The mRNA Jab is a worthless experimental injection that the brainwashed Sheeple will keep injecting as long as they are told to do so even as the thousands of dead keep rising the mRNA Jab in the midst of the “safe and effective” as pushed by Big Brother obey-speak.
Two recent articles for the awakened to bad science and hopefully for Sheeple alike:
Dr. Robert Malone looks at the BLUE PILL mentality, “Booster Nations: The Never-ending Onslaught of Covid Booster Shots.”
When I think back to my childhood and all the injections I received as a kid, and then fast forward to my time served in the Army for 20 years, I can remember some of the shots I had prior to deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan involving some boosters that they told me were necessary, so of course I just stuck out my arm like a good boy or a good soldier and didn’t think much of it.
First, a quick flashback to the Pill Scene from original film “The Matrix”, from 1999: Morpheus (Lawrence Fishburne) offers Neo (Keanu Reeves) the choice of taking the Blue Pill or the Red Pill. If Neo took the blue pill, he could wake up in his bed and believe whatever he wanted to believe about the world he lived in, basically just living out his life going through the motions, being a good citizen, a hard worker, and always giving blind obedience to authority. But if he took the red pill, the scales would be lifted from his eyes and would come to know the truth that he was born into bondage, a slave to a system of tyranny and absolute control over human beings embedded inside a fake reality computer program called The Matrix. Out of sense of curiosity but also a leap of faith, of course Neo takes the Red Pill and he becomes a total bad-ass, and you know the rest of the story if you watched the movie and its sequels.
[Blog Editor: The above link to the Youtube video clip on Red Pill or Blue is so relevant, I’m using the clip rather than the Matrix photo of Morpheus on the Malone post.]
Sadly, so many people around the world want to continue taking the blue-pill, or are taking the blue-pill whether they even realize it or not. Sure, no government institutions or media outlets are perfect, but they must still be looking out for my well-being (they reckon to themselves), so I will keep doing what I’m told; I’m sure everything will work out just fine. Whether it is from a sense of pride, arrogance or stubborn ignorance, they continue to fall for a counterfeit, and thus bury their heads in the sand as time marches on.
Now, having been red-pilled for over ten years when it comes to the greed and corruption of Big Pharma, especially when it comes to the push to vaccinate the world in general, it seems this unbridled Covid booster campaign just keeps gaining speed. The other day, I went to the coronavirus.house.gov press releases webpage and was blown away by a statement Rep. James E. Clyburn, Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis issued following a statement after the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authorized Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech single dose bivalent coronavirus vaccines for use as a booster at least two months following primary or booster vaccination for virtually all Americans 12 and older by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). You can read the statement HERE. The narrative still gets pushed forward, and the drug manufactures still receive impetuous, lavish praise.
Summary of key points:
COVID-19 vaccine boosters have been generating a lot of controversy
COVID-19 vaccine boosters have not undergone any human trials, not even on mice
The expected harms caused by the boosters likely outweigh any benefits to public health
Mandated Booster Shots Cause More Harm Than Good
Despite the narrative surrounding Rep Clyburn’s statement which continues to brainwash blue-pilled America, I had to a double-take and read again the part where the FDA is authorizing this new single dose bivalent coronavirus vaccines for use as a booster at least two months following primary or booster vaccination. Are you kidding me? The booster I had two months ago is no good, and now they are telling me I need another one? What the heck is going on here? Most fully-vaccinated should have an easy time remembering whether they had the first shot, or had their first two shots with 4-6 weeks between each one. But I suppose there are those out there who may be asking themselves “Wait a minute, gosh how many boosters have I had now, gee I’ve lost count”. In Canada, public health authorities are suggesting Canadians will need COVID-19 vaccines every 90 days. It just goes on and on.
According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, it’s full speed ahead with the booster protocol, who stated on CBC this week “We don’t have time to do a clinical trial because we need to get the vaccine out now,” pointing to how about 400 Americans are dying per day with COVID-19 and thousands of others are in hospitals with the disease. Dr. Harvey Risch, a professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said that Fauci’s comments were hypocritical because randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were required for the original vaccines, when the mortality of the virus was much higher. You can find the rest of what Dr. Risch had to say in response to Dr. Fauci, who is echoing other top U.S. officials, including CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, on this page.
When is the world going to wake up and begin to realize some very basic, rational common-sense arguments: if social distancing works, why do we need masks?’ If masks work, why do we need social distancing? If both social distancing and masks work, why do we need to take a vaccine? If the vaccines work, why do we need social distancing and masks combined or if the original first two jabs worked and were really that good, why would anyone need boosters, even if they considered themselves to be high-risk? And this far into the pandemic, if my last booster did some necessary clean up or repair from the injection I had before that, why then do I need another booster? And another? And yet another?
Voluntary boosters are one thing, but when mandates are superimposed onto boosters such as on our college campuses right now, our young people become most vulnerable. Any young college student who already considers themselves fully-vaccinated are in peril. They may feel compelled or directed to undergo boosters just to enroll and start fall classes. It’s a trap, because there is no recourse for vaccine-injured young adults—the very people who will be running our country in generations to come. Other repercussions from these mandates on our young people are becoming more widespread and will have lasting effects.
In Canada, Justin Trudeau is threatening that COVID tyranny will return this fall if 90% booster shot compliance isn’t achieved. In other words, OBEY OR BE LOCKED DOWN…again! With summer about to close in, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is already threatening to reinstate more lockdowns, mask mandates, and “vaccine” requirements for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) if not enough Canadians voluntarily line up for the latest “booster” jab. And he expects maximum compliance.
In a statement he provided to the press inside what appeared to be a hospital room, Trudeau argued that Covid is “not done with us yet,” even though the vast majority of the world is done with it. “We might want to be done with it, but it’s still around,” Trudeau stated. “And yes, we have a lot more tools, a lot more understanding, a lot more knowledge on how to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe. But we also know that as winter comes, and as people get pushed back indoors, there is a real risk of another serious wave of covid.” The only solution to that potential “wave,” according to Trudeau, is “to ensure that everyone is up to date on their vaccinations,” otherwise provinces will have to “make decisions about restrictions and mandates.”
“The recommendation is you should be up to date on your vaccinations if you have had a dose within six months,” Trudeau added. “Everyone who has been a while since their vaccinations should look at the fact that we have new vaccines coming out this month that are tailored against Omicron that will provide better protection, and everyone should get out and get vaccinated.”
“If we are able to hit that 80, 85, 90 percent of Canadians up to date in their vaccinations, we’ll have a much better winter with much less need for the kinds of restrictions and rules that were so problematic for everyone over the past years,” he went on to blab.
“But every step of the way, government’s responsibility is to keep people safe, to prevent our health care systems from getting overwhelmed, and that’s where individuals choosing to make sure they’re up to date on their vaccinations with these new vaccines is going to help us all.”
The Freedom Convoy trucker protest is when I really started tuning in to what Justin Trudeau was saying, how he was behaving and the tyrannical decisions he began making. Trudeau has been on an extreme tyranny kick the past few years, and really seems to be enjoying himself and his ability to impose whatever nightmarish scenario he wishes with seemingly minimal pushback from Canadians.
He invoked the Emergencies Act (passed by Parliament way back in 1988) and shut down people’s bank accounts, not just of the truckers but even those who supported and aided the truckers. I would suspect Trudeau is going to be met with resistance from the people if he thinks another round of plandemic theater is justified. In the video above Trudeau uses a mixture of wild hand gestures, frequent bug eyes, and spastic verbal inflections which show how truly deranged this manchurian candidate with a dictator complex is becoming.
With the booster rollout already unfolding, we can expect the medical tyranny dial to be turned to maximum this fall and winter. Perhaps this booster obsession may finally turn on the light bulb for the masses who have lined up willingly to take the initial 2-3 jabs, that they would come to their senses and say enough is enough—no boosters for me, something is just not right here.
And by the way, they are not booster doses anymore. It’s an ‘updated vaccine’ and you will need it 8 weeks after your last shot, or so says the White House. Inconveniently, the FDA specifically calls these products “updated boosters”, but corporate media will be quite glad to use the language recommended by noted immunologist and vaccinologist Dr. Karine Jean-Pierre, who currently serves as the Chief spokesperson for the executive branch of the United States government.
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) shows not only that the effectiveness of the Pfizer Covid vaccine becomes negative (meaning the vaccinated are more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated) within five months but that the vaccine destroys any protection a person has from natural immunity.
The study is a large observational study that looks at 887,193 children aged 5 to 11 years in North Carolina, of whom 273,157 (30.8%) received at least one dose of Pfizer vaccine between November 1st 2021 and June 3rd 2022. The study includes 193,346 SARS-CoV-2 infections reported between March 11th 2020 and June 3rd 2022.
The researchers used a form of statistical modelling with adjustments for confounding factors (such as underlying conditions) to calculate estimates of vaccine effectiveness over time and against the different Covid variants.
The findings are depicted in the charts below. In chart A, notice that the green and blue lines, representing children vaccinated in November and December respectively, go through zero into negative territory at a sharp gradient within five months of the first injection. It’s unclear why the green line is not continued past April, as the researchers presumably had the data, but from what is shown it looks very much like the vaccine effectiveness will continue declining deep into negative territory.
In chart B, we see both the red and blue lines – which represent children who are vaccinated and have been previously infected and not previously infected respectively – again going through zero at a steep gradient within five months of vaccination. The fact that the vaccinated who have natural immunity from previous infection also see negative effectiveness is a surprise as one would not expect those with natural immunity to be more susceptible to infection than those without it.
