Inadequate PCR Testing for Bird Flu ‘Will Only [intentionally] Raise False Case Counts’ - like it did for COVID

/

Dr. Deborah Birx, the Trump administration’s coronavirus response coordinator, told CNN’s Kasie Hunt the U.S. is making the “same mistakes” with bird flu that it made with COVID-19, which she said spread because there wasn’t enough testing for asymptomatic infection.

Birx is now calling for every cow to be tested for bird flu weekly and for regular pooled tests for dairy workers. She also said it’s likely that undetected cases are circulating in humans.

“We have the technology,” Birx said. “The great thing about America is we’re incredibly innovative and we have the ability to have these breakthroughs.”

The technology Birx referenced is polymerase chain reaction or PCR testing — the same diagnostic tool that came under fire during the COVID-19 pandemic for producing inaccurate results, including false positives.

peaking out on X (formerly Twitter), critics like Simon Goddek, Ph.D., pushed back, accusing Birx of “deliberately using the same strategy to fabricate another fake health emergency.”

On Wednesday, the day after Birx’s interview, JAMA published its own article advocating for more widespread bird flu testing.

“No animal or public health expert thinks that we are doing enough surveillance,” Keith Poulsen, DVM, Ph.D., director of the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told JAMA.

Andrew Pekosz, Ph.D., from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told JAMA that more testing should be conducted to find asymptomatic and mild infections. Workers at infected farms should be tested twice weekly, he said, and cows should be tested once a week.

Inventor: PCR test never intended for use as diagnostic tool

PCR testing works by starting with tiny fragments of DNA or RNA called nucleotides and replicating them until they become large enough to identify. The nucleotides are replicated in cycles, and each cycle doubles the amount of genetic material in the sample. The number of cycles required to create an identifiable sample is the “cycle threshold” (Ct).

PCR tests became a household name during the COVID-19 pandemic because they were treated as the “gold standard” for identifying positive cases, especially among asymptomatic people.

However, as early as December 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that using a high-cycle threshold would lead to false-positive results. The agency encouraged healthcare providers to consider the test in concert with other factors — namely the presence of symptoms — when diagnosing patients.

The WHO also cautioned those using the tests to read the instructions carefully to determine whether the cycle threshold ought to be changed to account for any background noise that could lead to a high-cycle threshold being mistaken for a false positive.

“When specimens return a high Ct value,” the press release said, “it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.”

Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR test, said it was inappropriate to use the test as a diagnostic tool to detect a viral infection.

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted during the pandemic that a high cycle — which was used often — detected only “dead nucleotides,” not a viral infection.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not immediately respond to The Defender’s inquiry about which cycle thresholds are used to test animals for bird flu.

Mass testing ‘will only serve to raise a false case count’

As of Tuesday, the latest circulating bird flu virus has reportedly infected 81 herds of dairy cattle in nine states and poultry farms in 48 states. The virus can be fatal for poultry but does not generally cause serious illness in cattle.

Bird flu is rare among humans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains it poses only a low risk to public health.

In the latest wave of bird flu, only three people in the U.S. have tested positive for the virus after close exposure to an infected cow. All three experienced mild symptoms — two experienced eye irritation and one also had a cough and sore throat. All recovered without incident.

The WHO reported Wednesday that a resident of Mexico died from a bird flu infection, but WHO officials also maintain the virus’ threat to the general population is low.

Bird flu cannot be transmitted among humans, but that hasn’t stopped health officials such as the WHO’s Chief Scientist Jeremy Farrar and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf from publicly stoking fears that the virus could suddenly mutate, become more infectious and transmissible among humans, and cause a pandemic.

Mainstream media outlets like Scientific American warned that the bird flu isn’t a pandemic “yet,” but it could evolve to become one if people do things like continue to drink raw milk. And The New York Times warned yesterday that the virus “may not be done” adapting.

The CDC reported on Tuesday that it monitors genetic changes in the virus and “few genetic changes of public health concern have been identified.”

Nevertheless, the U.S. government is building up its national stockpile of existing vaccines produced by CSL Seqirus and is nearing contracts with Moderna and possibly Pfizer to fund the development of an mRNA vaccine for the virus.

On Tuesday, Finland announced it will begin offering the vaccine to selected groups of people. [MORE]

Puppetician Tedros: "It's Time to Be More Assertive in Countering Anti-Vaxxers"

/

From [HERE] It appears that WHO Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is feeling his oats, after key amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) *WERE PASSED* last week, despite his cherished Pandemic Treaty being tabled for the meantime.

As James Roguski reports, "The 77th World Health Assembly HAS adopted a substantial package of amendments to the International Health Regulations. We the People have suffered a stunning defeat...The recently adopted amendments will facilitate an enormous global build up of the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex which seeks to trigger ongoing "pandemic emergencies" that will be made even worse by "relevant health products."

These amendments passed despite massive protests in Japan and two nations opting out of the IHR, altogether, Costa Rica and Slovakia.

Slovakia’s President Robert Fico has survived several gunshot wounds from an assassination attempt against him two weeks ago, due to his rejection of destructive Cabal policies, including the forced injections and war with Russia. 

Denmark has adopted the amendments and 192 member states now have 18 months to decide to opt out. If they do nothing, the amendments will automatically take effect.

Tedros is seen in this video saying, "I believe it's time to be more assertive in countering anti-vaxxers. They have used COVID as an opportunity, and we see the chaos they're causing..."

One wonders what Tedros has in mind, in terms of being "More assertive in countering anti-vaxxers", being that he is a former official of the Tigray People's Liberation Front, a left-wing ethnic nationalist paramilitary group, which was classified as a terrorist organization by the Ethiopian government in May 2021.

