Coronavirus

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/c-a...m_source=email

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...Xq52DsC29g--~D

☕️ C&C NEWS ☙ Wednesday, October 12, 2022 ☙ KNOCKOUT

Fetterman's first post-stroke live interview; Trump's emergency Supreme Court appeal; Court's important elections decision; Europe's financial woes; Phizer's backtracking; science's excuses; and more.

Jeff Childers
October 12, 2022

Excerpt: one story in today's new letter.

�� The UK Telegraph ran an alarming article yesterday headlined, “Video Games Could Trigger Heart Attacks in Children.”

Video games! Heart attacks! In CHILDREN!

In other words, they’re saying if you get killed in the game, you could be killed in real life. I think there was a movie about that or something.

The story reports a new Australian study reviewing TWENTY-TWO cases where children suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed, unconscious, while playing video games. They speculate the adrenaline and excitement caused by tense experiences playing competitive multi-player war games can trigger “previously unidentified heart issues.”

Uh huh.

Dr. Jonathan Skinner, the study’s co-author, said he was “staggered” to see how widespread the issue is — and that it has led to some children dying. Weird that it’s happening just now.

Now, I’m just spitballing here, but I wonder if the researchers looked for other common factors among the kids who collapsed. I don’t know what it could be, of course, but I wonder if they all took the same medication or something. They should probably ask. You never know.

Anyway, you might want to take it seriously if the advertisement says, “this video game is a knockout!”

Twitter avatar for @Telegraph
The Telegraph @Telegraph

��Young people with undiagnosed cardiac issues most at risk if they get too excited from playing games, say researchers telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/1…

telegraph.co.uk Video games could trigger heart attacks in children Young people with undiagnosed cardiac issues most at risk if they get too excited from playing games, say researchers...

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/..._1024x536.jpeg

7:40 AM ∙ Oct 11, 2022
43Likes31Retweets

Just lost a post in mid-air. Once more with feeling.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/c-a...m_source=email

☕️ C&C NEWS ☙ Wednesday, October 12, 2022 ☙ KNOCKOUT

Jeff Childers' daily news email. Sign up today.

Excerpt

�� The UK Telegraph ran an alarming article yesterday headlined, “Video Games Could Trigger Heart Attacks in Children.”

Video games! Heart attacks! In CHILDREN!

In other words, they’re saying if you get killed in the game, you could be killed in real life. I think there was a movie about that or something.

The story reports a new Australian study reviewing TWENTY-TWO cases where children suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed, unconscious, while playing video games. They speculate the adrenaline and excitement caused by tense experiences playing competitive multi-player war games can trigger “previously unidentified heart issues.”

Uh huh.

Dr. Jonathan Skinner, the study’s co-author, said he was “staggered” to see how widespread the issue is — and that it has led to some children dying. Weird that it’s happening just now.

Now, I’m just spitballing here, but I wonder if the researchers looked for other common factors among the kids who collapsed. I don’t know what it could be, of course, but I wonder if they all took the same medication or something. They should probably ask. You never know.

Anyway, you might want to take it seriously if the advertisement says, “this video game is a knockout!”

Twitter avatar for @Telegraph

The Telegraph @Telegraph

��Young people with undiagnosed cardiac issues most at risk if they get too excited from playing games, say researchers telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/1…
telegraph.co.ukVideo games could trigger heart attacks in childrenYoung people with undiagnosed cardiac issues most at risk if they get too excited from playing games, say researchers
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/..._1024x536.jpeg

7:40 AM ∙ Oct 11, 2022
43Likes31Retweets

_______

Dachsie comment:

Who makes this stuff up!

All of this blatant lying sin of omission is so insulting to everyone. How can we respect doctors and scientists and media that put out this bilge?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHl_zn14PRE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHl_zn14PRE

TV-Doc Drew changes his ideas about the vaccines.

In the first minute of this show he said...

"...now, I've got some concerns, but I still recommend it for my elderly patients."

Dachsie comment:

Any doctor that recommends this clot shot for their elderly patients is not a good doctor.

The only thing the clot shot does is cause disease, injury and death, some sooner, some later.

This shot does not prevent the uptaker from contracting any scientifically identified "virus" or pathogen.

This shot does not prevent the uptaker from spreading any known or scientifically unidentified "contagious" illness.

The shot is being revealed to be a destroyer of the uptaker's "immune system."
What good on God's green earth does recommending this shot to elderly patients do?

____________

I just learned about Dr. Drew recently and was impressed with his co-heart Dr. Kelly Victory and her great commentary. But I think I am going to abstain from this admission today of his big show about his change of position.

More and more, I have to put every other word almost in quotes because I have no idea what their definition is. Does a laboratory-created "virus" act the same way has a naturally occurring virus? don't think so. In any event, they ain't sayin' and do not ever bother to answer that obvious question. We don't know how "the virus" spreads and no way of contagion to compare it to a "real virus.:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/florid...ent=10-12-2022

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...oWfUx2bftg--~D
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...7WRFyuYrrQ--~D

October 12, 2022 show


This show is mainly about vaccines - mRNA vaccines.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/florid...ent=10-12-2022

Florida Surgeon General Warns mRNA Vaccines Are Killing Men; Top Medical Journal Skews Vaccine Data

new warning from the surgeon general in Florida says that the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 significantly increase the risk of death from heart problems, particularly in men. It states, “This analysis found that there is an 84 percent increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18–39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination.”

Meanwhile, a leading medical journal was recently found to have skewed data in a peer-reviewed study on vaccinations by grouping together people who had natural immunity from COVID-19 with data on people who received the vaccines.

In this live Q&A with Crossroads host Joshua Philipp, we’ll discuss these stories and others, and answer questions from the audience.