Charts C and D suggest that it is the vaccine that is causing this worrying erasure of natural immunity. Chart D shows the effectiveness of natural immunity from previous infection among the vaccinated. Notice that the blue line, which is protection against the Delta variant among the vaccinated-and-previously-infected, hits zero at a steep gradient within seven months. Now look at the blue line in chart C, which is protection against Delta in the previously infected and unvaccinated. It, too, is waning, but much more slowly, and after eight months it is still very much in positive territory at over 50%. The same can be said for natural immunity against earlier variants (green line), which wanes slowly and remains positive after 16 months. Why is natural immunity remaining protective for the unvaccinated, whereas in the vaccinated their ‘protection’ goes negative even if they have natural immunity?
This is very disturbing because it suggests not only that the vaccines give negative ‘protection’ after a few months but also that they destroy the protection that should have been provided by natural immunity. The unvaccinated keep their protection from previous infection but the vaccinated end up with negative efficacy even if they’ve been previously infected. This means the vaccines appear to demolish a person’s natural immunity and leave him or her more vulnerable to infection than he or she was before.
The new findings add to growing concerns among scientists about the effect of the Covid vaccines on the immune system. A recent study in mice found that mRNA vaccines like Pfizer’s inhibit the immune system response to other pathogens. In that study (which is not yet peer-reviewed), the culprit appeared to be the lipid nano-particles (LNPs) which carry the mRNA in the vaccine: “We found that pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs or LNP alone led to long-term inhibition of the adaptive immune responses.”
Another pre-print study found that the Pfizer vaccine “induces complex functional reprogramming of innate immune responses” including “inhibition of innate immune responses”.
Oddly, the authors of the new study fail to draw attention to their alarming findings. Instead they conclude that the vaccine was “found to confer considerable immunity against Omicron infection” – even though the high protection only lasted weeks and was negative within months. They also conclude that “the rapid decline in protection against Omicron infection that was conferred by vaccination and previous infection provides support for booster vaccination” – as though what people really need is more of these injections.
But the study’s findings speak for themselves, and they are highly concerning. It’s increasingly clear that it was a mistake to rush mRNA vaccine technology to market, and that the vaccines need to be taken out of use and put back into the research phase until the full range of their effects and their safety profile are much better understood.
On Telegram I subscribe to Doctors For Covid Ethics. Yesterday that Telegram Channel shared links to a Dr. Mike Yeadon PDF entitled, “The Covid Lies.” The PDF is dated 4/10/22. The PDF is lengthy AND informative ergo well worth the read even if you have to back to it to complete your reading.
In PDF format the length is 31-pages. In order to cross post on blog I used a PDF-to-Word converter. The Word version is even longer. You should be aware converters are not perfect. If you find an unintelligible word, number or broken link; it will because I missed it in the editing process. I hope Dr. Yeadon and you forgive me.
The PDF is actually two essays that begins with “The Covid Lies,” but about half way through another essay emerges on how Dr. Yeadon came to his scientific conclusions entitled, “How Much of the Covid-19 Narrative Was True? Additional Reflections.”
The Telegram Doctors For Covid Ethics links to a Doctors For Covid Ethics webpage which serves as an introduction to the PDF and then has a download link. The intro page is dated 4/12/22 (actually in the British style in listing day-month-year thus appearing “12/04/2022.” Indeed the entire document is in the British grammatical style.)
This cross post will include the Doctors For Covid Ethics intro followed by the Dr. Yeadon document. As a bonus I am including three videos that I believe are related to Dr. Yeadon’s thoughts in “The Covid Lies” which are:
In this comprehensive review, Dr. Yeadon argues that all the main narratives about SARS-CoV-2 and imposed “measures” are lies.
Given the foregoing, it is no longer possible to view the last two years as well- intentioned errors. Instead, the objectives of the perpetrators are most likely to be totalitarian control over the population by means of mandatory digital IDs and cashless central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
In the first part of the article (The Covid Lies), Dr. Yeadon counters the 12 widespread Covid narratives with the following arguments:
1. The infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is 0.1 – 0.3%, which is not significantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics.
2. Based on the peer-reviewed articles, at least 30 to 50% of the population has prior cross-immunity.
3. SARS-CoV-2 does discriminate. “The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is 1000X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.”
4. Asymptomatic transmission is the “central conceptual deceit” used to “underscore almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.”
5. PCR test is “the central operational deceit.”
6. Neither cloth nor surgical masks prevent respiratory virus transmission.
7. Lockdown is “epidemiologically irrelevant” and never works. “Only “stay home if you’re sick” works.”
8. “Covid-19 is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever”. Safe and effective early treatments are available.
9. Based on the peer-reviewed articles, very few clinically significant reinfections of SARS-Cov-2 have ever been confirmed.
10. SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, and no variant is even close to escaping naturally-acquired immunity. However, there is the possibility that the so-called vaccines prevent the establishment of immune memory, leading to the repeated infections, which would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.
11. Safety is the top priority in a public health mass intervention, even more than effectiveness. “It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology vaccine.”
12. The four gene-based “vaccines” are toxic. The basic rules of selecting vaccine candidates are: 1) the agent has no inherent biological action (non-toxic); 2) the agent should be the genetically most stable part of the virus; 3) the agent should be most different from human proteins. Spike protein as the vaccine does not fit any of the above criteria.
In the second part of the article (How Much of the Covid-19 Narrative Was True? Additional Reflections), Dr. Yeadon further stresses his contention on the Covid-19 narratives on:
In the second part of the article (How Much of the Covid-19 Narrative Was True? Additional Reflections), Dr. Yeadon further stresses his contention on the Covid-19 narratives on:
Unprecedented Pronouncements by the senior scientific and medical advisers, such as “Everyone is vulnerable.”
Using Mass Testing to Promote Fear
One Dominant Narrative
More Vaccine Lies
The Question of Motive
At the end of the article, Dr. Yeadon also provides a list of extra supplemental points to support his conclusions.
About the author:
Dr. Michael YEADON PhD was Formerly Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer Allergy & Respiratory at Pfizer Global R&D. He holds Joint Honours in Biochemistry and Toxicology and a PhD in Respiratory Pharmacology. He is an Independent Consultant and Co-founder & CEO of Ziarco Pharma Ltd.
I contend that all the main narrative points about the coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 are lies. Furthermore, all the “measures” imposed on the population are also lies. In what follows, I support these claims scientifically, mostly by reference to peer-reviewed journal articles. In 2019, World Health Organization (WHO) scientists reviewed the evidence for the utility of all non-pharmaceutical interventions, concluding that they are all without effect.
Given the foregoing, it is no longer possible to view the last two years as well-intentioned errors. Instead, the objectives of the perpetrators are most likely to be totalitarian control over the population by means of mandatory digital IDs and cashless central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
There is no medical or public health emergency. We can and should take back our freedoms with immediate effect. Testing healthy people stops. If you’re sick, please stay home. Masks belong in the trash. The Covid-19 gene-based injections are not recommended and must not be coerced or mandated. Crucially, the vaccine passports database must be destroyed. Economic rectitude is recommended.
Serious crimes have obviously been committed. It is not the purpose of this document to accuse anyone or to assemble the evidence against them at this time. However, when this is all resolved, We The People are strongly recommended to pay much more attention to Washington than previously.
TABLE OF CONTENTS [Blog Editor: The page numbers though helpful in the PDF will only be helpful as a guess in this post]
The Covid Lies —- pages 2–15
How Much of the Covid-19 Narrative Was True? Additional Reflections — pages 19–28
About Dr. Mike Yeadon — page 29
1. SARS-CoV-2 has such a high lethality that every measure must be taken to save lives.
Note: Covid-19 is the disease resulting from infection with the virus, SARS-CoV-2. They are often used interchangeably. Sometimes it doesn’t much matter, but the confusion was sowed deliberately.
Essential to claim high lethality in order that unprecedented responses may seem justified. To “pep up” the claim, recall “falling man” in Wuhan? The person was allegedly sick but walking about, before falling dead on his face. That was never real. It was theatre.
Early estimates of lethality were very high with, in some reports, an “infection fatality rate” (IFR) of 3%. Seasonal influenza is generally considered to have a typical IFR of 0.1%. That means some seasons, IFR for flu may be 0.3% and other times, 0.05% or lower.
In practise, and this was usual, estimates of IFR for Covid-19 were revised downwards repeatedly and now are generally recognised as in the range of 0.1–0.3%. It cannot now be argued that it is significantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics. Why, then, have we all but destroyed the modern world over it?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
The perpetrators knew that lethality estimates of new respiratory viral illnesses ALWAYS start high and reduce. This is because, early on, we do not have any estimate of the number of people infected but not seriously ill and the number infected with no symptoms at all.
They created the impression of extreme danger, which was never true. This is such a crucial point, for once one sees it for what it is, the rest of the narrative is superfluous.
Dr. John Ioannidis is one of the world’s most-published epidemiologists and he has been scathing about the inappropriate responses to a novel virus of not particularly unusual lethality. Like most respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 represents no serioushealth threatto those under 60 years of age, certainly not children, and is a serious threat only to those nearing the end of their lives by virtue of age and multiple comorbidities.¹
Dr. Ioannidis’s current estimateof global IFR is around 0.15%. For reference, a typical seasonal influenza outbreak has a typical IFR of around 0.1%, but can be markedly worse in bad winters.²
2. Because this is a new virus, there will be no prior immunity
in the population.
Seems reasonable, doesn’t it? This remark, made repeatedly early on, aimed to squash any notion that there was a degree of “prior immunity” in the population. Prior immunity and natural immunity are only now, two years in, not considered “misinformation”.
Within a few months, multiple publications showed that a large minority (ranging from 30%–50%, some later said even more) of the population had T-cells in their blood which recognised various pieces of the viral protein (synthesised, as no one seemed to have any real virus isolates to use).
