CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
My hypothesis is that both covid and the vaccines are bio weapons and once a person gets vaccinated they are more vulnerable to Covid and future mutations because their immune system has been compromised by the vaccines. This is resulting in excess deaths. Yes covid is a killer, but it’s moreso in the vaxed. What Igor’s study does not show is the difference in excess deaths comparing the vaxed to the unvaxed.
I think you are right. It's both and the vaccinated may be more vulnerable due to having their antibodies messed with by the vaccine. Once healthy people are now the most vulnerable to inflammation and clotting issues. Prior to vaxx it was the elderly and those with underlying diseases that were the most vulnerable to lung issues and serious virus issues (they still are vulnerable too).

It would be nice if his study differentiated between vaxxed and unvaxxed but I don't the data is available. Which is too bad because it would be helpful to read.

HD
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
New Geert video
I haven’t watched it yet will watch it later.


THANK YOU FOR THIS! I listened once casually, I hope to relisten and take notes when I have more time to concentrate. He starts off discussing the Pfizer guy on the Veritas video. He said they guy didn't know what he was talking about. [I personally don't know if that points to the guy faking it (as he claimed in the 2nd video) or the guy just being an idiot. I think it may be the latter]. He got pretty technical about why what the guy was saying couldn't happen. They moved on to there to go over his theories etc. They didn't discuss China but he did talk about the variants and that his predicted variant hasn't happened yet. Since they were talking about the Veritas video, it was recorded in the last few days, but I don't know if it was recorded before Igor's substack or if he even read it. Definitely recommend everyone listen to it. Geert is still the most qualified, educated vaccinologist out there talking about covid imho. Scariest part was that he said once Omicron happened, there's no going back, man has messed with nature (my words, not his).

HD

ETA: scroll down, I posted notes from the first 11 minutes, which is the discussion about the Veritas video. I wanted to get that part posted first as that is the most current thing everyone seems to be discussing.
 
Last edited:

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic

It's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives | Opinion​


Kevin Bass

7–9 minutes



As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.

I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.

...

Zero Hedge has some commentary on this:


(fair use applies)

"It's Time For The Scientific Community To Admit We Were Wrong About COVID & It Cost Lives"
by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, Jan 31, 2023 - 07:44 PM

Real "mea culpa", ongoing and rapid revision of history, or further narrative management with regard 'amnesty' over what "the others" did to those who thought for themselves over the last few years...

You decide...

In no less a liberal rag than Newsweek, Kevin Bass (MS MD/PHD Student, Medical School) has penned a quite surprising (and 'brave') op-ed saying that "it's time for the scientific community to admit we were wrong about COVID and it cost lives..."

[ZH: emphasis ours]


As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19.
I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.
I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.
I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.
But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.
What we did not properly appreciate is that preferences determine how scientific expertise is used, and that our preferences might be—indeed, our preferences were—very different from many of the people that we serve. We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data. And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil.
We made science a team sport, and in so doing, we made it no longer science. It became us versus them, and "they" responded the only way anyone might expect them to: by resisting.
We excluded important parts of the population from policy development and castigated critics, which meant that we deployed a monolithic response across an exceptionally diverse nation, forged a society more fractured than ever, and exacerbated longstanding heath and economic disparities.
A students adjusts her facemask at St. Joseph Catholic School in La Puente, California on November 16, 2020, where pre-kindergarten to Second Grade students in need of special services returned to the classroom today for in-person instruction. - The campus is the second Catholic school in Los Angeles County to receive a waiver approval to reopen as the coronavirus pandemic rages on. The US surpassed 11 million coronavirus cases Sunday, adding one million new cases in less than a week, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University.FREDERIC J. BROWN / AFP
Our emotional response and ingrained partisanship prevented us from seeing the full impact of our actions on the people we are supposed to serve. We systematically minimized the downsides of the interventions we imposed—imposed without the input, consent, and recognition of those forced to live with them. In so doing, we violated the autonomy of those who would be most negatively impacted by our policies: the poor, the working class, small business owners, Blacks and Latinos, and children. These populations were overlooked because they were made invisible to us by their systematic exclusion from the dominant, corporatized media machine that presumed omniscience.
Most of us did not speak up in support of alternative views, and many of us tried to suppress them. When strong scientific voices like world-renowned Stanford professors John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and Scott Atlas, or University of California San Francisco professors Vinay Prasad and Monica Gandhi, sounded the alarm on behalf of vulnerable communities, they faced severe censure by relentless mobs of critics and detractors in the scientific community—often not on the basis of fact but solely on the basis of differences in scientific opinion.
When former President Trump pointed out the downsides of intervention, he was dismissed publicly as a buffoon. And when Dr. Antony Fauci opposed Trump and became the hero of the public health community, we gave him our support to do and say what he wanted, even when he was wrong.
Trump was not remotely perfect, nor were the academic critics of consensus policy. But the scorn that we laid on them was a disaster for public trust in the pandemic response. Our approach alienated large segments of the population from what should have been a national, collaborative project.
And we paid the price. The rage of the those marginalized by the expert class exploded onto and dominated social media. Lacking the scientific lexicon to express their disagreement, many dissidents turned to conspiracy theories and a cottage industry of scientific contortionists to make their case against the expert class consensus that dominated the pandemic mainstream. Labeling this speech "misinformation" and blaming it on "scientific illiteracy" and "ignorance," the government conspired with Big Tech to aggressively suppress it, erasing the valid political concerns of the government's opponents.
And this despite the fact that pandemic policy was created by a razor-thin sliver of American society who anointed themselves to preside over the working class—members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech, and public health, who are highly educated and privileged. From the comfort of their privilege, this elite prizes paternalism, as opposed to average Americans who laud self-reliance and whose daily lives routinely demand that they reckon with risk. That many of our leaders neglected to consider the lived experience of those across the class divide is unconscionable.
Incomprehensible to us due to this class divide, we severely judged lockdown critics as lazy, backwards, even evil. We dismissed as "grifters" those who represented their interests. We believed "misinformation" energized the ignorant, and we refused to accept that such people simply had a different, valid point of view.
We crafted policy for the people without consulting them. If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.
My motivation for writing this is simple:

It's clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.

It's OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That's a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.
Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices.
Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.



The problem was not people's ignorance of the facts, it was the organized antagonism and censorship against anyone presenting data that was contradictory to the mandate agenda. This is setting aside proclamations like those from the LA Times, which argued that mocking the deaths of "anti-vaxxers" might be necessary and justified. After two years of this type of arrogant nonsense it's hard to imagine people will be willing to pretend as if all is well.

The active effort to shut down any opposing data is the root crime, though, and no, it can never be forgotten or forgiven.

People are still livid...

One cannot help but notice that the timing of the Atlantic's appeal for passive forgetfulness and now this op-ed mea culpa coincides with the swiftly approaching end of the COVID emergency declarations, amid a growing political backlash to the last two years of meaningless lockdowns and mandates, and Democrats were instrumental in the implementation of both. A large swath of the population sees one party as the cause of much of their covid era strife.

Perhaps the mainstream media is suddenly realizing that they may have to face some payback for their covid zealotry? “We didn't know! We were just following orders!” It all sounds rather familiar.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


House Passes Bills Ending COVID-19 Emergency, Health Care Worker Vaccine Mandate

By Joseph Lord
January 31, 2023

With Republicans back in the majority, the U.S. House of Representatives on Jan. 31 passed a series of bills related to the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines.

The GOP majority in the lower chamber took up two COVID-19 bills on Tuesday, with many others still on the docket for possible consideration later this year.

The first bill would officially declare an end to the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. The second bill would end the vaccine mandate for health care workers at institutions that receive federal funding.

During the 117th Congress, the Democrat majority in both chambers largely marched in lockstep with President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 policies, including vaccine mandates.

Biden delivers remarks

Republicans, on the other hand, have pointed to the low risk the virus poses to younger people and those without pre-existing health conditions. Many Republicans opposed vaccine mandates as a violation of Americans’ rights to choose which drugs they put into their bodies.

Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said the two bills being considered will “restore our constitutional rights and freedoms after two long years of Democrats COVID-19 power grab policies.”

In many places, Americans found themselves effectively barred from leaving their homes amid mandatory lockdowns, which in turn caused substantial mental health and socialization issues among young adults and children.

“The extended COVID lockdowns like the ones we saw in my home state of New York caused irreparable damage to our children’s development, financial strain on our small businesses and unnecessary deaths among our most vulnerable seniors,” Stefanik said.

Freedom for Health Care Workers Act

The bill passed by Republicans, the first in a round of two expected votes, would end a federal vaccine mandate for health care workers at facilities that receive federal funding.

The bill passed in a 227–203 vote, including 7 Democrats supporting the measure.

Biden announced the health care mandate as part of a larger declaration announcing vaccine mandates for all federal civilian and military personnel. Many Americans, including those with significant reservations about the novel vaccine, which has not undergone long-term testing, were faced with the choice to take the jab or lose their jobs.

In an interview with The Epoch Times, Lt. Col. Adam Conrad, who asked that his name be changed to protect him from retribution by the Department of Defense, described the effects of this mandate on servicemembers.

“I’ve never seen morale so low,” he said.

While federal employees were targeted most by Biden’s mandates, private institutions, hospitals, and clinics that received federal funding were also subject to the mandates. In this case, the mandates came not from the president but from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

The CMS mandate, which doesn’t allow a testing opt-out, covers more than 17 million health care workers.

Guidelines on the CMS website read: “[Health care] staff must be fully vaccinated (with the exception of those who have been granted exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine or for those staff for whom the COVID-19 vaccination must be temporarily delayed, as recommended by CDC).”

In January 2022, the Supreme Court declined to strike down the vaccine requirement for health care workers, while at the same time agreeing to strike down a business mandate.

The Freedom for Health Care Workers Act would roll back this mandate on health care workers.

“All of us rightfully were applauding our frontline heroes, applauding all those health care workers who was showing up treating COVID patients,” Scalise said of the bill.

“And then you saw this administration—while they started applauding them—ultimately, they said that they would have to be fired if they didn’t get the COVID vaccine.

“Workers were forced to lose their jobs over that vaccine mandate that wasn’t even in law. It was a ruling that came out of [the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services]. Let’s get those health care workers back to work,” Scalise said. “Let’s continue as the heroes that they are not tried to shame them, or terminate their careers, because they didn’t get vaccinated from COVID.”

The ‘Pandemic Is Over’ Act


One of the bills, whose name is taken from Biden’s declaration that “the pandemic is over,” is H.R. 382, the “Pandemic Is Over” Act. The House passed the bill in a party-line 220 to 210 vote. Four lawmakers did not vote.

The bill would end the declared public health emergency over the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) proposed ending the emergency declaration, putting pressure on the Biden administration to rescind the measure. After Republicans announced their intention to consider the bill, Biden announced that he would end the public health emergency, but said he would wait until May to do so.

In a speech on the House floor calling for the passage of his bill, Guthrie said, “President Biden and I agree: the COVID-19 pandemic is over.”

“It’s time to restore freedom to the American people, so the American people—not the government—can make the best decisions for themselves and their families,” Rep. Aaron Bean (R-Fla.) said in favor of the legislation in a speech on the House floor.

On Jan. 11, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) confirmed that it would again extend the health emergency for another 90 days, according to a declaration issued by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. The emergency has been renewed about a dozen times since it was implemented under the Trump administration in early 2020.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is over,” Guthrie wrote on Twitter Tuesday. “It’s long overdue to end the COVID-19 [public health emergency] and for President Biden to relinquish his emergency powers.”

The bill, titled the “Pandemic Is Over Act,” stipulates that HHS “shall terminate on the date of enactment of this Act.” About three months ago, Biden told a “60 Minutes” reporter that he believes “the pandemic is over,” prompting White House officials to scramble to clarify his stance.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) called on Biden to speed up the timeline to end the public health emergency, noting that H.R. 382 would take effect immediately rather than in several months.

“Mr. President, you know it’s the right thing to do,” Scalise said. “Don’t wait until May. Let’s open our country back up again, get our economy back up again.”

‘The Show Up’ Act

Republicans also hope to take aim at the growth of work-from-home arrangements for federal employees.

Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many federal bodies altered their work protocols to allow people to work from home. However, despite the regression of the virus from the public eye, many of these arrangements remain in place.

“The Show Up” Act, introduced on Jan. 11 by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) and cosponsored by Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), and Michael Cloud (R-Texas).

“Washington shouldn’t be the last place to get to work,” Scalise said during a Jan. 31 press conference. “It should be the first.”

“For years, Americans have suffered from the federal government’s detrimental pandemic-era telework policies for federal bureaucrats. President Biden’s unnecessary expansion of telework crippled the ability of departments and agencies to fulfill their responsibilities and created cumbersome backlogs,” Comer said in a press statement about the bill.

