Coronavirus

Medical Ethics

Johnson: FDA, CDC Refuse To Comply With Senate Oversight On Covid Treatments

By: Shawn Fleetwood

March 24, 2022






https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/24...vid-treatments

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson is blasting federal health agencies for their continued coverup of data relating to adverse side effects experienced by people who have received the Covid-19 jab.

In a Wednesday letter exclusively obtained by The Federalist, Johnson criticized the federal government for its lack of transparency over the Covid-19 pandemic, saying he has “written 35 letters to the Executive Branch asking questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the federal government’s response to it” and that the “grossly inadequate response to [his] legitimate oversight demonstrates a level of arrogance toward the American public that is unacceptable.”

“In particular, the lack of transparency from federal health agencies has eroded public confidence … which will take years, and probably a complete restructuring of them, to repair,” he wrote.

The letter was addressed to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky.

In his criticism of the agencies and their respective leadership, Johnson cited data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which shows that as of March 18, 2022, the database “has received 1,183,495 worldwide reports of adverse events and 25,641 death reports.”

“Of those deaths, 7,382 (28.8%) occurred on day 0, 1, or 2 following vaccination. It is difficult to understand how this growing number of adverse event reports has not resulted in health agencies conducting significant investigation, taking action, and providing detailed explanations to the American people,” Johnson wrote. “Instead, we have gotten the Mad Magazine Alfred E. Neuman response, ‘What, me worry?'”

4 page letter embedded in article

also on Scribd ...




Scribd.com copy of letter 4 pages

https://www.scribd.com/document/5664...rse-Event-Data

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/566405471-Letter-to-HHS-FDA-NIAID-CDC-Re-Adverse-Event-Data.pdf

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...SDyAIxwEzg--~D

This is free - no cost viewing.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/live-c...v-2022-03-17-2

1:19:37 video runtime

March 17, 2022 American Thought Leaders Views 11.1K

LIVE: Censorship of Science, with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Dr. Scott Atlas, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

American Thought Leaders American Thought Leaders

JAN JEKIELEK

Over the course of these last two years, doctors and experts have described an unprecedented assault on free and open scientific discourse, with potentially deadly consequences.

In this special episode of American Thought Leaders, we’re at Hillsdale College, which is hosting a conference on the censorship of science during this pandemic.

We’ll be sitting down with three thought leaders that we’ve previously interviewed on our show, namely former Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Stanford University professor of medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and public health policy expert Dr. Scott Atlas. All three are fellows of Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom.


LIVE: Censorship of Science, with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Dr. Scott Atlas, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
American Thought Leaders American Thought Leaders

JAN JEKIELEK

Over the course of these last two years, doctors and experts have described an unprecedented assault on free and open scientific discourse, with potentially deadly consequences.

In this special episode of American Thought Leaders, we’re at Hillsdale College, which is hosting a conference on the censorship of science during this pandemic.

We’ll be sitting down with three thought leaders that we’ve previously interviewed on our show, namely former Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Stanford University professor of medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and public health policy expert Dr. Scott Atlas. All three are fellows of Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom.


Below is a rush transcript of this American Thought Leaders episode from Mar 17, 2022. This transcript may not be in its final form and may be updated.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/live-c...v-2022-03-17-2

https://sp.rmbl.ws/z8/5/N/H/b/5NHba....rs-r335jv.jpeg


Dr. Zev Zelenko and Dr. Bryan Ardis have received threats against their lives delivered in an extortive tone. The messages advise that they should employ strong personal security protections.

Doctors who are helping patients using their own pre-hospital interventions treatments are to me "eliminated."

More proof this has nothing to do with health care.

https://frankspeech.com/video/assass...ecific-doctors


Assassination List Reveals Plan to Kill Specific Doctors

By The Stew Peters Show, 25 March, 2022


watch first 18 minutes of this Stew Peters show,

Self-assembling circuitry is the subject of the remainder of the show. Pfizer vials examined. Geometric rectangular shapes that gradually grow "branches."

https://static-3.bitchute.com/live/c...4J_320x180.jpg

Steve Kirsch Testifies About Spike in Deaths Since Jabs Rolled out


Steve Kirsch Testifies About Spike in Deaths Since Jabs Rolled out

2:19 video runtime


First published at 13:41 UTC on March 27th, 2022.

XANDREWX

One of the United States Minor Outlying Islands




https://stevekirsch.substack.com/


"This is like the greatest cause of death in human history."

"This is the greatest killer of mankind."

"This is the worst cover-up in human history.:

"Probably 400,000 Americans have been killed by the U S government."

___________

Dachsie comment:

New VAERS Data as of Mar. 4th, 2022 (posted Mar. 11, 2022)

27,367 Deaths x 41 = 1,122,047 deaths ?

https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/03/14/do...created-covid/

Listen Now reading of full lengthy article

Whilst you were distracted by the Battle for Ukraine, Documents were published confirming Moderna created the Covid-19 Virus

Here is Steve Kirsch commentary on this article ...