Subscribe to the new Crossroads newsletter and stay up-to-date!

__________
Dachsie comment:

Several medical journals were changing data and falsifying medical information. I am listening now to see if the journals names are named.

Everything is falling apart about the PLANdemic. I am thankful.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ly-vaccinated/

"Academia is Dead” – Leading Medical Journal’s ‘Peer-Reviewed’ Pro-Vaccine Study Listed “Unvaccinated People with a Previous Infection” as “Fully Vaccinated”

Julian Conradson

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-...52_Twitter.jpg

Just when you thought the Covid-deranged establishment medical community couldn’t lose any more credibility, the formerly reputable medical journal ‘Nature Communications’ comes along and says ‘hold my beer.’

Despite a growing mountain of evidence showing that the experimental Covid vaccines are ineffective at preventing infection and transmission, a newly published peer-reviewed study in the journal ‘Nature‘ has concluded that “fully vaccinated and booster-vaccinated contacts are generally less susceptible to infection compared to unvaccinated contacts.”

In other words, ‘the vaccines prevent sickness and transmission.’ And here’s the peer-reviewed study to prove it – just in time for midterms booster season.

The study, titled “Household transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in Denmark” examined the Covid transmission and infection rates of 60,000+ individuals to find out what was causing infection rates to remain so high throughout the arrival of the Omicron and Delta variants. After compiling the data, they determined that the unvaccinated are at a greater risk of infection than their vaccinated peers.

TRENDING: EXCLUSIVE - ANDREW WEISSMANN PART III: For 30 Years a Condemned Man Sits in Prison Because of Weissman's Actions in the Most Corrupt Prosecution in DOJ History

How convenient… But unfortunately for the scientists, the study does not hold up to even an ounce of scrutiny, as the propagandist ‘experts’ (or conversely, the expert propagandists) manipulated the data in such an egregious way that it caused heads to explode across the scientific community.

In one such response to the Nature study, Dr. Simon Goddek – a prominent scientist who specializes in biotechnologies and has been a leading critic of the experimental Covid jabs – blasted the bogus findings while lamenting about the demise of his entire profession on Telegram:

“Academia is dead. The peer review process is a joke… I am ashamed to be a scientist. From now on I am calling myself an independent science journalist.”

Brutal.

So how on earth did they come up with the data to support their ridiculous conclusion? Well, the study’s authors – some 20 leading ‘medical professionals’ – made their manufactured determination by counting unvaccinated individuals with a prior Covid infection as “fully vaccinated” – Yes… Really…

On the flip side, unvaccinated individuals included “individuals with partial vaccination” – you know, just in case they needed to play with the numbers some more.

This is made clear in the study’s notes from Table 2 (titled: “Effect of Vaccination”), which states:

“1. aUnvaccinated includes individuals with partial vaccination.

2. bFully vaccinated includes unvaccinated individuals with previous infection.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-...-17.31.51.jpeg

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-...-17.31.51.jpeg

Source: Dr. Simon Goddek’s Telegram

This completely crude manipulation allowed them to surmise that “vaccination and booster vaccination does confer protection” and that the vaccinated (who might not have taken a vaccine) are “less susceptible” to the Covid virus.

Aka. Propaganda at its finest. Pay no mind to the staggering evidence to the contrary – especially the part that shows the vaccine will increase the chances of cardiac-related DEATH by as much as 84%.

BREAKING BIG: FL Surgeon General Finds 84% Increase in Cardiac-Related DEATH in Males 18-39 Following mRNA Vaccine – Recommends Young Males Refrain from Receiving COVID Vaccine

What’s even more concerning, however, is that the bogus study made it through the peer-review process without a single objection being raised, according to Dr. Goddek…

What a total clown show…

From Dr. Goddek:

“That’s how they manipulate data to justify injecting us with that gene therapy. The publication includes 20 authors and no objections were raised? Even the peer reviewers had nothing to claim about.”

Unbelievably, the study’s authors did address their decision to group the unvaccinated with the vaccinated, and vice-versa. They ridiculously claimed that if the two groups had been separated it would “not materially change our results.” However, that excuse does not hold water, because the only two categories defined in the study are “vaccinated individuals” and “unvaccinated individuals.” If you mix some into the other group, the entire premise of the study falls apart. Plus, natural immunity has proven to be superior and longer-lasting than the experimental jab. Calling those who have never been vaccinated “fully vaccinated” undermines the entire notion of vaccines, no? So, what’s the point?

Again, it’s pure propaganda. This has never been about saving lives.

Dachsie comment:

This is the study that showed that spike proteins (of the PFIZER vaccine) were found in the brain and heart of a deceased man. This means the mRNA vaccine penetrates the "blood - brain barrier."
Also found these spike proteins in human breast milk of "lactating individuals ".
Another "conspiracy theory" turns out to be true.

This puts us in a whole new sphere of alarm.
_____________

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651/review_report

[MDPI Open Access Journals]
zoom_out_map search menu

Journals
Vaccines
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/vaccines10101651
vaccines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Edit a Special Issue
► Article Menu
Open AccessCase Report
Peer-Review Record

A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19
Vaccines 2022, 10(10), 1651; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10101651

by Michael Mörz
Reviewer 1: Giusi Macaluso
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Reinaldo B. Bestetti
Vaccines 2022, 10(10), 1651; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10101651
Received: 31 August 2022 / Revised: 25 September 2022 / Accepted: 27 September 2022 / Published: 1 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Adverse Events of COVID-19 Vaccines)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This case report aims to represent a case of a 77-year-old man who was found to have neurological and cardiac inflammation upon autopsy. The man was vaccinated in May 2021 with the ChAdOx1 nCov- 19 vector vaccine, followed by two more doses with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in July and December 2021, and died three weeks after receiving his third COVID-19 vaccination in January 2022.