While some people argued that recognition by T-cells didn’t mean functional immunity, really it does.
We were prevented from learning that we already knew of six coronaviruses, four of which cause “common colds,” which in elderly and infirm people can cause death.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
This was a straight lie. It’s pretty much never true that there’s no prior immunity in a population. This is because viruses are each derived from earlier viruses and some of the population had already defeated its antecedents, giving them either immunity or a big head start in defeating the new virus. Either way, a sizeable proportion of the population never had cause to worry.
This articleincludes all the important peer-reviewed articles to mid-2020, with many showing at least 30%–50% having prior immunity (it depends upon the measure used to assess it).³
3. This virus does not discriminate. No one is safe until everyone is safe.
Intention was to minimise the numbers who might reason they’re not “at risk” people.
This claim was always absurd. The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is 1000X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
In short, almost no one who wasn’t close to the end of their lives was at risk of severe outcomes and death. In middle-aged individuals, obesity is a risk factor, as it is for a handful of other causes of death.
This intriguing reviewdetails how the initial modelling induced fear and provided the excuse for heavy-handed measures, especially “lockdowns”.ª It was, however, just that: an excuse. All experienced public health experts knew that lockdowns were absurd, ineffective, and hugely destructive. There’s no way to sugar-coat this. It was wrong before it was ordered, and it’s necessary to examine why those who knew did not protest. It’s almost as if they were complicit.
4. People can carry this virus with no signs and infect others: asymptomatic transmission.
This is the central conceptual deceit. If true, then anyone might infect and kill you. Falsely claimed asymptomatic transmission underscores almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine
The best evidence comes from a meta-analysisof a larger number of good studies, examining how often a person testing positive went on to infect a family member (they compared as potential sources of infection people who had symptoms with those who did not have symptoms). ONLY those WITH symptoms were able to infect a family member at any rate that mattered.‘
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
Asymptomatic transmission is epidemiologically irrelevant. It’s not necessary to argue it never happens; it’s enough to show that if it occurs at all, it is so rare as not to be worth measuring.
In this video, we also have Fauci and a WHO doctor telling us exactly this.ª Also, I show why it is like it is. It’s very clear.
5. The PCR test selectively identifies people with clinical infections.
This is the central operational deceit. If true, we could detect risky people and isolate them. We could diagnose accurately and also count the number of deaths.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at its best, can confirm the presence of genetic information in a clean sample and is useful in forensics for that reason. It involves cycle after cycle of amplification, copying the starting material at the beginning of each cycle. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, won a Nobel Prize for it and often criticised Fauci for misusing that test to diagnose AIDS patients, which Mullis insisted was inappropriate.
In a “dirty” clinical sample, there is more than a possible piece of, or a whole, virus which might replicate. There are bacteria, fungi, other viruses, human cells, mucus, and more. It’s not possible unequivocally to know, if a test is judged “positive” after many cycles, what it was that was amplified to give the signal at the end that we call “positive”.
In mass testing mode, commonly used, no one ever runs so-called “positive controls” through the chain of custody. That’s diagnostic testing 101. It’s a deception.
Every test has an “operational false positive rate” (oFPR), where some unknown percent of samples turns positive, even if there is no virus present. A good oFPR would be less than 1%, but is it 0.8% or 0.1%? If you test 100,000 samples daily, and the oFPR is 0.8%, you will get 800 positive tests or “cases,” even if there is no virus in the entire community. Often, the “positivity,” the fraction of tests that are positive, is in that range, sub-1% or low-single-digit percent. I believe much or all of that can be caused by false positives. Note, criminals can manipulate the content of the test kits because there are very few providers in a territory, often just one. The conditions for running the test are also subject to variation by the authorities, like the CDC.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
You can be genuinely positive, yet not ill. There is no lower limit of true detection below which you’d be declared to have some copies of the virus, but declared clinically well. It’s an absurd idea.
You can have no virus yet test positive (with or without symptoms). All of these are swept together and called “confirmed Covid-19 cases”. If you die in the next 28 days, you’re said to be a “Covid death,” no matter what the cause.
Those using the test kits provided commercially are what are called “black box”. They are unable to say what is in the kit, because this is proprietary. The original “methods paper” was published in 48 hours, making a mockery of claimed peer review, by a Berlin lab headed by Professor Christian Drosten, scientific advisor to Angela Merkel of Germany. The paper was comprehensively rebutted by an international team.’
The WHO released a series of guidance notes on PCR,8 and it was clear that their technical staff did not approve of mass testing the population, because it’s possible to return wholly false positives. Indeed, at times of low genuine prevalence, that’s all they can be.
I often wonder if this 2007 real-life example of a PCR-based testing system which returned 100% false positives, yet convinced a major hospital that they had a huge disease outbreak for weeks, might have been the inspiration for the untrustworthy methods used in the Covid-19 deception?ª
Drosten also led the TV publicity around the idea of asymptomatic transmission. One lucky scientist is at the centre of the two most important deceptions in the entire Covid-19 event!
Professor Norman Fenton here presents a multi-part lecture with two main elements.¹º First, he describes how mass testing of people with no symptoms unavoidably drives up the proportion of positive PCR test results that are false. The second part deals with the possibility that data fraud entirely accounts for the apparent efficacy of the vaccines, while attempting to hide vaccine deaths, by classifying them as unvaccinated for 14 days after injection.
6. Masks are effective in preventing the spread of this virus.
This is mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others’ masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you’re told, even if the measure is useless.
We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.
Cloth masks definitely don’t stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.
Some people speak of “source control,” catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via fine aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
It’s not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that face masks don’t do anything.
Many don’t know that blue medical masks aren’t filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that’s all.
This is a good reviewof the findings with masks in respiratory viruses by a recognised expert in the field. No effect.¹¹
Neither masks nor lockdowns prevented the spread of the virus. This review summarizes 400 papers.¹²
7. Lockdowns slow down the spread and reduce the number of cases and deaths.
The most impactful yet wasteful intervention, accomplishing nothing useful. Useful to the perpetrators, however, wishing to damage the economy and reduce interpersonal contacts. This measure was surprisingly tolerated in many wealthy countries, because “furlough” schemes were put in place, compensating many people for not working, or requiring them to work from home.
The measure, though among the most repressive acts ever imposed on citizens in a democracy, was intuitively reasonable to many. This is an example of how far off-course uninformed intuition can be.
The core idea was simple. Respiratory viruses are transmitted from person to person. Reducing the average number of contacts surely reduces transmission? Actually, it doesn’t, because the transmission concept is wrong. Transmission is from a SYMPTOMATIC person to a susceptible person. Those with symptoms are UNWELL.
They remain at home in most cases with no action from the government. Transmission occurred mostly in institutions where sick people and susceptible people were forced into contact: hospitals, care homes, and domestic settings.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
A general lockdown had no detectable impact on epidemic spreading, cases, hospitalisations, or deaths.
This is now widely accepted, after a meta-analysis by Johns Hopkins University (interestingly, as the JHU repeatedly features as an actor in a documentary about pandemic-related fraud by German journalist Paul Schreyer).¹³
This is because those involved in the vast bulk of human-to-human contacts are fit and well and such contacts didn’t result in transmission. Essentially, if you’re fooled by the “asymptomatic transmission” lie, then lockdown might make sense. However, since it is epidemiologically irrelevant, lockdowns can never work, and of course, all the voluminous literature confirms this.
This concept is unequivocally known to multiple public health scientists and doctors. This is why “lockdown” had never been tried before.
Importantly, WHO scientists drafted a detailed reviewof all the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in 2019 and distributed copies of the report to all member states.¹4
This means that ALL member states already knew, late in 2019, that masks, lockdowns, border restrictions, and business or school closures were futile. Only “stay home if you’re sick” works at all, and people don’t need to be told this, for they are too unwell to go out.
8. There are unfortunately no treatments for Covid beyond support in hospital.
Reinforced the idea that it was vital to avoid catching the virus.
Legally, it was essential for the perpetrators bringing forward novel vaccines that there be no viable treatments. Had there been even one, the regulatory route of Emergency Use Authorisation would not have been available.
In my opinion, while all these measures were destructive and cruel, active deprivation of access to experimentally applied but otherwise known safe and effective early treatments led directly to millions of avoidable deaths worldwide. In my mind, this is a policy of mass murder.
Contrasting with the official narrative, the therapeutic value of early treatment was already understood and demonstrated empirically during spring 2020. Since then, a sizeable handful of well-understood, off-patent, low-cost and safe oral treatments have been characterised.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
The official position was that the disease Covid-19 could not be treated and the patient only “supported,” often by mechanical ventilation. Ventilation is wholly inappropriate because Covid-19 is rarely an obstructive airway disease, yet has a high associated morbidity and mortality. An oxygen mask is greatly preferred.
In my view, due to the very large amount of empirical treatment and good communication, Covid-19 is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever. We knew in the first three months of 2020 that hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin were empirically useful, provided treatment was started early and tackled rationally.¹5
It’s very important to note that it has been known for a decade and more that elevating intracellular zincacts to suppress viral replication.¹6
There is no question that senior advisors to a range of governments knew that so-called “zinc ionophores,” compounds which open channels to allow certain dissolved minerals to cross cell membranes, were useful in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and should be expected also to be therapeutically useful in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
This is a starting point for all of the clinical trialsin Covid-19,¹7 including especially ivermectinand hydroxychloroquine (which are zinc ionophores).¹8
It should be noted that using known safe agents for experimental purposes as a priority has always been an established ethical medical practice and is known as “off-label prescribing”.