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch...fa_511x731.png

excerpts

By The Exposé on March 14, 2022 • ( 58 Comments )

Evidence has emerged which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Covid-19 virus was created by the very pharmaceutical giant that has made billions through the sale of an experimental Covid-19 injection; Moderna.

https://i0.wp.com/dailyexpose.uk/wp-...68%2C499&ssl=1

By a concerned reader

On February 23 the Daily Mail ran an article showing that Moderna has patented the 19 base letter (nucleotide) sequence which codes for the Furin Cleavage site in Covid-19.

They cited a Paper by Scientists in India, Switzerland, Italy and the US (cautiously entitled: MSH3 Homology and Potential Recombination Link to SARS-CoV-2 Furin Cleavage Site) in which they calculated that the chances of a 19 nucleotide sequence patented by Moderna randomly appearing in Covid-19 in circumstances where it does not appear anywhere else in nature are 1 in 3 trillion.

But they failed to make the obvious deduction there from. Had they made said obvious deduction I fear that might have been the last scientific deduction they ever got published!

They decided to investigate the RNA sequence for the Furin cleavage site in the Covid-19 Spike Protein to see if it occurred anywhere else in nature. .

Fortunately the NCBI/NIH have produced the wonderful BLAST database which catalogues every gene sequence in nature known to man and every synthetic patented gene sequence known to the patent office.

The researchers chose the Furin Cleavage sequence because it is the only continuous gene letter sequence (nucleotide sequence) in Covid-19 with more than 3 nucleotides, that differs from the respective letters in its closest natural relative the Bat Coronavirus RaTG13 (all other differences are 3 letters or less long). So it was by far the best candidate for determining whether or not Covid-19 was man made.

The reader might consider it more likely that a Furin Cleavage Site would appear in the Sun than in the Daily Mail. But this cleavage refers to the separation of spike from virus rather than pillow from pillow.

Furthermore the Furin Cleavage Site is key to the pathogenicity of Covid-19. So if there was to be some man made gain of function included in the virus, this is where one might expect to find it.

The Amino Acid sequence of the Furin Cleavage Site is PRRA (Proline Argenine Argenine Alanine). Each Amino Acid is coded for by a Codon, consisting of 3 nucleotides (genetic sequence letters). So all the differences in the genetic code between Covid-19 and RaTG13 are at most one Codon long, one amino acid long, other than the Furin Cleavage Sequence, which is…

CCT CGG CGG GCA

The complimentary sequence (the opposing DNA strand of the double helix is (GGAGCCGCCCGT) because C binds with G and A binds with T

The reverse compliment (the same thing written backwards) is therefore TGCCCGCCGAGG

The researchers did a BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) alignment search (which means they search for the gene sequence, the reverse gene sequence, the complimentary gene sequence and the reverse complimentary gene sequence) through every gene sequence in nature known to man for CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG which is the 19 nucleotide sequence containing the Furin Cleavage Sequence, which also appears in Covid-19, and which is found actually in the reverse compliment form CTACGTGCCCGCCGAGGAG patented by Moderna.

Their search results can be found here.

Table 1 shows that it does exist in the 5 US patents cited below…

US9149506B2: Modified polynucleotides encoding septin-4 – https://patents.google.com/patent/US9149506B2/en

Inventor: Tirtha Chakraborty, Antonin de Fougerolles
Current Assignee: ModernaTx Inc

2012-04-02 Priority to US201261618953P
2013-12-16 Application filed by Moderna Therapeutics Inc
2014-05-22 Publication of US20140141067A1
2015-10-06 Publication of US9149506B2
2015-10-06 Application granted
2020-01-10 First worldwide family litigation filed

US9216205B2: Modified polynucleotides encoding granulysin – https://patents.google.com/patent/US9216205B2/en

Inventor: Tirtha Chakraborty, Antonin de Fougerolles
Current Assignee: ModernaTx Inc

2012-04-02 Priority to US201261618873P
2013-12-16 Application filed by Moderna Therapeutics Inc
2014-04-24 Publication of US20140113960A1
2015-12-22 Publication of US9216205B2
2015-12-22 Application granted

US9255129B2: Modified polynucleotides encoding SIAH E3 ubiquitin protein ligase 1 – https://patents.google.com/patent/US9255129B2/en

Inventor: Tirtha Chakraborty, Antonin de Fougerolles
Current Assignee: ModernaTx Inc

2012-04-02 Priority to US201261618868P
2013-12-16 Application filed by Moderna Therapeutics Inc
2014-05-22 Publication of US20140141068A1
2016-02-09 Application granted
2016-02-09 Publication of US9255129B2

US9301993B2: Modified polynucleotides encoding apoptosis inducing factor 1 – https://patents.google.com/patent/US9301993B2/en