Democrats Make Contested Claims About Vaccines


In their response to Republicans, Democrats made contested claims about the COVID-19 vaccine, including claims that it is substantially effective in slowing or preventing transmission of the disease.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) described the vaccine as effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19 and reducing the risk of hospitalization or death. Thus, Democrats expressed opposition to Republicans’ plans to overturn vaccine mandates and end the public health emergency.

Responding to several GOP criticisms of the vaccine as ineffective, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who led the Democrat side of the debate, said these claims are “factually untrue.”

However, the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, while initially trumpeted as being as high as 100 percent, rapidly declines substantially over time, studies show.

As early as May 2021, studies began to show that the effectiveness of the drug in preventing the transmission of COVID-19 had dropped to 33 percent.

Later the same year, data from Qatar—which has one of the highest COVID-19 vaccination rates in the world—showed that while the vaccine was initially as much as 80 percent effective, six months later, that effectiveness dropped to only 20 percent.

Data from Qatar on the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Researchers wrote, “[the vaccine’s] effectiveness against any SARS-CoV-2 infection was negligible in the first 2 weeks after the first dose. It increased to 36.8 percent … in the third week after the first dose and reached its peak at 77.5 percent … in the first month after the second dose.

However, they found that “[Its effectiveness] declined gradually thereafter, with the decline accelerating after the fourth month to reach approximately 20 percent in months 5 through 7 after the second dose.”

What’s Next


The bill will now head to the Senate, where it is likely to face a greater challenge than it did in the House.

Democrats are likely to oppose the measure. Like all bills in the upper chamber, it will need the support of at least 60 senators, meaning at least 11 Democrats and all 49 Republicans.

If the bill were to pass Congress, it’s unlikely that it would win the White House’s approval.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


It Started Before the Outbreak: A BioNTech-‘Pfizer’ Vax Project Timeline
Robert Kogon
January 30, 2023

The bizarre Project Veritas “sting” videos that have gone ultra-viral on Twitter have undoubtedly confused the public even more. But the actual developer and owner of the so-called “Pfizer” COVID-19 vaccine is the German company BioNTech. The underlying mRNA technology belongs to BioNTech and—supposing this has been happening at all—if any company has been modifying mRNA to encode for a homebrewed variant of the virus, it would have to be BioNTech.

Be that as it may, as discussed in my last article, although BioNTech CEO Ugur Sahin claims in the book “The Vaccine” that BioNTech launched its COVID-19 vaccine project on Jan. 27, 2020, we know this is not true: a BioNTech study report released in response to an FOIA request shows that the company had already in fact begun preclinical (animal) testing on Jan. 14.

This is already astonishing enough, since Jan. 14, 2020 was only 2 weeks after the first report of COVID-19 cases in Wuhan. On that very day, moreover, the WHO was saying that there was no “clear evidence” of human-to-human transmission. (See WHO tweet here.) Why in the world would BioNTech begin work on a COVID-19 vaccine without clear evidence of human-to-human transmission?

At this point, Pfizer was not part of BioNTech’s C-19 vaccine project. As narrated in “The Vaccine,” the small German company, which had never had any product on the market, only succeeded in recruiting the American multinational as partner three months later (p. 156).

So, we know that BioNTech began preclinical testing on Jan. 14. But, of course, this means that the project as such must have been launched even earlier. The formulation being tested had to be produced first. In this case, that meant first manufacturing the mRNA and then formulating it in lipid nanoparticles.

As touched upon in my last article, this was in fact the purpose of the study: to test the performance of BioNTech mRNA formulated in lipids made by the Canadian company Acuitas. BioNTech was not yet able to manufacture mRNA encoding for any element of the SARS-CoV-2 virus—the full genome had only been published the day before—and instead used mRNA encoding for a proxy antigen (luciferase).

So how long would it take to get the formulation ready for testing? Thankfully, Sahin’s book, which is coauthored by his wife Özlem Türeci and the journalist Joe Miller, provides relevant technical and logistical details. According to the book, manufacturing the mRNA—a process involving “tens of thousands of steps” (p. 182)—takes five days (pp. 170 and 171).

Five days brings us then to Jan. 9. But the mRNA had still to be wrapped in the lipids, and this involved a particular logistical problem: BioNTech could not do this itself at its headquarters in Mainz, Germany.

BioNTech had its own in-house lipids, but they were found not suitable for purpose. To get the mRNA wrapped in the Acuitas lipids, the mRNA had to be shipped to an Austrian subcontractor by the name of Polymun outside Vienna.

The mRNA was transported by car—an 8-hour drive, according to Sahin and Türeci—then formulated in the lipids by Polymun, and then the formulation was driven back to Mainz. In the book, Sahin and Türeci describe a batch of mRNA for a subsequent animal study being completed on March 2, being shipped to Polymun, and then returning to Mainz wrapped in the lipids on March 9 (pp. 116 and 123).

So, this adds another 5 days, which would bring us now to Jan. 4. But, as it so happens, BioNTech did not conduct the animal testing itself. This too was subcontracted and conducted at testing facilities elsewhere. In “The Vaccine,” Sahin and Türeci note that the later preclinical study began on March 11, 2 days after delivery of the lipid-encapsulated mRNA.

Adding another 2 days to our timeline brings us now to Jan. 2. January 2, 2020 was not two weeks, but merely two days after the first report of COVID-19 cases in Wuhan on Dec. 31, 2019.

But before it could be manufactured, needless to say, the formulation to be tested had first to be conceived and designed; and contact had to be made with Polymun and Acuitas to obtain the required permissions and arrange for the required collaboration. All of this takes time.

There is no avoiding the conclusion that BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine project must in fact have started before any COVID-19 cases had even been reported! The obvious question is: How is this possible?
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
THANK YOU FOR THIS! I listened once casually, I hope to relisten and take notes when I have more time to concentrate. He starts off discussing the Pfizer guy on the Veritas video. He said they guy didn't know what he was talking about - I don't know if that points to the guy faking it (as he claimed in the 2nd video) or the guy just being an idiot. I think it may be the latter. He got pretty technical about why what the guy was saying couldn't happen. They moved on to there to go over his theories etc. They didn't discuss China but he did talk about the variants and that his predicted variant hasn't happened yet. Since they were talking about the Veritas video, it was recorded in the last few days, but I don't know if it was recorded before Igor's substack or if he even read it. Definitely recommend everyone listen to it. Geert is still the most qualified, educated vaccinologist out there talking about covid imho. Scariest part was that he said once Omicron happened, there's no going back, man has messed with nature (my words, not his).

HD


Here are my notes from the first 11 minutes, this is the part in their conversation where they discuss the Veritas video. Please forgive any typos, I'm not that fast a typist!


Dr. Alexander starts out asking Geert what he thought of the Veritas video.

When he saw the video it was so hilarious, he was stunned, people contacted him and asked him what he thought. How easily scientists get distracted by what's going on. What is worrisome are the circulating variants. The types of experimentation the guy on video was talking about - what is wrong with our medical and biological education - scientist should have realized that the experiments he was talking about was complete nonsense. It would never work. You can infect monkeys etc to adapt a virus to another species, but he was talking about selecting phenotype and you can proactively make a vaccine against it to have comparative advantage. How stupid could he be, to not realize, it's not just about generating variants, they need to be selected. A selected criteria is from the immune pressure from antibodies. And you need to expand that variant. If just 5 % exerts pressure it will never become dominant variant. So without clear selection criteria (which he didn't have with the monkeys, they weren't immunized to exert pressure) and how would the variant propagate in the population to become dominant. It's hilarious.

What isn't hilarious is how easily we get distracted from the real issue. The real issues are the circulating variants that continue to evolve, none of our health officials knows where this is going. Nobody seems to know where this is going. So stories from Pfizer is just grist for the mill of conspiracy theories which is bad because conspiracy theories are bad..that it's all set up to be like this, all planned.etc. Geert never expresses his opinion on this, he is trying to stay scientific. If you approach from only scientific angle, it's complete bullshit what the guy was telling. He was drunk or whatever. If this the kind of employee that Pfizer thinks is going to move the vaccine forward it speaks volumes about the standards of the company. It's unbelievable that he had a position like he has. You could see this guy has no clue about vaxx, immunology, biology let alone virology or evolutionary biology. He made no sense.

Unfortunately this distracts the whole world and right now we need to stay focused on the circulating variants that continue to evolve and no one knows where this is going. It will ultimately result in more virulent variants. Geert has a new book coming out and it is clearly saying and showing based on immune pressure that the population is exerting on the virus, how it will evolve, it won't stop. Unfortunately. The symptoms are hidden right now because vaxxed are protected against severe disease and against covid altogether. But the immune mechanism is fragile and the virus is already in the process of overcoming this. This is like silence before tsunami, society will be caught by surprise. All the measures are relaxed, health authorities are trying to make people think we are building herd immunity and going to endemic phase, and this is going against the science. So concentrate on this, not on this young guy jerk, nothing is what he was saying made any sense. It was rubbish, a waste of time.
 

Zoner

Veteran Member
Here are my notes from the first 11 minutes, this is the part in their conversation where they discuss the Veritas video. Please forgive any typos, I'm not that fast a typist!


Dr. Alexander starts out asking Geert what he thought of the Veritas video.

When he saw the video it was so hilarious, he was stunned, people contacted him and asked him what he thought. How easily scientists get distracted by what's going on. What is worrisome are the circulating variants. The types of experimentation the guy on video was talking about - what is wrong with our medical and biological education - scientist should have realized that the experiments he was talking about was complete nonsense. It would never work. You can infect monkeys etc to adapt a virus to another species, but he was talking about selecting phenotype and you can proactively make a vaccine against it to have comparative advantage. How stupid could he be, to not realize, it's not just about generating variants, they need to be selected. A selected criteria is from the immune pressure from antibodies. And you need to expand that variant. If just 5 % exerts pressure it will never become dominant variant. So without clear selection criteria (which he didn't have with the monkeys, they weren't immunized to exert pressure) and how would the variant propagate in the population to become dominant. It's hilarious.

What isn't hilarious is how easily we get distracted from the real issue. The real issues are the circulating variants that continue to evolve, none of our health officials knows where this is going. Nobody seems to know where this is going. So stories from Pfizer is just grist for the mill of conspiracy theories which is bad because conspiracy theories are bad..that it's all set up to be like this, all planned.etc. Geert never expresses his opinion on this, he is trying to stay scientific. If you approach from only scientific angle, it's complete bullshit what the guy was telling. He was drunk or whatever. If this the kind of employee that Pfizer thinks is going to move the vaccine forward it speaks volumes about the standards of the company. It's unbelievable that he had a position like he has. You could see this guy has no clue about vaxx, immunology, biology let alone virology or evolutionary biology. He made no sense.

Unfortunately this distracts the whole world and right now we need to stay focused on the circulating variants that continue to evolve and no one knows where this is going. It will ultimately result in more virulent variants. Geert has a new book coming out and it is clearly saying and showing based on immune pressure that the population is exerting on the virus, how it will evolve, it won't stop. Unfortunately. The symptoms are hidden right now because vaxxed are protected against severe disease and against covid altogether. But the immune mechanism is fragile and the virus is already in the process of overcoming this. This is like silence before tsunami, society will be caught by surprise. All the measures are relaxed, health authorities are trying to make people think we are building herd immunity and going to endemic phase, and this is going against the science. So concentrate on this, not on this young guy jerk, nothing is what he was saying made any sense. It was rubbish, a waste of time.
What a great service HD. TY. I haven't listened yet but will today. I hear humility in Geert saying in your notes that NO ONE knows where this is going and when, except the science is saying it is heading into a very bad place. He is right to say that the authorities are proclaiming "it's over". Biden today said May 11 will be the last day of the emergency.

So Geert likens this moment in time to what happens right before a big tsunami hits...wow. That about sums it up...
 

Oreally

Right from the start

It's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives | Opinion​


Kevin Bass

7–9 minutes



As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.

I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.

I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.

But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.

What we did not properly appreciate is that preferences determine how scientific expertise is used, and that our preferences might be—indeed, our preferences were—very different from many of the people that we serve. We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data. And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil.

We made science a team sport, and in so doing, we made it no longer science. It became us versus them, and "they" responded the only way anyone might expect them to: by resisting.

We excluded important parts of the population from policy development and castigated critics, which meant that we deployed a monolithic response across an exceptionally diverse nation, forged a society more fractured than ever, and exacerbated longstanding heath and economic disparities.

Our emotional response and ingrained partisanship prevented us from seeing the full impact of our actions on the people we are supposed to serve. We systematically minimized the downsides of the interventions we imposed—imposed without the input, consent, and recognition of those forced to live with them. In so doing, we violated the autonomy of those who would be most negatively impacted by our policies: the poor, the working class, small business owners, Blacks and Latinos, and children. These populations were overlooked because they were made invisible to us by their systematic exclusion from the dominant, corporatized media machine that presumed omniscience.

