CANNABIS CULTURE – A DEEP dive into the relevant facts – and predictions for the near future – regarding the pandemic of 2020.
“We are men of groans and howls,
Mystic men who eat boiled owls,
Tell us what you wish oh King,
Our magic can do anything.”
“I wish,” spoke the King, “to have you make something fall from my skies that no other kingdom has ever had before.”
– Bartholomew and the Oobleck, Dr. Seuss, 1949 (1)
`“Federal officials on Tuesday ended a moratorium imposed three years ago on funding research that alters germs to make them more lethal. Such work can now proceed, said Dr. Francis S. Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, but only if a scientific panel decides that the benefits justify the risks. Some scientists are eager to pursue these studies because they may show, for example, how a bird flu could mutate to more easily infect humans, or could yield clues to making a better vaccine. Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic. . . . In October 2014, all federal funding was halted on efforts to make three viruses more dangerous: the flu virus, and those causing Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). . . . There has been a long, fierce debate about projects — known as “gain of function” research — intended to make pathogens more deadly or more transmissible. . . . When the moratorium was imposed, it effectively halted 21 projects, Dr. Collins said. In the three years since, the N.I.H. created exceptions that funded ten of those projects. Five were flu-related, and five concerned the MERS virus.”
– A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted, Donald G. McNeil Jr., Dec. 19, 2017, nytimes.com (2)
“No matter where you go online these days, there’s bound to be discussion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Some folks are even making outrageous claims that the new coronavirus causing the pandemic was engineered in a lab and deliberately released to make people sick.”
– Genomic Study Points to Natural Origin of COVID-19, March 26th, 2020, Dr. Francis Collins, NIH Director’s Blog, directorsblog.nih.gov (3)
I shall remind everyone that I’m not accredited in anything, so one should not take my word for any of this and should try and verify everything for one’s self. Of course, that advice also holds when getting information from the accredited, because history proves time and time again that one’s expertise in an area of science does not make one perfect – or even guarantee an appreciation for the benefits of moral or ethical behavior. To that end, I will supply citations for everything controversial that I find relevant to the discussion. I suspect they will be high-quality citations, as each of the 326 the citations I provided in part one – an article “liked” by over 1,100 Facebook readers – were debunked by exactly zero people. So far.
I am an anarchist – I think having rulers is problematic and unnecessary – and believe – as anarchist/naturalist Peter Kropotkin believed – that;
“. . . there is no generalization from the whole world of science, social or natural, which cannot be conveyed to a man of average intelligence, if you yourself understand it concretely.” (5)
In other words, if you make an effort to understand something, you can probably do so, as long as you are learning from someone who understands it themselves and can explain it using simple, non-technical terms. Along that same line of thought, I quote the great statesman and “first citizen of Athens”: Pericles. Like Kropotkin, Pericles had this to say about the non-accredited and their responsibility to involve themselves with the important issues of the day;
“An Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he takes care of his own household; and even those of us who are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics. We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as a harmless, but as a useless character: and if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a policy.” (6)
Those who attempt to discourage the unaccredited from trying to understand – or participate in – the research and discussion of these issues are worse than useless – they turn other potentially useful people into useless ones.
But enough about anarchism . . . let’s talk about pathology (the study of disease), immunology (the study of the immune system), epidemiology (the study of the spread and control of diseases and/or the study of epidemics), pharmacology (the study of drugs), herbalism (the study of medicinal plants) and maybe a bit of sociology (the study of society). If we want to understand SARS-COV-2 fully, we will need to look into all these things a little bit.
No marks will be given for this particular home-school COVID crash course – but the test is a practical exam, and failing it might mean death from a virus, a vaccine, from unnecessary poverty/starvation, or suffering horribly under a police-state, so try to pay attention.
If you haven’t read part 1 of this series, (4) I highly recommend going back and reading it first, as it serves as a foundation of understanding the ideas explored in this article.
Part 1 was published on March 30th, and since that time a bunch of new information has come my way that confirms a lot of the conclusions I arrived at in the previous article. Using that last article as a template, I hope to revisit these issues: the nature of the virus, it’s lethality compared to the seasonal flu, the likelihood of acquired immunity, the plausibility of various origin theories, a history of US involvement in germ warfare, an evaluation of vaccine profitability and pathology, attempts at Orwellian police states & Malthusian population culls, prior knowledge of pandemics in general and possible prior knowledge of this pandemic in particular, facemask safety and efficacy, and how proprietary concerns shape treatment policy. Since Part 1 was published, lots of interesting new data has arisen on Gain-Of-Function research, on facemasks, on Hydroxychloroquine, on colloidal silver and on a new herbal treatment – Artemisia annua – as well as on other herbs and supplements – including cannabis – as possible treatments.
