Most Studies Show COVID Vaccine Affects Menstrual Cycles, BMJ Review Finds

From [HERE] Women experienced menstrual cycle disruption following COVID-19 vaccination, including changes in cycle length, flow and menstrual pain, according to a new “state of the science” review published Monday in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health.

Although women comprised about half of the participants in the original COVID-19 vaccine trials, no data were collected on how the shots affected their menstrual cycles.

Soon after the shots were rolled out, many women started reporting longer periods and heavier-than-normal bleeding, and many women who did not normally menstruate — including women on long-acting contraceptives and post-menopausal women — also reported unusual bleeding.

Tens of thousands of women reported symptoms to researchers and medical regulators in the U.S. and the United Kingdom respectively by mid-2021.

At the time, women’s concerns were often “blown off” and they felt “gaslighted,” Dr. Alison Edelman, one of the review article authors, told NBC.

Researchers called for studies into the issue, in part because they said disrupted menstrual cycles were driving “misinformation” that the vaccines were dangerous and fueling “vaccine hesitancy.”

Since then, dozens of studies have been published on the issue.

For the BMJ review, researchers from Harvard, Boston University, Michigan State University and Oregon Health & Science University surveyed and summarized the existing published literature in the PubMed database — which contains peer-reviewed research in the biomedical and life sciences literature — on the COVID-19 vaccines and menstruation. [MORE]

CDC VAERS System Underreports Deaths of Children After COVID Injections

Dr. Peterson Pierre: New Bill Would Strip COVID Injection Manufacturers Of Liability Protection

Fed Ct Rules COVID Shots are Not Vaccines b/c They Don’t Prevent the Spread of COVID. Thus, the LA Mandate is Not Rationally Related to Preventing Disease, Violates the Right to Refuse Med Treatment

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the COVID mandate in LA is unlawful and violates the individual’s right to refuse medical treatment. The court held that mRNA COVID injections are not “vaccines” within the meaning of Supreme Court case precedent because they don’t prevent transmission or provide immunity from COVID. As such, COVID shots are simply medical treatments and do not the pass strict scrutiny under the Constitution because individuals have the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.

While the decision is considered a victory to many people who take their freedom seriously, it is nevertheless cowardly because it is so late. That is, most mandates are no longer in effect and the decision comes after millions have already been forced by the government to take deadly, experimental injections - which was the point. Such is the nature of the lex-icon in the free range prison.

The ruling centers on a lawsuit brought by Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) and other plaintiffs who challenged Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) adoption of a policy that required its employees to get the Covid-19 vaccine to keep their jobs. LAUSD issued the initial vaccine policy March 4, 2021.

There was no trial. The government requested the court to make a judgement on the pleadings, which is a pre-trial motion like a motion to dismiss. To make a decision the court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The district court granted the government’s motion by ruling that “mandatory vaccination laws are generally constitutional” and that “Supreme Court precedent did not require that a vaccine have the specific purpose of preventing disease.’ According to the District Court, Supreme Court precedent states that rational basis review (a low standard of review) applied to these facts and under rational basis review no case can plausibly challenge a mandatory vaccination policy. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district court misapplied Supreme Court precedent which states that “the principle of vaccination is to prevent the spread of disease and or provide immunity.” The court must balance the an individual’s liberty interest with the government’s societal interest in preventing disease. The government’s interest of preventing societal disease will generally supersede an individual’s liberty rights with regard to a vaccine mandate.

However, in this case the plaintiffs alleged that due to the fact that COVID shots do not prevent the spread of COVID or provide immunity, they were simply individual medical treatments - not vaccines. The complaint stated, “According to most official sources, the most the shot could arguably do was to reduce an infected person’s symptoms. Thus, it is a therapeutic, no different than taking an aspirin or other medicine to reduce the symptoms of illness.” Plaintiffs argued that “the Covid-19 shots do not prevent the spread of Covid-19 and thus must be considered as a private health matter - compulsory medication - not a public one.” Importantly, the government did not properly dispute those claims and argued that the shots are intended to reduce an individual’s symptoms of COVID and were “safe and effective” at doing so. As such, the court overruled the district court decision due to the fact that COVID shots do not meet “the principle of vaccination” or legal standard for vaccinations because they don’t prevent transmission or provide immunity. The court explained that ‘a government has power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing a person from spreading disease to others but it may not force medical treatment that is solely for the recipient’s benefit.’ The court explained that even under rational basis review (‘not crazy review’), which is a very low standard of review, the COVID mandate is unlawful because its purpose is not rationally related to preventing the spread of COVID. This is so because the injections don’t prevent transmission or provide immunity. Rather, COVID mandates have the purpose of reducing an individual’s symptoms - thus Supreme Court precedent concerning vaccines does not apply to the COVID mandate.