Fauci Maintains His Lies that Tricked People Into Getting Experimental "Vaccines:" Tells Congress Shots are Safe Despite Millions Dead/Injured and "Effective," though they Don’t Prevent or Stop COVID

/

From [HERE] During a contentious hearing today before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci defended the “safe and effective” COVID-19 vaccines, which he credited with saving millions of lives.

Fauci also largely defended the government’s pandemic policies and said vaccine mandates saved “many, many, many lives.”

He said the unvaccinated are “probably responsible for an additional 200,000-300,000 deaths” in the U.S. but conceded “that the first iteration of the vaccines did have an effect — not 100%, not a high effect.”

However, he admitted that clinical studies did not conclusively support mask mandates and that no such studies were performed on children, despite the imposition of school mask mandates.

When asked about how long lockdowns and mask mandates were enforced, he said it is “debatable” whether the duration of those measures was appropriate or excessive.

Fauci’s oral testimony today largely mirrored the written testimony he provided in advance of the hearing — and the transcript of his two-day closed-door interview in January with members of the House.

The subcommittee released the transcripts of the two-day interview on Friday.

In one heated moment today, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) suggested the subcommittee should issue a criminal referral against Fauci.

“We should be recommending you to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity,” she said, accusing Fauci of “muzzling” school-aged children as a result of mask mandates and also accusing him and his “cronies” of being funded by Big Pharma.

Fauci “does not deserve to have a license,” Greene said.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and other Democrat lawmakers frequently apologized to Fauci for the attacks levied against him and thanked him for his service during his 38-year tenure as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers addressed revelations by Open The Books, published Sunday in The New York Post, that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the parent agency of NIAID, received more than $710 million in royalties between 2022 and 2023, with NIAID receiving over $690 million of these payments.

Adam Andrzejewski, CEO and founder of OpenTheBooks.com, told The Defender “every royalty payment, tens of thousands of them, represent a potential conflict of interest,” noting that NIH will not disclose specifics about the payments.

Andrzejewski said:

“It makes some intuitive sense that NIAID and the National Cancer Institute are top royalty receivers historically. Those subagencies are responsible for vaccines and treatments for infectious diseases and sought-after cancer-fighting inventions, respectively.

“What is remarkable is the abrupt growth year over year, timed to the pandemic outbreak.”

During the hearing, Fauci denied benefiting financially from the royalties but could not explain which scientists received the money or for which purposes.

Fauci also denied that NIAID funded controversial gain-of-function research through EcoHealth Alliance at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China and that U.S. taxpayer money was used to genetically engineer SARS-CoV-2 — claims he also made during January’s interview.

Leaked messages released last year suggested Fauci was aware of the gain-of-function research and pressured key virologists to suppress research indicating that COVID-19 originated as a result of a lab leak while supporting research favoring a “zoonotic” — or natural origin — of the virus.

In his testimony today, Fauci denied those allegations.

During his opening remarks, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chair of the subcommittee, thanked Fauci for his years of service to science and public health but was critical of Fauci’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We should have been more precise,” Wenstrup said. “We should have used words and phrases that are accurate and not misleading. We should have been honest, especially about things we did not know.”

“Policy decisions should be made based on data, but some were not,” he added. As a result, Americans who questioned “oppressive mandates” were “bullied” while “any dissent … was immediately labeled ‘anti-science.’”

“Dr. Fauci, you oversaw one of the most invasive regimes of domestic policy the U.S. has ever seen,” Wenstrup said.

“Whether intentional or not, you became so powerful that any disagreements the public had with you were forbidden and censored on social and most legacy media time and time again. That is why so many Americans became so angry — because this was fundamentally un-American,” Wenstrup added.

During his closing remarks, Wenstrup suggested, “It’s important that we don’t do things like mandates.”

‘Fauci perjured himself’

Experts who spoke with The Defender questioned Fauci’s claims.

Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., a frequent critic of gain-of-function research, told The Defender:

“Fauci perjured himself in three U.S. Senate hearings in 2021-2022, in which he denied — knowingly, willfully, and brazenly untruthfully — that NIH funded gain-of-function research and enhanced potential pandemic pathogens research in Wuhan.

“Fauci perjured himself again in his transcribed interview with the U.S. House Select Subcommittee, in which he lied about the coverage of the policies, lied about his violations of the policies, and lied about his perjury before the Senate.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender, “Fauci has already lied and perjured himself before Congress. He should have been prosecuted already. You cannot believe one word he is saying.”

Boyle, a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, said Fauci “knew about the Chinese lab leak all along and covered it up right from the very get-go around September of 2019.”

Fauci “has lied about it ever since then and about everything related to the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines in order to cover up his own criminality,” Boyle said.

Fauci: Social distancing rules ‘sort of just appeared’

The transcripts of Fauci’s House interview in January revealed admissions that many COVID-19 restrictions were not based on science.

Responding to a question about the 6-foot social distancing rule instituted in many public spaces, including schools, Fauci said “It sort of just appeared,” adding that he “was not aware of studies — that, in fact, that would be a very difficult study to do.”

Similarly, Fauci admitted “there are a lot of conflicting studies” regarding mask efficacy. When asked if he recalled reviewing any studies supporting masking for children in particular, Fauci said he “might have” but didn’t “recall specifically.”