Inventor: Tirtha Chakraborty, Antonin de Fougerolles
Current Assignee: ModernaTx Inc

2012-04-02 Priority to US201261618957P
2013-12-16 Application filed by Moderna Therapeutics Inc
2014-04-17 Publication of US20140107189A1
2016-04-05 Application granted
2016-04-05 Publication of US9301993B2
2020-01-10 First worldwide family litigation filed

US9587003B2: Modified polynucleotides for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides – https://patents.google.com/patent/US9587003B2/en

Inventor: Stephane Bancel, Tirtha Chakraborty, Antonin de Fougerolles, Sayda M. Elbashir, Matthias John, Atanu Roy, Susan Whoriskey, Kristy M. Wood, Paul Hatala, Jason P. Schrum, Kenechi Ejebe, Jeff Lynn Ellsworth, Justin Guild

Current Assignee: ModernaTx Inc

2012-04-02 Priority to US201261618868P
2016-02-04 Application filed by ModernaTx Inc
2016-06-02 Publication of US20160152678A1
2017-03-07 Publication of US9587003B2
2017-03-07 Application granted

So Moderna first applied for a patent for the 19 nucleotide sequence in 2013 on December 16. Perhaps December25 would have been more appropriate since it was destined to become the Crown of Thorns of Mathew27, Mark15 and John19

Table2: Shows that the sequence occurs in Covid-19 from nucleotide 23601 to 23619.

Table3: Shows that this gene sequence does not exist in nature (but 14 nucleotide parts of it do).

I decided to check their work. Yes. I fact checked them (I will send an invoice to the globalists). This turned out to be a bit of an epic journey. The Google patent page for US9587003B2 does not contain the gene sequence. The pdf of the patent does not contain the gene sequence and is not searchable from pages 101-304. But it does have a link to a lengthy ‘Sequence Listing” section which link one cannot copy. So I manually transcribed it in my fair hand – http://seqdata.uspto.gov/?pageReques...D=US09587003B2

From that page you can enter the Sequence ID quoted in the paper as 11652 and get to https://seqdata.uspto.gov/?pageReque...B2&seqID=11652 which has the following at Nucleotides 2751-2733 reading backwards…

...

The Time has Come to hold People and Organisations to Account

The Covid19 makers, the genetic vaccine makers. their funders and their promoters, which include almost every government and public sector and health service in the world, are therefore guilty of Genocide and crimes against humanity. They have pushed genetic rape and sickness and death onto half of the population of the world in order to enrich the pockets of Pharmaceutical Companies. Governments and Public sectors around the world have abandoned their health service regulation to billionaires and heartless corporations

In the UK, all of the income tax we pay goes to the health service and all of its protocols are determined by its regulators and all of its regulators are controlled and funded by Big Pharma who seek to damage then manage our health for their profit.

So every penny we spend in income tax brings us one step closer to sickness, to death and to drug dependency.

So why did Prof Montagnier choose to spend the last years of his life proving that Covid-19 was man made and that the spike proteins, and therefore the vaccines, were an existential threat to the species? What did he have left to prove to himself or to anybody else at 87-89? He certainly did not do it to increase his reputation in the profession.

No, he was driven by the same passion that drove him to discover HIV. A passion to SAVE mankind from viruses and those who would engineer them to damage us. And why did he give up the ghost in February 2022? Because he knew that Omicron had the vaccines beat. His job was done by a greater virologist even than him. He could therefore rest in peace and go see some people who understood the magnitude of his contribution.

Covid-19 was not made in 2019. It was made from the 19 nucleotide Moderna specific chimeric (CGG for AGA) furin cleavage site which does not occur anywhere in nature.
And every Covid death and every Covid vaccine death is parked squarely on the doorstep of ModeRNA waiting for justice.

But we shall not execute that justice fast enough. And therefore the final plague upon mankind of Revelation 6:8, delivered by the 4th horseman of the apocalypse, which plague Bill Gates himself has prophesied, will arrive later this year (after War and after Famine, the 2nd and 3rd horsemen).

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch...b8_876x766.png


UK Professor Norman Fenton explains how they manipulate the data

One of my readers brought this wonderful video to my attention. I'm a huge fan of Norman Fenton because he tells the truth, regardless of what it does to his reputation. Worth watching!

Steve Kirsch
5 hr ago


Check out this video, even if you just listen to the first 3 minutes.

He points out that:

He went from a respected expert to censorship and cancellation,

There is no evidence that the vaccines reduce all-cause mortality,

Even if the claims of harm from COVID were true and the vaccines were as safe and effective as claimed, it still doesn’t justify the lockdowns, vaccine passports, and mandates.

And that’s just in the first 2 minutes (after the one minute intro). In the rest of the video he goes into detail and shows you how they trick you with data.