9. It’s not certain if you can get the virus more than once.
The idea of natural immunity was flatly denied and the absurd idea that you might get the same virus twice was established. This ramped up the fear, which might otherwise have passed swiftly.
Those with even a basic grasp of mammalian immunology knew that senior advisors to government, speaking in uncertain terms on this question, were lying. Certainly, in the author’s case, it was a pivotal point. I shared a foundational education in UK universities at the same time as the UK government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. This shared education meant we’d have had the same set texts. I reasoned that he knew what I knew and vice versa. I was as sure as it is possible to be that it wouldn’t be possible to get clinically unwell twice in response to the same virus, or close-in variants of it. I was right. He was lying.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
There have been scoresof peer-reviewed journal articles on this topic.¹9 Very few clinically important reinfections have ever been confirmed.
Beating off a respiratory virus infection leaves almost everyone with acquired immunity, which is complete, powerful, and durable.
You wouldn’t know it for the misdirection around antibodies in blood, but such antibodies are not considered pivotally important in host immunity. Secreted antibodies in airway surface liquid of the IgA isotype certainly are, but most important are memory T-cells.²0
Those infected with SARS in 2003 still had clear evidence of robust, T-cell mediated immunity 17 years later.²¹
10. Variants of the virus appear and are of great concern.
I believe the purpose of this fiction was to extend the apparent duration of the pandemic—and the fear—for as long as the perpetrators wished it. While there is controversy on this point, with some physicians believing reinfection by variants to be a serious problem, I think untrustworthy testing and other viruses entirely is the parsimonious explanation.
I come at it as an immunologist. From that vantage point, there is very strong precedent indicating that recovery after infection affords immunity extending beyond the sequence of the variant that infected the patient to all variants of SARS-CoV-2.
The number of confirmed reinfections is so small that they are not an issue, epidemiologically speaking.
We have good evidence from those infected by SARS in 2003: they not only have strong T-cell immunity to SARS, but cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This is very important because SARS-CoV-2 is arguably a variant of SARS, there being around a 20% difference at the sequence level.
Consider this: if our immune systems are able to recognise SARS-CoV-2 as foreign and mount an immune response to it, despite never having seen it before, because of prior immunity conferred by infection years ago by a virus which is 20% different, it’s logical that variants of SARS-CoV-2, like delta and omicron, will not evade our immunity.
No variant of SARS-CoV-2 differs from the original Wuhan sequence by more than 3%, and probably less.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
Normal rules of immunologyapply here.²² Despite the publicity to the contrary, SARS-CoV-2 mutates relatively slowly and no variant is even close to evading immunity acquired by natural infection.
This is because the human immune system recognises 20–30 different structural motifs in the virus, yet requires only a handful to recall an effective immune memory.²³
The variants story fails to note “Muller’s Ratchet,” the phenomenon in which variants of a virus, formed in an infected person during viral replication (in which “typographical errors” are made and not corrected) trend to greater transmissibility but lesser lethality. If this was not the case, at some point in human evolution, we would have expected a respiratory viral pandemic to have killed off a substantial proportion of humanity. There is no historical record for such an event.
I do not rule out the possibility that the so-called vaccines are so badly designed that they prevent the establishment of immune memory. If that is true, then the vaccines are worse than failures, and it might be possible to be repeatedly infected. This would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.
11. The only way to end the pandemic is universal vaccination.
This, I believe, was always the objective of the largely faked pandemic. It’s NEVER been the way prior pandemics have ended, and there was nothing about this one that should have led us to adopt the extreme risks that were taken and which have resulted in hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of wholly avoidable deaths.
The interventions imposed on the population didn’t prevent spread of the virus. Only individual isolation for an open-ended period could do that, and that’s clearly impossible (hospital patients and residents of care homes have to be cared for at very least and additionally, the nation has to be supplied with food and medicines).
All the interventions were useless and hugely burdensome.
Yet we have reached the end of the pandemic, more or less. We would have done so faster and with less suffering and death had we adopted measures along the lines proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration and used pharmaceutical treatments as they were discovered, plus general improvements to public health, such as encouraging vitamin supplements.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it.
It’s simply not possible to obtain data demonstrating adequate longitudinal safety in the time period any pandemic can last.
Those who pushed this line of argument and enabled the gene-based agents to be injected needlessly into billions of innocent people are guilty of crimes against humanity.
It quickly became apparent that natural immunitywas stronger than any protection from vaccination,²4 and most people were not at risk of severe outcomes if infected.²5
Even children who were immunocompromisedare not at elevated risk from Covid-19, so advice that such children should be vaccinated is lethally flawed.²6
I feel particularly strongly about this claim. Both components are lies. I outline the inevitability of the toxicity of all four gene-based agents below.
Separately, the clinical trials were wholly inadequate. They were conducted in people not most in need of protection from safe and effective vaccines. They were far too short in duration. The endpoints only captured “infection” as measured by an inadequate PCR test and should have been augmented by Sanger sequencing to confirm real infection. Trials were underpowered to detect important endpoints like hospitalization and death.
There’s evidence of fraud in at least one of the pivotal clinical trials. I think there is also clear evidence of manufacturing fraud and regulatory collusion. They should never have been granted emergency use authorisations (EUAs).
The design of the agents called vaccines is very bothersome. Gene-based agents are new in a public health application. Had I been in a regulatory role, I would have informed all the leading R&D companies that I would not approve these without extensive
longitudinal studies, meaning they could not receive EUA before early 2022 at the earliest. I would have outright denied their use in children, in pregnancy, and in the infected-recovered. Point blank. I’d need years of safe use before contemplating an alteration of this stance.
The basic rules of this new activity, gene-based component vaccines, are: (1) to select part of the virus that has no inherent biological action—that rules out spike protein, which we inferred would be very toxic, before they’d even started clinical trials;²8 (2) select the genetically most stable parts of the virus, so we could ignore the gross misrepresentations of variants so slight in difference from the original that we were being toyed with via propaganda—again, this rules out spike protein; (3) choose parts of the virus which are most different from any human proteins. Once more, spike protein is immediately deselected, otherwise unnecessary risks of autoimmunity are carried forward.
That all four leading actors chose spike protein, against any reasonable selection criteria, leads me to suspect both collusion and malign intent.
Finally, let nature guide us. Against which components of the virus does natural immunity aim? We find 90%of the immune repertoire targets NON-spike protein responses.²9 I rest my case.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT
These agents were always going to be toxic. The only question was, to what degree? Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design.
Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events, including death.
There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including, for the mRNA “vaccines,” that lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulations leave the injection site and home to the liver and ovaries,³0 among other organs,³¹ but this evidence is enough to get started.
See this interviewfor evidence of clinical trial and other fraud, publicised by Edward Dowd, a former BlackRock investment analyst.³²
See this videofor evidence of official data fraud (UK Office of National Statistics): especially at 2min 45sec for the heart of the matter.³³
See herefor evidence of manufacturing fraud.³4 The same methodology was used to obtain regulatory authorisations, and so it is my contention that there is also regulatory fraud.
In the Pfizer clinical trial briefing document to FDA, which was used for issuing the EUA (on p. 40 or thereabout), there is a paragraph stating that there were approximately 2,000 “suspected unconfirmed Covid cases”—meaning people were sick with symptoms but were not tested (otherwise, it would be stated that the tests were negative). Of these, in the first seven days after injection, there were 400 in the vaccine arm and 200 in placebo. These subjects were excluded from the dataset used to assess efficacy. It’s as clear evidence of fraud as you can get; they admit to it in the FDA briefing! Nobody paid any attention to this that I am aware of.
There’s also evidence of data fraud in that clinical trial as summarised by Dr. Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal).
Though many people refuse to accept or even look at the evidence, it is clear that the number of adverse events and deaths soon after Covid-19 vaccination is astonishing and far in excess, in 2021 alone, than all adverse effects and deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the previous 30 years. Here is a simplified view of Covid vaccine-related mortality reportsfrom VAERS.³5
This excellent presentationby a forensic statistician, well used to presenting analyses for court purposes, dismantles the claims that the vaccines are effective and shows how toxicity is hidden (see the second half of the recording).¹0
Another paperpublished by the same group questions vaccine efficacy.³6
1. Ioannidis JPA, Axfors C, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters. Environ Res. 2020 Sep;188:109890.
2. Ioannidis JPA. Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: an overview of systematic evaluations. Eur J Clin Invest. 2021 May;51(5):e13554.
3. Doshi P. Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity? BMJ. 2020;370:m3563.
4. Joffe AR. COVID-19: Rethinking the lockdown groupthink. Front Public Health. 2021 Feb 26;9:625778.
5. Madewell ZJ, Yang Y, Longini Jr IM, Halloran ME, Dean NE. Household transmission of SARS-Cov-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2031756.
14. World Health Organization. Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza: annex: report of systematic literature reviews. World Health Organization, 2019. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/329439. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
15. McCullough PA, Kelly RJ, Ruocco G, et al. Pathophysiological basis and rationale for early outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection. Am J Med. 2021 Jan;134(1):16-22.
16. Te Velthuis AJW, van den Worm SHE, Sims AC, Baric RS, Snijder EJ, van Hemert MJ. Zn(2+) inhibits coronavirus and arterivirus RNA polymerase activity in vitro and zinc ionophores block the replication of these viruses in cell culture. PloS Pathog. 2010 Nov 4;6(11):e1001176.
17. COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 1,609 studies. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2022 from https://c19early.com/.
18. Bryant A, Lawrie TA, Dowswell T, et al. Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis to inform clinical guidelines. Am J Ther. 2021 Jun 21;28(4):e434-e460.