Mark Crispin Miller, Ph.D., an author and professor of media studies at New York University whose research and teaching focus on propaganda and who came under fire in 2020 for asking his students to review both sides of the mask debate, told The Defender:

“Once upon a time — before early 2020 — Dr. Fauci told the truth about the uselessness of masking as a barrier to respiratory viruses and told it publicly on “60 Minutes,” only to reverse himself days later and for the first few years of the ‘pandemic.’

“And now, after several years of flogging that ‘Big Lie,’ he’s contradicting it again, or half-contradicting it, with near-admissions that ‘the science’ does not back the use of masks against ‘the virus.’”

Fauci adamantly defended vaccine mandates during today’s hearing. However, he admitted in his January testimony that the mandates may have increased vaccine hesitancy. He said:

“I think one of the things that we really need to do after the fact, now, to — you know, after-the-game, after-the-event evaluation of things that need to be done, we really need to take a look at the psyche of the country, have maybe some social-type studies to figure out, does the mandating of vaccines in the way the country’s mental framework is right now, does that actually cause more people to not want to get vaccinated, or not? I don’t know. But I think that’s something we need to know.”

This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.

The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write. 

PLEASE DONATE TODAY

Fauci also acknowledged that the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origins is not a conspiracy theory, a statement he repeated during today’s interview.

“I have always kept an open mind to the different possibilities,” Fauci said today.

The New York Times featured a guest essay today by Alina Chan, Ph.D., a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, and a co-author of “Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19,” stating that “a laboratory accident is the most parsimonious explanation of how the pandemic began.”

Both during the January interview and today’s testimony, Fauci adamantly denied that NIAID funded gain-of-function research or studies that manipulated viruses to make them more infectious in humans, perhaps leading to the COVID-19 outbreak.

In today’s testimony, Fauci also distanced himself from former aide David Morens, who allegedly boasted in emails about his ability to evade public records requests and his intention to delete any potential “smoking guns” for potential Freedom of Information Act requests.

“That was wrong and inappropriate and violated policy … he should not have done that,” Fauci said, denying knowledge of Morens’ alleged actions.

Miller said “the only thing we know for sure” about Fauci’s claims “is that we can’t believe a word of them, and that we heeded them at our enormous peril.”

Terrence Howard: 'COVID Shots Cause Death and Disease. I Can’t Understand How Black People Can Trust the Government to Take COVID Shots, It's Been using Biowarfare Against Citizens for a Long Time'

/

As a general rule, coin-operated showcase Blacks are very obedient and never do or say anything to contradict or challenge the prevailing views of their elite, white masters who control them through reward and punishment. However, Mr. Howard appears to have totally lost his mind - the mind given to us from birth by the vested interests. Congrats! The complete Joe Rogan Show with Terrence Howard is below.

UK Government Data Demonstrates that Deaths in the "Vaccinated" were Categorized as Unvaccinated in 2021

/

From [HERE] ONS (Office for National statistics) data - possibly more so than any other source of data in the world - was used to bolster the claim that the [COVID] "vaccines" were highly effective and safe. However, as we have always argued, and which is now certain, any claims of efficacy and safety based on their data were completely illusionary and subject to the cheap trick of miscategorisation whereby even a placebo - or something even worse - could be ‘shown’ to be safe and effective. They therefore lied and intentionally created and spread misinformation. We were accused of conspiracy thinking and our reputations were tarnished as a result. - 

Joel Smalley

In 2021 when the UK ONS started releasing its vaccine by mortality status reports we exposed that there were large spikes in the non-covid death rates in the 'unvaccinated'. These spikes in mortality coincided with the first main vaccine rollout and did so for each age group (see this report, for example).

Here is the chart for non-covid mortality rates in weeks 1-38 of 2021 for the 60-69 age groups:

The charts for the other age groups looked much the same. 

We asserted that these obvious anomalies were a result of the standard ONS procedure of categorising anyone within 20 days of their first dose as ‘unvaccinated’. However, in our own discussions with the ONS they maintained that, although that method was used for their efficacy calculations, it was not used when it came to mortality. They clearly said that a person dying any time after vaccination was correctly categorised, as a vaccinated death, in the mortality data they regularly released to the public and which formed the basis of a massive public communication campaign encouraging vaccination. 

To ‘explain’ the spikes the ONS pushed the implicit assumption that there was a phenomenon called the 'healthy vaccinee' effect, whereby they claimed that people ‘close to death’ were not vaccinated. And they made this bold claim without any data to support it whatsoever.

Apart from the fact that this would have contradicted the NHS policy at the time we showed that, while a healthy vaccinee effect might have partly explained the longer term lower non-covid mortality rates in the vaccinated, it could not possibly have explained those spikes in mortality rates.

They could only be explained by categorising deaths shortly after vaccination as unvaccinated. Yet the ONS, along with many of the staunchest covid vaccine disciples, doubled down on their insistence that such miscategorisation did not occur. To them all the anomalies in the ONS data could only be explained by the hallowed ‘healthy vaccinee effect’.

Later, the ONS did actually claim that there was indeed an ‘unhealthy vaccinee effect’ but did so to explain other anomalies in the data. Clearly the ONS was so self-serving they did not see the contradictions between these claims and simply wanted to have their cake and eat it.

As a result of a subject access request that Clare Craig submitted to the ONS we have now found out that we were correct after all!

Clare has posted on this twitter/X thread, an internal ONS email confirming that the NIMS database of vaccinated people, that the ONS relied upon, had excluded those people who had died before vaccine records had been sent back to the central system:

When we pointed out to the ONS exactly this possibility for miscategorisation in 2021 they continued to deny that it had happened (see Table 8 of our report here).