We need more people like Professor Fenton.


embedded video

also viewable on Rumble

https://rumble.com/vtxi1h-open-scien...narrative.html

Open Science Sessions: How flawed data has driven the narrative

pandata19 Published February 3, 2022 7,648 Views


Subscribe to Steve Kirsch's newsletter

Thousands of paid subscribers

I write about COVID vaccine safety and efficacy, corruption, censorship, mandates, masking, and early treatments. America is being misled by formerly trusted authorities.

New VAERS Data as of Mar. 18th, 2022 (posted Mar. 25, 2022)

28,345 Deaths and 1,280,640 Adverse Events

26,059 Pfizer/Moderna and 2,295 J&J Deaths

PLUS 1,195,963 / Moderna and 84,677 J&J Adverse Events

Source: https://www.drtenpenny.com/newslette...comp-l101l4uh2

Dr Bryan Ardis on What Really Happened Radio, March 25, 2022

https://static-3.bitchute.com/live/c...9m_320x180.jpg


https://www.bitchute.com/video/EEO4k4wva09m/

First published at 13:55 UTC on March 28th, 2022.

1:00:02 video runtime

https://static-3.bitchute.com/live/c...9m_320x180.jpg


channel image

Jim Fetzer

AMAZING exposition of the genocidal methods being used against the people of the world. AUDIO ONLY. Dr. Ardis and Dr. Zelenko are on death lists from Big Pharma. The names of the "variants" are taken from the constellation, Draco. Bioweapons being added to municipal water systems. Details the massive financial inducements for killing people in hospitals.

Audio from the RBN archives:
https://www.republicbroadcastingarch...5-2022-hour-2/ (1:00:00)
Guest Host: Chris Steiner, host of The Liberation Station welcomes Dr. Ardis — https://TheDrArdisShow.com — to discuss the COVID pandemic, water, health, and COVID treatments. VISIT: https://www.synergyhealthdpc.com/ (mentioned by Dr. Ardis) FOR COVID TREATMENTS, PRESCRIPTIONS, AND GENERAL HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...9-191b48562fbb

This article originally was published on Mercola.com but it is not findable there now.


03/17/22
•

Big Pharma › Views
Malone, McCullough: Get Politics Out of Healthcare, Let Doctors Practice Medicine

Letting politicians dictate patient care, which prevents physicians from practicing medicine and saving patients’ lives, is a core problem, say Drs. Robert Malone and Peter McCullough.
By
Dr. Joseph Mercola

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...re-800x417.jpg

Story at-a-glance:

Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough call for politics to get out of the health care arena.
The government controlling health care is a core problem, as politicians have stepped in to dictate patient care, which doesn’t allow physicians to practice medicine and save patients’ lives.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hasn’t published most of the data it’s been collecting during the pandemic, constituting scientific fraud.
The CDC has become a purely political organization and arm of the executive branch.
Lack of data transparency at the CDC, between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Pfizer regarding clinical trial data and about injection side effects registered in a Department of Defense database, is putting Americans’ health at risk.


embedded video

11:17 video runtime

video is of Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone were speaking on this topic at the CPAC ( Conservative Political Action Committee ) convention.

also video on Ruble

https://rumble.com/vwcr11-drs.-malon...ealthcare.html
____________________


In 1990, a paradigm shift occurred in the development of new medicines and treatments — an idea so big it was supposed to encompass the whole of medicine.

It was to start initially at the level of pre-clinical and clinical trials and work all the way through the system to the care and management of individual patients.

This new concept for how medicine would be developed and conducted is called evidence-based medicine. Evidence-based medicine was to provide a more rigorous foundation for medicine, one based on science and the scientific method.

Truly, this was to be a revolution in medicine — a non-biased way of conducting medical research and treating patients.

What happens when evidence-based medicine is polluted by politics

Evidence-based medicine is “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.”

The aim of evidence-based medicine is to integrate the experience of the clinician, the values of the patient and the best available scientific information to guide decision-making about clinical management.

So, what the hell happened?

The authors of a March 15 editorial in The BMJ took on this question.

There is a big flaw in the logic of evidence-based medicine as the basis for the practice of medicine as we know it, a practice based on science — one that determines care down to the level of the individual patient.

This flaw is nestled in the heart and soul of evidence-based medicine, which (as we have seen over the last two years) is not free of politics.

It is naive to think data and the process of licensure of new drugs is free from bias and conflicts of interest.

In fact, this couldn’t be any farther from the truth.

The COVID crisis of 2020 to 2022 has exposed for all to see how evidence-based medicine has been corrupted by the governments, hospitalists, academia, big pharma, tech and social media. They have leveraged the processes and rationale of evidence-based medicine to corrupt the entire medical enterprise.

Evidence-based medicine depends on data. For the most part, the data-gathering and analysis process is conducted by and for the pharmaceutical industry, then reported by senior academics.

The problem, as laid out in a The BMJ editorial, is as follows:

“The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry-sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented. Until this problem is corrected, evidence-based medicine will remain an illusion.”