Immunohistochemical staining revealed that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was evident in the tissues investigated. Since SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid-protein was not evidenced, the detected spike-protein was unrelated to a SARS-CoV-2 infection and the confirmed presence of the spike protein had to be attributed to the previous vaccination with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Findings provide important evidence raising the attention to the possibility of serious side effects in the first week in patients receiving gene-based mRNA vaccines. Therefore, in clinical practice, cerebral and cardiac complications should be considered in patients receiving mRNA-based vaccines. Moreover, further well-designed preclinical studies are urgently required for future decision-making and health policy implementation.



The discussion is enough consistent with the evidence and
arguments presented.

The references result appropriate.

Line 76 “Table 1. Antibodies”: Explain better the table

Author Response

Comment: Table 1. Antibodies (line 76): Explain better the table

Response: Thank you for your attention. The title of table 1 has been changed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction and discussion may be significantly shortened without detriment to the merit of the study.

The results of the autopsy should only include the detected abnormalities.







Author Response

Comment: The introduction and discussion may be significantly shortened without detriment to the merit of the study. The results of the autopsy should only include the detected abnormalities.



Response: Thank you for your time and effort to help meeting the required high standards of the journal for getting the manuscript published. The introduction and the discussion sections have been revised. As for the results of the autopsy, they are restricted to the essentials and did include already only abnormalities.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors report a case of a 77-year-old man with Parkinson disease who died of aspiration pneumonia. He had been vaccinated against SARS-COV-2 infection with Ch AdOx1 nCovid 19, and with two doses of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. He died three weeks after the last jab. At autopsy, the authors found mild lymphocytic myocarditis and signs of multifocal necrotizing encephalitis. Because the authors found positive brain spike protein in the brain and in the myocardium, and negative nucleocapsid-protein in such organs, they claim that the disease is associated with vaccine-induced myocardial and brain lesions rather than active SARS-COV-2 infection. I have several concerns regarding this paper: 1) because there has been no concomitant myocardial necrosis, lymphocytic myocarditis seems not to be a suitable term. At most, the diagnosis should be done as mild borderline myocarditis; 2) lymphocytic infiltration is common in patients with chronic heart disease, mainly in the elderly; the presence of contraction bands suggests an ischemic origin for the lesions observed followed by lymphocytic infiltration. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the authors discuss this aspect in the Discussion section of the paper; 3) a reference should be provided emphasizing that such myocardial and cerebral lesions do not occur in patients with Parkinson disease; 4) references should also be provided to support the suggestion that the lesions observed (spike-protein positive, nucleocapsid-protein negative) in the tissues of concern, particularly the endotheliitis, are indicative of vaccine-induced endothelial lesions and not SARS-COV-2 infection; 5) line 380; this case report does not suggest “the possibility of serious side effects in the first week in patients receiving gene-based mRNA vaccines”, as the authors pointed out. Therefore, I suggest that the phrase be removed from the text. 6) line 384; I totally disagree with the statement “Moreover, further well-designed preclinical studies are urgently required for future decision-making and health policy implementation”. Massive vaccination has changed the clinical course of COVID-19. The complication reported here, if proved to be the consequence of vaccination, it will be unique. Even myocarditis is extremely rare, as the authors concede. Therefore, phase IV studies should be undertaken to detect complications of vaccination in the long-run. I suggest that the phrase be amended.

Author Response

Thank you for your attention and your time for a very detailed review. Your comments were very helpful and inspiring. As for the myocarditis, this is indeed only mild. There was no necrosis, that is right, but there were other signs indicative of acute myocardial alterations associated by inflammatory cell infiltrations (lympho-histiocytic). I added additional images to Figure 5, please see in the revised manuscript.

The most striking findings in the heart were the acute inflammatory lesions in the small myocardial blood vessels (as presented in figure 5). They consisted of endothelial swelling and vacuolation as well as vacuolation of vascular myocytes with signs of karyopyknosis. All this was associated by sparse lymphocytic infiltrates within the vascular wall. Furthermore, plasma coagulation/fibrin clots were noted adhering to the endothelial surface, indicative of endothelial damage. Important to note is, that in small vessels of the heart abundant presence of spike protein (but no nucleocapsid) of SARS-CoV-2 could be demonstrated within the endothelium (see Figure 13).

In addition to these vascular changes, there were mild early signs of degeneration and inflammation in the adjacent myocardium: hypereosinophilia and edema of cardiomyocytes with occasional karyopyknosis as well as some hypercontraction in single cardiomyocytes, associated with pronounced interstitial edema and mild presence of lympho-histiocytic infiltrates.

Hopefully, all this satisfies your queries and you can agree with the final diagnosis of “mild lympho-histiocytic myocarditis”. I certainly don’t want to say, that this had caused his death, but only wanted to express, that something was going on in the heart, which may have somehow contributed to his bad condition.



Comment 2: “Lymphocytic infiltration is common in patients with chronic heart disease, mainly in the elderly; the presence of contraction bands suggests an ischemic origin for the lesions observed followed by lymphocytic infiltration. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the authors discuss this aspect in the Discussion section of the paper.”