Why is this so important? Because the ONS data - possibly more so than any other source of data in the world - was used to bolster the claim that the vaccines were highly effective and safe.

And, as we have always argued, and which is now certain, any claims of efficacy and safety based on their data were completely illusionary and subject to the cheap trick of miscategorisation whereby even a placebo - or something even worse - could be ‘shown’ to be safe and effective.

They therefore lied and intentionally created and spread misinformation. We were accused of conspiracy thinking and our reputations were tarnished as a result.

But we were right!

Dr. Michael Palmer and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Explain that Viruses do in fact Exist and that COVID-19 Exists

/

From [HERE] In the context of the COVID-19 “pandemic”, many people have come to understand that political and scientific authorities have been systematically lying about the origin of the infectious agent, as well as the need for and the safety of mandatory countermeasures, including lock-downs, masks and vaccines. Some skeptics have gone further and begun to question the existence of the virus responsible for COVID-19, or even of viruses and pathogenic germs altogether. Here, we put these questions in perspective.

Before we go into any specifics on germs and viruses, we should acknowledge that the public has ample reason to mistrust not only politicians, public officials and the media, but also the “scientific community.” Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, several very senior members of that community had drawn attention to the deplorable state of scientific integrity in medical research. Particularly poignant is this quote by a former editor-in-chief of one of the world’s leading medical journals, Marcia Agnell [1]:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

Agnell’s assessment is echoed by The Lancet’s editor Richard Horton [1], leading epidemiologist John Ioannidis [2], and Bruce Charlton, former editor of Medical Hypotheses [3]. And, to be sure, this already precarious state declined even further in the COVID-19 “pandemic.” Here are some of the lies regarding COVID-19 that were told alike by politicians and their scientific court jesters the world over:

  •  the SARS-CoV-2 virus is of natural origin and jumped spontaneously from bats or pangolins to humans;

  •  PCR-testing of asymptomatic patients is an appropriate means for tracking the spread of COVID-19;

  •  the early COVID-19 waves threatened to overload the healthcare system to such a degree that it became necessary to destroy the economy in order to “flatten the curve”;

  •  general vaccination was necessary to overcome the pandemic;

  •  even though the vaccines were “safe and effective”, vaccinated persons were still at risk of being infected by unvaccinated individuals (but not by other vaccinated ones).

These absurd and brazen lies have been dealt with elsewhere, for example by cardiologist Dr. Thomas Binder [4]. We only cite them here to make it clear that we sympathize in principle with the radically skeptical attitude of much of the public. Nevertheless, we think that in some cases this radical skepticism has been taken too far, and that the proverbial baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. To support our case, we will survey some of the history of “germ theory” of infectious disease.

1. The rise of germ theory in the 19thcentury 

The idea that microbes cause transmissible diseases gained acceptance in the late 19thcentury. Its greatest pioneer was Robert Koch, a Prussian physician, who discovered the bacterial agents that cause anthrax, cholera, and tuberculosis. These discoveries paved the way for the prevention of such diseases by hygiene and surveillance.

Even before Koch’s discoveries, Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis had discovered that physicians could avoid transmitting puerperal sepsis from deceased to living mothers through antiseptic hand-washing; but because his empirical procedure lacked a theoretical foundation, it was ultimately abandoned, in spite of its demonstrable success. Semmelweis himself was committed to a psychiatric hospital, where he suffered physical abuse and died shortly after.1

Semmelweis’s personal fate illustrates that the public and the medical community at the time certainly were not ready for “germ theory”, i.e. for the idea of diseases being caused by tangible germs that could be transmitted from one person to the other, but which could also be identified and combated. It therefore is remarkable that Koch’s discoveries were recognized and accepted within a fairly short period of time. Soon, other researchers joined the hunt for further pathogenic bacteria. Other kinds of pathogens soon followed; for example, in 1898 British physician Ronald Ross discovered that the parasite which causes malaria multiplies within and is transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes.

What brought about this rapid triumph of germ theory? It seems fair to say that both the scientists involved and their audience made it happen. Robert Koch himself was an ingenious and meticulous experimentalist. He set himself an exacting standard for demonstrating that a certain infectious disease was caused by a specific microbe, the well-known “Koch’s postulates” [5]:

  1.  The given organism must be found regularly in the diseased tissue of the infected person or animal.

  2.  The organisms must be capable of being grown in pure culture in the laboratory.

  3.  The pure culture must produce the disease when administered to experimental animals.

  4.  The organisms must be found in the experimentally produced disease, and be capable of being recovered again in pure culture.

While Koch’s comprehensive evidence surely was compelling, his rapid success would not have been possible without his audience. Even though initially skeptical, this audience was also well-educated and open-minded—it had not yet become jaded, cynical, and disoriented by being relentlessly attacked with fake news and junk science.

The great scientists of the 19thcentury were very often hobbyists who were indulging their own whims and passions. They thus were independent from external interests, particularly from financial ones. Academic researchers, too, were more shielded from outside interests than are the “big shots” of today’s institutionalized science. But over the course of the 20thcentury, scientific research institutions became more and more dependent on external funding, often controlled by powerful special interests. This has severely compromised and undermined scientific integrity. We can but wonder, what would Robert Koch think of the likes of Christian Drosten and Tony Fauci? What of the Berlin “public health” institute that bears his name?

2. Successful applications of germ theory 

If a theory can be used successfully in practice, this suggests that it is true, or at least a good approximation of the truth. Germ theory has many useful applications; here, we will only give a few early examples for illustration.