The integrity of data and the scientific process is corrupted as long as financial (and government) interests trump the common good.

According to the authors of The BMJ editorial:

“Medicine is largely dominated by a small number of very large pharmaceutical companies that compete for market share, but are effectively united in their efforts to expand that market.

“The short-term stimulus to biomedical research because of privatization has been celebrated by free-market champions, but the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.

“Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events and does not share raw data with the academic research community.

“Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities and regulators.

“The pharmaceutical industry’s responsibility to its shareholders means that priority must be given to their hierarchical power structures, product loyalty and public relations propaganda over scientific integrity.

“Although universities have always been elite institutions prone to influence through endowments, they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society.

“But in the face of inadequate government funding, they have adopted a neo-liberal market approach, actively seeking pharmaceutical funding on commercial terms.

“As a result, university departments become instruments of industry: Through company control of the research agenda and ghostwriting of medical journal articles and continuing medical education, academics become agents for the promotion of commercial products.

“When scandals involving industry-academe partnership are exposed in the mainstream media, trust in academic institutions is weakened and the vision of an open society is betrayed.”

BUY TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s New Book — 'The Real Anthony Fauci'

The corporate university also compromises the concept of academic leadership. No longer are positions of leadership due to distinguished careers. Instead, the ability to raise funds in the form of donations, grants, royalty revenue and contracts, dominates the requirements for University leaders.

They now must demonstrate their profitability or show how they can attract corporate sponsors.

As the U.S. government, particularly the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, controls a significant amount of the grants and contracts of most academic institutions in the U.S., they also can determine what research is conducted and who is funded to conduct that research.

The U.S. government also controls the narrative. Take for example the use of the media and how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) controlled the narrative about early treatment for COVID.

By now we should all know about the corruption of the early clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine.

On the basis of these faked studies, one of the safest drugs in the world was recommended to not be used in an outpatient setting most likely, in order to increase vaccine acceptance.

Our government used propaganda to control the use of ivermectin by such tactics as calling it unfit for human use and labeling it as a “horse wormer.”

All indications are that these efforts by the U.S. government were to dissuade early treatment to stop vaccine hesitancy.

Beyond our government skewing evidence-based medicine for their own purposes, then there is the university system, which is more interested in generating income than in creating a research program that is free from bias.

As the authors of The BMJ editorial wrote:

“ … those who succeed in academia are likely to be key opinion leaders (KOLs in marketing parlance), whose careers can be advanced through the opportunities provided by industry.

“Potential KOLs are selected based on a complex array of profiling activities carried out by companies, for example, physicians are selected based on their influence on prescribing habits of other physicians.

“KOLs are sought out by industry for this influence and for the prestige that their university affiliation brings to the branding of the company’s products.

“As well paid members of pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus, KOLs present results of industry trials at medical conferences and in continuing medical education.

“Instead of acting as independent, disinterested scientists and critically evaluating a drug’s performance, they become what marketing executives refer to as “product champions.

“Ironically, industry-sponsored KOLs appear to enjoy many of the advantages of academic freedom, supported as they are by their universities, the industry and journal editors for expressing their views, even when those views are incongruent with the real evidence.

“While universities fail to correct misrepresentations of the science from such collaborations, critics of industry face rejections from journals, legal threats and the potential destruction of their careers.

“This uneven playing field is exactly what concerned [Karl] Popper when he wrote about suppression and control of the means of science communication.

“The preservation of institutions designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality (i.e., public laboratories, independent scientific periodicals and congresses) is entirely at the mercy of political and commercial power. As the authors of The BMJ editorial wrote, vested interest will always override the rationality of evidence.

“Regulators [ergo the FDA] receive funding from industry and use industry funded and performed trials to approve drugs, without in most cases seeing the raw data. What confidence do we have in a system in which drug companies are permitted to ‘mark their own homework’ rather than having their products tested by independent experts as part of a public regulatory system?

“Unconcerned governments and captured regulators are unlikely to initiate necessary change to remove research from industry altogether and clean up publishing models that depend on reprint revenue, advertising and sponsorship revenue.”

Subscribe to The Defender - It’s Free!

Name*
Email*

So, how do we fix the problem?