Over the last few months of quarantine, when I wasn’t busy working on my reefer-madness history book, I’ve been playing chess – and Super Mario Bros. 3 – with my 6-year-old boy. I’ve found that home-schooling for the very young is just a matter of re-defining stuff he does anyway. Chess and video games: problem-solving. Lego and drawing: art class. His mom teaching him guitar: music class. Searching for things on Netflix and YouTube: spelling. Counting the coins in his piggy bank: math. Helping mom with our community garden plot: physical education and agriculture. Watching internet videos about the origins of video games or Lego: history. Nature shows: biology. Zoom visits/playdates: social graces.
My feeling is that six-year-old boys who can’t be provided with a fully-functioning society should at least be cut some slack – the last thing he needs is to feel like he’s in a home-school version of the classroom in Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”. I think slacker home school is working out pretty good – he’s constantly informing his mother and I of some fact he just learned about spiders or whales or porcupines, and he’s learning to read and write. “Daddy! How do you spell ‘Lego Minecraft Mountain Cave’?” Thanks, internet video service search engines!
And of course – pandemic or not – his mom and I both read him bedtime stories. Recently I read him the Dr. Seuss classic: “Bartholomew and the Oobleck”. It’s a story about a power-tripping King who tells his magicians to mess with nature in order to impress everyone, and the unintended, yet predictable, consequences of such an undertaking. The “Oobleck” – a green gummy substance – falls from the sky, threatening everyone’s life, until the King apologizes for his hubris. I found the part about the authority figure making an apology the most unrealistic part of the story.
SARS-COV-2, the virus that causes the disease COVID-19, has proven to be more damaging than first believed. Aside from killing off the old and the infirm with ease, it attacks nearly every organ in the body (7) and can cause strokes (8) and permanent damage to the lungs and heart of otherwise healthy, young people. (9)
Some say over 3% of those who catch COVID-19 require “intubation and invasive ventilation” – a tube shoved down their throat for days if not weeks at a time. (10)
This is an extremely risky and dangerous procedure, for both the intubated and the healthcare provider;
“Mechanical ventilation had been performed in 79% of critically ill people in hospital including 62% who previously received other treatment. Of these 41% died, according to one study in the United States.” (11)
There is also evidence to suggest intubation is over-prescribed. (12)
Doctors in Israel have noted that “more than half” of the “recovered” patients have continued health problems, including pain and anxiety. (13) UK neurologists have published indications “of mildly affected” or “recovering” Covid-19 patients with serious or potentially fatal brain conditions. (14)
SARS-COV-2 may have also now mutated into a virus that can kill the very young. (15) I say “may” because health officials are unsure if it’s the same virus, or a mutation of the virus, (16) or an entirely different virus, or even our reaction to the virus (disinfectant poisoning, for example) (17) causing “Kawasaki’s Syndrome” – a disease that affects the very young. (18)
The possibility that there are variations of SARS-COV-2 floating around that can do different things has been confirmed. It appears that one version of the virus has mutated into something more infectious. The mutation – called D614G – appears to have replaced the first variant of SARS-CoV-2, as it now is the dominant variant in the US national database. (19)
Lethality Compared to the Seasonal Flu
Apparently, the “Malthusian death cultists” and/or “Orwellian police-state engineers” and/or “vaccine sales departments” (for lack of better terms) that were discussed in Part 1 – the powerful people determined to achieve as high a mortality rate for COVID-19 as possible – have convinced the low-information humans that the virus is no big deal, no worse than (or even less serious than) the seasonal flu. 100% of the data available on that subject has disproved that argument. (20)
The World Health Organization estimates that global seasonal flu mortality ranges between “290,000 to 650,000 respiratory deaths”. (21) That equates to approximately 795 to 1780 deaths per day. So let’s take the high estimate: 1780 deaths per day from the seasonal flu. Since March, COVID-19 averaged somewhere between two to three times that, with an all-time high of 10,520 deaths in a single day back on April 16th, and a slightly upward trend in the daily death rate from late May onward. (22)
In fact, there are very good reasons to suspect that at least some of the estimated seasonal flu mortality stats (24,000 to 62,000 deaths in the US) is inflated to about four times the actual confirmed seasonal flu mortality stats, (23) and, to make matters even worse, that the typical COVID-19 mortality stats are under-representing true COVID-19 mortality by a significant factor – both in the US (24) and globally. (25)