Less than a decade after Koch’s discovery of the anthrax bacillus, Friedrich Klein isolated Streptococcus pyogenes, the bacterium which causes puerperal fever, scarlet fever, and various kinds of skin infections. This discovery could explain the earlier success of Semmelweis’s empirically developed hand disinfection procedures for preventing puerperal fever. Hygiene, surveillance and improvements to sanitation made it possible to prevent outbreaks of enteric diseases such as cholera. The city of Hamburg, which initially refused to adopt such precautions, promptly suffered an outbreak of cholera in 1882 that claimed several thousand lives [6]. Robert Koch himself was tasked with overseeing the introduction of hygienic countermeasures, which swiftly brought the outbreak under control.

It was mainly through such preventive measures that infectious diseases were conquered, even before specific treatments of manifest infections became available. This is illustrated for tuberculosis in Figure 1. Malcolm Watson, a physician in the colonial service of the British Empire, devised successful methods for controlling malaria. His work, begun only a few short years after Ross had discovered that the malaria parasite was spread by Anopheles mosquitoes, was mostly based on thorough and meticulous drainage of wetlands and regulation of brooks and streams, with quinine prophylaxis and treatment of infections playing only a secondary role [7].

3. Germ theory vs. “terrain theory”—a false dichotomy 

Opponents of germ theory like to point to the decisive role of the patient’s general health in susceptibility to infectious disease. This tenet is in fact accepted by mainstream medicine. For example, the significance of age and general health in the prognosis of pneumonia was summed up by the famous Canadian physician William Osler as follows:

In children and in healthy adults the outlook is good. In the debilitated, in drunkards and in the aged the chances are against recovery. So fatal is it in the latter class that it has been termed the natural end of the old man.

Osler’s words, written in 1892, are still true today, largely regardless of the germ in question. It matters not whether the pneumonia be caused by pneumococci, influenza virus, or SARS-CoV-2. Generally speaking, the notion of “opportunistic” infections that befall those in poor general health and states of immunosuppression can be found in the textbooks of medicine. But on the other hand, without any of those opportunistic pathogens, even susceptible individuals would not contract an infectious disease.

Figure 1 shows how, immediately after Koch’s discovery of the tubercle bacillus, mortality due to tuberculosis went into a steep and sustained decline. Most likely, both hygiene and improvements to nutrition and general health contributed to this change for the better. Note, however, that there is no detectable reversal of this trend in the 1930s, i.e. during the Great Depression. In this era, many people were suddenly thrown into poverty, which would most likely also have lowered the quality of their nutrition and their resistance to tuberculosis. The continued decline in tuberculosis mortality in those years was most likely due to the continued surveillance measures.

4. Not all infectious pathogens can satisfy Koch’s postulates

One reads now and then that some pathogenic virus or other microbe does not satisfy Koch’s postulates, which is then construed as proof that it does not cause the disease for which it is known. This is fallacious. Koch’s postulates do not constitute some sort mathematical axiom; they should be understood in their historical context.

Koch needed to convince a public that was initially radically skeptical; thus, the more comprehensive and rigorous his evidence, the easier it would be for him to succeed. It thus made perfect sense for him to focus on pathogens that could be grown in pure culture—that is, in the absence of any other living things—and which could then be inoculated into experimental animals and isolated again as many times as desired. However, once the idea of infectious pathogens had taken hold in principle, it soon became apparent that not all of them met every single postulate in the canon. For example, Rickettsia prowazekii and Treponema pallidum—the bacterial agents that cause typhus or syphilis, respectively—cannot be grown in pure culture, and therefore cannot meet the second, third and fourth postulate. They can, however, be propagated in experimental animals, and Rickettsia prowazekii also in cell culture.

Viruses, by their very nature, can only multiply within living cells but not in pure culture. Therefore, no virus can possibly satisfy Koch’s postulates. However, we repeat that these postulates are not a logical necessity. If they are not fulfilled, the question of disease causation must be settled in some other manner.

5. What does it mean to isolate a virus?

Several people have expressed very sweeping criticisms of virology as a discipline. For example, twenty doctors and investigators recently published a memorandum entitled “Settling the Virus Debate” [9]. In it, we read:

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses.

Further on, the authors make it clear that they don’t agree with the use of cell cultures as part of the isolation procedure. According to them, cell cultures may on their own give rise to debris that might be mistaken for virus particles, and they therefore insist that a virus must be directly isolated from tissues or bodily fluids of infected humans or animals. This objection can be countered as follows:

  1. The particles of many viruses have very characteristic shapes that are not likely to be confused with any particles produced by living cells, or with debris left behind by dead cells.

  2. There are many biochemical methods for characterizing viral particles, and moreover for establishing that they contain genetic information characteristic of the virus rather than the host cell culture.

  3. Not all viruses can easily be grown in cell cultures. Those which cannot are indeed routinely propagated in, and directly isolated from, laboratory animals.