Most of us did not speak up in support of alternative views, and many of us tried to suppress them. When strong scientific voices like world-renowned Stanford professors John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and Scott Atlas, or University of California San Francisco professors Vinay Prasad and Monica Gandhi, sounded the alarm on behalf of vulnerable communities, they faced severe censure by relentless mobs of critics and detractors in the scientific community—often not on the basis of fact but solely on the basis of differences in scientific opinion.

When former President Trump pointed out the downsides of intervention, he was dismissed publicly as a buffoon. And when Dr. Antony Fauci opposed Trump and became the hero of the public health community, we gave him our support to do and say what he wanted, even when he was wrong.

Trump was not remotely perfect, nor were the academic critics of consensus policy. But the scorn that we laid on them was a disaster for public trust in the pandemic response. Our approach alienated large segments of the population from what should have been a national, collaborative project.

And we paid the price. The rage of the those marginalized by the expert class exploded onto and dominated social media. Lacking the scientific lexicon to express their disagreement, many dissidents turned to conspiracy theories and a cottage industry of scientific contortionists to make their case against the expert class consensus that dominated the pandemic mainstream.

Labeling this speech "misinformation" and blaming it on "scientific illiteracy" and "ignorance," the government conspired with Big Tech to aggressively suppress it, erasing the valid political concerns of the government's opponents.

And this despite the fact that pandemic policy was created by a razor-thin sliver of American society who anointed themselves to preside over the working class—members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech, and public health, who are highly educated and privileged. From the comfort of their privilege, this elite prizes paternalism, as opposed to average Americans who laud self-reliance and whose daily lives routinely demand that they reckon with risk. That many of our leaders neglected to consider the lived experience of those across the class divide is unconscionable.

Incomprehensible to us due to this class divide, we severely judged lockdown critics as lazy, backwards, even evil. We dismissed as "grifters" those who represented their interests. We believed "misinformation" energized the ignorant, and we refused to accept that such people simply had a different, valid point of view.

We crafted policy for the people without consulting them. If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.

Instead, we have witnessed a massive and ongoing loss of life in America due to distrust of vaccines and the healthcare system; a massive concentration in wealth by already wealthy elites; a rise in suicides and gun violence especially among the poor; a near-doubling of the rate of depression and anxiety disorders especially among the young; a catastrophic loss of educational attainment among already disadvantaged children; and among those most vulnerable, a massive loss of trust in healthcare, science, scientific authorities, and political leaders more broadly.

My motivation for writing this is simple: It's clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.

It's OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That's a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.

Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices.

Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.

Kevin Bass is an MD/PhD student at a medical school in Texas. He is in his 7th year.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
wow. go read the comments to this article. this guy deserves accolades for standing up to the mob.
 

vector7

Dot Collector

Zoner

Veteran Member
Halfway through the Geert interview and he said he believes the tsunami will hit within the next two months.
He said that the highly contagious variants will cause high virulence among those with weak immune systems which those who have been vaccinated have.
ETA: He also said that the unvaccinated that were infected with Omicron will never catch Covid again!!! How about that?!?!
 
Last edited:

Chance

Veteran Member
I found the information in this article shocking - increased body temperature in corpses and spike proteins found in skin lesions. Japan is connecting the dots to the vaccine roll out. (Sorry if a dup - this thread is huge)

Investigators in Japan are raising the alarm over the spike in sudden deaths and believe they have discovered a link behind the soaring excess fatality rates. They report low cases of Covid-19 and Covid-19 death before the vaccine rollout - now the numbers are some of the highest in the world.


"Two renowned Japanese medical professors are leading the investigations into rising numbers of unexpected non-Covid deaths that have been seen in Japan and other nations around the world.

Professor Masataka Nagao of Hiroshima University School of Medicine and Professor Shigetoshi Sano of Kochi University School of Medicine are investigating the link between the spike in sudden deaths and the rollout of Covid shots.

The researchers believe they have identified a pattern following their examinations of the bodies of people who have died after being vaccinated.

Professor Nagao, a medical specialist in forensic medicine, performs autopsies, together with Japanese authorities, of more than a hundred bodies a year.

During his analysis of the people who died following vaccination, Nagao focused on a particular pattern.

While performing autopsies on vaccinated people, authorities have been reporting unusual inconsistencies.

They found that the vaccinated bodies had temperatures of over 100 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius).


According to Nagao, this increase in temperature is a cause for concern.

“The first concern was that the body temperatures of the corpses were very high when the police performed the autopsy,” Nagao said.

“The body temperatures were unusually high, such as 33 or 34 degrees celsius (91-93ºF).”

“Normally, at the stage of the autopsy, body temperatures are in the 20s (68 F) or lower,” he explains.

Graphing the data, Nagao’s research team found there were significant changes to the genetic makeup of vaccinated autopsied patients’ immune systems.

The research has led Nagao to conclude the vaccine causes immune system abnormalities that prompt inflammation throughout the body.

The professor notes that this is likely the cause of the high body temperatures at the time of the autopsy.

Nagao states that, while his findings haven’t proved that the shots are the cause of the spike in sudden deaths, his research suggests a link between the shots and the excess fatalities.

“Based on the data and the circumstances alone, it is not possible to conclude that the vaccine was the cause of the deaths,” said Prof. Nagao.

“However, it is impossible to say that the vaccine was not the cause.

“We can only say that it is doubtful, but we believe that vaccination was sufficiently related to the immune abnormalities.”

Similarly, research by dermatology Professor Sano describes the discovery of spike proteins near the site of skin lesions and other skin disorders in vaccinated patients.

“The spike protein derived from the vaccine was found in the skin,”
Sano explained.

“Spike proteins are locally suppressing the immune system,” Sano told reporters.

“As a result, the spike proteins facilitate in reactivation of the herpesvirus.”

“The function of the spike proteins to produce adverse reactions is the formation of blood clots,” he added.

“And even worse, spike proteins can also locally induce inflammation.

“I don’t know if I should say this, but it has been found that vaccinated people are more likely to get coronavirus than unvaccinated people.”

“Sometimes, things that are not good are introduced into the human body,” he warned.

“Vaccination may cause our overall immune system to fail to fight against such bad things.”
Also, Japan is one of the countries with the highest rates of vaccinations and masking in the world.

However, Japan also has the highest rate of COVID-19 cases.


“Can anyone explain the Japan Paradox?” said Dr. Amitav Banerjee, formerly a field epidemiologist in Armed Forces and headed the Epidemic Investigation Team at AFMC from 2000 to 2004.

“Before rollout, there were hardly any cases and deaths,” Banerjee added while highlighting two graphs of data.

 
Last edited:

Chance

Veteran Member
A bit more on Geert Bossche from Steven Lamb's newletter:

Twenty plus years ago I invested in a local Pasadena biotech start up that was working on a mRNA vaccine. The mammal tests were conducted by Dr. Geert VanDenBossche who has gone on to supervise 88% of the mammal trials of mRNA vaccines. The outcome of the trial was devastating, the ferrets all died early or either sudden heart attack, blood clots damaging organs or complete immune dysfunction. The disease protection waned quickly, and the more shots that were given the ferrets to keep up disease immunity the more quickly the ferrets met their deaths. That financial loss literally saved my and my wifes lives. I think of it as the best money I ever spent. Because of that financial loss I have kept up my reading on mRNA treatments in the following years. They all have the same catastrophic results. I knew this, but what’s important here is that Dr. Fauci, the CDC, the FDA all and each had a RESPONSIBILITY to know this. Both President Trump and then President Biden had a responsibility to find this out. Especially President Biden who MANDATED these “vaccines”.

 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Halfway through the Geert interview and he said he believes the tsunami will hit within the next two months.
He said that the highly contagious variants will cause high virulence among those with weak immune systems which those who have been vaccinated have.
ETA: He also said that the unvaccinated that were infected with Omicron will never catch Covid again!!! How about that?!?!

I haven't gotten to the rest of the interview to take notes, but do recall him saying this. I'm not sure he's correct, I know unvaxxed who had omicron more than once. It was mild, maybe he should've qualified that if they did get it again, it would be mild. Remember the interview he did a few months back with the man who owned his own lab in a SE Asian country (taiwan?) who was unvaxxed and would sleep with symptomatic infected women on purpose to see how he reacted to them and if he'd catch it from them? He did come back with positive tests the next day but only for a few hours to a day and then it would go away, and he'd be asymptomatic. That was one of the better Geert interviews, it's somewhere on this thread but wouldn't know how to find it now.

HD
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
A bit more on Geert Bossche from Steven Lamb's newletter:

Twenty plus years ago I invested in a local Pasadena biotech start up that was working on a mRNA vaccine. The mammal tests were conducted by Dr. Geert VanDenBossche who has gone on to supervise 88% of the mammal trials of mRNA vaccines. The outcome of the trial was devastating, the ferrets all died early or either sudden heart attack, blood clots damaging organs or complete immune dysfunction. The disease protection waned quickly, and the more shots that were given the ferrets to keep up disease immunity the more quickly the ferrets met their deaths.


WOW.

This is the first I'm reading about Geert doing research on MRNA vaccines. And 88% percent of mammal trials on MRNA vaccines were conducted by Geert? Why are we just hearing about this now?!

Geert has spoken about doing vaccine research and working at GAVI and working with Bill Gates, after all he is a vaccinologist and that's why he's an expert. But I don't remember him ever saying he worked on MRNA. Malone has spoken about his past work on MRNA, but this is the first I hear it about Geert.

At first I wondered if Steven Lamb got the vaccine type confused and that study was using regular type (live attentuated) coronavirus vaccines. We all heard about those studies, that that type vaccine didn't work for coronaviruses and all the ferrets died when they got reexposed to coronaviruses. And that's why they went with MRNA for this outbreak. Or if he got the scientist wrong and it wasn't Geert. It was over 20 years ago, why would he remember the name of the vaccinologist doing the study? Maybe someone has already asked Steven Lamb in the comments to his substack, I haven't read them all yet, or if not, if anyone here can ask him if they are a substack member (I am not so don't think I can comment).

But then I got to thinking, what if Steven Lamb didn't confuse what type of vaccine the study (and GEERT!) used? What if it was an MRNA vaccine, I checked and MRNA was around back then. I don't know how long Geert has been doing vaccinology work, but it's conceivable he was doing it 20 years ago (?). What made me think that this was in fact an MRNA study is that Mr. Lamb didn't say the ferrets got deathly sick after reexposure (ADE), he said they died from clotting issues and immune dysfunction - exactly what's mysteriously happening now. The implications of this are huge. No, I'm not implying Geert is a plant/controlled opposition. (some have accused him of this in the past when they accused Malone - perhaps this is why?). What I'm implying is that IF it was in fact an MRNA vaccine study and IF it was Geert doing this research - two very big "ifs" - then Geert really knows his stuff and has way more knowledge of what these vaccines can do than he's been letting on. Maybe he signed a non-disclosure agreement so he legally can't discuss this aspect of the vaccine and instead focused his warning on the dangers of vaccinating into a pandemic and the immune pressure it causes, instead of these ferret studies so he could get the warning out, especially because his name attached to the warning will remind those who knew about the research how dangerous it really is. Geert has been so careful to limit his discussion to immune pressure from vaccinating into a pandemic - staying clear of the dangers of the vaccine itself. He hasn't gone there, he stays very focused. Could it be a gag order that came with that position?

Zoner, can you forward that article to his twitter and see if you can elicit a comment? I would love to hear this question asked of him.

Speaking of which, in that interview with Dr. Alexander, Geert did say he has a book about to be published. If so, he's going to be doing the interview rounds. I hope someone picks up that substack article and asks him about in an interview. I think Del Bigtree would be the perfect person to ask him about it. He has the gravitas and the knowledge to 'go there' with him on this.

WOW again. Thank you Chance for finding that and posting it. The Japanese study article was also fascinating, that the corpses have elevated body temperature. That should also be headline news and probably won't see the light of day in the msm.

HD

ETA: thinking about this and Geert's comments in yesterday's video to Paul Alexander where he was laughing at the Veritas video of the Pfizer scientist and his "study" with the monkeys. If Steven Lamb is correct and not confused about any of this, and if it is therefore true, Geert certainly would have reason to laugh at someone else's experiments if they're not being done to the standards he was using.... he truly is an EXPERT on MRNA in mammals. WOW WOW WOW. We have to get to the bottom of this!!!
 
Last edited:

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


The Title 42 Covid ban at the southern border may end on May 11
Julia Ainsley and Carol E. Lee - NBC News
Wed, February 1, 2023, 12:19 PM EST

President Joe Biden’s decision to lift the public health emergency for Covid-19 on May 11, ending free tests and treatment for millions of Americans, may also mean the end for a controversial border policy that has been tied up in the nation’s highest court.

