_id=581065&isFreemail=true
    LIONESSOFJUDAH.SUBSTACK.COM
    CV19 Bioweapon Vax is Not Genocide, It’s Extinction – Karen Kingston
    The data shows millions have been disabled or murdered by the CV19 bioweapon/vax so far. Is it going to get worse? Kingston says, “Unfortunately, it is going to get worse. The worst is yet to come
    0 Comments 0 Shares 12515 Views
  • Chance to win $750 cashapp giftcard giveaway.
    Giveaway ends this week Don't miss your chance to win a $750 Cashapp gift card

    https://sites.google.com/view/cashapp01720/home



    #Alabama #Alaska #Arizona #Arkansas #California #Colorado #Connecticut #Delaware #Florida #Georgia #Hawaii #Idaho #Illinois #Indiana #Iowa #Kansas #Kentucky #Louisiana #Maine #Maryland #Massachusett #Michigan #Minnesota #Mississippi #Missouri #Montana #Nebraska #Nevada #NewHampshire #NewJersey #NewMexico #NewYork #NorthCarolina #NorthDakota #Ohio #Oklahoma #Oregon #Pennsylvania #RhodeIsland #SouthCarolina #SouthDakota #Tennessee #Texas #Utah #Vermont #Virginia #Washington #WestVirginia #Wisconsin #Wyoming #usa #usafirst #usanews #usa2024 #usarmy #usatoday #usapeople #usajobs #usatravel #us #usapresident #x #newyork #newyorkcity #texas #washingtondc #joebiden #America
    #UnitedStates #USAPride
    #AmericanDream #USATravel #USADiscoveries #USALife #USAHistory #USACulture #USAEvents #USAPolitics #USAEducation #USAStudents #USAHealth #USAPolice #USAFood

    Chance to win $750 cashapp giftcard giveaway. Giveaway ends this week Don't miss your chance to win a $750 Cashapp gift card https://sites.google.com/view/cashapp01720/home #Alabama #Alaska #Arizona #Arkansas #California #Colorado #Connecticut #Delaware #Florida #Georgia #Hawaii #Idaho #Illinois #Indiana #Iowa #Kansas #Kentucky #Louisiana #Maine #Maryland #Massachusett #Michigan #Minnesota #Mississippi #Missouri #Montana #Nebraska #Nevada #NewHampshire #NewJersey #NewMexico #NewYork #NorthCarolina #NorthDakota #Ohio #Oklahoma #Oregon #Pennsylvania #RhodeIsland #SouthCarolina #SouthDakota #Tennessee #Texas #Utah #Vermont #Virginia #Washington #WestVirginia #Wisconsin #Wyoming #usa #usafirst #usanews #usa2024 #usarmy #usatoday #usapeople #usajobs #usatravel #us #usapresident #x #newyork #newyorkcity #texas #washingtondc #joebiden #America #UnitedStates #USAPride #AmericanDream #USATravel #USADiscoveries #USALife #USAHistory #USACulture #USAEvents #USAPolitics #USAEducation #USAStudents #USAHealth #USAPolice #USAFood
    1 Comments 0 Shares 30924 Views
More Results