This means that the confirmed daily death rate for the flu in the United States may be as little as under 10 per day, and the current daily death count for COVID-19 in the United States – averaging over 1129 in the week of July 27th to August 2nd – is an undercount. The average US daily death rate from COVID-19 was well over 1000 since the beginning of April, well over 500 since the beginning of June, and has begun to show an upward trend again since the beginning of July. The all-time high was set on April 16th, with 4928 deaths in a single day. (26)
This information tells me that COVID-19 is 50 to 100 times as deadly as the seasonal flu in North America, that the rate is getting worse, and that – unlike the flu – it may be leaving a significant portion of the “recovered” with permanent disabilities, and the rest with no permanent immunity. As of August 3rd, there are over 11.5 million “recovered” cases globally, according to Worldometer. (27) If, for example, just 10% of them are disabled by the virus, that’s another 1.5 million additional victims, on top of the over 700 thousand deaths (so far). And the rate of infection is increasing rapidly. For the first million cases to occur, it took 123 days. The second million cases took just 13 days. The third million took 12 days. The fourth million took 11 days. The fifth million took 12 days. The sixth million took 9 days. The seventh million took 9 days. The eighth million took 8 days, and the ninth million took 6 days, as did the tenth million and the eleventh million. The twelfth million took 5 days. The thirteenth million took 4 days. The fourteenth million took 5 days. The fifteenth million took 4 days, as did the sixteenth and the seventeenth. The eighteenth million took just 3 days.
Hong Kong Flu @ Woodstock
“But wait!” the low-information humans argue . . . “The Hong Kong Flu of 1968-1969 killed over a million people worldwide – about 100,000 in the United States – and Woodstock was held during that pandemic – without any facemasks!” (28)
But Woodstock was in August – the US Hong Kong flu season in 1969 was November to February. (29) People in the United States saw this flu in much different terms than the public views COVID-19. Hong Kong flu had a low death rate compared to other 20th century pandemics, and the public may have had some natural immunity to this particular strain of the flu from the Asian Flu strains which had been circulating since 1957. (30)
Then there’s the matter of immunity. In Part 1, there were numerous indications that at least some of the people who “recovered” from COVID-19 either got re-infected or weren’t really recovered. Information came out of Taiwan, (31) Singapore, (32) China, Japan & South Korea, (33) and 1990 data on coronaviruses in general that came out of the U.K.. (34)
More recently, indications have come out of Vancouver, Canada, (35) Dallas, Texas, (36) out of the World Health Organization, (37) and from a recent study conducted by researchers at the Chongqing Medical University in China, and published in Nature. (38) That study found;
“Levels of antibodies against COVID-19 were significantly lower in asymptomatic carriers than those with symptoms during active infection. – Antibody levels also dropped off far more quickly in people who never showed symptoms, and 40 per cent of them had no detectable antibodies eight weeks after recovery, compared with 13 per cent of symptomatic patients. – Those with asymptomatic infections tested positive for an average of five days longer than people with symptomatic infections — 19 days compared with 14 days — suggesting that they were shedding the virus longer.” (39)
Nobody knows if immunity is even possible, as other coronaviruses do not provide long-term immunity. (40) The implications of a lack of acquired immunity were mentioned in an article in the Globe & Mail;
“The implications are enormous, particularly before a vaccine is developed and made widely available. A Harvard University analysis published last month found that if people can be reinfected with COVID-19 within a year or two, the virus will likely take up permanent residence in the population. Only if immunity endures beyond a few years is there a chance that the virus will die out after the initial pandemic wave has run its course.” (41)
The way SARS-COV-2 attacks the immune system has been likened to HIV. (42) A study was done about SARS-COV-2 which pointed to signs of an HIV insert in it – and indicated that this might have been a sign of a laboratory origin;
“The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity /similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature.” (43)
The paper was subsequently pulled for further review due to the controversial nature of the findings, and the question of the HIV insert – given the similar action of SARS-COV-2 towards the immune system – was dropped from discussion nearly everywhere.