28. Grobbelaar LM, Venter C, Vlok M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 induces fibrin(ogen) resistant to fibrinolysis: implications for microclot formation in COVID-19. MedRxiv, Mar. 8, 2021.
29. Ferretti AP, Kula T, Wang Y, et al. Unbiased screens show CD8+ T cells of COVID-19 patients recognize shared epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 that largely reside outside the spike protein. Immunity. 2020 Nov 17;53(5):1095-1107.
30. Schädlich A, Hoffmann S, Mueller T, et al. Accumulation of nanocarriers in the ovary: a neglected toxicity risk? J Control Release. 2012 May 30;160(1):105-112.
36. Neil M, Fenton NE, Smalley J, et al. Latest statistics on England mortality data suggest systematic mis-categorisation of vaccine status and uncertain effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination. ResearchGate, December 2021. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.14176.20483
The purpose of this document is to demonstrate that all of the key narrative points about the SARS-CoV-2 virus said to cause the disease Covid-19 and the measures imposed to control it are incorrect. Given that the sources of these points are scientists, doctors, and public health officials, it is evident that they were not simply mistaken. Instead, they have lied in order to mislead. I believe the motivations of those who I call “the perpetrators” become clear, once it is internalised that the entire event is based on lies.
In recent days, breaking news indicates that coronavirus antibodies are present in blood stored in European blood banks from 2019.¹ The implications are momentous.
In the first three months of the Covid event, I started noticing senior scientific and medical advisors on UK television saying things that I found disturbing. It was hard to put my finger on the specifics, but they included remarks like:
“Because this is a new virus, there won’t be any immunity in the population”.
“Everyone is vulnerable”.
“In view of the very high lethality of the virus, we are exploring how best to protect the population”.
I had been reading extensively about the apparent spread of SARS-CoV-2 in China and beyond, and had already arrived at a number of important conclusions. Essentially, I was sure that, objectively, we weren’t going to experience a major event. I based some of my conclusions on the Diamond Princess cruise ship experience. Note that no crew members died, and only a minority on the ship even got infected, suggesting substantial prior immunity, a steep age-lethality relationship, and an infection fatality ratio (IFR) not much different, if at all, from prior respiratory virus infections. But what was happening was that, in my view, senior people were acting a lot more frightened than seemed appropriate.
It was with this heightened interest that I began to closely examine all aspects of the alleged pandemic. I suspected something very bad was happening when the Imperial College released its modelling paper by Neil Ferguson. This claimed that over 500,000 people in the UK would die unless severe “measures” were put in place. Ferguson had over-projected all of the last five disease-related emergencies in the UK and had been responsible for the destruction of the beef herd through his modelling of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.
I had also been reading about all sorts of “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs), and what this had taught me was that there was absolutely no experimental literature around any of the NPIs being spoken of, except masks—which were clearly ineffective in blocking respiratory virus transmission. Moreover, the non-experts in the mainstream media drew on a very limited group of experts, and I noticed that none were immunologists.
I had, in parallel, watched the evolving scene in Sweden and was pleased to note that the Swedes’ chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, seemed to know what he was doing and had dismissed the panic. I knew he had been the deputy of his predecessor, Johan Gieseke, who was still around in an emeritus role. Gieseke was also reassuringly calm.
The final straw was when on March 23, 2020, the British prime minister initiated the first “lockdown”. This was wholly without precedent. I knew Sweden had rejected lockdown measures as wholly unnecessary and extremely damaging.
From that day forward, the team from the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) put up one or more members every day to appear alongside the prime minister or the health minister. These press conferences were meandering affairs, and it wasn’t clear what their purpose was. The questions asked never sought to place things in context, but instead seemed to always explore the outer edges of possible outcomes and then follow up with remarks that didn’t seem adequately prepared.
In retrospect, I think the aim was to make the press conferences the only “must watch” thing on TV, and with such a large, captive audience, a form of fear-based hypnosis was instigated. Much later, Belgian professor and clinical psychologist Mattias Desmet informed us that this was indeed the aim, calling the process “mass formation”.² This process can become malignant, as have past beliefs in events that were later conceded to have been episodes of societal madness, like the Salem witch trials, satanic abuse of children, and other delusions.
Some experts believe that modern societies are more—and not less—susceptible to mass panics because of the ubiquity of easily-controlled messaging (properly termed “propaganda,” since it was completely deliberate and carefully planned). An August 2021 animated videotitled “Mass Psychosis – How an Entire Population Becomes Mentally Ill” illustrates this phenomenon; despite the animation format, the film leans heavily on academic research from luminaries such as Gustave Le Bon, Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, Stanley Milgram, and Solomon Asch, as well as later researchers and studies.³
It is important to be cautious about the purported importance of “mass formation,” however. In a sense, it might be seen as wholly impersonal and something that is thrown at the population and lands more or less effectively on people at random.
Worse, it comes with the notion that, if you are susceptible, it cannot be resisted. There is a contrasting school of thought that holds that information technology (IT), data, and artificial intelligence (AI) are capable of assembling a “digital prison” that is tailored toeach individualand shaped over time by choices that we each make.4 The outcome isn’t in any way preordained. However, incentives and deterrentsare associated with innumerable decisions we make, such as how to pay for something, whether we sell our data for tiny rewards, whether we consciously decide to open links suggested for us, whether we leave location services running permanently, and more.5
Using Mass Testing to Promote Fear
As soon as the UK lockdown was initiated, the focus turned full force onto mass testing, and especially on testing people without symptoms. I knew this didn’t make any sense, because if a large enough number of people are tested daily, without knowledge of the false-positive rate, it could certainly very quickly panic people into thinking there were lots of people walking around with the virus, unaware they had it and allegedly spreading it to others.
Once the lockdown was in place, in addition to testing, the press conferences focused on numbers in hospital, numbers on ventilators, and ultimately, the daily deaths “with Covid”. Early treatments and improved lifestyle were never spoken of. The first lockdown lasted 12 weeks, with most office staff told to work from home while being paid “furlough” (a word never before used in Britain). The “fear porn” continued all the way into high summer, long after daily Covid deaths had reached approximately zero. The introduction of mandatory masking in all public areas in the heat of summer, when they had never been required before, was the last straw for me. It was all theatre.
At that point, I set out to investigate a couple of core concepts: the “PCR test” and “asymptomatic transmission”. I’m embarrassed to say, however, that it wasn’t until the autumn of 2020 that I had clear in my mind, with mounting horror, that the entire event, if not completely manufactured, was being grossly exaggerated, with the intent of deceiving the entire “liberal democratic West”. Scores of countries were economically being squeezed to death. I knew that from a financial perspective, borrowing or printing enough money to subsidize tens of millions to remain at home could not be long sustained without destroying the sovereign currency. Strangely, exchange rates didn’t move much—another clue that powerful forces were managing this event as well as its consequences. Around this time, country leaders started talking about “Build Back Better,” and Klaus Schwab’s book, COVID-19: The Great Reset, appeared.
All of this contributed to my developing the idea of “The Covid lies”. It seemed to me that everything we had been told about the virus wasn’t true, and also that all the NPIs imposed upon us couldn’t work, and so were for nothing more than show.
One Dominant Narrative
As already mentioned, repetition and fear were key to instigating “mass formation” as described by Mattias Desmet.² This narrowing of focus, according to Desmet, means those “in the mass” (crowd) literally are incapable of hearing anything that challenges the narrative of which they’ve been convinced. Any explanation other than the truth is marshalled to dismiss rational counter-arguments. And indeed we saw that anyone challenging the dominant narrative was attacked, smeared, censored, and cancelled on social media, and no reasonable and independent voices were ever seen or heard on TV or radio.
Desmet argues that mass formation, to be successful, requires that certain conditions be in place: high levels of free-floating anxiety; a strong degree of social isolation (where devices replace real human interactions); and finally, low levels of “sense-making,” that is, many things do not make sense to many people. When a crisis is dropped into a population where these conditions obtain and is repeated ad nauseam, it is possible in effect to hypnotise them.
When the narrative has taken hold, what happens next?
Now, the population’s anxiety has an obvious focus, which is felt as a relief.
The routines—masking, lockdowns, testing, hand sanitizing—become for some a ritual, which provides daily meaning.
Finally, so many people are acting the same way and echoing the same lines (the lines they’ve heard time and again on TV, radio, newspapers, and their devices), that people can feel part of a national effort in a way they’ve not felt before.
This combination, coupled with visible and strong punishment for anyone who questions the narrative or simply refuses to comply, reinforces the groupthink.
It is, according to crowd psychology experts, nearly impossible to extract those who are this deeply “in the mass”. However, there is always another group of individuals who never fall for such tricks. Outwardly pleasant and easygoing, these individuals typically are sceptical and go along with things only if they make sense to them personally, and not because an authority figure tells them to.
There is also a third group in the middle—individuals who often sense that something is wrong but lack the courage of their own convictions and tend to side with whatever they’re told to do, rather passively. They are not hypnotised, but to third parties, they can seem to be.
Crowd psychology experts encourage those who’ve seen through the lies (the second group) to speak out and continue to do so. This legitimises speaking out by all others not persuaded by the narrative and might even extract some from the middle group. Even those in the “mass” group will be prevented from sinking yet more deeply into the narrative, from where those orchestrating events can otherwise prompt such people to commit atrocities.
In the second half of 2020, the conversation turned to the oncoming vaccines. Having spent 32 years in pharmaceutical research and development (R&D), I knew that what we were being told about vaccines was just lies. It’s not possible to bypass a dozen years of careful work or to compress it into a few months. The product that was to emerge was almost certain, to my mind, to be very dangerous. And after I began reading my way into this area, I grew more concerned still.