Furthermore, the concurrence from judge Collins explained that the district court applied the wrong standard of review and should have applied strict scrutiny review because the mandate invoked the plaintiff’s Constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. Collins said, ‘a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.’ The Supreme Court’s case law clarifies that compulsory treatment for the health benefit of the person treated—as opposed to compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others—implicates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.’ Collins explained that the plaintiff’s allegations have invoked that right.’ Accordingly, the district court erroneously applied rational basis review and should used a higher standard to review the mandate because it infringed on fundamental Constitutional rights. Nevertheless, as explained, even under the lowest legal standard of review the mandate is unlawful because COVID shots are mere individual medical treatment, not a vaccine as defined by Supreme Court case law. [MORE]

The complaint stated that individuals have a Constitutional right to refuse to inject themselves with the Covid-19 shots. It stated,

The Supreme Court has recognized the right to bodily integrity as one of the most fundamental rights known to man. Indeed, it has been called “first among equals”. As the Supreme Court has said: ‘No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.’” Guertin v. State of Michigan, 912 F.3d 907, 918 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)). Indeed, the Supreme Court has “never retreated ... from [its] recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests.” Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 159 (2013). For more than a hundred years, the Supreme Court has applied meaningful judicial review to government actions that invaded this right to bodily integrity. It did so even before creating the modern tiers of constitutional scrutiny.

[MORE HERE] and [HERE]

CORPSE BIDEN’S LIES FALSELY INDUCED CONSENT AND DESTROYED INFORMED CONSENT TO TAKE the DEADLY, EXPERIMENTAL COVID INJECTIONS. his lies killed and physically harmed millions and MANDATES destroyed jobs, CAREERS, businesses anD THE FREEDOMS OF MILLIONS.

Dr Yeardon and Dr Blynd: Authorities Own the Minds of Those who Believe “The COVID Lies." The False Narratives are Enemy Outposts in the Believer's Mind, Giving Rise to More Coercive Political Systems

Attorney: 'Government Coercion, Censorship and Misinformation about the Safety/Effectiveness of COVID Shots Destroyed Informed Consent. Red Flags about COVID Shots are Being Ignored by the Government'

In a similar suit that also challenges a federal COVID mandate in the US District Court for the District of Utah (funded by Dr. David Martin) the same arguments were made. The complaint in that case explains,

“Because the Injections are treatments, and not vaccines, strict scrutiny applies. The US Supreme Court has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.” Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2851, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 242 (1990). It has also recognized that the forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1041, 108 L.Ed.2d 178, 203 (1990), see also id. at 223 (further acknowledging in dicta that, outside of the prison context, the right to refuse treatment would be a “fundamental right” subject to strict scrutiny).32

As mandated medical treatments are a substantial burden, Defendants must prove that the CMS Mandate is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest.

No such compelling interest exists because, as alleged above, the Injections are not effective against the now dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in that they do not prevent the recipient from becoming infected, getting reinfected, or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. Indeed, evidence shows that vaccinated individuals have more SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal passages than unvaccinated people do.

["Doggy wants you to just barely survive—not to be fully alive"] 'If I Dont Comply I Lose My Freedom, My Career, My Business. What is Slavery Then? Rage at Elites Who Crammed COVID-19 Down Our Throats

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Doggy – Uncle Brother—the condition and conditioning which serves you your problem doubling as your very own ambition. 2) a situation such that the fulfillment of the conditions necessary to achieve a desired result produces its failure. 3) the entity that goes by many names, including bank-monopolized capitalism, the Spectacle, the Hall of Mirrors and the Looking Glass society, the Mega-machine, Statism, Global Imperialism, Scientific Socialism, cooperative federalism, corporate religion, and the phallacy of “progress”—the manifestation and embodiment of the tool of the Wallflower Order. 4) any shrewd trickster. 5) Leviathan’s Big Brother. 6) the creators of the source code for the global dis-information “system.” 7) Dr. Sam and Mr. Brother. 8) the collective name ascribed to inert abstractions that we have given artificial lifesupport to and unwittingly sanctioned or accorded superiority over life. Doggy is the cultural conditioning system that maintains its hold over all things and all people, even our minds and opinions, by getting us to be informers and informants on each other, by getting us to be the trustees in and of their mind prism prison. Doggy is any and all conditioning, often self-imposed and when necessary involuntarily inflicted, that promotes your belief in illusion (both grand and petit) as a way of life. Doggy creates the conditions wherein an undetected and undeclared war is waged on us directly through us. The result of this on-going psychological war is that you, like many others, willingly destroy your freedom without the possibility of recognizing or overcoming the oppressions of control. The belief in illusion is the agreement to oppression. Doggy is the violent programming we have sustained all of our lives. Doggy wants you to just barely survive—but not to be fully alive—wants you to remain barely alive, but not to fully live. Say Uncle! Bad Doggy. (See: “THEY,” Hidalgo, Vampires, Society, Thoughtforms, CrimethInc., Beasthood, Corporate State, Governments, Uncle Sam, Wallflower Order, Cell, The Collective, Fishbowlers, Big Brother & “Greater System”)