Response: Yes, I fully agree. It is quite difficult to distinguish chronic ageing-related changes in the heart from toxic lesions, in particular in the elderly with underlying chronic heart disease. Therefore, mild lympho-histiocytic infiltrations alone tell not much. In the current case, however, there were also the acute lesions in small cardiac blood vessels and also in the myocardium itself. All mild, I agree, but real. As for the presence of hypercontraction bands, it is to note that this was rather marginal in the presented case and nothing compared to what is known as “cardiac toxicity following catecholamine excess”. If this alone would have occurred, I would not even have mentioned it. The hypereosinophilia of cardiomyocytes, however, was clearly present. The same applies to the karyopyknosis of single cardiomyocytes. Furthermore, there was prominent interstitial edema and also edema of cardiomyocytes, accompanied by mild lympho-histiocytic infiltrations and acute vascular changes. All this together convinced me to call this a mild myocarditis. Please have a look on the additional images and on the discussion, where myocarditis had been addressed in particular.



Comment 3: “A reference should be provided emphasizing that such myocardial and cerebral lesions do not occur in patients with Parkinson's disease.”



Response: Thank you for this valuable remark. This had been addressed in the new discussion.



Comment 4: “References should also be provided to support the suggestion that the lesions observed (spike-protein positive, nucleocapsid-protein negative) in the tissues of concern, particularly the endotheliitis, are indicative of vaccine-induced endothelial lesions and not SARS-COV-2 infection.”



Response: This is a very important point and had been addressed in the new discussion.



Comment 5: “line 380; this case report does not suggest “the possibility of serious side effects in the first week in patients receiving gene-based mRNA vaccines”, as the authors pointed out. Therefore, I suggest that the phrase be removed from the text.”



Response: You are right, thanks for your comment. This was no more mentioned in the new discussion.



Comment 6: “line 384; I totally disagree with the statement “Moreover, further well-designed preclinical studies are urgently required for future decision-making and health policy implementation”.



Response: Thank you for this valuable remark. This topic of preclinical vaccine safety evaluation had been totally removed in the new discussion as it is beyond the scope of a case presentation.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I think that the paper has improved a lot with the author's review. I also think that it would be better to diagnose "heart involvement" instead of mild myocarditis. Because there is no myocyte necrosis, it would be better to diagnose borderline myocarditis. The other lesions in the adjacent myocardium, however, now very clear in the amended manuscript, might suggest the diagnosis of active mild myocarditis.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...cover-up-cola/


10/06/22
•
COVID
› Views
The Origins of COVID: All Evidence Points to a Cover-Up

Evidence points to SARS-CoV-2 being the result of a lab leak, and that Dr. Anthony Fauci, Harvard researchers, China, the mainstream media, the World Health Organization and tech companies all worked together to cover it up. U.S. Right to Know has published a detailed timeline of the cover-up.

By
Dr. Joseph Mercola

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



Evidence points to SARS-CoV-2 being the result of a lab leak, and that Dr. Anthony Fauci, Harvard researchers, China, the mainstream media, the World Health Organization and tech companies all worked together to cover it up. U.S. Right to Know has published a detailed timeline of the cover-up.



Story at-a-glance:

Evidence points to SARS-CoV-2 being the result of a lab leak, and that Dr. Anthony Fauci, Harvard researchers, China, the mainstream media, the World Health Organization and tech companies all worked together to cover it up. U.S. Right to Know has published a detailed timeline of the cover-up.
In mid-January 2020, then-director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Robert Redfield voiced concerns that the pandemic may have been the result of a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. He called Fauci, Wellcome Trust director Jeremy Farrar and World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, urging each of them to “take the lab leak hypothesis with extreme seriousness.” To this day, he believes the lab leak theory is the most credible.
In his memoir, “Spike,” Farrar noted that emails were circulating among credible scientists “suggesting the virus looked almost engineered to infect human cells.” The topic so concerned him, he acquired a burner phone and instructed his contacts to use different phones and email accounts when discussing the matter.
Jan. 29, 2020, Scripps Research virologist Kristian Andersen discovered a research paper describing gain-of-function techniques used on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2. According to Andersen, the study looked like a how-to manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus.
Andersen and several other researchers who initially suspected a lab leak rapidly changed their minds, coincidentally mere days after the Chinese real estate company Evergrande made a large donation to Harvard Medical School.

That all of our federal health agencies are captured by industry can no longer be in doubt. The COVID-19 pandemic has confirmed lingering suspicions of this, and then some.

Captured agencies that are now more or less openly working against the interest of the American public include the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

They have repeatedly authorized experimental mRNA-based COVID-19 shots despite overwhelming evidence of harm and little to no benefit. The National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which has been in charge of all U.S. biodefense research since 2003, under the leadership of Dr. Anthony Fauci, is also part of this group.

As reported by Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar (video below), evidence points to SARS-CoV-2 being the result of a lab leak, and that Fauci, Harvard researchers, China, the mainstream media, the World Health Organization (WHO) and tech companies all worked together to cover it up.

In his report, Saagar reviews the timeline of that cover-up, published by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) on Sept. 14.

Timeline of the lab leak Cover-up — January 2020

In mid-January 2020, then-director of the CDC, Dr. Robert Redfield, a virologist, voiced concerns that the pandemic may have been the result of a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China.

He told Vanity Fair that he called Fauci, Wellcome Trust director Jeremy Farrar and WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, urging each of them to “take the lab-leak hypothesis with extreme seriousness.

In his memoir, “Spike,” Farrar also noted that emails were circulating among credible scientists “suggesting the virus looked almost engineered to infect human cells.”

The topic so concerned him, he acquired a burner phone and instructed his contacts to use different phones and email accounts when discussing the matter.

On Jan. 27, 2020, Fauci was reminded that he funds coronavirus research at the WIV by way of the EcoHealth Alliance, which by then had been collaborating with the WIV on coronavirus research for the previous five years.

Two days later (Jan. 29), Scripps Research virologist Kristian Andersen discovered a paper describing gain-of-function techniques used on coronaviruses at the WIV that could potentially have given rise to SARS-CoV-2.