Some proposals for reforms include:

Regulators must be freed from drug company funding. This includes the FDA funding — which must come directly from the government, as opposed to pharma fees, as is now the case. Tying employee salaries to pharma fees creates a huge conflict of interest within the FDA.
The revolving door between regulators like the FDA, the CDC and big pharma (as well as tech/media) must stop. Employment contracts for regulatory government positions must have “non-compete” clauses whereby employment opportunities are limited upon leaving these regulatory agencies. Likewise, big pharma executives should not fill leadership positions at regulatory agencies.
Taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and perhaps most importantly, anonymized individual patient-level trial data posted, along with study protocols. These data to be provided on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results.
Clinical trial data must be made public. Trial consent forms are easily changed to make this anonymized data freely available.
Publication of data must be open and transparent. The government has a moral obligation to trial participants, real people who have been involved in risky treatment and have a right to expect that the results of their participation will be used in keeping with principles of scientific rigor.
The government has a moral obligation to the public to conduct clinical trials in ways that are unbiased by industry.
The Foundation for the CDC and the Foundation for the NIH, which runs clinical trials and studies for these organizations (while their boards are made up of pharma industry executives and employees) must be decommissioned. We have laws in this country whereby the government does not accept volunteer labor, or direct donations to influence government decisions. These NGOs are doing just that. These practices must be stopped. They are intentionally using these organizations to bypass federal laws concerning exertion of undue influence on federal decision-making.
Off-label drugs must continue to be used by the medical community. The early treatment protocols, which have saved countless lives, have documented the important role that physicians have played in finding cheap and effective treatments for COVID as well as many other diseases. Let doctors be doctors.
Scientific and medical journals must be stopped from taking money from big pharma. This includes the sales of reprints, banner ads, print ads, etc.
Government must stop interfering with the publishing of peer-reviewed papers and social media. A free press must remain free from coercion from the government. We all know countless examples, such as the Trusted News Initiative and White House meetings with big tech to influence what is allowed to be printed. And the billions of dollars spent by the U.S. Government to promote these EUA/unlicensed “vaccine” products that do not prevent infection or transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is a direct assault on our first amendment rights. It also skews evidence-based medicine.
Informed consent, one of the foundations of modern medicine, has been stymied by the FDA, NIH, the CDC hospitalists, big tech and social media. They have been hiding data and skewing results. When people can not get the information they need to make an informed decision, evidence-based medicine can not function correctly.
The government must stop picking winners and losers. Evidence-based medicine requires a non-biased playing field.
Industry concerns about privacy and intellectual property rights should not hold sway.

If we ever trust and support the concept of evidence-based medicine again, significant changes to the system must be enacted. The only question is… is our government up to the job?

Originally published by Robert W. Malone. M.D., M.S. on Substack.

Learn more about the illusion of evidence-based medicine by watching this Dr. John Campbell video:

embedded youtube video

also viewable at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

The illusion of evidence based medicine
607,720 views
Mar 26, 2022

Dr. John Campbell
2.3M subscribers

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

____

Dachsie:

British Medical Journal
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o702

Opinion
The illusion of evidence based medicine
BMJ 2022; 376 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o702 (Published 16 March 2022)

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/wh...eally-mrna?s=r

When is mRNA not really mRNA?

Excerpts from full article.

What is pseudouridine, why is it being injected into you, and why should you care.

Robert W Malone MD, MS
3 hr ago

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch...19_380x506.png


"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one." "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”.

J. Robert Oppenheimer, Scientific director of the Manhattan Project (quoting from the Bhagavad Gita)

Last January, Stew Peters decided to roll out the thesis that I have personal responsibility for the morbidity and mortality associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines consequent to my pioneering work in developing the ideas and reduction to practice of using synthetic mRNA as a transient “gene therapy” method, with the entry level application being for vaccine purposes. This has been echoed by many angry social media detractors seeking to find someone to blame for the lies and adverse events that have been associated with these mRNA vaccines. Mindful of those critics, this Substack essay focuses on some of the differences between what was originally envisioned and the current molecules that are being injected into our bodies. The first section of the essay sets the stage by summarizing (for a general readership) how the whole idea of gene therapy was developed, and then describing how and why this lead to the idea of mRNA as a drug and as a method of generating a vaccine response. The second section gets quite technical, and provides detailed information intended for a scientific audience. The conclusion is written for a general audience.
Gene Therapy, Transhumanism, and the origins of mRNA as a drug or vaccine

The core idea captured in the original nine patents which stem from my work between 1987 and 1989 was that there are multiple key problems with the idea of permanent “gene therapy” as originally envisioned by Richard Roblin, PhD and academic Pediatrician Dr. Theodore Friedman in 1972. The modern embodiment of this concept can be found in the many writings from the WEF and others concerning “Transhumanism” and use of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology. To really understand all of this requires a brief journey through the history and logic of “gene therapy”.

The January 2015 UC San Diego News center piece entitled “Friedman Recognized for Pioneering Gene Therapy Research: School of Medicine professor receives prestigious Japan Prize” nicely summarizes the underlying logic of “Gene Therapy” as envisioned by Friedman and Roblin.

“Though posed as a question, Friedmann and Roblin firmly believed the answer was yes, citing emergent thinking, new studies and growing data that suggested “good DNA” could be used to replace defective DNA in people with inherited conditions.

“In our view,” they wrote, “gene therapy may ameliorate some human genetic diseases in the future. For this reason, we believe that research directed at the development of techniques for gene therapy should continue.”