A White House official told NBC News on Tuesday that if the courts allow it, the Biden administration plans to roll back the Covid ban known as Title 42 on May 11. That means the end of the policy could come before the Supreme Court has ruled on a suit by Republican-led states seeking to keep it in place.

Since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first invoked the Title 42 Covid ban during the Trump administration in March 2020, border agents have used it to deny migrants the right to enter the U.S. to claim asylum more than 2.3 million times.

Policymakers of both parties as well as Department of Homeland Security officials have widely predicted a large increase in the number of migrants crossing the border when the policy lifts, adding to the already record high of border encounters seen in the past year.

The Title 42 policy, as written, states that it may be lifted when the “public health emergency” is officially over or “the CDC Director determines that the danger of further introduction of Covid-19 into the United States has declined such that continuation of the order is no longer necessary to protect public health.”

The Biden administration previously tried lifting Title 42 via such a CDC order, which led to the lawsuit from Republican states, but will now be ending the policy by letting the public health emergency declaration expire on May 11.

A legal expert close to the case said that the Republican states might see that as an opportunity to sue again, arguing that this second path for lifting Title 42 also violates their rights. The expert said oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the first suit are still slated for March 1 and could have an impact on whether states try to block the administration’s latest push to lift the policy.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not comment on whether the Biden administration would change its legal position in the lawsuit now before the court based on the plans to lift the public health emergency.

To complicate matters, House Republicans voted Tuesday night to lift the public health emergency for Covid immediately rather than waiting until May 11.

The vote was a Catch-22 for Republicans, who want public health restrictions to end inside the U.S. while keeping restrictions on migrants at the border.

If the bill were to pass the Senate, which is unlikely, it would have the unintended effect of making it possible for the Biden administration to end Title 42 even sooner.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


CDC Aware of Reports of ‘Debilitating Illnesses’ After COVID-19 Vaccination: Official

Zachary Stieber
Feb 1 2023

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials are aware of reports of long-lasting problems following COVID-19 vaccination, an official recently disclosed.

“With respect to reports of people experiencing debilitating illnesses, we are aware of these reports of people experiencing long-lasting health problems following COVID vaccination,” Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, said on Jan. 26.

“In some cases, the clinical presentation of people suffering these health problems is variable and no specific medical cause for the symptoms have been found,” Shimabukuro added. “We understand that illness is disruptive and stressful, especially under those circumstances. And we acknowledge these health problems have substantially impacted the quality of life for people and have also affected those around them. And we hope for improvement and recovery, and we will continue to monitor the safety of these vaccines and work with partners to try to better understand these types of adverse events.”

Shimabukuro was speaking during a Jan. 26 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) meeting that discussed COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Dr. Hayley Gans, a pediatrics professor at Stanford University Medical Center, had asked how federal authorities were tracking problems that have cropped up after vaccination and might not be “amenable” to rapid cycle analysis, or one way of monitoring vaccine safety.

Shimabukuro noted that any person, including health care workers, can submit reports of adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which the CDC manages, “and we accept all those reports without judging the clinical seriousness or how plausible the adverse event may be with respect to causation.” Other systems also monitor safety beyond the rapid analysis, he added.

“We take vaccine safety very seriously,” Shimabukuro said.

Shimabukuro’s comments are unusual among federal officials, who have been reluctant to connect adverse events with the COVID-19 vaccines.

Brianne Dressen, who was injured by AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine, said that the response was welcome but wondered whether it was enough.

“This was an unprecedented move but also was a carefully worded response. Instead of a little whisper in an FDA meeting, this really needs to be communicated to the medical community,” Dressen, co-founder of the support group React19, told The Epoch Times in an email. “They have said these very words to us privately so it’s good they are finally leaning in the right direction to start the conversation publicly, but is it too little too late?”

“Injured Americans have been begging these agencies for acknowledgement for over two years. This small utterance should have happened long ago. By now we should be openly discussing and researching these Covid vaccine reactions,” she added.

Few Events Acknowledged

U.S. officials have only acknowledged a handful of serious adverse events as being caused by one or more COVID-19 vaccines.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine causes a combination of low platelet levels and blood clotting known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, the CDC says on its website. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines cause severe allergic shock, or anaphylaxis, as well as a type of heart inflammation called myocarditis.

The CDC and FDA primarily monitor safety by examining data from surveillance systems to see whether adverse events are happening at high rates.

Both agencies have withheld or delayed disclosure of the results of some of the monitoring.

Hundreds of events met the safety signal criteria in VAERS, according to CDC records recently obtained by The Epoch Times. The CDC pointed to studies showing research is being done on some of the signals. It has also said the CDC analyses were done to corroborate results from analyses the FDA performed and that the CDC analyses revealed “no additional unexpected safety signals.” The FDA has refused to release the results from its analyses. A lawsuit was filed for the records on Jan. 26.

Another system, called V-safe, features surveys sent to Americans who received a COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC knew that some serious events like myocarditis could be linked to the vaccines but chose to leave those events off of the surveys, newly disclosed documents showed.

Nicole G., a nurse who was injured by a Pfizer vaccine she received due to a vaccine mandate and asked that her full last name not be used, told The Epoch Times in an email that the CDC did not prioritize patient safety, pointing to the delay in conducting the VAERS analyses and the fact that vaccine recipients were not told about the adverse events authorities were expecting after vaccination.

“The censorship around the COVID vaccine has left us suffering and dying in silence with limited access to treatment,” the nurse said.

While Shimabukuro claimed that “no specific medical cause” was found for some of the injuries after vaccination, doctors have diagnosed Dressen, Nicole, and others with vaccine injuries, and medical literature has linked the vaccines with a range of issues.

Nicole called on the CDC to implement a plan to change the situation. “You need to do more than hope,” she said.

The nurse spoke during the public comment portion of the recent meeting, along with multiple others who said they were left injured by the vaccines.

“The only thing more humiliating than losing my bodily function is your complete disregard for the vaccine injured,” Danielle Baker, one of the speakers, said.

The CDC and FDA say that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweigh their risks for all ages. That includes the updated vaccines, which were authorized in the fall of 2022 without any clinical data and are set to replace the old vaccines soon.

“I think that the reassuring thing has been the safety profile that we have seen with the bivalent boosters, it mirrors very well the original vaccine,” Dr. Peter Marks, a top vaccine official at the FDA, said during the meeting.

In another portion of the meeting, Shimabukuro said the government’s identification of a stroke signal for the bivalents demonstrated that “the safety system works.”

“I think the public and the medical community should be confident that the government has the systems in place to rapidly detect potential safety problems and assess them,” he said. “And we place a priority on communicating in a timely and transparent manner.”
 

psychgirl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I haven't gotten to the rest of the interview to take notes, but do recall him saying this. I'm not sure he's correct, I know unvaxxed who had omicron more than once. It was mild, maybe he should've qualified that if they did get it again, it would be mild. Remember the interview he did a few months back with the man who owned his own lab in a SE Asian country (taiwan?) who was unvaxxed and would sleep with symptomatic infected women on purpose to see how he reacted to them and if he'd catch it from them? He did come back with positive tests the next day but only for a few hours to a day and then it would go away, and he'd be asymptomatic. That was one of the better Geert interviews, it's somewhere on this thread but wouldn't know how to find it now.

HD
No! I don’t remember what that was….I’d like to read it though!
 

Zoner

Veteran Member

WOW.

This is the first I'm reading about Geert doing research on MRNA vaccines. And 88% percent of mammal trials on MRNA vaccines were conducted by Geert? Why are we just hearing about this now?!

Geert has spoken about doing vaccine research and working at GAVI and working with Bill Gates, after all he is a vaccinologist and that's why he's an expert. But I don't remember him ever saying he worked on MRNA. Malone has spoken about his past work on MRNA, but this is the first I hear it about Geert.

At first I wondered if Steven Lamb got the vaccine type confused and that study was using regular type (live attentuated) coronavirus vaccines. We all heard about those studies, that that type vaccine didn't work for coronaviruses and all the ferrets died when they got reexposed to coronaviruses. And that's why they went with MRNA for this outbreak. Or if he got the scientist wrong and it wasn't Geert. It was over 20 years ago, why would he remember the name of the vaccinologist doing the study? Maybe someone has already asked Steven Lamb in the comments to his substack, I haven't read them all yet, or if not, if anyone here can ask him if they are a substack member (I am not so don't think I can comment).

But then I got to thinking, what if Steven Lamb didn't confuse what type of vaccine the study (and GEERT!) used? What if it was an MRNA vaccine, I checked and MRNA was around back then. I don't know how long Geert has been doing vaccinology work, but it's conceivable he was doing it 20 years ago (?). What made me think that this was in fact an MRNA study is that Mr. Lamb didn't say the ferrets got deathly sick after reexposure (ADE), he said they died from clotting issues and immune dysfunction - exactly what's mysteriously happening now. The implications of this are huge. No, I'm not implying Geert is a plant/controlled opposition. (some have accused him of this in the past when they accused Malone - perhaps this is why?). What I'm implying is that IF it was in fact an MRNA vaccine study and IF it was Geert doing this research - two very big "ifs" - then Geert really knows his stuff and has way more knowledge of what these vaccines can do than he's been letting on. Maybe he signed a non-disclosure agreement so he legally can't discuss this aspect of the vaccine and instead focused his warning on the dangers of vaccinating into a pandemic and the immune pressure it causes, instead of these ferret studies so he could get the warning out, especially because his name attached to the warning will remind those who knew about the research how dangerous it really is. Geert has been so careful to limit his discussion to immune pressure from vaccinating into a pandemic - staying clear of the dangers of the vaccine itself. He hasn't gone there, he stays very focused. Could it be a gag order that came with that position?

Zoner, can you forward that article to his twitter and see if you can elicit a comment? I would love to hear this question asked of him.

Speaking of which, in that interview with Dr. Alexander, Geert did say he has a book about to be published. If so, he's going to be doing the interview rounds. I hope someone picks up that substack article and asks him about in an interview. I think Del Bigtree would be the perfect person to ask him about it. He has the gravitas and the knowledge to 'go there' with him on this.

WOW again. Thank you Chance for finding that and posting it. The Japanese study article was also fascinating, that the corpses have elevated body temperature. That should also be headline news and probably won't see the light of day in the msm.

HD

ETA: thinking about this and Geert's comments in yesterday's video to Paul Alexander where he was laughing at the Veritas video of the Pfizer scientist and his "study" with the monkeys. If Steven Lamb is correct and not confused about any of this, and if it is therefore true, Geert certainly would have reason to laugh at someone else's experiments if they're not being done to the standards he was using.... he truly is an EXPERT on MRNA in mammals. WOW WOW WOW. We have to get to the bottom of this!!!
My thoughts: We know Geert is pro-vaccine. He's been all about it all his life. Of course that would include experimental studies of new vaccines on mice and ferrets etc. We know mRNA has been around for a long time which is why Big Pharma was ready with shots in no time. So I have no problem with Geert experimenting with novel vaccines. Yes, it does make him extremely knowledgeable about this aspect of the clot shots. It's no doubt why he has stood up and openly opposed it. He knew from experience what mRNA did. I think he had to be shocked they were going to use it on humans. His work resume is available. People could see he has been at work on vaccines all his life. Thank God he stood up to say something, not only because you don't vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic, but because mRNA vaccines are dangerous, lethal and don't work. Because of his status in the medical community he took a great risk in standing up, but he was one of the few qualified to do so. Malone never did! NEVER did Geert approve of these shots, and from experience he is telling his peers....they don't work...I know...I experimented with them.
 