As reported by USRTK:

“Andersen became alarmed that a bat coronavirus may have been engineered to infect humans, pointing to the receptor binding domain and furin cleavage site … He also flagged a gain-of-function study that ‘looked like a how-to manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory.’

“‘Andersen found a scientific paper where exactly this technique had been used to modify the spike protein of the original SARS-CoV-1 virus, the one that had caused the SARS outbreak of 2002/3,’ Farrar wrote. ‘The pair knew of a laboratory where researchers had been experimenting on coronaviruses for years: the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in the city at the heart of the outbreak.’

“The title of this paper is unknown. But it is clear that a 2015 paper involving gain-of-function work with a SARS-CoV backbone at the Wuhan Institute of Virology appears to have alarmed Fauci a few days later.

“The 2015 paper had been given an abbreviated title: ‘SARS Gain of function.’ Andersen and [University of Sydney virologist Edward] Holmes met on a Zoom call. ‘Fuck, this is bad,’ Holmes said in response to Andersen’s findings.”

Jan. 31, 2020, Andersen wrote an email to Fauci, stating that the virus looked unnatural to him and three other virologists who had looked at its genetic sequence, and that all four of them “find the genome to be inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

The three virologists in question were Robert (Bob) Garry at the Tulane Cancer Center, Eddie Holmes at the University of Sydney and Michael Farzan, chair of the Scripps Research Department of Immunology and Microbiology.

According to Farrar’s memoir, Holmes was at that time 80% sure the virus came from a lab, while Andersen estimated the risk of it being from a lab leak at 60% to 70%.

Two hours after Andersen gave him the bad news, shortly past midnight, Fauci emailed NIAID principal deputy director Hugh Auchincloss, telling him “It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on.”

He also instructed Auchincloss to read an attached scientific paper, thought to be the 2015 Nature paper “A SARS-Like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human Emergence,” which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had funded through an EcoHealth Alliance grant, and told him he “will have tasks today that must be done.”

That paper, co-led by WIV director Zhengli Shi, described how they’d spliced the spike protein of one coronavirus into a SARS-CoV backbone. Importantly, the authors noted that additional experimentation “may be too risky to pursue.”

Cover-up timeline: February 2020

Shortly before noon Feb. 1, 2020, then-director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, emailed a preprint study authored by Shi to Fauci, describing several coronaviruses, including one called RaTG13.

Collins added that there’s “No evidence this work was supported by NIH.” At 2 p.m., Fauci and Collins both joined a confidential teleconference organized by Farrar.

Other attendees included Andersen, Holmes, Garry, University of Edinburg virologist Andrew Rambaut, Erasmus MC virologist Ron Fouchier, Erasmus MC department of viroscience director Marion Koopmans, Institute of Virology at Charite Hospital director Christian Drosten, German Primate Center virologist Stefan Pohlman, Wellcome deputy chair Mike Ferguson, Wellcome chief operating officer Paul Schreier and chief scientific adviser to the UK, Patrick Vallance.

Redfield was not invited, despite his earlier discussions with Fauci and Farrar. Later that evening, someone in the group (name redacted) emailed the group (although only Farrar and Vallance’s names are unredacted) asking, “We need to talk about the backbone too, not just the insert?” That question is important, as scientists on this call ended up writing a paper dismissing the lab leak theory as pure bunk.

The next day, the virologists exchanged thoughts. At that time, several were leaning toward it being a manufactured virus. Garry stressed he couldn’t understand how SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged naturally, and Farzan was “bothered by the furin site” and could not explain the presence of it “as an event outside the lab.”

In an email, Farzan suggested the unique features in SARS-CoV-2 might best be explained by “continued passage of virus in tissue culture … accidentally creating a virus that would be primed for rapid transmission between humans via gain of furin site (from tissue culture) and adaption to human ACE2 receptor via repeated passage.”

Talking about a lab leak would ‘harm science in general’

Fouchier, who in 2011 alarmed the world by modifying the deadly avian flu (H5N1) to make it spread between ferrets, warned the group that continuing this debate “would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general.”

Within a couple of hours, Collins had jumped on Fouchier’s bandwagon. He emailed Fauci, Farrar and NIH official Lawrence Tabak, stating he was “quickly coming around to the view that a natural origin is more likely,” and that a “swift convening of experts in a confidence inspiring framework” was needed to quell “voices of conspiracy” that could do “great potential harm to science and international harmony.”

Within the hour, Farrar forwarded an article by ZeroHedge to Fauci, Collins and Tabak, which discussed HIV insertions found in SARS-CoV-2. Approximately 2.5 hours after that, Twitter suspended ZeroHedge.

While not included in USRTK’s timeline, investigative journalist Ashley Rindsberg in May reported on a curious coincidence that took place Feb. 2, 2020. Evergrande, one of the largest real estate companies in the world, which has close ties to the Chinese Communist Party and is in serious financial trouble, donated $115 million to Harvard Medical School.

Harvard dean George Daley emailed Fauci that morning, informing him of the meeting with Evergrande’s CEO Jack Zia and its chief health officer Dr. Jack Liu.

For unknown reasons, Daley asked Fauci to share information “on your current efforts to coordinate a response.” Fauci and Collins phoned Daley and the Evergrande officials the next day.

Just two days after that, Feb. 4, Farrar circulated a rough draft of what was to become “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” which completely denied any possibility of a lab leak.

Did Evergrande’s donation to Harvard have anything to do with Harvard scientists suddenly changing their views on the lab leak theory?

According to USRTK, “Holmes had emailed Farrar the summary, noting that ‘It’s fundamental science and completely neutral as written. Did not mention other anomalies as this will make us look like loons.’” Farrar at that point stated he was 50/50 on the lab leak theory, while Holmes was 60/40 in favor of a lab leak.