Though Friedmann said initial response to the paper was “not overwhelming,” it’s now commonly cited as a major milestone in the scientific beginnings of gene therapy research, though Friedmann said it was the Asilomar conference three years later (scientists set safety standards for recombinant DNA technology) where interest really “exploded.”

The idea of gene therapy, which quickly captured the public imagination, was fueled by its appealingly straightforward approach and what Friedmann has described as “obvious correctness”: Disarm a potentially pathogenic virus to make it benign. Stuff these viral particles with normal DNA. Then inject them into patients carrying abnormal genes, where they will deliver their therapeutic cargoes inside the defective target cells. In theory, the good DNA replaces or corrects the abnormal function of the defective genes, rendering previously impaired cells whole, normal and healthy. End of disease.”

Nice theory, what could possibly go wrong? The article continues-

“In 1968, Friedmann, working at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland with the late Jay Seegmiller (a founding faculty member of the School of Medicine) and others, showed that by adding foreign DNA to cultured cells from patients with Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, they could correct genetic defects that caused the rare but devastating neurological disorder. The condition was first described by William Nyhan, MD, a UC San Diego professor of pediatrics, and medical student Michael Lesch in 1964.

The feat was a powerful proof-of-concept, but subsequent efforts to advance the work to human clinical trials stalled. “We began to realize that it would be very complicated to take this idea and make it work in people,” Friedmann said, who joined the School of Medicine faculty in 1969.

In 1990, a 4-year-old girl with a congenital disease called adenoside deaminase (ADA) deficiency, which severely affects immunity and the ability to fight infections, became the first patient treated by gene therapy. White blood cells were taken from her, the normal ADA gene was inserted into them using an engineered and disabled virus and the cells re-injected. Despite initial claims of success, Friedmann said the experiment was eventually deemed a failure. The girl’s condition was not cured, and the research was found wanting.

A report commissioned by National Institutes of Health director Harold Varmus, MD, was highly critical of the entire gene therapy field and the ADA effort in particular, chiding investigators for creating a “mistaken and widespread perception of success.” Friedmann says he took the Varmus report “personally. I felt awful. It almost made me feel like I had been deceiving myself and my colleagues for more than two decades about the promise of gene therapy.” But he also knew there were “many more good people doing gene therapy research than rogues” and continued diligently and conscientiously to pursue his own research.

Nonetheless, media attention and hype about gene therapy continued to be rampant, fueled in part by over-enthusiastic opinions by some scientists. Things crashed in 1999 when an 18-year-old patient named Jesse Gelsinger, who suffered from a genetic disease of the liver, died during a clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania. Gelsinger’s death was the first directly attributed to gene therapy. Subsequent investigations revealed numerous problems in the experimental design.”

The history of the Varmus report provides an early glimpse of the way things work at NIH and the US HHS. The Scientist appointed to head up the commission to review the science of “Gene Therapy” was none other than my graduate mentor Dr. Inder Verma, who had long been one of the leading proponents of gene therapy, and was subsequently forced to resign from the Salk Institute over a decades long record of what might most gently be called ethical lapses. But this was the scientist appointed by the overall Director of the NIH to “independently” investigate the scientific rigor and merits of the field. One hand washes the other.

What is awry with the original “gene therapy” concept? There are multiple issues, and here are a few-

1) Can you efficiently get genetic material (“polynucleotides”) into the nucleus of the majority of cells in the human body so that any genetic defects (or transhuman genetic improvements) can be made? In short, no. Human cells (and the immune system) have evolved many, many different mechanisms to resist modification by external polynucleotides. Otherwise we would already be overrun by various forms of parasitic DNA and RNA- viral and otherwise. This remains a major technical barrier, one which the “transhumanists” continue to overlook in their enthusiastic but naïve rush to play god with the human species. What are polynucleotides? Basically, the long chain polymers composed of four nucleotide bases (ATGC in the case of DNA, AUGC in the case of RNA) which carry all genetic information (that we know of) across time.

2) What about the immune system? Well, this was one of my breakthroughs way back in the late 1980s. What Ted (Friedman) originally envisioned was the simple idea that if a child had a genetic birth defect causing the body to produce a defective or not produce a critical protein (such as Lesch-Nyhan syndrome or Adenosine Deaminase Deficiency), this could be simply corrected by providing the “good gene” to complement the defect. What was not appreciated was that the immune systems of these children were “educated” during development to either recognize the “bad protein” as normal/self, or to not recognize the absent protein as normal/self. So, introduction of the “go od gene” into a person’s body would cause production of what was essentially a “foreign protein”, resulting in immunologic attack and killing of the cells which now have the ‘good gene”.