WOS

Veteran Member

More on the beneficial effects of eggs:

Chicken Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgYs) block the binding of multiple SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants to human ACE2​

Shuangshi Wei 1, Shengbao Duan 2, Xiaomei Liu 1, Hongmei Wang 1, Shaohua Ding 1, Yezhou Chen 1, Jinsong Xie 1, Jingjing Tian 1, Nong Yu 3, Pingju Ge 4, Xinglin Zhang 4, Xiaohong Chen 4, Yong Li 5, Qinglin Meng 6
Affiliations expand
Free PMC article

Abstract​

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is still spreading worldwide, and there is an urgent need to effectively prevent and control this pandemic. This study evaluated the potential efficacy of Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgY) as a neutralizing agent against the SARS-CoV-2. We investigated the neutralizing effect of anti-spike-S1 IgYs on the SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, as well as its inhibitory effect on the binding of the coronavirus spike protein mutants to human ACE2. Our results show that the anti-Spike-S1 IgYs showed significant neutralizing potency against SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, various spike protein mutants, and even SARS-CoV in vitro. It might be a feasible tool for the prevention and control of ongoing COVID-19.
Keywords: Chicken Egg Yolk Antibodies; IgY; Neutralizing agent; SARS-CoV-2; Spike protein variants.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Figures​

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Luminescence inhibition rate curve of…
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Competitive inhibition of the eight…

Similar articles​

See all similar articles

Cited by​

See all "Cited by" articles

References​

    1. Zhou P., et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020;579:270–273. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yan R., et al. Structural basis for the recognition of SARS-CoV-2 by full-length human ACE2. Science. 2020;367:1444–1448. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brouwer P.J.M., et al. Potent neutralizing antibodies from COVID-19 patients define multiple targets of vulnerability. Science. 2020 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cao X. COVID-19: immunopathology and its implications for therapy. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2020;20:269–270. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Klemperer F. Uber natirliche Immunitat und ihre Verwertung fur die Immunisierungs-therapie. Arch. Expl. Pathol. Pharmakol. 1893;31:356–382.
Show all 10 references

MeSH terms​

  • Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 / metabolism*
  • Animals
  • Antibodies, Neutralizing / metabolism*
  • Antibodies, Neutralizing / therapeutic use
  • COVID-19 / therapy*
  • Chickens / immunology*
  • Egg Yolk / metabolism*
  • Humans
  • Immunoglobulins / metabolism*
  • Immunoglobulins / therapeutic use
  • Mutation / genetics
  • Pandemics
  • Protein Binding
  • SARS-CoV-2 / genetics
  • SARS-CoV-2 / metabolism*
  • Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus / genetics
  • Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus / metabolism*

Substances​

  • Antibodies, Neutralizing
  • IgY
  • Immunoglobulins
  • Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
  • spike glycoprotein, SARS-CoV
  • ACE2 protein, human
  • Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2

Related information​

LinkOut - more resources​

 

psychgirl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I’m really fascinated with the egg yolk angle.

But for now, I don’t have the gumption of reading the technical “stuff”
It’s too overwhelming, and the m getting ready to leave.
Are they saying that it’s just the yolks show promise while testing or when people eat, the yolks?

Sorry for sounding lazy by not reading all of that right now because I DO appreciate any new information offered!
 

vector7

Dot Collector

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
More on the beneficial effects of eggs:

Chicken Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgYs) block the binding of multiple SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants to human ACE2​

Shuangshi Wei 1, Shengbao Duan 2, Xiaomei Liu 1, Hongmei Wang 1, Shaohua Ding 1, Yezhou Chen 1, Jinsong Xie 1, Jingjing Tian 1, Nong Yu 3, Pingju Ge 4, Xinglin Zhang 4, Xiaohong Chen 4, Yong Li 5, Qinglin Meng 6
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 virus is still spreading worldwide, and there is an urgent need to effectively prevent and control this pandemic. This study evaluated the potential efficacy of Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgY) as a neutralizing agent against the SARS-CoV-2. We investigated the neutralizing effect of anti-spike-S1 IgYs on the SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, as well as its inhibitory effect on the binding of the coronavirus spike protein mutants to human ACE2. Our results show that the anti-Spike-S1 IgYs showed significant neutralizing potency against SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, various spike protein mutants, and even SARS-CoV in vitro. It might be a feasible tool for the prevention and control of ongoing COVID-19.

(fair use applies)

So THAT'S why eggs are so deviled these days!
Next thing you know, eggs farms will be on fire. Oh, wait...

Jessica Rose
Feb 2

1
So this came to the attention of the inner worlds today. It is not new, but it is fresh! Just like those eggs those gorgeous chickens lay that we fry, poach and scramble. The article is entitled: “Chicken Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgYs) block the binding of multiple SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants to human ACE2” and it was published by a Chinese group in January 2021.

These IgY antibodies are amazing little guys! They don’t activate complement, they don’t activate rheumatoid factors in humans and so don’t aggravate the inflammatory responses! What they do do? They neutralize many pathogens including RSV (remember this when they push that new MRNA shot on you against RSV) including SARS-CoV-2 which has been shown both in vitro and in vivo.

2
IgY antibodies are found in birds, reptiles and lungfish, but especially in chicken egg yolks! How cool is that, eh? It’s basically the functional equivalent to human IgG.

Right to the bottom line we go!

Conclusions

In summary, the anti-Spike-S1 IgYs showed significant neutralizing potency against SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, various S mutants, and even SARS-CoV in vitro.​

And no conflicts of interest. I read the methods and they are as sound as any methodology. They checked multiple viruses, variations of the S protein competitive inhibition of ACE-2 binding and found that IgY competed real well for binding sites showing significant neutralizing (SARS pseudoviruses, anyway) ability.




So this is definitely an interesting line of investigation and I am glad that this and other groups are pursuing these studies.

Read about recent destruction of egg supplies here and here.

That’s all for now. We have an emergency on the roof. Damned storm wrecked our water boiler set up.


1
Wei S, Duan S, Liu X, Wang H, Ding S, Chen Y, Xie J, Tian J, Yu N, Ge P, Zhang X, Chen X, Li Y, Meng Q. Chicken Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgYs) block the binding of multiple SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants to human ACE2. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 Jan;90:107172. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.107172. Epub 2020 Nov 3. PMID: 33191178; PMCID: PMC7608017.

2
C. Fu, et al. Preparation and evaluation of anti-SARS coronavirus IgY from yolks of immunized SPF chickens. J. Virol. Methods, 133 (2006), pp. 112-115
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Guess they got concerned when they started tracking the UNVACCINATED...

BOMBSHELL REPORT: The Federal Government through a CDC-Designed Surveillance Program has began TRACKING UNVACCINATED AMERICANS Who Visit Their Doctor and Local Hospitals... Report REVEALS tracking began in April of 2022..

View: https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1621176780299059200?s=20&t=hbwxxmNPEhOG2K8O2fczmw

(fair use applies)


EXCLUSIVE: The Federal Government Is Tracking Unvaccinated People Who Go To The Doctor And To The Hospital Due to CDC-Designed Surveillance Program
'There is interest in being able to track people who are not immunized or only partially immunized'

by Patrick Howley
February 2, 2023

The U.S. federal government is tracking people who decided not to get the COVID-19 vaccine injection, according to bombshell federal government records and video exclusively obtained by NATIONAL FILE. According to the shocking video, unvaccinated people are quietly tracked when they go to the doctor’s office or to the hospital due to a quiet new program proposed and implemented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Government meeting materials make clear that the new program is designed to “track people who are not immunized or only partially immunized.”

A bombshell piece of information was revealed at the September 14-15, 2021 virtual Zoom meeting of the federal government’s ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee (which includes representatives from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known as CMS, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics). At the meeting, the Committee discussed new categories of “ICD-10” codes that the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) wanted to create to mark people as “Unvaccinated for COVID-19,” “Partially Vaccinated for COVID-19” and “Other underimmunization status.”

The ICD-10 coding system was created by the World Health Organization (WHO) and doctors are required to use it to categorize different kinds of patients. The ICD-10 codes are preserved in a patient’s electronic health record and used by insurance companies for billing purposes. The CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics maintains the ICD-10 codes. Within ICD-10 codes, there is a category known as “ICD-10-CM” codes (which are reportedly used by the CDC for tracking purposes), and this “CM” category includes the new “Unvaccinated for COVID-19” category and also the “Partially Vaccinated For COVID-19” category and the “other underimmunization status” category.

The Committee made it clear that the new codes would be used to “track” unvaccinated people. At the time of the meeting, people who had adverse reactions to a past vaccine would still be categorized as unvaccinated or partially vaccinated, even if they are physically unable to get more vaccines or boosters.

The CDC implemented the new codes to track unvaccinated people in April 2022, according to a document published on a CMS federal government website.

ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Commitee staffer David Berglund, M.D. read from page 194 of a CDC Topic Packet that was prepared for the meeting (READ THE CDC TOPIC PACKET HERE).

The Topic Packet states (emphasis added): “During the current time of the COVID-19 pandemic, immunizations have provided protection for many people, but there is interest in being able to track people who are not immunized or only partially immunized. At the current time, this is a significant modifiable risk factor for morbidity and mortality, and of interest for clinical reasons, as well as of value for public health. NCHS is proposing creation of codes for unvaccinated for COVID-19, and for partially vaccinated for COVID-19.”

“NCHS” stands for the National Center for Health Statistics, which is a U.S. federal government division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Here is footage from the meeting in which David Berglund discusses the new codes. NATIONAL FILE obtained this video from a password-protected government website.

CDC Plot To Track The Unvaccinated Revealed At September 2021 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting pic.twitter.com/0E5AaCmDAm
— National File (@NationalFile) February 1, 2023

Berglund stated, “Those are their proposed changes,” referring to the CDC’s NCHS division.

Here is page 194 of the Topic Packet for the meeting, which refers to “interest in being able to track people who are not immunized or only partially immunized.”

1675414118856.jpeg
screenshot from the virtual meeting showing the meeting packet

A commenter from Premier asked about patients who “may have had their first shot, had a really bad adverse reaction, and can’t get the second shot. Should there maybe be a code that indicates incomplete vaccination or unvaccinated due to contraindication?”

David Berglund replied, “Hmm. So that would essentially be, that could be “partially vaccinated,” or, well, in some cases people might be completely unvaccinated if they’ve had some history of a reaction to some types of vaccines. But essentially the thought would be that there would be a history of other reaction type code that would explain it. I’d have to look at how that might be done. We have not, at this point, proposed to have a separate way of coding that type of situation here. But there certainly could be interest in that. We can certainly look at that further.”

An NIH government website states: “ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes will tell the story of each patient encounter, describe etiologies of the disease process, explain the complications of care, provide a basis for medical necessity, support coverage for payment purposes, identify incidence of disease, and support statistical tracking for healthcare practices, as well as provide disease state information on medical practices across the continuum of care.”
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Merck Covid Drug Linked to New Virus Mutations, Study Says
John Lauerman
1 day ago

(Bloomberg) -- Merck & Co.’s Covid-19 pill is giving rise to new mutations of the virus in some patients, according to a study that underscores the risk of trying to intentionally alter the pathogen’s genetic code.

Some researchers worry the drug may create more contagious or health-threatening variations of Covid, which has killed more than 6.8 million people globally over the past three years.

Mutations linked to the use of Merck’s pill, Lagevrio, have been identified in viral samples taken from dozens of patients, according to a preprint study from researchers in the US and at the Francis Crick Institute, Imperial College London and other UK institutions.

The drug-linked mutations of the virus haven’t been shown to be more immune-evasive or lethal yet, according to the study published Friday without peer review on the medRxiv website. But their very existence highlights what some scientists say are potential risks in wider use of the drug, which was recently cleared in China.

Lagevrio works by creating mutations in the Covid genome that prevent the virus from replicating in the body, reducing the chances it will cause severe illness. Some scientists had warned before it was authorized in late 2021 that by virtue of how it works, the drug could give rise to mutations that could turn out to be problematic. The preprint paper has reawakened those worries about the Merck drug.

“There’s always been this underlying concern that it could contribute to a problem generating new variants,” said Jonathan Li, a virologist at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This has largely been hypothetical, but this preprint validates a lot of those concerns.”

Merck Response

Merck disputes the view that its drug is causing problematic variants.

“There is no evidence to indicate that any antiviral agent has contributed to the emergence of circulating variants,” Merck spokesman Robert Josephson said in an email in response to questions about the study. “Based on available data we do not believe that Lagevrio (molnupiravir) is likely to contribute to the development of new meaningful coronavirus variants.”

He said new mutations have emerged over the course of the pandemic due to the virus spreading uncontrollably and Lagevrio can form an important part of the solution, he said. Merck pointed to research done in animals that showed its drug didn’t cause mutations.

The study authors assume the mutations were associated with molnupiravir treatment, but don’t have direct proof that the mutations arose in patients who took their drug, Josephson said in a follow-up email. Instead, the researchers drew their conclusions from “circumstantial associations between viral sequence origin and timeframe of sequence collection in countries where molnupiravir is available,” Josephson said.

Merck fell as much as 1.2% in New York Wednesday, recovering some losses to close down 0.4%.

The US Food and Drug Administration, which authorized Lagevrio in late 2021, said it doesn’t comment on third-party research and works with Covid drugmakers to assess their products’ activity against variants.

Preprint

Major scientific journals don’t publish studies until the completion of a “peer review” process in which the research is scrutinized by outside experts. During the pandemic, scientists increasingly started publishing their research on what are known as “preprint servers” prior to exhaustive reviews, in attempt to advance the science more quickly and share urgent findings.

Researchers found Lagevrio-induced mutations in small patient clusters, indicating the new versions were spreading among them. While the biggest group they found with similar mutations was 21 people, that may not fully represent the true scope of the problem as viral samples of many patients aren’t analyzed, according to Ryan Hisner, an independent researcher from Indiana who helped write the paper.

The researchers looked at some 13 million viral genomes in databases around the world. The drug-linked mutations were proportionally more common in countries and groups where Lagevrio was likely to be used, especially the US and Australia, where it was introduced early. The signature mutations are less frequent in Canada, France, and other countries where the drug isn’t used.