Andersen, meanwhile, at this point changed his tune and encouraged the scientists to claim the virus was “consistent with natural evolution,” which is the complete opposite of his view just a few days earlier, when he told Fauci the genome was “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

At the same time that all of this was going on, members of the group were pressuring the WHO to convene a group to investigate the virus’s origin. As we now know, that group was biased beyond belief and its conclusions so absurd that the world rejected it wholesale, forcing Ghebreyesus to backpedal and promise to launch a new investigation.

Feb. 11, Ian Lipkin, a virologist and professor of epidemiology at Columbia University and a coauthor of “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” sent an email to his coauthors — Andersen, Rambaut, Holmes and Garry — stating the argument against genetic engineering was “well reasoned,” but that it “does not eliminate the possibility of inadvertent release following adaptation through selection in culture” at the WIV.

He continued, “Given the scale of the bat CoV research pursued there and the site of emergence of the first human cases, we have a nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess.”

Cover-up timeline: March 2020

In a March 6, 2020 email, Andersen thanked Farrar, Fauci and Collins for their “advice and leadership” on the “Proximal Origin” paper. “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” was published in the journal Nature Medicine in mid-March.

As intended, it received massive media coverage, with headlines like, “The Coronavirus Did Not Escape from a Lab: Here’s How We Know,” “Once and for All, the New Coronavirus Was Not Made in a Lab” and “Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists. Study Concludes COVID-19 Is Not a Laboratory Construct.”

On March 26, Collins even highlighted the paper on the NIH blog — but didn’t say a word about his own involvement.

Cover-up timeline: April and May 2020

Alas, despite best efforts, and with all of mainstream media helping push the false narrative, “conspiracy theories” about the virus being a lab-created bioweapon just would not stop — a fact that probably kept Fauci and Collins awake many a night.

In an April 16, 2020 email to Fauci titled “conspiracy gains momentum,” Collins asked, “Wondering if there is something NIH can do to help put down this very destructive conspiracy, with what seems to be growing momentum … I hoped the Nature Medicine article on the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 would settle this …”

Fauci replied, “I would not do anything about this right now. It is a shiny object that will go away in times [sic].” Hours later, Fauci did a White House press conference in which he cited the “Proximal Origin” paper he helped conceive, telling reporters the virus arose naturally, and is “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

That same day, April 16, Holmes and a Chinese researcher also published “A Genomic Perspective on the Origin and Emergence of SARS-CoV-2,” in which they argue that RaTG13 could not have been used to create SARS-CoV-2 because RaTG13 was sampled from the Yunnan Province while COVID-19 appeared in Wuhan. Furthermore, it would take 20 to 50 years for RaTG13 to mutate into SARS-CoV-2.

May 5, 2020, Lipkin emailed Chen Zhu, China’s former minister of health, expressing deep appreciation for “your efforts in steering and messaging” around COVID-19’s origin.

Cover-up timeline: July and August 2020

Fast-forward to July, and the authors of “Proximal Origin” had a new problem. An anonymous whistleblower contacted Science journalist Jon Cohen, sharing “the bizarre back-story” of the “Proximal Origin” paper.

Cohen, in turn, forwarded the message to Holmes and Andersen who, within three hours, conferred with Fauci and Farrar on how to respond.

According to USRTK, Cohen has not released the email he received from the tipster, nor Holmes’ response. Cohen also never used it for an article.

By Aug. 19, 2020, Fauci and Collins were again conferring about how to address critical news articles. One postulated the virus was created in a lab. The other two discussed NIAID grants to EcoHealth Alliance. Despite questions being raised about the connections between the NIH, EcoHealth and the WIV, the NIAID extended a new grant to EcoHealth and Andersen’s lab just eight days later.

Cover-up timeline: 2021

Efforts to keep a lid on the lab leak theory didn’t fare any better in 2021. At the end of March 2021, the WHO released its COVID-19 origin report, which dismissed the lab leak theory, but backlash forced Ghebreyesus to stress that the investigation was incomplete and would continue.

June 1, 2021, emails received by BuzzFeed following a FOIA lawsuit revealed Andersen and other authors of the “Proximal Origin” paper had initially leaned toward it being a lab leak, and that Fauci and Collins had participated in and probably steered its conception.

Andersen denied the NIH had anything to do with the article and started deleting tweets amid the backlash.

In June 2021, questions also arose about why the NIH deleted early SARS-CoV-2 genomic data from its public database. The deletion of the data was reported by evolutionary biologist Jesse Bloom on the preprint server BioRxiv. According to Bloom, Collins, Fauci, Andersen and Garry encouraged him to delete the preprint, which he refused to do.

Cover-up timeline: 2022

In 2022, the cover-up started to unravel. BuzzFeed’s FOIA documents “starkly showed concerns among the authors [of the Proximal Origin paper] about unusual features of the genome,” USRTK writes.

Garry, like Andersen before him, did what he could to protect Fauci and Collins, insisting they had nothing to do with the writing of that paper.

July 1, Lipkin, one of the “Proximal Origin” coauthors, was suddenly found to have once been a partner of EcoHealth Alliance, which was not reported in the paper’s conflict of interest section.

By the end of the month, new entries in an NIH genomic database revealed Holmes too has had an ongoing relationship with the WIV, including collaborative work on RaTG13, and Holmes, like Lipkin, did not disclose this in his “Proximal Origin” conflicts of interest statement.

Classified information may reveal lab accident

In a recent interview with investigative journalist Paul Thacker, former CDC director Redfield discussed “inside battles with Fauci” and claimed classified information “will point to a lab accident in Wuhan.”