3) What happens when things go wrong and the “good gene/protein” is toxic? Well, in the current vaccine situation this is essentially the “Spike protein” problem. I get asked all the time “what can I do to eliminate the RNA vaccines from my body”, to which I have to answer – nothing. There is no technology that I know of which can eliminate these synthetic “mRNA-like” molecules from your body. The same is true for any of the many “gene therapy” methods currently being used. You just have to hope that your immune system will attack the cells that have taken up the polynucleotides and degrade (chew up) the offending large molecule that causes your cells to manufacture the toxic protein. Since virtually all current “gene therapy” methods are inefficient, and essentially deliver the genetic material randomly to a small subset of cells, there is no practical way to surgically remove the scattered, relatively rare transgenic cells. Clearance of genetically modified cells by the cellular immune system (T cells) is the only currently viable method to remove cells that have taken up the foreign genetic information (“transfection” in the case of mRNA or DNA, or “transduction” in the case of a viral vectored gene).

4) What happens if the “good gene” lands in a “bad place” in your genome? It turns out that the structure of our genome is highly evolved, and we are still relative neophytes in our current level of understanding. Despite having sequenced the human genome. The method of “insertional mutagenesis” (sticking genetic information in the form of viral DNA or other ways) has long been one of the leading methods to generate new insights into genetics – from fruit flies to frogs to fish to mice. When new DNA is inserted into chromosomes it can cause many unexpected things to happen. Like development of cancers, for example. This is why there is so much concern about the possibility that the mRNA-like polynucleotides used in the “RNA vaccines” may travel into the nucleus (where the DNA chromosomes reside) and insert or recombine with a cellular genome after reverse transcription (RNA-> DNA). Normally, with DNA-based gene therapy technologies, the FDA requires genotoxicity studies for this reason, but the FDA did not treat the “mRNA vaccine” technology as a gene therapy product.

Based on these risk considerations, the original idea behind using mRNA as a drug (for genetic therapeutic or vaccine purposes) was that mRNA is typically degraded quite rapidly once manufactured or released into a cell. mRNA stability is regulated by a number of genetic elements including the length of the “poly A tail”, but typically ranges from ½ to a couple of hours. Therefore, if natural or synthetic mRNA which is degraded by the usual enzymes is introduced into your body, it should only last for a very short time. And this has been the answer which Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna have provided to physicians when asked “how long does the injected mRNA last after injection”.

But now we know that the “mRNA” from the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines which incorporates the synthetic nucleotide pseudouridine can persist in lymph nodes for at least 60 days after injection. This is not natural, and this is not really mRNA. These molecules have genetic elements similar to those of natural mRNA, but they are clearly far more resistant to the enzymes which normally degrade natural mRNA, seem to be capable of producing high levels of protein for extended periods, and seem to evade normal immunologic mechanisms for eliminating cells which produce foreign proteins which are not normally observed in the body.

Key findings from this seminal work by Katharina Röltgen et al include the following: SNIP

...

Conclusion

Based on this information, it appears to me that the extensive random incorporation of pseudouridine into the synthetic mRNA-like molecules used for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may well account for much or all of the observed immunosuppression, DNA virus reactivation, and remarkable persistence of the synthetic “mRNA” molecules observed in lymph node biopsy tissues by Katharina Röltgen et al. Many of these adverse effects were reported by Kariko, Weissman et al in their 2008 paper “Incorporation of pseudouridine into mRNA yields superior nonimmunogenic vector with increased translational capacity and biological stability” and could have been anticipated by regulatory and toxicology professionals if they had bothered to consider these findings prior to allowing emergency use authorization and widespread (global) deployment of what is truly an immature and previously untested technology. Therefore, neither the FDA, NIH, CDC, nor BioNTech (which employs Dr. Kariko as a Vice President) nor Moderna can claim true ignorance. To my eyes, what we have seen is more appropriately classified as “willful ignorance”.

In conclusion, based on these data it is my opinion that the random and uncontrolled insertion of pseudouridine into the manufactured “mRNA”-like molecules administered to so many of us creates a population of polymers which may resemble natural mRNA, but which have a variety of properties which distinguish them in a variety of aspects which are clinically relevant. These characteristics and activities may account for many of the unusual effects, unusual stability, and striking adverse events associated with this new class of vaccines. These molecules are not natural mRNA, and they do not behave like natural mRNA.

The question that most troubles and perplexes me at this point is why the biological consequences of these modifications and associated clinical adverse effects were not thoroughly investigated before widespread administration of random pseudouridine-incorporating “mRNA”-like molecules to a global population. Biology, and particularly molecular biology, is highly complex and matrix-interrelated. Change one thing over here, and it is really hard to predict what might happen over there. That is why one must do rigorously controlled non-clinical and clinical research. Once again, it appears to me that the hubris of “elite” high status scientists, physicians and governmental “public health” bureaucrats has overcome common sense, well established regulatory norms have been disregarded, and patients have unnecessarily suffered as a consequence.

When will we ever learn.
Subscribe to Who is Robert Malone

By Robert W Malone MD · Thousands of paid subscribers

Medicine, science, bioethics, analytics, politics and life