In my “Covid Lies” comments, I isolate ONLY the major narrative points themselves and show that none of them are true. In other words, this was not just a little lying here and there—no, the entire construct was false. After I describe all the main lies, I show how the perpetrators were able to get away with it. At the conclusion, I believe the reader will share my view that the whole event was manufactured or exaggerated from a mild situation.
Remember, no alternative views were permitted in the “public square”. In fact, in July 2019—well before the declared pandemic—a group of powerful media organisations had already assembled and founded the Trusted News Initiative(TNI). The purpose of TNI was both to control mass media messages and crush alternative voices from any direction.6
Again, all of the Covid narrative was lies. Not mistakes. Many of the politicians who repeated others’ lines might try to offer as defence that they relied on experts to inform them. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Rochelle Walensky recently did just that when she said that the CDC made vaccination recommendations because CNN published Pfizer’s press release saying that their Covid-19 vaccine was 95% effective. (You can’t make this up.) However, the true subject matter experts who promoted the false narrative from the public health departments— such as Chief Scientific Advisor Sir Patrick Vallance in the UK and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci in the U.S.—knew their statements were untrue.
The Question of Motive
The question of motive has to arise. What possible motive might there have been to create this state of fear? Who must have been involved to have granted authorisation to do it?
I have tried to find benign explanations and have failed to do so. The logical conclusions I’m drawn to make for very disturbing reading. I look forward to discussing them with you and indeed with anyone. Although it’s unlikely I am correct on every point, what I am sure of is that the overall picture is one of extreme deception and a highly-organised fraud. Moreover, I am not alone in reaching this view. For example, in an essay titled “if I were going to conquer you,” one author walks us through what the perpetrators woulddoin order to take over the world through a simultaneous “coup d’état” of the liberal democracies.7 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. summarised a plausible explanation in a speechin Milan in November 2021.8
I appear to be the ONLY former executive-level scientist from big pharma anywhere in the world speaking out. I have invested two years pro bono in identifying the key elements of the fraud, in the sincere hope I can connect with upright individuals who can help bring this to wider attention and, ultimately, to a halt and to justice. As a result of these efforts, I can describe a global fraud operating for two years at tremendous cost in lives, the economy, and the very structure of human societies, which could only have been undertaken by powerful people, organised for a purpose that is not to the benefit of ordinary people.
Though not all central, there are a large number of ancillary points that reinforce my conclusions. I have assembled some of them below. This list is not exhaustive and may be added to.
In a series of five short videos,9 you will find remarkable similarities in a Canadian team’s interpretation of the same fraud. Note, in particular, the second film(3.5 minutes) on non-pharmaceutical interventions.¹0
German investigative journalist Paul Schreyer shows that this fraud was rehearsed for many years, increasingly, with all the stakeholders now running the alleged Covid-19 fraud.¹¹
Why were autopsies strongly discouraged worldwide in 2020 and still today? My conclusion is that this was to cover up the lack of Covid-19 deaths. After vaccination, a large fraction of deaths have been judged to be due to the vaccines, and the lack of autopsies covers them up, too.¹²
The Nobel-prize-winning inventor of the PCR test, Dr. Kary Mullis, stated definitively that PCR must not be used to diagnoseviral illnesses.¹³ On what basis, therefore, were “cases” determined purely by the results of this one test, much disputed as to its appropriateness?
Cause of Death
A death from any cause, within 28 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, is recorded as a “Covid death”. It’s absurd—we have never assigned cause of death like this before, ever. The effect of untrustworthy PCR tests and the arbitrary assignment of a dubious “positive” as somehow causative of death has been a very effective way to fool and frighten people. Most do not know that there are literally scores of viruses, even common cold viruses, which can infect human airways, some of which—in elderly and infirm people—can give rise to severe illness.
Hospital treatment protocols, where I have explored them, look designed to kill:
In the UK, the pathway starts with everyone being tested with untrustworthy PCR tests, which are applied repeatedly for an inpatient. Given that 2% of hospital admissions end in a hospital death, repeated poor testing guarantees a lot of “Covid deaths”.
A patient “diagnosed” as “positive” Covid is then placed in isolation, and visitors are not allowed until the patient is moribund.
A standard treatment involves intravenous midazolam (a benzodiazepine used for sedation) and morphine from a syringe driver, at doses up to 10 times greater than advisable for a patient capable of breathing unaided. This often results in respiratory failure and either immediate death or mechanical ventilation, accompanied by withdrawal of all care; of course, these patients then expire. It’s murder.
In the UK, we have documentary evidence that the UK National Health Service (NHS) stockpiled a year’s supply of midazolam by ordering it normally but banning 2019 prescriptions. By April 2020—over no more than two months—the entire supply was exhausted. Another year’s supply was then bulk-purchased from a generics company in France, cleaning out their stock.
Something similar occurred in U.S. hospitals, with ramped-up cash bonuses for each stage passed, up to and including mechanical ventilation.
Mechanical ventilation is rarely appropriate, because Covid-19 is NOT an obstructive lung disorder. Blood oxygen desaturation is best addressed using non-invasive masks with elevated oxygen levels. When hospitals tried this in Italy in February 2020, they ceased mechanical ventilation within a week, so stark were the differences in outcomes; that is, most ventilated patients died, while most masked patients survived. Apparently, the method of treatment the Italian health care providers had been given from “colleagues in Wuhan” was what they called “the Wuhan protocol”. In this, the guidance given was that the sooner they sedated and ventilated an agitated patient, the better the patient’s chances. This was a lie. Panicked patients needed anxiolytics (anti-anxiety drugs) and an oxygen mask, but instead, they were killed.
I have been incensed by the misuse of novel, experimental “vaccines,” particularly in Covid-recovered individuals, pregnant women, and children.
Recovered individuals are immune, and the risks of adverse events are greatly increased because the body is already poised to attack any cells expressing spike protein.
Pregnant women are not at greatly elevated risks from Covid-19 because they tend to be young and healthy. NEVER, since thalidomide (1956–1962), have we approved the use of experimental agents in pregnant women, and certainly not without reproductive toxicology studies. None of the vaccines have a completed “Reprotox” package (summaries on the reproductive effects of chemicals, medications, physical agents, or biologics). I filed a short expert opinionin court with America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) on this topic.¹4 The vaccine makers also didn’t complete something called an ADME-Tox (Absorption Distribution Metabolism Excretion- Toxicity) package. Documents obtained in March 2022 through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show that Pfizer was “planning to study” vaccination in maternity as of April 30, 2021—that is, after they had already manufactured and shipped close to 100 million doses.
The misuse of these agents in healthy children has, without question, reverse risk/ benefit: the injections kill far more children than the virus could.
The whole thing stinks of a purpose different from public health, because if it was a legitimate public health effort, we definitely would NOT do any of these things. When I co-authored the world’s first treatise explaining some of these concerns, officials lied on the nationally broadcast BBC and other media outlets, smearing me and others like me who were raising questions. Note that the petitionin question, filed with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), was co-authored by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, the public health doctor and minor politician from Germany who stopped the fraudulent “swine flu pandemic” in 2009.¹5
I observed two strange occurrences. First, the WHO alteredthe definition of “immunity” from “that obtained after natural infection or vaccination,” only mentioning vaccination and excluding “natural immunity”.¹6 That meant that only vaccination could accomplish the goal. They eventually changed this back, but for many, the damage was done, leaving non-experts not trusting natural immunity, even though it is superior to that from vaccination because the body has been exposed to all parts of the virus and will, therefore, respond to any part of it if reinfected. The
definition of a “vaccine” was also changed, so that it wasn’t necessary to prevent infection or transmission, whereas traditional vaccines almost always do this. They do so because they prevent the development of clinical illness and, in the case of respiratory viruses at least, lack of symptoms renders the person all but incapable of infecting anyone else.
In addition, the WHO changed the definition of “pandemic.” Previously, “pandemic” meant the simultaneous spreading across many countries of a pathogen, causing many cases and deaths. The definition was changed to eliminate the need for many deaths. (See Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg [at 45 min, 50 sec], interviewedon UK TV in 2010 after the exaggerated swine flu pandemic, which I now believe was something of a rehearsal for the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic.)¹7
This is a critical point, because PCR can be designed against any pathogen, and protocols can be adopted such that a large number of false positives appear. This grants bad actors the ability, relatively easily, to create the illusion of a pandemic, almost to order. Dr. Wodarg recaps his 2009 experiences and shows interesting similarities withrecent eventsin an January 2021 interview.¹8
Many people simply don’t believe experts when they talk of a “very high fraction of positive test results being false positives”. I assure you, however, there have genuinely been a number of events where the entire suspected epidemic was an illusion, and 100% of positives were false positives. In 2007, the New York Times reported on an example of “an epidemic that wasn’t” which, when I first read it, gave me a crawling sensation.¹9 I wonder if it was this genuine event—a false alarm in which experts admitted placing “too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray”— that birthed the method for exaggerating (or even fully faking) a pandemic such as the one we are currently living?
I noticed early on that Bill Gates said, “We won’t return to normal until pretty much the whole planet has been vaccinated”. This is a bizarre statement from a person with no medical or scientific training (or indeed a college degree in anything). It is never necessary to vaccinate the entire population, when only the elderly and infirm are at serious risk of death if infected. Note, too, that the median age of deaths from/with Covid was the same or even older than the median age of death due to all causes.
For his part, former UK prime minister Tony Blair insisted that vaccine passports would be essential to restore confidence. Again, this was absurd, especially once we learned that these vaccines do not prevent transmission. Once this became clear, the case for coerced vaccination vanished, and this is still the present position. Yet, my unvaccinated relatives may not enter the U.S. If you fear infection, the safest person to be around isn’t a vaccinated person but a person who is fit and well, with no respiratory symptoms.