Thacker writes:

“‘Tony and I are friends, but we don’t agree on this at all,’ Redfield told me. ‘The potential for conspiracy is really on the other side. The conspiracy is Collins, Fauci, and the established scientific community that has acted in an antithetical way to science.’

“Speaking with me from his home in Baltimore, Redfield said that evidence in favor of a lab accident in China continues to accumulate and he expects more classified information to become public.”

In related news on Sept. 15 The Lancet Commission also published its long-awaited report on the origin of SARS-CoV-2, and it’s not what Fauci and his cronies were hoping for.

On the contrary, the report outlines “the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic may have originated with a pathogen leaked from a lab …” The Independent reports.

The report stresses that while it could have come from a natural spillover, it could just as easily be the result of a lab leak.

Commission chairman Jeffrey Sachs has been outspoken about his suspicions that the virus emerged from a U.S.-backed research program in China. At the same time, continued in-depth investigation continues to be hampered by misplaced allegiance to the CCP.

As reported by Matt Ridley in The Telegraph:

“The Lancet Commission … has concluded that ‘the origin of the virus remains unknown’ and that ‘both natural and laboratory spillovers are in play and need further investigation.’ This conclusion matters because there has been an attempt to shut down all curiosity about the origin of the pandemic …

“The Sachs Commission points out that a great many related viruses were collected from bats and engineered by a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in collaboration with US partners in the years leading up to the outbreak. That simple fact puts the Wuhan lab under suspicion.

“Further, SARS-CoV-2 contains a dangerous feature called a furin cleavage site in its spike gene that is found in no other virus of this kind (the sarbecoviruses). Many scientists admitted early in the pandemic to being baffled as to how it could have acquired this feature naturally yet with minimal other mutations in its spike gene.

“Last year a document surfaced showing that scientists in Wuhan and elsewhere were in 2018 considering inserting exactly such a furin cleavage site into newly discovered sarbecoviruses to test their virulence in human cells …

“The point Sachs’s team is making is that the technology used in Wuhan to create ‘chimeric’ (hybrid) sarbecoviruses and insert material into their genomes originated in the University of North Carolina with other coronaviruses, and it would be nice … if US researchers who collaborated with Wuhan were more forthcoming about what they know.

“The Sachs Commission makes the crucial point that ‘no independent, transparent, and science-based investigation has been carried out regarding the bioengineering of Sars-like viruses that was underway before the outbreak of Covid-19’ …

“Pause to notice how shocking this is. Around 20 million are dead because of a virus new to the human species. A strong possibility is that it originated in laboratory research that was going on in the city where it started.

“Yet the notebooks and databases from that lab have never been made available, and many scientists and politicians are not even prepared to criticize the Chinese government over this lack of cooperation.

“The reason that prominent western scientists gave in private emails in 2020 for not wanting to discuss a possible lab origin of the virus was that it might do harm to ‘international harmony.’ What happened to seeking the truth?”

Originally published on Dr. Mercola’s Substack page.

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.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccines-ditching-google-tainted-blood-mary-polly/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=7b58 ef9a-4d4f-40f3-abba-fde81d1f0816


10/12/22
•
COVID
› Views
Ditching Google, Tainted Blood and Standing Up to Tyranny: ‘This Week’ With Mary + Polly

In “This Week” with Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense president, and Polly Tommey, CHD.TV programming manager, Mary and Polly discuss the latest news on COVID-19 vaccines and other issues.
By
Children's Health Defense Team


Despite reports that COVID-19 vaccines cause blood abnormalities, the American Red Cross and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continue to brush off concerns that the massive vaccine campaign may have contaminated the country’s blood supply. “This is a really big issue,” said Mary.

This show discusses several important issues.

“This is a really big issue,” said Mary.

Think of all the people who have already received mRNA blood in their medical treatment.

This matter cannot be brushed off. That is so wrong in every way. so Every issue related to the "pandemic" response. The definitions of terms like pandemic and vaccine needed to be changed by the CDC. Every day we learn again of some manipulation of data and some hiding of data.

To me the only solution to the blood supply contamination in my opinion is for there to be a blood test that will indicate that the prospective blood donor has received one of the four COVID 19 vaccines. But even if such a test would be possible, we cannot trust and rely on its careful and fair implementation. Those in control simply are poorly motivated and do not value the health and wellbeing of the people.

The objective has always been for as many people as possible to become vaccinated and arrange all policies to support that goal.

Is there nothing left of our government to stop this evil NOW?

https://vaticancatholic.com/chinas-a...ed-by-commies/

China's armed "Zero Covid guards" trap families inside airport after 61 new cases are reported by commies
October 10, 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=24&v=5sTa2lI2W5c&feature=emb_l ogo

43 second video

Coming to a town near you.


_______

Dachsie comment:

I wonder how China defines "new cases" or is that just a cover story for brutally crushing a town and its people.

https://markcrispinmiller.substack.c...m_source=email


Yes, Russia DID require its draftees to be "vaccinated" (which is INDEFENSIBLE); but they've just DROPPED that rule—and that's great news, because so many of those jabbed HAVE now "died suddenly"
Some Putin partisans denied the awful truth, based not on any facts, but ONLY on their politics; while those who told that truth have surely saved a lot of lives (and Putin's credibility)

Mark Crispin Miller
Oct 12




▷ Listen

Save


As many of you know, four days ago the excellent Riley Waggaman spelled out, in clear detail, the painful history of Russia’s recent “vaccination” mandate for all Russians mobilized for combat in Ukraine:
Edward Slavsquat
Compulsory COVID vaccination in the Russian military: Just the facts, please
Your humble correspondent has once again been exposed as a dangerous H-O-A-X-E-R! But this time by UK Column. Oh no not again. Before we address these new damning and devastating accusations, let’s briefly review the history of compulsory vaccination in the Russian military…
Read more
4 days ago · 82 likes · 134 comments · Edward Slavsquat

This solid piece was quickly slammed by Thomas Röper, a German writer living in Russia, who argued, with more vehemence than evidence, that Russia certainly was not requiring “vaccination” of its troops (as the US, British, French and German governments have been doing). Röper’s screed was then picked up by Vanessa Beeley, UK Column and Robin Monotti on Telegram—as it pains me to report, since I admire all three (and consider Robin and Vanessa friends).