Master’s rent – Federal and state income tax and property tax. When citizen-slaves in America are not working, they can come and go when they want and therefore have the illusion of true freedom—called “free-range slavery.” They only work from January until May for their master and they get to keep part of the “money” the sale of their labor earns them. They have the illusion of owning their own home and their master will only evict them out of it if they fail to pay the master’s rent (which he calls income tax and property tax). The citizen-slaves are treated so well by their master that they don’t want to see, much less leave their cage. American citizen-slaves are content because they usually have enough “money” to buy all the roaming freedom they need. American citizen-slaves realize that they will be punished if they do not comply willingly with master’s demands or commands. A man ceases to be free anytime an obligation is forced upon him, regardless of how small. (See: Involuntary Servitude, Slavery, Citizen, Slave, Serf, Feudalism, Cooperative Federalism, Allegiance, Voluntiered Servitude, “Credit,” Usury, Interest, Labor, Freedom, Corporate State, Govern & Ruler)

Voluntiered Slavery – First Tier—working for the banksters (paying tribute on the cost of “capital,” i.e., debt used as-if it were, or even could ever truly be “money”) under global Hegelian Banking. Second Tier—working for Uncle $cam via the unlawful and criminal misapplication of the Internal Revenue Code coincident with the misinterpretation of the federal revenue taxing laws and apportionment provisions of the Constitution, manifested in the form of federal and state income tax withholding schemes and gambits from one’s paycheck and voluntary compliance with so-called “tax returns.” Third Tier—working for a corporation (a deadly cartoon) which has no existence but through your energy under the corporate fiction of its charter from yet another legal fiction—a Corporate State. (See: Banking, Declaration of Undiependance, Property, Slavery, Wealth, Labor, Asset, Paycheck, Real Tax & Constitution for the United States of America)

Speaking thru Their Dummy (Fauci) Elites Casually Admit there was No Scientific Basis for Social Distancing, Masking or COVID Lockdowns that Destroyed Small Businesses, Jobs and Freedom of Movement

From [HERE] In April 2020, The Daily Mail had absolutely no issue with publishing and promoting the obviously flawed Science™ of the pandemic Experts™ like Pantsdown Ferguson:

Meanwhile, Professor Neil Ferguson from Imperial College London, who is advising ministers, said 'significant' social distancing will most likely be needed until there is a vaccine.

He told the Today programme that as restrictions are eased, more testing will be needed to isolate individual cases and trace their contacts to keep future outbreaks under control.

'Because without that, our estimates show we have relatively little leeway,' he said.

'If we relax measures too much then we'll see a resurgence of transmission.

'What we really need is the ability to put something in their place. If we want to open schools, let people get back to work, then we need to keep transmission down in another manner.

'And I should say, it's not going to be going back to normal. We will have to maintain some form of social distancing, a significant level of social distancing, probably indefinitely until we have a vaccine available.'

Now, in June 2024, they casually report that Archcriminal Fauci, responsible for much of the worldwide plandemic response nonsense admits that he made it all up, conveniently forgetting the part they played in promoting it:

Speaking to counsel on behalf of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic earlier this year, Fauci told Republicans that the six foot social distancing rule 'sort of just appeared' and that he did not recall how it came about. 

'You know, I don't recall. It sort of just appeared,' he said according to committee transcripts when pressed on how the rule came about. 

He added he 'was not aware of studies' that supported the social distancing, conceding that such studies 'would be very difficult' to do. 

In addition to not recalling any evidence supporting social distancing, Fauci also told the committee's counsel that he didn't remember reading anything to support that masking kids would prevent COVID.