Recently, it was confirmed that the antibodies for SARS-COV-2 don’t last inside the human body for very long;
“A pair of studies published this week is shedding light on the duration of immunity following COVID-19, showing patients lose their IgG antibodies—the virus-specific, slower-forming antibodies associated with long-term immunity—within weeks or months after recovery. With COVID-19, most people who become infected do produce antibodies, and even small amounts can still neutralize the virus in vitro, according to earlier work. These latest studies could not determine if a lack of antibodies leaves people at risk of reinfection. One of the studies found that 10 percent of nearly 1,500 COVID-positive patients registered undetectable antibody levels within weeks of first showing symptoms, while the other of 74 patients found they typically lost their antibodies two to three months after recovering from the infection, especially among those who tested positive but were asymptomatic. In contrast, infections caused by coronavirus cousins such as SARS and MERS result in antibodies that remain in the body for nearly a year, according to The New York Times.” (44)
What can be said with certainty is that a virus that is 100 times more lethal than the flu, that also permanently cripples many of its victims, and that provides no acquired immunity is much, much worse than the flu.
The weird thing about this debate over the nature of COVID-19 is just how many “experts” are out there giving horrible advice or making unsubstantiated statements – about how the virus is “just like the flu”, (45) or how much of a “hoax” the virus is, or how it must be of natural origin, or how masks/hydroxy/colloidal silver/herbs don’t work, or how vaccines are our only hope of leading a normal life.
Plausibility of Various Origin Theories
“Paradoxically, it may be advantageous for a biologically weaponized virus to cause a severe protracted illness with high communicability rather than quick death with little opportunity for continued spread.”
– Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, chapter 35: Medical
Challenges In Chemical And Biological Defense For The 21st Century, 1997 (46)
In part one, I examined the likelihood of the three theories of where the virus may have originated: a) in nature, b) in a lab and released by accident, and c) in a lab and released on purpose. Part one explored the evidence of “unknown pathogenesis” or “unknown origin” or a lack of a known “natural reservoir” for all the lethal coronaviruses in humans – including SARS-COV-2 – which was a telltale sign of virus weaponization. Another sign of weaponization was “gain of function” – increased infectiousness or virulence or lethality. Since coronaviruses were all originally non-lethal, SARS, MERS and SARS-COV-2 have all displayed at least two signs of weaponization. Most researchers who give their opinions on the origins of SARS-COV-2 ignore these signs, and argue instead that it was “definitely” a naturally emerging virus.
The National Post, without citing any sources, claimed that;
“The broad scientific consensus holds that SARS-CoV-2, the virus’ official name, originated in bats.” (47)
Tina Hesman Saey, writing for the website Science News, (48) argued on March 26th that “A genetic analysis shows it’s from nature”. (49) Hesman Saey was reporting on the findings of Kristian Andersen and his colleagues in the March 17th edition of Nature Medicine. (50)
Newsweek magazine tried to contact Anderson to ask him about inconsistencies in his findings, but he didn’t respond. Newsweek published these inconsistencies in their April 27th edition;
“To figure out where SARS-CoV-2 came from, Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research and his colleagues performed a genetic analysis: they published the work, which has been widely cited, on March 17 in Nature Medicine. The researchers focused on certain genetic features of the virus for telltale signs of ‘manipulation.’ One feature was the spike of protein that the virus uses to attach so effectively to the human body’s ACE2 receptors, a molecular feature of the cells in our lungs and other organs. The spike in SARS-Cov-2, the authors conclude, differs from that of the original SARS virus in ways that suggest it was ‘most likely the product of natural selection’—in other words, natural, not manipulated in a lab. However, the paper’s reasoning as to why animal passage, in particular, can be ruled out, is not clear. ‘In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired the . . . mutations during adaptation to passage in cell culture,’ the authors write. The theory that the virus mutated in mammalian hosts such as pangolins ‘provides a much stronger . . . explanation.’ Whether or not that includes animal passage in a lab, they don’t say. Andersen didn’t respond to Newsweek requests for comment. Rutger’s Ebright, a longtime opponent of gain of function research, says that the Andersen analysis fails to rule out animal-passage as an origin of SARS-CoV-2. ‘The reasoning is unsound,’ he wrote in an email to Newsweek. ‘They favor the possibility ‘that the virus mutated in an animal host such as a pangolins’ yet, simultaneously, they disfavor the possibility that the virus mutated in ‘animal passage.’ Because the two possibilities are identical, apart from location, one can’t logically favor one and disfavor the other.’” (51)