A good example of such an animal study was published by Theil et al. [10]. It concerned the isolation of a novel virus from gnotobiotic, i.e. otherwise germ-free pigs. The abstract of the study reads as follows:

A rotavirus-like virus (RVLV) was isolated from a diarrheic pig from an Ohio swine herd. This virus infected villous enterocytes throughout the small intestine of gnotobiotic pigs and induced an acute, transitory diarrhea. Complete virions [viral particles] were rarely observed in the intestinal contents of infected animals … The genome of the porcine RVLV was composed of 11 discrete segments of double-stranded RNA …

The study shows both electron-microscopic pictures of the viral particles, as well as the result of an electrophoresis experiment that compares the genetic material contained in these particles to those of known viruses with similar morphology (see Figure 2). The novel virus could be serially passaged through multiple pigs without becoming “diluted” or getting lost altogether; therefore, it was clearly replicating within those pigs. Infection was detectable in the intestinal cells of the pigs and gave rise to diarrhea. We can see no reasonable objection to the authors’ conclusion that they had in fact established the existence of a novel virus that causes intestinal disease in pigs.[MORE]

Is it Safe to Get a Blood Transfusion from Someone who Got COVID Injections? Dr Mercola Discusses Potential Deadly Risks

/

From [HERE] By Dr. Joseph Mercola In a recent meta-analysis1,2 posted on preprints.org, Japanese researchers warn of potentially deadly risks to patients who receive blood from people who have taken mRNA covid injections and call for urgent action to ensure the safety of the global blood supply. According to the authors:3

… many countries around the world have reported that so-called genetic vaccines, such as those using modified mRNA encoding the spike protein and lipid nanoparticles as the drug delivery system, have resulted in post-vaccination thrombosis and subsequent cardiovascular damage, as well as a wide variety of diseases involving all organs and systems, including the nervous system …

[B]ased on these circumstances and the volume of evidence that has recently come to light, we call the attention of medical professionals to the various risks associated with blood transfusions using blood products derived from people who have suffered from long covid and from genetic vaccine recipients, including those who have received mRNA vaccines, and we make proposals regarding specific tests, testing methods, and regulations to deal with these risks.

Blood From Injected Donors May Pose Risk to Neurological Health

One particular risk addressed in this paper is the implications of blood tainted with prion-like structures found within the spike protein. Prions are misfolded proteins that can cause neurodegenerative diseases, such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (“CJD”) in humans, by inducing the misfolding of normal proteins in the brain.

Prion diseases are characterised by a long incubation period, followed by rapid progression and high mortality. The suggestion that the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, especially from certain variants, might contain prion-like domains raises concerns for several reasons:

  • Transmission risk – If spike proteins with prion-like structures can be transmitted through blood transfusions, there might be a risk of inducing prion diseases in recipients. Prion diseases are notoriously difficult to diagnose early, have no cure and are fatal, making any potential transmission through blood products a significant safety concern.

  • Detection and removal challenges – Current blood screening processes do not specifically test for prions, partly because prion diseases are rare and partly due to the technical challenges in detecting prions at low concentrations. If spike proteins with prion-like properties are present in the blood of covid injected people, existing blood safety protocols may not be adequate to prevent transmission.

  • Long-term safety concerns – Prion diseases have long latency periods, meaning that symptoms can appear years or even decades after exposure. This delay complicates efforts to trace the source of an infection back to a blood transfusion and assess the safety of blood supplies over time.

  • Impacts on blood supply management – Concerns about the potential risks associated with prion-like structures in spike proteins might lead to changes in donor eligibility criteria or the implementation of additional screening measures. These changes could impact the availability of blood products, which are critical for routine medical procedures.

  • Public confidence – Public awareness of these potential risks, even if they are theoretical or have a very low likelihood of occurring, could affect people’s willingness to donate or receive blood transfusions, thereby lowering blood donation rates and the overall trust in the safety of blood transfusions.

The authors stress the need for comprehensive studies to better understand the implications of these prion-like structures in the spike protein, not only for mRNA jab safety but also for the broader implications for public health measures like blood transfusion practices. [MORE]

Under the Guise of Creating Bird Flu Vaccines, the US Govt and Bill Gates are Funding Gain-of-Function Research to Make Bird Flu Viruses More Lethal and Transmissible Among Mammals

/

From [HERE] U.S. health officials only recently admitted to funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China — but for decades, the U.S. government has funded the same type of dangerous research on bird flu in the U.S.

And that research continues today.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), theU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) — even the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — have funded or are funding research to make bird flu more pathogenic and/or more transmissible in mammals.

Appearing on the “Kim Iversen Show” on May 16, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defensechief scientific officer, said he is concerned the U.S. is “making agents of … biological destruction” that could “put us into another pandemic.”

Hooker echoed warnings by former CDC Director Robert Redfield, who suggested the next pandemic would be sparked by a leak from a lab working to humanize bird flu viruses.

Hooker told Iversen the CDC’s Influenza Division infected ferrets with the currently circulating H5N1 avian influenza strain, then infected human lung cells, to make the virus more infective to humans.

Their justification, he said, is to be prepared for a zoonotic outbreak — where a virus from a bird or other animal jumps to humans.

“The party line that you hear all the time is, ‘Well, we have to develop these pathogens because then we can develop the countermeasures,’ — the vaccines, the monoclonal antibodies, the therapeutics,” he said.

Long list of gain-of-function studies on bird flu

The CDC, BARDA, NIAID and the World Health Organization (WHO) have conducted or funded dangerous bird flu studies.

Jessica Belser, a lead researcher with the CDC, was involved in numerous studies exploring the pathogenicity and transmissibility of bird flu viruses. She is co-author of a March 2024 study on the H5N1 strain causing fatal disease and transmitting between co-housed ferrets.

In 2020, Belser studied how different strains of the H9N2 flu virus, which have genetic and antigenic differences, show varying patterns of replication and transmission in mammalian animal models. The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention was a collaborator.

In 2016, Belser studied how different bird flu strains, including H5N1, H7N9 and H9N2, could infecthuman pulmonary endothelial cells.

Richard Webby, Ph.D., a BARDA-associated researcher and director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Studies on the Ecology of Influenza in Animals and Birds, is co-author of a May 2024 paper studying the susceptibility and transmissibility in the pig population of highly pathogenic avian influenza derived from mink.