Oh, never mind all the social, economic and public health harms it caused then? Not to mention the detriment to a generation’s education?

I guess Fauci simply can’t remember the (in)famous Imperial paper then? Funny how someone in such an influential position has no recollection when a complete nobody like me has it all chronicled? Here’s a couple of concise analyses that might aid his memory: [MORE]

An NIH Scientist with Ties to Big Pharma Retracted a Journal Study Showing COVID Injections May Cause Cancer, according to Emails Compelled through FOIA Request

From [HERE] and [HERE] A recent investigation by Australian journalist Rebekah Barnett suggests politics and financial interests, not scientific concerns, led to the retraction of a 2021 peer-reviewed study finding the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 and the mRNA vaccine impair critical DNA repair mechanisms, which could lead to cancer.

Viruses, published by MDPI, retracted the study in 2022, despite objections by the lead author, Ya-Fang Mei, Ph.D., of Sweden’s Umeå University.

Subsequent research and case studies have largely validated the findings of the retracted study conducted by Mei and Hui Jiang, Ph.D., of Stockholm University in Sweden.

Barnett’s investigation, built on work by independent journalist John Davidson and Dr. Ah Kahn Syed, included emails released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealing that Eric O. Freed, Ph.D., editor-in-chief of Viruses, oversaw its retraction.

Freed, a scientist with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), suggested the retraction could proceed without evidence of scientific misconduct, raising questions about his impartiality.

The study’s co-author originally requested the retraction. However, Mei strongly objected, claiming Stockholm University “forced” the retraction due to external pressure.

The NIH rejected Davidson’s FOIA request for Freed’s emails related to the retraction, citing trade secret exemptions. However, Barnett’s FOIA to Stockholm University uncovered some of these emails.

Barnett’s article contains images of many FOIA’d emails describing the progression of arguments among various scientists and journal and university personnel leading up to the retraction.

Retracted paper showed spike protein could cause cancer

Mei and Jiang found that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein — and its mRNA-vaccine-derived analog — significantly inhibits DNA damage repair, which is essential for maintaining genomic stability and preventing cancer.

The researchers demonstrated that the spike protein localizes in the cell nucleus and inhibits DNA repair by hindering the recruitment of key repair proteins BRCA1 (breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein) and 53BP1 (p53-binding protein 1) to the damage site.

The spike protein’s suppression of the p53 gene, known as the “guardian of the genome,” is particularly concerning, as the gene is crucial in preventing cancer development — particularly, breast, ovarian and other cancers affecting women.

Moreover, the study found that the spike protein impairs V(D)J recombination, a complex genetic process occurring in the early stages of T and B lymphocyte development, which are key components of the adaptive immune system.

This process is essential for generating a diverse repertoire of T-cell receptors and antibodies (immunoglobulins) that can recognize and combat a wide range of pathogens. [MORE]

Karen Kingston: COVID-19 was a Planned Bioweapon Attack. It and other ‘Pandemics’ are caused by mRNA viruses that can be aerosolized, used to contaminate food, beverages or injected into the blood

From [HERE] Per EcoHealth Alliance, DARPA, and peer-review publications COVID-19 was a pre-planned global bioweapon attack that used aerosolized mRNA nanoparticles to cause a pandemic of illness and fear.

December 20, 2023: Many influencers are stating that there was never a pandemic caused by a biological gain-of-function SARS-CoV-2 virus, but there was something that targeted select individuals and communities causing a range of symptoms from loss of taste and smell to severe respiratory infections and in some cases, cytokine storms or even massive blood clotting. Per my analysis, confirmed by Russian military General Igor Kirollov, COVID-19 and other ‘pandemics’ are caused by synthetic pathogens, or mRNA viruses that can be aerosolized, used to contaminate food, beverages, or surfaces, or…directly injected into a person’s bloodstream via ‘vaccination.’

May 16: 2023: (Originally published on December 15, 2022) To this day there is debate amongst medical freedom leaders and experts as to what caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Personally, I’ve invested many thousands of hours throughout 2021 and 2022, in reviewing documents such as EcoHealth’s Alliance pitch to DARPA, peer-reviewed publications regarding the ground zero attacks in China, Italy, and the US, scientific publications and manufacturer’s documents regarding nanoparticle technologies, Pfizer’s private and government contracts, dozens of patents, nanoparticle and SynBio forecasting reports, and reviewed many DARPA communications regarding the current and future applications of nanoparticle technologies.