This Andersen/Nature Medicine article has been criticized by others. Meryl Nass, MD, posting this analysis on the website of the ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION, points to the paper’s key caveats;
“It contains these qualifiers: ‘. . . it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here.’ . . . ‘More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another.’” (52)
Other writers have pointed to 15-year-old research describing the ease in which such a lab origin might be engineered;
“In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman, who is editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory and co-author (with Tina Stevens) of the book Biotech Juggernaut, amplified this speculation by noting, ‘The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild. However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science.’” (53)
Jonathan Latham, PhD and Allison Wilson, PhD, writing for Independent Science News, also pointed to the ACE2 receptor research as a clue to a lab origin, concluding that:
“Given the research and collection history of the Shi lab at WIV it is therefore entirely plausible that a bat SARS-like cornavirus ancestor of Sars-CoV-2 was trained up on the human ACE2 receptor by passaging it in cells expressing that receptor.” (54)
Dr. Chris Martenson, a PhD in pathology who has carefully walked his YouTube viewers through many different studies on SARS-COV-2 since January, had this to say on the issue of the origin of the virus;
“I can tell you that anybody that is saying that this is definitively from nature is absolutely not being completely open and honest.” (55)
Aside from not bothering to ask the questions that Newsweek reporters have figured out, Science News writer Tina Hesman Saey has also suggested that we should all “wait for a vaccine” (56) and has also concluded that “hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help treat COVID-19”, (57) demonstrating both her ineptitude in research and her preference for expensive treatments over cheaper ones.
To be fair, she has not completely abandoned hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), but doesn’t understand zinc is a factor in clinical trial success rates, (58) so she’s not demonstrating any understanding of how the drug works. More on HCQ later.
Then there is the prestigious director of the National Institute of Health (NIH), Dr. Francis S. Collins. In his blog, he also used the Anderson study in Nature magazine to argue there was a “natural origin” to COVID-19. (59) In the “Acknowledgements” section of the Nature study, (60) the authors identify four grants from the NIH that made that study possible, so it’s understandable why Dr. Collins would promote a study that he himself helped to fund and was in charge of.
This is the same Dr. Francis S. Collins responsible for the 2017 removal of the ban on experimentation on lethal-to-human viruses, so it’s not surprising that he is supporting conclusions that absolve him of involvement in and facilitation of mass murder. (61) Back when that ban on experimenting with lethal viruses was lifted, it was reported that – between 2014 when the moratorium on experimenting with lethal viruses (62) was imposed, and 2017 when it was lifted, Dr. Collins oversaw 10 “exceptions” to the ban – 5 experiments on influenza, and 5 experiments on MERS – another lethal coronavirus. (63)
“Therefore, to examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs, we built a chimeric virus encoding a novel, zoonotic CoV spike protein*—from the RsSHC014-CoV sequence that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats—in the context of the SARS-CoV mouse-adapted backbone. The hybrid virus allowed us to evaluate the ability of the novel spike protein to cause disease independently of other necessary adaptive mutations in its natural backbone. Using this approach, we characterized CoV infection mediated by the SHC014 spike protein in primary human airway cells and in vivo, and tested the efficacy of available immune therapeutics against SHC014-CoV. Together, the strategy translates metagenomics data to help predict and prepare for future emergent viruses.”
Translation: “We’re gonna whip up some new coronaviruses to make them more infectious so we can get the jump on the very profitable market of treatments such as pills and vaccines, should any of these little critters somehow emerge into human populations.”
Given the obvious insanity of making viruses more lethal for dubious reasons, the report goes to great lengths to provide assurances to the reader that every precaution was taken to maximize safety. Here’s a brief excerpt from that assurance section;
“These studies were initiated before the US Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses. . . . This paper has been reviewed by the funding agency, the NIH. Continuation of these studies was requested, and this has been approved by the NIH.”
In other words, the same folks that spend their time promising (with no real evidence) that the emerging novel coronaviruses are natural, are the ones overseeing the making of novel coronaviruses in a lab.