In a 2017 study funded by the NIAID, Webby tested bird flu vaccines on ferrets, infecting them with the wild virus to determine the vaccines’ efficacy.

Hooker told The Defender this research is dangerous because ferrets “are immunologically very close to humans. … It’s not a huge leap for them to suddenly get into the human population and start human-to-human transmission.”

Christine Oshansky, chief of Pandemic Vaccines and Adjuvants at BARDA, co-authored a 2021 study ofhighly pathogenic influenza H7N9 and a vaccine formulation.

In 2018, Oshansky tested H5N1 vaccines stored in the national Influenza vaccine stockpile for up to 12 years to determine if they could be effective against divergent A (H5) influenza viruses.

The WHO funded the May 2020 study, “Pandemic potential of highly pathogenic avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4 A(H5) viruses.” Collaborators included the CDC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and other organizations. Webby and Yoshihiro Kawaoka, DVM, Ph.D.of the University of Wisconson are among the listed authors.

“That’s the huge danger of doing this work,” Hooker said. “Whether it’s an accidental or intentional release, you’re playing with these pathogens so that they’re basically creating variants that are infectious in humans.”

This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.

The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write. 

The vaccine cash cow

Hooker told Iversen there are “myriad patents associated with bird flu vaccines [and] bird flu pathogens.”

Kawaoka, the researcher long funded by NIAID to conduct bird flu research, has 78 patents in his portfolio, many of them related to bird flu vaccination.

In 2023, Kawaoka filed patents on:

  • Mutations that confer genetic stability to additional genes in influenza viruses (US-11802273-B2).

  • Recombinant influenza viruses with stabilized HA for replication in eggs (US-11807872 – B2).

  • A humanized cell line (US-11851648-B2).

In 2022, Kawaoka filed a patent for influenza virus replication for vaccine development (US-113906-B2).

Richard Bright, former BARDA director and a bird flu researcher at the CDC from 1998-2006, has an “extensive patent portfolio on — you guessed it — bird flu vaccines,” Hooker said. “And so these prophets of doom hit the airwaves and they scare everybody.” [MORE]

Former CDC Director Robert Redfield Admits that People Under Age 50 Had No Reason to Get COVID Injections. Also Admits Experimental Shots Caused Significant Injury. Claims He Warned Government

/

From [HERE] Former CDC Director Robert Redfield said Thursday that many officials who tried to warn the public about potential problems with COVID-19 vaccines were silenced and that it’s time to acknowledge the jab resulted in “significant” side effects.

“Those of us that tried to suggest there may be significant side effects from vaccines … we kind of got canceled because no one wanted to talk about the potential that there was a problem from the vaccines, because they were afraid that that would cause people not to want to get vaccinated,” Dr. Redfield told Chris Cuomo on NewsNation.

Dr. Redfield, who helmed the CDC during Operation Warp Speed, argued the COVID shots were “important” and saved “a lot of lives,” but also admitted that individuals under 50 years old had no reason to receive the experimental COVID injection and that the shots caused “significant side effects.”

“They’re important for the most vulnerable people, those over 60, 65 years of age. They really aren’t that critical for those that are under 50 or younger. But those vaccines saved a lot of lives, but they also—we have to be honest, some people got significant side effects from the vaccine,” he said.

“I have a number of people that are quite ill and they never had COVID, but they are ill from the vaccine,” he continued. “And we just have to acknowledge that.”

Redfield was one of the first major government health officials to claim that in his “professional opinion” the virus that caused COVID-19 originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Cuomo himself recently admitted he experienced health issues from the COVID jab.

A bombshell report published by the Correlation Research in the Public Interest in September found the COVID jabs were causally linked to a drastic increase in all-cause mortality in 17 countries, ultimately resulting in at least 17 million deaths.

And a recent large-scale study through the Global Covid Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project analyzed health data from 99 million patients encompassing eight countries and confirmed a causal link between the shots and myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and more.

The Plandemic was Always about Genthanasia - Getting as Many Humans as Possible Injected with a Bioweapon to Kill Them in a Slow Motion Extermination

/

From [HERE] The pandemic end game was always about injecting the masses with the ultimate depopulation bioweapon of the globalists – mRNA "vaccines." Forget about the torture of lockdowns, the brain-suffocating masks, the society-crippling social distancing mandates, because it was, is and always will be about getting people injected with millions of forever-prions. Who's distracted? Who got so caught up in the frenzy, that they actually agreed to the most dangerous medical experiment in the history of Western Medicine?

Meet the mRNA-bioweapon disguised as a vaccine

Talk about camouflage. The mRNA so-called "vaccine" (which does NOT qualify as one) was planned to infect the entire human body with toxic spike prions that bind together using nanotechnology, clog the vascular system, pollute the cleansing organs, strain the heart, freak out the immune system, disrupt the central nervous system, and destroy any fetus. It gets worse.

What if you had "free medical coverage" to help you pay for the treatments you will need after being injected with the "technological" formula that tricks your cells into producing millions of toxic, virus-mimicking prions? Does that sound like a good deal? It's like telling people to shoot themselves in the foot with a shotgun, and then any medical work they need to help recover from the injury is covered. Sounds great, right? Where is the end of the line for that?

Today's war gas chambers are bioweapons disguised as vaccines. Today's nuclear war isn't nuclear at all, but it's likely to give you cancer, and a heart attack too, by using spike proteins to trick your body into malfunctioning, forever. How many years does each Covid jab remove from human existence? Is it decades? Did you know that since the Wuhan jab rollout, cancer rates are skyrocketing? What "standard of care" helps fight cancer that's invading every part of your body via every blood vessel?