In March of 2023, the Russian military issued a statement that COVID-19 and many other recent pandemics were caused by artificial pathogens or synthetic viruses. These artificial pathogens are mRNA nanoparticles, the same mRNA nanoparticle technologies found in the COVID-19 mRNA injections.

Stew Peters and I Reiterate that COVID-19 is Caused by BioSynthetic Pathogens on December 15, 2022

On December 15, 2022, Stew Peters allowed me on his platform so that I could make the following statement in order to clearly articulate to concerned citizens how the mRNA nanoparticle technology caused COVID-19:

“Residents of Wuhan and other cities of China, Italy and the United States, were victims of a coordinated nanoparticle bioweapon attack, a bioweapon attack using the same nanoparticles that are in all COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Most victims became infected with the nanoparticles via a direct aerosol attack, surface transmission, or food and beverage contamination.

US citizens should be horrified to learn that EcoHealth Alliance, the NIH, the DOD, and other departments within our US government refer to lipid nanoparticles (nanocarriers) as vaccine technology that can a deliver toxin, chemical weapon, and/or weapon of biowarfare.

The EcoHealth Alliance proposal to DARPA clearly identifies nanoparticle bioweapons as spike proteins, spike protein nanoparticles that are ‘bat vaccines.’ EcoHealth lays out the plan to ‘vaccinate’ residents of select Chinese cities as well as US residents with spike-protein nanoparticle bat-vaccines via aerosol attack, surface transmission, and food and beverage contamination. The purposes of the nanoparticle bat-vaccines are to suppress the human immune system while turning human beings into carriers of lethal diseases.

The DARPA proposal states that EcoHealth will ask the CDC to ‘vaccinate wild vampire bats’ in the United States. The US military will have an app so they can track the ‘vaccinated bats.’

There are three critical points that need to be stated regarding Wuhan, SARS-CoV-2, and COVID-19:

• There weren’t mass COVID-19 deaths in 2020. Many people became ill, some became very ill, and some died, but 99.99% didn’t die. EcoHealth states that the point of the nanoparticle vaccines are to weaken the immune system so that animals (humans) can carry lethal viruses without dying from the viruses.

• Most COVID-19 diagnoses in 2020 were diagnoses based on pure financial incentives and fraudulent.

• COVID-19 is caused by an advanced nanoparticle bioweapon that uses mRNA technology to strategically deteriorate and destroy cardiovascular, neurological, immune and reproductive systems. COVID-19 is NOT caused by a virus, gain-of-function, wild-type or otherwise.

• Lastly, the victims who were originally inoculated with the bioweapon in 2020 were not highly-contagious, if infectious at all. The first round of nanoparticle bioweapons did not contain mRNA codes. They were ‘empty rounds.’ There were also over 200 mRNA sequences of SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020. The virus was never isolated because multiple mRNA sequences were released. At ground zero, from the Wuhan Seafood Market, 9 patients who were sampled for the SARS-CoV-2 sequence, their sequences didn’t match. It’s scientifically impossible for a virus to mutate that quickly.

• In regards to the injections, Sergeant Jason Murphy of the US Marines states in his letter that when victims are injected with mRNA nanoparticles that then directly enter into their blood streams, that in effect turns them into gain-of-function bioweapons labs capable of shedding and infecting others.

Details supporting these statements can be found in EcoHealth’s Alliance pitch to DARPA, and are substantiated by peer-reviewed publications regarding the ground zero attacks in China, Italy, and the US, as well as scientific publications and manufacturer’s documents regarding nanoparticle technology, including the patents.”

Note: It’s important to understand that ‘gain-of function viruses’ are lipid nanoparticle technologies programmed with mRNA codes. mRNA is not a biosynthetic substance itself, mRNA are software codes. SARS-CoV-2 is not a virus, it’s a software code programmed into nanoparticles. The nanoparticle is a modRNA-LNP (modified ribonucleic acid/lipid nanoparticle).

David Martin: Fauci and House Puppeticians Maintain the Lie that COVID was Made in China. It was Created in North Carolina for Use Against US Citizens. Fauci Authorized GOF Research for Death/Profit

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.

'Who Will Take Responsibility for Deaths Caused by the Vaccine?' Malaysian Citizens Demand Pfizer and Others to be Punished for Lying About the Safety of Dangerous, Experimental COVID Injections

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!

The House of Representatives in the Philippines is Investigating Injuries, Lower Birth Rates and Excess Deaths Caused by COVID Injections

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]