Boosters and Antibodies
The practise of “boosting”—giving people dose after dose of poorly-designed agent, ostensibly to reinforce their immunity—has no immunological basis. No genuine immunity wanes in a few months, or sometimes even in a few weeks. The perpetrators have exploited the public’s understanding of the annual influenza vaccine to somehow normalise something that is both dangerous and ineffective.
I also noticed that early on, in discussing immunity, antibodies were the discussion topic, whereas T-cells were an “extremist plot”. This is another absurdity. I can assemble expert witnesses who will attest alongside me that blood-based antibodies are relatively unimportant, potentially irrelevant to infection by respiratory viruses. This is because the virus infects the air side of the airways and blood-based antibodies cannot leave the blood and enter this “compartment”. Blood antibodies and respiratory viruses never meet except under unusual circumstances. On the contrary, T-cells leave the blood and migrate through infected airway tissue, removing infected cells.
Ferguson Track Record
Professor Neil Ferguson at Imperial College has a poor record of modelling and predictions.²0
A former WHO staffer, Jane Bürgermeister, shared frighteningly prescient testimony in 2010. Her understanding was that respiratory virus pandemics will be used to force near universal vaccinationand that this had sinister motives.²¹ I dismissed this the first time I saw it. Many of us turn away instinctively from evil because we cannot or do not want to believe that other humans are capable of that which our logic tells us is happening. I now no longer reject it. It fits far too well with the totally independent Paul Schreyer documentary.¹¹
More Prescient Testimony
Another doctor, Dr. Rima Laibow, made similar claims.²² This testimony speaks of population rejection, and like Jane Bürgermeister, locates the fraud in a conceptual world government. Again, one can reject it, or consider it alongside other pieces of information.
I think it’s worth developing the theme of turning away from evidence of sheer evil, and I have to say more, because it is THE pressing issue today. The evidence I set forth makes it perfectly plain that the entire world is being lied to in ways that led— predictably—to huge suffering and death. Given that none of the “measures” imposed could have mitigated illness and death from a respiratory virus, the only outcome was to be the fracturing of civil society and damage, potentially fatal, to the economy and financial system. I emphasise again here that WHO scientists had conducted a detailed review of control measuresfor respiratory virus epidemics and pandemics as recently as 2019, and they concluded that no imposed NPI measures make any difference at all.²³ The claims made for control in Wuhan are not credible.
The stakeholders who must have approved this action own or control the majority of the world’s capital and assets. Their motivation cannot be for money, for they stand astride the money-creating apparatus in the central and private banks. Equally, it cannot be to obtain gross control over the population, since they already demonstrably have that. This is what leads me inexorably to propose that the motives behind this are terrible—at the very least, to secure totalitarian control through mandatory, digital IDs (in the guise of useless “vaccine passports,” useless because none of these so-called vaccines reduce transmission, the only possible justification for them). Add to this a “financial great reset” with withdrawal of cash and introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and we have a wholly controlled population, controlled automatically without human intervention on the ground. All that’s needed is to require the population to show their health passport or else they will not be allowed to cross a regulated threshold, like accessing a food store, or make a transaction using digital money unless the AI algorithm permits it. If those operating this takeover of humanity wished then to eliminate a portion of the population, with plausible deniability, I doubt a more propitious starting point could be had.
I do not believe it’s a fault in those who fall for the narrative that they cannot see the lies. People want to believe that governments and experts, for all their well-known flaws and occasionally uncovered corruption, are trying to do the best they can. They cannot accept the truth, that there is a group of powerful people who regard the ordinary members of the public as surplus to requirements. They want to deny evil because it makes them feel bad, sad, and uncomfortable to think about the world this way. They want to deny reality; that’s their coping mechanism, which is being exploited by the perpetrators of evil. It gives a cloak of invisibility to those who want to commit mass murder, quite literally, since so many people are so willing to imagine that it is not happening.
It is not clear to me what to do with the information I’ve gathered here. I believe that a calm review of the summary that I call “The Covid Lies” will result in any open-minded person agreeing that we all have been subjected to a monstrous fraud with lethal consequences, and that there is overwhelming evidence of long-term planning and deliberately injurious acts. There is no easy way to say that, but it could be represented objectively and taught, in the manner of a workshop, so that participants get to derive their own conclusions (albeit being led by the evidence).
I doubt just talking to a group of people who hold the dominant narrative view as “true” would respond at all well to this, delivered as a lecture. Nobody wants to accept that they’ve been fooled, even if the blow is softened by telling them that this has been brought about by highly experienced professionals in the covert services and has required huge amounts of money to buy off several groups. On the positive side, an increasing number of people have detected that fraud is ongoing. A particularly good example comes from the financial analyst community and refers to life insuranceclaims among many other pieces of evidence of wrong-doing.²4
Ignoring this and hoping it will go away is naïve and very dangerous for us all. The perpetrators have not gone away and will likely return in the fall. I expect this year or the next will see them assume totalitarian tyranny, if we have not, before then, “inoculated” important stakeholder groups to understand what has happened so far and cautioned them to be alert to the many potential presentations of the next fear-provoking episode.
Best wishes and thanks for reading.
About Dr. Mike Yeadon
I am an experienced life sciences R&D professional, with 32 years in commercial R&D. There is no reason for me to be saying the things I do, other than that I believe them to be true. I have never campaigned for or against anything in my life, and I had never made public comment on anything outside the narrow confines of my professional roles, prior to Covid-19.
I hugely enjoyed my years with Pfizer. They were a good employer, and I left on excellent terms as they shuttered their UK R&D base. Evidence of this is that I formed a business partnership with Pfizer the year after I left (2012), and we worked together on an ultimately successful venture, which concluded profitably for all in 2017.²5
I am the most highly- and broadly-qualified scientist speaking out about this alleged fraud. I have no financial or other conflicts of interest, unlike most of those who I assert are deceiving the public, everywhere.
Currently Chief Scientific Advisor to America’s Frontline Doctors and to the Truth For Health Foundation.
Former founder and CEO of Ziarco, a biotech acquired by Novartis (2017).
Former VP and worldwide head of Allergy & Respiratory Diseases research at Pfizer, UK (1995–2011).
Independent consultant to over 30 biotech companies, mostly U.S. (2011–2021).
PhD in respiratory pharmacology (1988) and double 1st class honours degree in biochemistry and toxicology (1985).
23. World Health Organization. Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza: annex: report of systematic literature reviews. World Health Organization, 2019. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/329439. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
The plandemic continues, but its origins are still a nefarious mystery. How did the world get sick, how did Covid really spread, and did the Satanic elite tell the world about this bioweapon ahead of time? Dr. Bryan Ardis (www.ardisantidote.com) has unveiled a shocking connection between this pandemic and the eternal battle of good and evil which began in the Garden of Eden.
In this Stew Peters Network exclusive, Director Stew Peters, award winning filmmaker Nicholas Stumphauzer and Executive Producer Lauren Witzke bring to light a truth satan himself has fought to suppress.
Dr. Mercola has provided a detailed analysis of the entire 3-hour Rogan/Malone interview trying to be vanquished by Big Tech which includes the entire 3-hour video and an excerpt video (16-minutes) of follow-up questions between Dr. Malone and Kristi Leigh. Unless you are more patient than I, I suggest reading the Dr. Mercola text analysis prior to any lengthy video viewing.
I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to overcome expenses:
December 30, 2021, Joe Rogan interviewed Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA gene transfer technology. YouTube and Twitter promptly deleted the interview
Google has also been caught red-handed manipulating search results such that Malone’s Rogan interview won’t show up when searching for “mass formation psychosis”
Malone was permanently banned from Twitter December 29, 2021, likely triggered by a post that included a video by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, which reviewed Pfizer data showing the COVID jab causes more illness than it prevents, and that the Pfizer trial was flawed both in design and construction
Alternatively, Malone may have been banned due to a post showing how the World Economic Forum controls the global media narrative
A Physicians Declaration by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, states that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted
December 30, 2021, Joe Rogan interviewed Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA gene transfer technology. YouTube and Twitter promptly deleted the interview and mainstream media published a rash of articles attacking Malone and Rogan in the most disparaging terms possible.1
In addition to censoring Malone, Google has also been caught red-handed manipulating search results such that Malone’s Rogan interview won’t show up when searching for “mass formation psychosis.”2 That search term also won’t give you any of the interviews given by psychologist Mattias Desmet, who was the first to use that term as a diagnosis for why so many are buying an obviously flawed, if not ridiculous, COVID narrative.
In response to the obvious Big Tech censorship, Congressman Troy Nehls, R-Texas, entered the transcript of the podcast (the Joe Rogan Experience #17573) into the Congressional Record with the following statement:4
“By deplatforming Dr. Robert Malone for voicing opposition and removing the interview, Twitter and YouTube are once again proving that they don’t work for their users but for big Pharma, big media, and the elites.
When we stray away from our core principles of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of debate, democracy is lost. Today, I entered the transcript of the Joe Rogan Experience #1757 into the Congressional Record to preserve the podcast forever. Big Tech may be able to censor information on their own platforms, but they cannot censor the Congressional Record.”
Malone Permanently Banned From Twitter
Malone had been permanently banned from Twitter the day before, December 29, 2021. He suspects his ban was triggered by one of the two last posts he made. One was a link to the Canadian COVID Care Alliance’s website,5 with the comment:6
“Pfizer 6 month data which shows that Pfizer’s Covid-19 inoculations cause more illness than they prevent. Plus, an overview of the Pfizer trial flaws in both design and execution.”
The video, featured on the Canadian COVID Care Alliance’s website, reviews that Pfizer data. We will feature this excellent video later and go into far more details of how they exposed the fraud of Pfizer’s clinical COVID jab trial.