End game was, is and always will be about "vaccinating" as many sheeple as possible

What more insidious way could there ever be to absolutely wipe out the majority of earth's population than with a "medicine" that 70 percent of the populace believes is one hundred percent "safe and effective"? At least 7 of every 10 humans that walk the earth right now think that vaccines are the best way to stay alive, prevent viral infections and keep pandemics from spreading. Nearly every one of these same people believe in climate change also, because… "science."

Although there is ZERO science proving mRNA vaccines prevent or lessen the impact of Covid-19, these sheeple have been brainwashed by falsified, globalist-funded 'research' and the fake news media complex. The same goes for "global warming," which had to be changed to "climate change" when all the NASA-faked statistics got revealed for what they really are.  The temperature graph got cherry-picked for the past 100 years, but none of the sheeple had a look at the 1,000-year graph, or the 10,000 year graph, that shows earth is actually in a slow cooling phase. Oops.

The globalist end game is to bankrupt America's middle class, infect them all with millions of deadly prions yearly, and replace them all with illegal immigrants from around the world. Get ready for the United Banana Republic of America, because that's where this is all directly headed. Have you been sucked in by the Covid jab cult or the climate change cult? Don't drink the Koolaid.

300 Pages of Emails Leave No Doubt: Fauci, NIH Knew Early on of Injuries, Deaths Caused by Experimental COVID Injections

/

According to documents obtained by Children’s Health Defense, reports of injuries and deaths following COVID-19 vaccines — including a child injured by the Pfizer vaccine during a clinical trial and a fatal vaccine-induced case of myocarditis — reached NIH researchers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and others in 2021 and 2022.

From [HERE] Several adverse event reports from people injured by the COVID-19 vaccines reached National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers in 2021 and 2022 — including a report of a child injured by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine during a clinical trial, according to documents obtained by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

The documents also include reports of vaccine-injured people who were suicidal and emails sent to government officials — including Dr. Anthony Fauci — by a COVID-19 vaccine injury victim frustrated with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Board’s (CICP) slow pace of responding to their vaccine injury claims.

As reports of vaccine injuries came in, the agency advised one injured person that it was “not prudent” to get a second dose.

Some researchers cited a lack of knowledge about vaccine injuries due to the rapid speed at which they were developed.

The 300-page batch of documents released to CHD on April 21 contains emails between the NIH and people reporting COVID-19 vaccine injuries. CHD requested the documents via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in November 2022.

On April 12, 2023, CHD sued the NIH to obtain the records after the NIH did not respond to the request.

In an October 2023 settlement, the NIH agreed to produce up to 7,500 pages of documents at a rate of 300 pages per month. This month’s batch also revealed that Fauci and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials knew of serious COVID-19 vaccine adverse events as early as December 2020.

‘No doubt in my mind that the vaccine caused’ girl’s injuries

In emails sent to NIH researchers Farinaz Safavi, M.D., Ph.D., Dr. Avindra Nath and Amanda Wiebold starting May 24, 2021 (pages 237-243), the parents of a girl injured during the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine trial detailed their daughter’s condition.

‘I Knew They Were Killing People’: Whistleblower Says COVID Hospital Protocols Caused Patient Deaths. 'Nothing Would Make Me Get the COVID Injection. They Would Have to Kill Me to Take It.'

/

From [HERE] “Hospitals became the place where people go to die instead of the place where people go to get better,” said Zowe (not her real name), a medical coder who worked for several Phoenix, Arizona, hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In an emotional testimonial with Polly Tommey on Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) “Vax-Unvax” bus earlier this month in Salem, Oregon, the whistleblower exposed the practices and protocols that she believes led to patient deaths.

As a medical coder, Zowe’s job was to review patient records and assign codes for diagnoses and treatments. The codes determined how hospitals and physicians were paid.

“I call it the central intelligence of the hospital or the SimCity level view,” she said.

But Zowe said what she witnessed during the pandemic left her distraught and compelled her to speak out.

Lack of COVID patients in early pandemic

According to Zowe, hospitals were not running out of beds when the pandemic first began and the “flatten the curve” initiative was announced.

“We didn’t have patients in the hospital at that time. They slowly started to trickle in maybe after months and months,” she said.

Despite the low patient numbers, hospitals were instructed to create bed capacity by sending patients home earlier than usual. Zowe noted that this practice was a significant change from pre-pandemic protocols, as it posed a financial liability for the hospitals.

“If patients came back, we would have to pay for their care,” she explained. “It’s a Medicare rule so that was definitely very different.”

Financial incentives for COVID treatment

New ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) codes for COVID-19 diagnosis and an updated code for COVID-19-related remdesivir treatments were introduced in 2020, leading to significant financial incentives for hospitals treating patients with the virus.

“They had to have that diagnosis in order to get the 20% bonus for COVID patients,” Zowe said. She explained that a patient put on remdesivir also qualified the hospital for “an additional 20% bonus in payment because of the risk of an unproven technology.”

Hospitals initially received free hydroxychloroquine from the national stockpile and people treated with it “were actually doing well” before hospitals suddenly switched to remdesivir, Zowe said.

However, after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the new ICD-10 codefor COVID-19 infections, effective April 1, 2020, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave remdesivir an emergency use authorization on May 1, things began to change.

“It was like a line in the sand,” Zowe told Polly. “We stopped azithromycin and hydroxychloroquineand we went straight to remdesivir.” [MORE]