News from Underground by Mark Crispin Miller is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

For those who want a more detailed account, the contretemps was carefully reported by OffGuardian’s Catte Black, who made the crucial point that we who seek the truth, and try our best to tell it, at a time when doing so is ever harder and more dangerous, must never let ourselves be swayed by wishful thinking, out of sympathy to any side in any of the conflicts raging all around us now. If, for instance, we believe that Ukraine is a Nazi hell-hole, and US/NATO cat’s-paw, and therefore see where Russia’s coming from (the view I share with Riley, Catte, Vanessa, Robin and UK Column, among others), that does not mean we think that Putin does no wrong—especially when he does what the US, British, French and German governments are doing. If, moreover, forcing an experimental medical procedure on unwilling persons is a Nazi thing, then Putin shouldn’t do it, nor should we let him get away with doing it, however ardently we cheer his opposition to the Nazis in Ukraine.

https://off-guardian.org/2022/10/08/...-is-it-a-hoax/

I could go on; but there’s no need—because the story has now changed, and for the better: Riley Waggaman reports that Russia will no longer force its conscripts to be “vaccinated”:
Edward Slavsquat
Sputnik V NOT included on list of mandatory vaccines for mobilized Russians
The Russian Ministry of Defense has determined that in the current “epidemiological situation,” COVID vaccination will not be required for mobilized reservists. Explain.rf, an official information portal, writes: The list of vaccinations is determined by specialists of the Ministry of Defense bas…
Read more
3 days ago · 97 likes · 108 comments · Edward Slavsquat

Can I get an amen? That is great news, at a time when there’s so little of it; but we must do more than simply share it. We also have to ask why Russia has decided to halt “vaccination” of its mobilized reservists. To that important question, one reasonable answer is that the horrific toll of all those “vaccinations” has been coming clear in Russia, prompting Putin to do something that few heads of state in Covid-World will any longer do: i.e., control the damage, by stopping the injections that have done tremendous harm, demonstrably.

As readers of our weekly compilations of reports of people “dying suddenly” worldwide know all too well, the Sputnik “vaccination” drive has had a lot of people “dying suddenly” all over Russia. (No, Virginia, it isn’t just the mRNA shots that kill people, but all the others, too: J&J, AstraZeneca, China’s Sinovac—and Russia’s Sputnik, which is based on AstraZeneca’s concoction.) And now we find, predictably, that all too many of those young men jabbed for war have also been “dying suddenly”—and if we know it, it must be known in Russia, too, at least to those who eyes are not wide shut to the hideous effects of COVID “vaccination” there.

Just below are two reports of mobilized reservists lately dropping dead, in Novosibirsk and near Yekaterinburg (reports that you’ll find also in our latest compilation, which will go up soon). And down below those two reports, you’ll find a recent summary of reservists’ “sudden deaths” (including suicides) lately posted on the Russian site Meduza. It’s not a stretch to figure that the Russian government has read that piece, and that they’re also well-aware of other evidence that those shots kill, and people know it.

So who’s done more for Russia—and, indeed, for Putin? Those who have sought out, and told, the awful truth about the lethal “vaccination” of those troops-to-be, or those bellowing reflexively that it just can’t be true, because they “side” with him (and Russia, too, or so they think)?

In any case, what Putin should do next is halt all “vaccination” of the Russian people, whether they’re been mobilized or not.
Mobilized Chelyabinsk citizen died in the 32nd military town near Yekaterinburg

October 11, 2022

In the 32nd military camp near Yekaterinburg, a Chelyabinsk citizen died, who could have been called up during mobilization. Media reports about it. According to preliminary data, a resident of the Chelyabinsk region was drafted into the army during mobilization. The man suddenly became ill, the doctors could not save him. However, the cause of death is still unknown. The death of the Chelyabinsk citizen was confirmed to journalists by the Sverdlovsk State Duma deputy Maxim Ivanov. The police started checking. Specialists are conducting an examination, according to its results, it will become clear from what the reservist died. Earlier, FederalPress wrote that two mobilized people died in the Yelansky garrison in the Sverdlovsk region.

No age reported.

https://fedpress.ru/news/66/incidents/3115477
A 35-year-old native of Bratsk died during a mobilization gathering in Novosibirsk

October 6, 2022

Thirty-five-year-old native of Bratsk Alexander Koltun died during a mobilization meeting in Novosibirsk, IrCity news agency was informed on October 6 at the Office of the Ombudsman for Human Rights in the Novosibirsk Region. “There is information [about the death of a native of the Angara region], but right now no one will say anything, because investigative checks are underway,” Nina Shalabayeva, the Novosibirsk Ombudsman, said in the reception room. They also advised me to contact the military investigation department for the Novosibirsk garrison and the military investigation department for the Central Military District. It was not possible to get a comment from these departments. The duty officer of the Armed Forces for the Novosibirsk garrison said that he was not authorized to give any comments, the Armed Forces of Ukraine for the Central Military District suggested sending an official request.

https://ircity.ru/text/incidents/2022/10/06/71713265/
Those mobilized in Russia die before they are sent to the front. Some commit suicide. Others die under unclear circumstances. Here is a list that we will keep updating

October 6, 2022

SNIP...

____________