The other tweet that might have triggered the ban was a post about how the World Economic Forum manages global media in a lockstep fashion. Either way, Malone was permanently banned from the social media platform either for highlighting Pfizer’s own science — the very science we’re told to “trust” — or highlighting the WEF’s central role in the global censorship campaign.
Mainstream Media Are Losing the Information War
Interestingly, Rogan has become something of a key workaround to the universal mainstream media censorship. While Malone lost 512,000 followers on Twitter when they suspended his account, it’s rumored his interview with Rogan has garnered some 50 MILLION views across alternative free-speech platforms.7 As noted in a January 3, 2022, ZeroHedge article:8
“… nowadays when you make it on JRE, you’ve officially ‘made it.’ Putting aside the obvious irony of Twitter attempting to ban somebody and the person in question going viral as a result, I also thought about how, despite the fact that Malone’s opinions put him at odds with the mainstream media … Joe Rogan launched him past the usual media suspects and into the real ‘mainstream’ …
[In] 2022, the mainstream media as we know it today (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc.) is going to be forced to change its narrative on COVID. The idea of the media being forced to change its tune on Covid is something I touched upon a couple of days ago when I wrote about the Omicron variant and how the media is creating a mass hysteria mountain out of a mole hill.
But after listening to Dr. Robert Malone’s well reasoned arguments, delivered for three straight hours, concisely and calmly, it became clear to me that the entire mainstream media machine could wind up falling at the hands of content creators like Joe Rogan.
Rogan generates so many views and has grown so quickly — strictly because he allows open dialogue, civil discourse and approaches things with honest intent … One issue for media and political elites to consider is the fact that Rogan has supporters on both sides of the aisle.
These supporters watch him because he routinely touches on topics that are considered faux pas or irreverent … Rogan has thrived, whether intentionally (bringing on people specifically because they are being censored) or unintentionally (shooting the shit with people he finds interesting), from the start, by shining light in the dark areas that the mainstream media refuses to discuss.”
Many Rogan fans agree that Malone’s interview is among the best interviews Rogan has ever done. I know, many of you are saying to yourself, I don’t have three hours to watch this interview. Well, let me encourage you to find the time. If 50 million people have watched this video, it is likely you could find the time.
Trust me on this one. You won’t regret it. It is such a pure joy and pleasure to listen to Malone’s relaxed, eloquent, masterfully precise language as he destroys the mainstream COVID narrative. You can watch it in bits and pieces, but this is clearly the best interview Malone has done and is on par with the Peter McCullough interview with Rogan a few weeks ago.
“If it’s not OK for me to be part of the conversation … who can be allowed? ~ Dr. Robert Malone”
As explained by Malone, he has been involved in vaccine development and distribution for more than three decades, and played a crucial role in the development of the very technology that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID shots are based upon, so “If it’s not OK for me to be part of the conversation … who can be allowed?” Malone asked.
Indeed, as noted by Rogan, with its ban of Malone, Twitter basically banned “one of the most qualified people in the world to talk about vaccines.” Malone said he has attorneys looking at potentially filing some sort of lawsuit over the ban.
Of course, mainstream media and “fact checkers” (now legally defined by recent Facebook litigation as opinion promoters) call him a liar for saying he invented the mRNA technology currently used, but his name on 10 patents proves otherwise.
“No one can dispute that I played a major role in this tech,” Malone said. “And virtually all other voices that have that background have financial conflicts of interest. I think I’m the only one that doesn’t. I’m not getting any money out of this.”
Some of the cliff notes from Malone’s interview include the following:11
Government responses — Malone believes the U.S. government is “out of control” and “lawless” in their COVID response and that their actions have resulted in, probably, half a million excess deaths. COVID jab mandates are “explicitly illegal” as the shots are experimental. What’s more, people are not getting the information they need to be able to make an informed decision about the risks they’re taking by participating in this experiment.
Social psychology of the times — Malone believes the irrational behavior we’re witnessing is the result of “mass formation psychosis,” a societal diagnosis first presented by Desmet at the end of 2021.
Natural immunity — Natural immunity is more robust than “vaccine” induced immunity, and people with natural immunity also have a higher risk of adverse events from the COVID jab.
COVID jab risks — Malone actually took the Moderna shot, thinking it might help with some long-COVID symptoms he was having after getting seriously ill with COVID-19 in February 2020. He says he suffered some side effects from the shot, but that those effects have since resolved.
Malone expresses concern about post-jab myocarditis rates and the possibility of fertility problems. When it comes to reproductive health, he warns that the lipid nanoparticles in the COVID shots can have adverse effects on the ovaries.
He also reviews how the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can cause blood clots, regardless of whether they come from natural infection or the COVID jab, and how the spike protein can disrupt the blood-brain-barrier.
Malone believes the reason some experience no or few adverse effects from the COVID shot has to do with phenotypic or genetic differences. He points out that diabetics and those with high blood sugar levels tend to be more affected by spike protein effects, for example.
Suppression of early treatment — Early treatment with drugs such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin is very effective and both drugs have also been safely administered for several decades. The Chinese anti-COVID protocol, obtained by Malone in February 2020, actually included hydroxychloroquine. When he got COVID-19, Malone also self-treated with femotadine (Pepsid). He’s now leading a clinical trial to assess its usefulness in the treatment of COVID.
Narrative management and global coordination of censorship — The Trusted News Initiative led by the BBC is central to the censorship campaign, according to Malone. It labels anyone who disagrees with the official narrative on vaccines as an “anti-vaxxer,” and suppresses anything that goes against “approved” sources such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and the World Health Organization.
He also points out that Thomson-Reuters, which has ties to Pfizer, is a primary fact checker of Twitter. Since they in part decide what’s allowed to be discussed on Twitter, Pfizer has this hidden influence as well (not to mention that James C. Smith, chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, also has been a director at Pfizer and chair of their compensation committee since 201412).
COVID jab efficacy — Malone notes the window of effectiveness is ever shrinking, with some studies, such as one from Denmark,13 showing negative effectiveness against Omicron.
According to Malone, we’re administering a “mismatched vaccine” and driving the B and T memory cells toward a virus that is no longer in circulation. His hypothesis for why the shots stop working so quickly is because of this original antigenic sin. He explains:
“We’ve got a new pathogen [Omicron] but it’s got a series of overlaps with the old ones that we’ve seen before, and our immune system is biased to respond as if it’s the old one.
Now, to make matters worse, we’re taking the spike protein — only one of the proteins the dominant immunologically dominant protein — and we’re jabbing everybody multiple times, and driving memory cells and effector cells to a virus that is not the one we’re encountering.
So it could very well be that as you’re taking more jabs, you’re further skewing your immune response in a way that’s dysfunctional for infection to Omicron … When you see a signal this strong, it’s saying something’s going on you ought to pay attention to it in my opinion.”
In his first in-person interview since appearing on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Dr. Malone sits down with Kristi Leigh to discuss the awakening journey, what he thought of Joe Rogan, censorship, the Great Reset and how he’s feeling about 2022.
Malone also sat down with InfoWars reporter Kristi Leigh within days of his Twitter ban.14 A highlight reel15 from the 80-minute interview is embedded above. In it, Malone described being “multidimensionally red-pilled” by the current censorship. He also discusses his journey of “coming to terms with what the World Economic Forum represents.”
Initially he resisted the idea that there was a global agenda underway aimed at stripping us of our rights and freedoms. He thought The Great Reset was fantasy — until he started looking into claims for himself and found this supposed “conspiracy theory” is fully documented and laid out for the world to see on the WEF’s own website. “And then you see [the plan] deployed,” he says.
Malone’s Warning to Parents
In another recent interview with the WND,16 Malone discussed two grassroots projects that he’s gotten involved with. The first is the Unity Project, which opposes vaccine mandates, and the second is the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, launched by the Global COVID Summit.17
Malone also highlighted the second Physicians Declaration18 by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, dated October 29, 2021, in an article for The Defender.19
The declaration has been signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, and states that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted.
Not only are children at high risk for severe adverse events, but having healthy, unvaccinated children in the population is crucial to achieving herd immunity. The declaration also demands that health agencies and institutions “cease interfering with physicians treating individual patients.”
In the article, Malone also warned parents that the decision to inject their children is “irreversible,” and that they need to be aware of “the scientific facts about this genetic vaccine, which is based on the mRNA vaccine technology I created.” Here’s an excerpt from that written warning:20
“Before you inject your child — a decision that is irreversible — I wanted to let you know the scientific facts about this genetic vaccine, which is based on the mRNA vaccine technology I created.
There are three issues parents need to understand: The first is that a viral gene will be injected into your children’s cells. This gene forces your child’s body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including:
Their brain and nervous system.
Their heart and blood vessels, including blood clots.
Their reproductive system.
This vaccine can trigger fundamental changes to their immune system.
The most alarming point about this is that once these damages have occurred, they are irreparable:
You can’t fix the lesions within their brain.
You can’t repair heart tissue scarring.
You can’t repair a genetically reset immune system.
This vaccine can cause reproductive damage that could affect future generations of your family.
The second thing you need to know about is the fact that this novel technology has not been adequately tested. We need at least 5 years of testing/research before we can really understand the risks. Harms and risks from new medicines often become revealed many years later.”
Again, I urge you to listen to Malone’s interview with Rogan, embedded at the top of this article, in its entirety. He covers a lot of ground, and does so in his calm and well-reasoned way. I can confidently assure you that you won’t have any regrets for making the time investment.
Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.
If you want to use an article on your site please click here. This content may be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired, permission in writing from Dr. Mercola is required.