“These effects are visible in these databases,” said Theo Sanderson, a Crick Institute geneticist who led the study. “It appears that people are being treated, some of them aren’t clearing their infections, and some are passing them on.”

The risk of drug-linked mutations is too great to continue using Merck’s drug, Hisner said. The US should explore authorizing drugs used in other countries to control Covid, like Xocova from Japan-based Shionogi & Co., and discontinue use of Lagevrio, said Michael Lin, a Stanford University antiviral drug researcher who said he consulted with the authors but wasn’t involved in the study. China cleared Lagevrio late last year and Shionogi said it’s in the final stages of discussions with the country’s regulators over its Covid drug.

“It’s a very distressing situation,” said Lin. “There’s no evidence that any of these mutants is worse in any way — not yet — but it’s well agreed that you’re playing with fire if you’re creating random mutations and hoping nothing bad will come of it.”

Sanderson declined to comment on whether doctors should continue using Merck’s drug, saying the study doesn’t address the issue.

Lingering concerns

Concerns about Lagevrio’s safety and effectiveness are longstanding. Health officials recommend against its use in pregnant women. In general, the drug shouldn’t be used when alternatives are available, according to the US National Institutes of Health.

Merck was encouraged by former Warp Speed science czar Moncef Slaoui to team up with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics LP to get the much-needed oral Covid pill ready for widespread use. Early results showed it cut the risk of hospitalization and death by about 50% in non-immunized people.

Subsequent studies have indicated it’s actually less effective than those early trials indicated. A study released in December showed that adding Lagevrio to standard care didn’t reduce hospitalizations or deaths in high-risk adults, although the time to recovery from symptoms was shortened by several days.

However, Covid treatment options are dwindling. Variants have mutated to evade Covid antibodies made by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Eli Lilly & Co. and Vir Biotechnology Inc. The last one to retain effectiveness, AstraZeneca Plc’s Evusheld, was just removed from the US market. That leaves few alternatives for Americans: just Paxlovid and Gilead Sciences Inc.’s remdesivir, which must be infused in three daily sessions as soon as someone is diagnosed.

Some patients aren’t eligible to take Paxlovid because it contains a component, called ritonavir, that has adverse interactions with therapies for other conditions like heart disease, that are common in people vulnerable to severe Covid.

Raymond Schinazi, an Emory University researcher, raised concerns about Merck’s drug early on in its development. He’d done his own research into it years ago before abandoning it.

He called for more monitoring to investigate whether the viruses with drug-linked mutations are having any impact after learning about the new study.

The preprint study is “an orange flag, not a red flag yet,” Schinazi said. “Proceed with caution.”

--With assistance from Robert Langreth and Nacha Cattan.

(Updates with additional Merck comment in second section.)
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Inside the Secret Government Meeting on COVID-19 Natural Immunity
Zachary Stieber
Feb 2 2023

Four of the highest ranking U.S. health officials—including Dr. Anthony Fauci—met in secret to discuss whether or not naturally immune people should be exempt from getting COVID-19 vaccines, The Epoch Times can reveal.

The officials brought in four outside experts to discuss whether the protection gained after recovering from COVID-19—known as natural immunity—should count as one or more vaccine doses.

“There was interest in several people in the administration in hearing basically the opinions of four immunologists in terms of what we thought about … natural infection as contributing to protection against moderate to severe disease, and to what extent that should influence dosing,” Dr. Paul Offit, one of the experts, told The Epoch Times.

Offit and another expert took the position that the naturally immune need fewer doses. The other two experts argued natural immunity shouldn’t count as anything.

The discussion did not lead to a change in U.S. vaccination policy, which has never acknowledged post-infection protection. Fauci and the other U.S. officials who heard from the experts have repeatedly downplayed that protection, claiming that it is inferior to vaccine-bestowed immunity. Most studies on the subject indicate the opposite.

The meeting, held in October 2021, was briefly discussed before on a podcast. The Epoch Times has independently confirmed the meeting took place, identified all of the participants, and uncovered other key details.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University who did not participate in the meeting, criticized how such a consequential discussion took place behind closed doors with only a few people present.

“It was a really impactful decision that they made in private with a very small number of people involved. And they reached the wrong decision,” Bhattacharya told The Epoch Times.

The Participants

From the government:

  • Fauci, the head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden until the end of 2022
  • Dr. Vivek Murthy, the U.S. surgeon general
  • Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the head of U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  • Dr. Francis Collins, head of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which includes the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, until December 2021
  • Dr. Bechara Choucair, the White House vaccine coordinator until November 2021

From outside the government:

  • Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an adviser to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on vaccines
  • Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota and a former member of Biden’s COVID-19 advisory board
  • Akiko Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology and molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at Yale University
  • Dr. Peter Hotez, co-director of Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development and dean of the Baylor College of Medicine’s School of Tropical Medicine

Fauci and Murthy decided to hold the meeting, according to emails The Epoch Times obtained.

“Would you be available tonight from 9-9:30 for a call with a few other scientific colleagues on infection-induced immunity? Tony and I just discussed and were hoping to do this sooner rather than later if possible,” Murthy wrote in one missive to Fauci, Walensky, and Collins.

All three quickly said they could make it.

Walensky asked who would be there.

Murthy listed the participants. “I think you know all of them right?” he said.

Walensky said she knew all but one person. “Sounds like a good crew,” she added.


‘Clear Benefit’

During the meeting, Offit put forth his position—that natural immunity should count as two doses.

At the time, the CDC recommended three shots—a two-dose primary series and a booster—for many Americans 18 and older, soon expanding that advice to all adults, even though trials of the boosters only analyzed immunogenicity and efficacy among those without evidence of prior infection.

Research indicated that natural immunity was long-lasting and superior to vaccination. On the other hand, the CDC published a paper in its quasi-journal that concluded vaccination was better.

Osterholm sided with Offit, but thought that having recovered from COVID-19 should only count as a single dose.

“I added my voice at the meeting to count an infection as equivalent to a dose of vaccine! I’ve always believed hybrid immunity likely provides the most protection,” Osterholm told The Epoch Times via email.

Hybrid immunity refers to getting a vaccine after recovering from COVID-19.

Some papers have found vaccination after recovery boosts antibodies, which are believed to be a correlate of protection. Other research has shown that the naturally immune have a higher risk of side effects than those who haven’t recovered from infection. Some experts believe the risk is worth the benefit but others do not.

Hotez and Iwasaki, meanwhile, made the case that natural immunity should not count as any dose—as has been the case in virtually the entire United States since the COVID-19 vaccines were first rolled out.

Iwasaki referred to a British preprint study, soon after published in Nature, that concluded, based on survey data, that the protection from the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines was heightened among people with evidence of prior infection. She also noted a study she worked on that found the naturally immune had higher antibody titers than the vaccinated, but that the vaccinated “reached comparable levels of neutralization responses to the ancestral strain after the second vaccine dose.” The researchers also discovered T cells—thought to protect against severe illness—were boosted by vaccination.

There’s a “clear benefit” to boosting regardless of prior infection, Iwasaki, who has since received more than $2 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told participants after the meeting in an email obtained by The Epoch Times. Hotez received $789,000 in grants from the NIH in fiscal year 2020, and has received other grants totaling millions in previous years. Offit, who co-invented the rotavirus vaccine, received $3.5 million in NIH grants from 1985 through 2004.

Hotez declined interview requests through a spokesperson. Iwasaki did not respond to requests for comment.

No participants represented experts like Bhattacharya who say that the naturally immune generally don’t need any doses at all.


Public Statements

In public, Hotez repeatedly portrayed natural immunity as worse than vaccination, including citing the widely criticized CDC paper, which drew from just two months of testing in a single state.

In one post on Twitter on Oct. 29, 2021, he referred to another CDC study, which concluded that the naturally immune were five times as likely to test positive compared to vaccinated people with no prior infection, and stated: “Still more evidence, this time from @CDCMMWR showing that vaccine-induced immunity is way better than infection and recovery, what some call weirdly ‘natural immunity’. The antivaccine and far right groups go ballistic, but it’s the reality.”

That same day, the CDC issued a “science brief” that detailed the agency’s position on natural immunity versus the protection from vaccines. The brief, which has never been updated, says that available evidence shows both the vaccinated and naturally immune “have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months” but that “the body of evidence for infection-induced immunity is more limited than that for vaccine-induced immunity.”

Evidence shows that vaccination after infection, or hybrid immunity, “significantly enhances protection and further reduces risk of reinfection” and is the foundation of the CDC’s recommendations, the agency said.

Several months later, the CDC acknowledged that natural immunity was superior to vaccination against the Delta variant, which was displaced in late 2021 by Omicron. The CDC, which has made misleading representations before on the evidence supporting vaccination of the naturally immune, did not respond to a request for comment regarding whether the agency will ever update the brief.

Iwasaki had initially been open to curbing the number of doses for the naturally immune—”I think this supports the idea of just giving one dose to people who had covid19,” she said in response to one Twitter post in early 2021, which is restricted from view—but later came to argue that each person who is infected has a different immune response, and that the natural immunity, even if strong initially, wanes over time.

Osterholm has knocked people who claim natural immunity is weak or non-existent, but has also claimed that vaccine-bestowed immunity is better. Osterholm also changed the stance he took in the meeting just several months later, saying in February 2022 that “we’ve got to make three doses the actual standard” while also “trying to understand what kind of immunity we get from a previous infection.”

Offit has been the leading critic on the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which advises U.S. regulators on vaccines, over their authorizations of COVID-19 boosters. Offit has said boosters are unnecessary for the young and healthy because they don’t add much to the primary series. He also criticized regulators for authorizing updated shots without consulting the committee and absent clinical data. Two of the top U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials resigned over the booster push. No FDA officials were listed on invitations to the secret meeting on natural immunity.

Fauci and Walensky Downplay Natural Immunity

Fauci and Walensky, two of the most visible U.S. health officials during the pandemic, have repeatedly downplayed natural immunity.

Fauci, who said in an email in March 2020 that he assumed there would be “substantial immunity post infection,” would say later that natural immunity was real but that the durability was uncertain. He noted the studies finding higher antibody levels from hybrid immunity.

In September 2021, months after claiming that vaccinated people “can feel safe that they are not going to get infected,” Fauci said that he did not have “a really firm answer” on whether the naturally immune should get vaccinated.

“It is conceivable that you got infected, you’re protected—but you may not be protected for an indefinite period of time,” Fauci said on CNN when pressed on the issue. “So I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously.”

After the meeting, Fauci would say that natural immunity and vaccine-bestowed immunity both wane, and that people should get vaccinated regardless of prior infection to boost their protection.

Walensky, before she became CDC director, signed a document called the John Snow Memorandum in response to the Great Barrington Declaration, which Bhattacharya coauthored. The declaration called for focused protection of the elderly and otherwise infirm, stating, “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.”

The memorandum, in contrast, said there was “no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and supported the harsh lockdown measures that had been imposed in the United States and elsewhere.

In March 2021, after becoming director, Walensky released recommendations that the naturally immune get vaccinated, noting that there was “substantial durability” of protection six months after infection but that “rare cases of reinfection” had been reported.

Walensky hyped the CDC study on natural immunity in August 2021, and the second study in October 2021. But when the third paper came out concluding natural immunity was superior, she did not issue a statement. Walensky later told a blog that the study found natural immunity provided strong protection, “perhaps even more so than those who had been vaccinated and not yet boosted.”

But, because it came before Omicron, she said, “it’s not entirely clear how that protection works in the context of Omicron and boosting.”

Walensky, Murthy, and Collins did not respond to requests for interviews. Fauci, who stepped down from his positions in late 2022, could not be reached.

Murthy and Collins also portrayed natural immunity as inferior. “From the studies about natural immunity, we are seeing more and more data that tells us that while you get some protection from natural infection, it’s not nearly as strong as what you get from the vaccine,” Murthy said on CNN about two months before the meeting. Collins, in a series of blog posts, highlighted the studies showing higher antibody levels after vaccination and urged people to get vaccinated. He also voiced support for vaccine mandates.


Vaccine Guidance Not Altered

Some other countries offered the naturally immune benefits.

Just days after U.S. officials heard from the experts, Israel announced that people who presented serological proof of prior infection could get a “green pass,” which was required in the country to enter certain venues, for six months. Some European Union countries said the naturally immune only needed a single dose, instead of two, to receive a digital certificate, enabling free movement within the bloc. The United Kingdom’s travel pass was available to people who tested positive for COVID-19 if the test was within the previous 180 days.

But U.S. policy on vaccines, which has been the basis for vaccination mandates across sectors such as education and health care, was not altered at all in the wake of the meeting.

“I think it’s because the opinions were sort of generally diverse, so there wasn’t a clear, unified message that came out of that,” Offit told The Epoch Times, adding via email that there was “generally a divide among participants about how to think about this,” with “no firm conclusions.”

Bhattacharya said that the discussion happened too late, asserting it was already clear in 2020 that natural immunity protected against both severe disease and reinfection.

“The fact that the head of the CDC and the surgeon general both seem to have ignored these basic scientific facts is a scandal,” he said. “And it resulted in countless Americans losing their jobs for nothing.”

In 2022, the CDC did say that people who recovered from COVID-19 could wait up to three months after infection to get vaccinated, stating that reinfection “is less likely in the weeks to months after infection” and that waiting “might result in an improved immune response to vaccination.”

Over time, some other U.S. policies came to acknowledge natural immunity. Walensky in April 2022 (pdf), for instance, when ordering the end of a public health policy called Title 42, said that she was doing so because deaths and hospitalizations in the Omicron era were lower “due, in part, to widespread population immunity.”

A connecting footnote stated, “In addition to vaccine-induced immunity, studies have consistently shown that infection with SARS-CoV-2 lowers an individual’s risk of subsequent infection and an even lower risk of hospitalization and death.” SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19.

In August 2022, the CDC eased its COVID-19 guidelines, stating in part that “persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection.”

And on Jan. 26, the FDA convened Offit and the other advisers on the vaccine advisory committee to consider various vaccine-related issues. Among them? Whether the naturally immune should be advised to only get one shot, even if they’ve never been vaccinated before.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


'The Scandal Would Be Enormous': Pfizer Director Worried About Vax-Induced Menstrual Irregularities
by Tyler Durden
Thursday, Feb 02, 2023 - 07:30 PM

Project Veritas on Thursday released a new segment of undercover footage of Pfizer director Jordon Walker in which the Director of R&D within the company's mRNA operation expressed concern over how the COVID-19 vaccine may be affecting women's reproductive health.

"There is something irregular about the menstrual cycles. So, people will have to investigate that down the line," Walker told an undercover journalist he thought he was on a date with.

"The [COVID] vaccine shouldn’t be interfering with that [menstrual cycles]. So, we don’t really know," he added.

Walker also hopes we don't discover that "somehow this mRNA lingers in the body and like -- because it has to be affecting something hormonal to impact menstrual cycles," adding "I hope we don’t discover something really bad down the line…If something were to happen downstream and it was, like, really bad? I mean, the scale of that scandal would be enormous."

Watch:
BREAKING: @Pfizer Director Concerned Over Women's Reproductive Heath After COVID-19 Vaccinations
"There is something irregular about their menstrual cycles...concerning...The vaccine shouldn't be interfering with that...It has to be affecting something hormonal..."#Pfertility pic.twitter.com/XAuMPJNShD
— Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) February 2, 2023
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
My thoughts: We know Geert is pro-vaccine. He's been all about it all his life. Of course that would include experimental studies of new vaccines on mice and ferrets etc. We know mRNA has been around for a long time which is why Big Pharma was ready with shots in no time. So I have no problem with Geert experimenting with novel vaccines. Yes, it does make him extremely knowledgeable about this aspect of the clot shots. It's no doubt why he has stood up and openly opposed it. He knew from experience what mRNA did. I think he had to be shocked they were going to use it on humans. His work resume is available. People could see he has been at work on vaccines all his life. Thank God he stood up to say something, not only because you don't vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic, but because mRNA vaccines are dangerous, lethal and don't work. Because of his status in the medical community he took a great risk in standing up, but he was one of the few qualified to do so. Malone never did! NEVER did Geert approve of these shots, and from experience he is telling his peers....they don't work...I know...I experimented with them.

I don't have a problem with him working with MRNA, I am curious why he never once mentioned it, but like I said, I think he was under a non-disclosure agreement or the work became classified so he was and is not allowed to discuss it, therefore he avoided the issue about the dangers of the MRNA tech vaccines themselves, and instead warned about vaccinating into a pandemic and the damage that would cause. I could be wrong but that makes the most sense to me. I don't think he was embarrased by it or trying to hide it, I think if he could've talked about it he would have - he is desperately trying to stop people from getting vaxxed, why not use the data that could change their minds unless he wasn't able to. And so he used the next best argument he was legally allowed to use. Can you imagine his frustration though? Knowing they were using a product he himself tested, that he knew and knew they knew, was deadly and wouldn't work? What could he do to stop it? That's when he went with the angle that also is true - vaccinating into a pandemic is going to cause variants, etc.

I wonder though if people like Del Bigtree, who promoted Geert to a wide audience by promoting that first video Geert did with Dr. McMillan and Robert Malone and others (like Paul Alexander and Dr. McMillan himself) knew about his history and why he couldn't discuss it but realized Geert was definitely one who knew the dangers and that's one of the reasons they promoted him and facilitated him trying to get his warning out?

Very interesting to me is that Paul Alexander is promoting that Steven Lamb substack by linking to it on one of his own substacks. He doesn't bring up Geert's name but he has to know that info is in there. Maybe a silent nod to helping Geert get the info out without Geert being the one to bring it up?

See:

(fair use applies)


Ha ha ha! I am pissing myself reading this by Steven Lamb; IQ magazine wrote that the unvaccinated owe the vaccinated an apology because we had some kind of 'insider' knowledge that
told us not to take the mRNA shots & we selfishly didn’t do enough to prevent them, those who took it, from taking the jabs. IQ magazine claimed blood of the vaccinated is on the hands unvaccinated

Dr. Paul Alexander
Jan 31

This can lead to the vaccinated attacking physically, the unvaccinated, and blaming them, and I argued this 2 years ago. This is how crazy the woke bullshit is. Take a drink before reading this depth of twistedness.

Worth the read:

Steven S. Lamb

‘This week offered a new twist on the concept of Covid Amnesty or societal healing after Covid totalitarianism . The hilariously misnamed internet magazine IQ published an article that no one is certain is not a parody of some sort. The article being written as more and more European nations ministries of health are doing analysis of Covid mRNA vaccine efficacy and safety, with now two years of data showing rather conclusively that the mRNA shots do NOT prevent acquiring covid 19 infection and that they cause more physical harm to more patients than the number of patients in whom they prevent harm. The new argument from IQ magazine is that the unvaccinated owe the vaccinated an apology because we had some kind of insider knowledge that told us not to take the mRNA shots and we selfishly didn’t do enough to prevent them from taking the jabs. IQ magazine claimed the blood of the vaccinated was not on the hands of Anthony Fauci, of the Biden Administration, of the State Legislatures, Mayors, Governors and employers who forced these jabs on people, but of the unvaccinated who should have done more to protect those who eventually got vaccinated.’

.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Directed Evolution III
Pfizer doesn't need GOF Labs. Physicians are prescribing the GOF

Anandamide
Jan 28

If you want to understand the recent Project Veritas videos, you should spend the time and read the prior Nepetalactone newsletter threads titled “Directed Evolution I & II”. These are threads from August 2021 and I think you will see they had fairly strong predictive power. They are a helpful starting point for this thread.

I cannot comment on the veracity of Jordans role at Pfizer. I will leave that to more talented investigative journalist to polish. On the surface, Jordan appeared remarkably naive to be director level material and/or likely intoxicated and not speaking with any level of maturity you’d expect from a senior level pharmaceutical executive.

What I can comment on is that his remarks about Pfizer performing GOF are a smoke grenade for the experiment already underway on the human population.

This is meant to distract the population on GOF lab regulation.. even thought it was the very omniscient Science TM who laundered money around their previous rule book on the topic.

Work the public up into a frenzy to vote harder for regulators that better regulate themselves, while Pharma marches on releasing C19 ‘treatment’ drugs that actually mutate the virus so they can milk more liability free mandated vaccines.

Jordan preferred to euphemize their GOF work with the phrase “Directed Evolution”. Technically “Directed Evolution” is a method one could use to achieve GOF but not all Directed Evolution would results in a Gain of Function of a pathogen.

What the public, and what Project Veritas may not realize is that there is no reason for Pfizer to build expensive GOF labs as they already have the experiment running on the human population… the sickest irony of it all is that they have found a way to make the victims of C19 pay for it.

GOF labs are expensive and they tend to leave bread crumb trails back to them. A far more insidious plan… given we know that they know several important conditions to this experiment.

1) The boosters drop white blood cell counts and make you more susceptible to C19 infection (See Cleveland clinic study)

2)The vaccines are always 4 variants behind the scariant du jour..

3)Molnupiravir, remdesivir and even Paxlovid are variant generators.

Under these circumstances, the addition of RdRp nucleotide analogs that “code for catastrophe” will generate all the GOF they need. Just make it illegal in states like California to wander from the play book and you get yourself a perpetual hot trash mouth booster brigade.




Here is the evidence of the prescribed GOF…. and it was knowable from the outset.


Image
5:13 PM ∙ Jan 27, 2023





Fig. 1
Remdesivir-



Paxlovid is a 2 drug combo. One drug is a protease inhibitor while the other drug inhibits the liver enzyme (CYP3A4) that would normally break down the first. This is like drinking grapefruit juice to boost your CBD or warfarin blood levels. These are not nucleotide analogs that directly create mutagenesis but any drug that induces rebounds is a variant factory. Don’t let any pencil neck fiat virologist tell you otherwise. More viral replication during rebound = more chances for the RdRp polymerase to make additional errors.




So the same fiat virologists that lamented about the immunocompromised being the source of Omicron, will quickly catcall you a cacophony of conspiracy if you point out paxlovid rebounds are happening in far greater numbers. Are you getting a sense of how this works?

Your physician will lose their license if they spread “covid misinformation” in California (Jenin Younes et al may have reversed this as of this writing) and you better believe any drug that isn’t a C19 mutagen will be misinformation.

So Pfizer doesn’t need an expensive GOF lab you can vilify, glue yourself to or hack. The physicians will prescribe all the GOF they need. Paying 75% of the FDAs budget through the PDUFA act of 1992 is far better money spent.

And if they can deflect the public outrage towards revolving door gordian knots, the game goes on while you thrash around with feckless ballot boxes.

In this world, you and your insurance company pay for GOF. They just pay for politicians and bureaucrats.


Whats the cure? As I mentioned on the Project Veritas Spaces..

We need to take a chapter out of Buckminster Fuller. You don’t change the system, you build a new one that makes the old one obsolete. Also take a chapter out of Clayton Christensens’ “Innovators Dilemma”. You don’t march into an 800lb gorillas front yard and declare yourself competitive. You flank them and build something disruptive in their blind spot.

This new system needs to be decentralized. Direct Primary Care physicians that are free of insurance companies. Ignore the AMA and all of these certification nazis that are simply pharma censors in sheeps clothing. Decentralize Peer review with Blockchain based transparent direct peer to peer, peer review. The journals are Pharma gatekeepers through their ad dollars and deserve every ounce of disintermediation we give them.

We need to embrace on and off label use of off patent drugs and further open access plant, fungi and other natural medicines you can grow in your backyard. We discuss many of these topics at CannMed. This is a community of physicians, growers and entrepreneurs that have been evading the fascist fiat medical cartel for decades. We can learn a lot from them.

And No! Nationalizing Pharma isn’t the answer. It’s exactly the poison we have now. Its just camouflaged Nationalized medicine as the average citizen doesn’t see the PDUFA act, vax mandates, liability waivers, forced obamacare and a president that is now an over glorified Pfizer sales rep as National medicine. We need free markets in medicine and the medical legalization efforts for Cannabis and Psilocybin are the model we should explore more.
 

Zoner

Veteran Member
I don't have a problem with him working with MRNA, I am curious why he never once mentioned it, but like I said, I think he was under a non-disclosure agreement or the work became classified so he was and is not allowed to discuss it, therefore he avoided the issue about the dangers of the MRNA tech vaccines themselves, and instead warned about vaccinating into a pandemic and the damage that would cause. I could be wrong but that makes the most sense to me. I don't think he was embarrased by it or trying to hide it, I think if he could've talked about it he would have - he is desperately trying to stop people from getting vaxxed, why not use the data that could change their minds unless he wasn't able to. And so he used the next best argument he was legally allowed to use. Can you imagine his frustration though? Knowing they were using a product he himself tested, that he knew and knew they knew, was deadly and wouldn't work? What could he do to stop it? That's when he went with the angle that also is true - vaccinating into a pandemic is going to cause variants, etc.

I wonder though if people like Del Bigtree, who promoted Geert to a wide audience by promoting that first video Geert did with Dr. McMillan and Robert Malone and others (like Paul Alexander and Dr. McMillan himself) knew about his history and why he couldn't discuss it but realized Geert was definitely one who knew the dangers and that's one of the reasons they promoted him and facilitated him trying to get his warning out?

Very interesting to me is that Paul Alexander is promoting that Steven Lamb substack by linking to it on one of his own substacks. He doesn't bring up Geert's name but he has to know that info is in there. Maybe a silent nod to helping Geert get the info out without Geert being the one to bring it up?

See:

(fair use applies)


Ha ha ha! I am pissing myself reading this by Steven Lamb; IQ magazine wrote that the unvaccinated owe the vaccinated an apology because we had some kind of 'insider' knowledge that
told us not to take the mRNA shots & we selfishly didn’t do enough to prevent them, those who took it, from taking the jabs. IQ magazine claimed blood of the vaccinated is on the hands unvaccinated

Dr. Paul Alexander
Jan 31

This can lead to the vaccinated attacking physically, the unvaccinated, and blaming them, and I argued this 2 years ago. This is how crazy the woke bullshit is. Take a drink before reading this depth of twistedness.

Worth the read:

Steven S. Lamb

‘This week offered a new twist on the concept of Covid Amnesty or societal healing after Covid totalitarianism . The hilariously misnamed internet magazine IQ published an article that no one is certain is not a parody of some sort. The article being written as more and more European nations ministries of health are doing analysis of Covid mRNA vaccine efficacy and safety, with now two years of data showing rather conclusively that the mRNA shots do NOT prevent acquiring covid 19 infection and that they cause more physical harm to more patients than the number of patients in whom they prevent harm. The new argument from IQ magazine is that the unvaccinated owe the vaccinated an apology because we had some kind of insider knowledge that told us not to take the mRNA shots and we selfishly didn’t do enough to prevent them from taking the jabs. IQ magazine claimed the blood of the vaccinated was not on the hands of Anthony Fauci, of the Biden Administration, of the State Legislatures, Mayors, Governors and employers who forced these jabs on people, but of the unvaccinated who should have done more to protect those who eventually got vaccinated.’

.
Hi HD. A couple of things I don't like about Geert is that he is a devoted evolutionist and he's pro-vaccine. Thanks for pointing out that Geert has never talked about using mRNA in his experimentation, which Lamb said it was. Geert has never been against vaccinations which has always troubled me, but he understands it enough to know mRNA is experimental...still. But you are right that it's funny Geert never mentioned his experimenting with mRNA. As a Vaccinologist maybe he is hopeful of mRNA technology but not on board with using it to experiment on the human race which is what I'm thinking. Maybe his new book will tell all. And if Geert is pro-mRNA then that puts him in a compromising position concerning Malone. No doubt Alexander has talked to Geert about Malone being a phony. But Geert has always said he is speaking out about the science ONLY. Malone is against this mass vaccination but no doubt is in favor of the new technology of mRNA. I don't like any of it.

As I said, Geert doesn't believe in God, but in evolutionary biology. For him, science holds all the answers. So I draw a line with Geert and what Lamb revealed doesn't make Geert look good to those who are anti-vax. But one thing we can be sure of....he knows what is coming...from experience. :-(
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Karl Lauterbach Admits "Mistakes" as Excess Mortality in Germany is 36% above Normal
Is Karl hoping to be forgiven
?
Igor Chudov
Jan 30

The news of mortality in Germany at 36% above normal, and birth rates 10% below normal, becomes too hard to hide. The never-before-wrong, multiple-degreed health expert and German health minister Karl Lauterbach admits that “mistakes were made.”



He does not admit that closing schools was a mistake. He does not admit that force-vaccinating Germans with unproven, deadly vaccines causing 36% excess mortality was a mistake. The tiny error he is admitting is that the schools were closed for “too long.”

It gets worse from here. Who does Lauterbach blame for this?

That’s right, he blames nameless “scientists”:



The anonymous scientists gave poor Karl bad advice, which is why “mistakes were made.”

But who is Karl Lauterbach? He IS a scientist, educated at Harvard, the University of Dusseldorf, and more!


Lauterbach studied human medicine at the RWTH Aachen University, University of Texas at San Antonio and University of Düsseldorf, where he graduated. From 1989 to 1992, he studied health policy and management as well as epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, graduating with a Doctor of Science in 1992.[3] From 1992 to 1993, he held a fellowship at the Harvard Medical School, sponsored by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which is close to the CDU. Lauterbach was a CDU member for several years before joining the SPD in 2001.[5]
For a Harvard-trained epidemiologist and health policy expert, blaming other “experts” is a little disingenuous.

It is Difficult to Ask for Forgiveness, Karl says​

In the above quote, Karl said it is “difficult to ask for forgiveness” since he blames other “scientists” and does not even admit to his crime of poisoning young Germans with Covid vaccines and causing excess deaths.

But would Karl deserve forgiveness if he mustered the courage to ask for it?

Does asking for forgiveness require honest admission of fault instead of blaming nameless “other scientists”?

P.S turns out that Eugyppius also wrote about this 20 minutes ago:

.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
I have so many substacks to post, and not enough time to post them, that I just posted the top 2 (in my opinion) from my list. I am just going to post links to the rest of them. If you have time, click on a few and read them. They'll be here in the thread if you want to come back to the list.












 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
Hi HD. A couple of things I don't like about Geert is that he is a devoted evolutionist and he's pro-vaccine. Thanks for pointing out that Geert has never talked about using mRNA in his experimentation, which Lamb said it was. Geert has never been against vaccinations which has always troubled me, but he understands it enough to know mRNA is experimental...still. But you are right that it's funny Geert never mentioned his experimenting with mRNA. As a Vaccinologist maybe he is hopeful of mRNA technology but not on board with using it to experiment on the human race which is what I'm thinking. Maybe his new book will tell all. And if Geert is pro-mRNA then that puts him in a compromising position concerning Malone. No doubt Alexander has talked to Geert about Malone being a phony. But Geert has always said he is speaking out about the science ONLY. Malone is against this mass vaccination but no doubt is in favor of the new technology of mRNA. I don't like any of it.

As I said, Geert doesn't believe in God, but in evolutionary biology. For him, science holds all the answers. So I draw a line with Geert and what Lamb revealed doesn't make Geert look good to those who are anti-vax. But one thing we can be sure of....he knows what is coming...from experience. :-(

I know it bothered Del too that Geert is very pro-vaccine in general. For me, it actually puts more weight to his warnings - he's not an anti-vaxxer (like RFK Jr or Del) because for a lot of people they are dismissed out of hand just because they are against all vaccination programs. But Geert is different, he's only against these vaccines. I don't care right now about his stance of vaccines, I don't care right now if he worked on MRNA in the past. That's not what got my attention about Steven Lamb's revelation. For me those are issues for another day, and everyone answers to God, not to man. But we are in a crisis now and I think he is doing the world a huge service by now coming out against these and trying to warn as many people as possible. My interest is that if what Lamb says is true - why Geert never brought it up - that was the stronger argument! And he stayed silent about it. That's what I want to know - why didn't he use the stronger argument (and why I think the only answer that makes sense is the experiments became classified or he signed a non-disclosure). AND who else knew? He worked for Gates and Gavi in the past. Did Bill Gates know along about Geert's studies and that the vaxx wouldn't work? Who else knew and pushed them anyway?

I don't think Geert's on board with MRNA. How could he be if his experiments failed? I think he knows they don't and won't work and will only kill the recipient down the road. Can you imagine his horror, knowing that, when the entire world decided to use them anyway? The one person who KNOWS they won't work and will only kill, and I mean really knows first hand, not theorizing, he did the experiments and got the results. What does he do? It must have been a real moral dilemma if he was under a non-disclosure. Does he break it and risk everything? How far would he get? He knew the forces he was up against. So he comes up with a different angle - one he's allowed to talk about. With his name attached (as the one who did all the experimentation on mammals), he probably thought he'd get the WHO's attention; they had to know his work with MRNA in the past. But that's all just conjecture on my part, which is why I wish someone (like Del) would ask him.

I agree it doesn't make Geert look good for those who look at it superficially. And I wonder if that's why Steve Lamb went out of his way to mention it? There will be people who will either say Geert's controlled opposition or a traitor to the cause. I don't see it that way. I see him as a man who did try to warn, who did try to stop it. Of course I want to know why he didn't state right from the start his past history with MRNA research specifically, (Malone to his credit did and I don't think Malone's work is anywhere near as close to the ultimate vaccine as Geert's was). And I hope someone asks him. I think Alexander posting a link to the substack, with his close relationship to Geert, using the 'piss in my pants' headline, the exact words Geert used to describe his reaction to the Veritas video, is a nod to it being true and maybe Geert wanting the info out there, as long as it didn't come from him, it's not his fault it got out there! (no breach by him in disclosing it, it was a 3rd party who brought it up).

I could be wrong, (about him being under a non-disclosure or it being classified), but for now it resolves all my unanswered questions because if he wasn't under a non-disclosure or if it wasn't classified, it definitely raises some questions!

HD
 

Zoner

Veteran Member

Zoner

Veteran Member
I know it bothered Del too that Geert is very pro-vaccine in general. For me, it actually puts more weight to his warnings - he's not an anti-vaxxer (like RFK Jr or Del) because for a lot of people they are dismissed out of hand just because they are against all vaccination programs. But Geert is different, he's only against these vaccines. I don't care right now about his stance of vaccines, I don't care right now if he worked on MRNA in the past. That's not what got my attention about Steven Lamb's revelation. For me those are issues for another day, and everyone answers to God, not to man. But we are in a crisis now and I think he is doing the world a huge service by now coming out against these and trying to warn as many people as possible. My interest is that if what Lamb says is true - why Geert never brought it up - that was the stronger argument! And he stayed silent about it. That's what I want to know - why didn't he use the stronger argument (and why I think the only answer that makes sense is the experiments became classified or he signed a non-disclosure). AND who else knew? He worked for Gates and Gavi in the past. Did Bill Gates know along about Geert's studies and that the vaxx wouldn't work? Who else knew and pushed them anyway?

I don't think Geert's on board with MRNA. How could he be if his experiments failed? I think he knows they don't and won't work and will only kill the recipient down the road. Can you imagine his horror, knowing that, when the entire world decided to use them anyway? The one person who KNOWS they won't work and will only kill, and I mean really knows first hand, not theorizing, he did the experiments and got the results. What does he do? It must have been a real moral dilemma if he was under a non-disclosure. Does he break it and risk everything? How far would he get? He knew the forces he was up against. So he comes up with a different angle - one he's allowed to talk about. With his name attached (as the one who did all the experimentation on mammals), he probably thought he'd get the WHO's attention; they had to know his work with MRNA in the past. But that's all just conjecture on my part, which is why I wish someone (like Del) would ask him.

I agree it doesn't make Geert look good for those who look at it superficially. And I wonder if that's why Steve Lamb went out of his way to mention it? There will be people who will either say Geert's controlled opposition or a traitor to the cause. I don't see it that way. I see him as a man who did try to warn, who did try to stop it. Of course I want to know why he didn't state right from the start his past history with MRNA research specifically, (Malone to his credit did and I don't think Malone's work is anywhere near as close to the ultimate vaccine as Geert's was). And I hope someone asks him. I think Alexander posting a link to the substack, with his close relationship to Geert, using the 'piss in my pants' headline, the exact words Geert used to describe his reaction to the Veritas video, is a nod to it being true and maybe Geert wanting the info out there, as long as it didn't come from him, it's not his fault it got out there! (no breach by him in disclosing it, it was a 3rd party who brought it up).

I could be wrong, (about him being under a non-disclosure or it being classified), but for now it resolves all my unanswered questions because if he wasn't under a non-disclosure or if it wasn't classified, it definitely raises some questions!

HD
Thanks for the fuller explanation HD. But that's why I'm on this thread, and so should all TB members! And maybe they are reading here, idk. But if any members here on TB can't see how what Lamb has revealed totally exposes the mRNA injections as extremely dangerous, I don't know what else can open their eyes.

Maybe you're right about Geert not able to say anything because of legal ramifications idk. He has said he has been talking to all of colleagues so they all know the background. Geert has said all of colleagues agree with him about these mass vaccinations but won't speak up. But I still want to know why he never said anything about his past work with mRNA vaccines. That would have strengthened his arguments in the public square. I want an answer.
 

Zoner

Veteran Member
A bit more on Geert Bossche from Steven Lamb's newletter:

Twenty plus years ago I invested in a local Pasadena biotech start up that was working on a mRNA vaccine. The mammal tests were conducted by Dr. Geert VanDenBossche who has gone on to supervise 88% of the mammal trials of mRNA vaccines. The outcome of the trial was devastating, the ferrets all died early or either sudden heart attack, blood clots damaging organs or complete immune dysfunction. The disease protection waned quickly, and the more shots that were given the ferrets to keep up disease immunity the more quickly the ferrets met their deaths. That financial loss literally saved my and my wifes lives. I think of it as the best money I ever spent. Because of that financial loss I have kept up my reading on mRNA treatments in the following years. They all have the same catastrophic results. I knew this, but what’s important here is that Dr. Fauci, the CDC, the FDA all and each had a RESPONSIBILITY to know this. Both President Trump and then President Biden had a responsibility to find this out. Especially President Biden who MANDATED these “vaccines”.

thanks for the post
 
Top