Functional Mass Murder
What exactly is this “Gain-Of-Function” research mentioned in the safety assurance section of that paper? It’s scientist code for weaponization, similar to the “Dual-Use-Research-of-Concern” mentioned in Part 1. Since it’s key to understanding how prevalent and probable the creation of emerging viruses is, it’s helpful to take a deep dive into the concept:
“Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures. Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research (GOFR) can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. In 2014 the administration of US President Barack Obama called for a ‘pause’ on funding (and relevant research with existing US Government funding) of GOF experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in particular. . . . While the decision to publish the initial ferret H5N1 influenza studies of the research teams headed by Ron Fouchier and Yoshihiro Kawaoka (Herfst et al. 2012; Imai et al. 2012) in full was based on the judgment that benefits of publication outweighed the risks, numerous critics have questioned the actual benefits of these studies. Purported benefits of publication were that this would facilitate (1) development/production of vaccines against pandemic strains of the virus and (2) surveillance enabling early identification of, and thus response to, pandemic strains that might occur naturally. Critics have argued that such benefits are limited, inter alia, because naturally occurring pandemic strains may turn out be different from those created via the studies in question (in which case production of vaccines for, or surveillance targeting of, the latter might not be very useful); international surveillance systems are too weak ‘to detect a pandemic viral sequence . . . before it is too late’ (Lipsitch and Galvani 2014, p. 3); ‘an important lesson learnt from pandemic H1N1 (swine flu) is that there is not much that can be done to contain outbreaks of pandemic strains of influenza once they emerge’ (i.e., so early identification via surveillance might not make much difference) (Selgelid 2013, p. 148); and, given the way the vaccine industry actually works, there is unlikely to be development/stockpiling of vaccines against naturally-occurring transmissible strains of influenza before such strains actually arise (Selgelid 2013).” (65)
Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law and the author of the book Biowarfare and Terrorism, believes that SARS-COV-2 is “basically SARS” with some “Gain-Of-Function” inserts added:
“Boyle says this corona virus is basically SARS. SARS is already a weaponized version of a corona virus that has leaked out of that laboratory at least twice before. Then it was given Gain-Of-Function properties which basically means it can travel by air for at least six feet and is more transmittable and lethal.” (66)
In other words, these “Gain-of-Function Research” experiments are useless for their stated purposes. Their only real use is for unstated purposes – to make viruses more lethal and/or more transmissible, to release them on the unsuspecting public in order to create a biofascist biopolice state, to sell more pills and vaccines, and to kill off the poor and the non-white population for racist and/or mis-directed ecological reasons. More on racist virus lethality below.
A paper published in April 2020, examining the SARS-COV-2 virus (referred to in the paper by it’s old name: 2019-nCoV) mentions the possibility of evidence of a “Gain-Of-Function” quality to the spike protein, that makes SARS-COV-2 so infectious;
“This furin-like cleavage site, is supposed to be cleaved during virus egress (Mille and Whittaker, 2014) for S-protein ‘priming’ and may provide a gain-of-function to the 2019-nCoV for efficient spreading in the human population compared to other lineage b betacoronaviruses.” (67)
Aside from Gain-Of-Function qualities, another clue that a virus is lab-made is the fact (argued by some) that “inserts” generally happen in a lab, whereas “mutations” happen in nature. A mutation is where one gene is different, whereas an insert is where a whole series of genes in a row is different. There are evidence of inserts in SARS-COV-2 (2019-nCoV);
“Third, insertions 1 and 2 in 2019-nCoV have 6-AA motifs identical to those in V4 and V5 of certain HIV-1 gp120 isolates, which are structurally close to each other but separated by a LE loop (Figure 1C) . However, insertion 3 located between insertions 1 and 2 in 2019-nCoV has sequences similar (with deletions) to those in the V1 region of HIV-1 gp120. . . . How the three bat CoV viruses obtain those inserts remains unknown.” (68)
Of course, none of this evidence speaks to the question of whether the release of this virus was deliberate. There is evidence of accidental leaks in the past. Back in 2014, a couple of virologists estimated the chances of that happening over time;
“They estimate that if 10 American laboratories ran these types of experiments for a decade, there would be a 20 percent chance that a lab worker would become infected with one of these new super-flus and potentially pass it on to others.” (69)
Seems to me it’s also evidence of the capacity for such things to be released on purpose, and then blamed on an accident. When one reviews the entire history of bioweapons production (such as that which was found in part 1), one finds that there’s so much obvious, undeniable lying to the public when it comes to “Gain-Of-Function” and “Dual-Use-Research-of-Concern”, the entire industry seems pretty untrustworthy overall.
Check The Fact Checkers
The problem of trying to figure out the truth is compounded by censorship on social media – where increasing numbers of people get their news from each day – especially younger people. (70) Facebook’s fact checkers – straight out of recommendation seven from “Event 201” mentioned in Part 1 – are quick to pounce on anything that might deviate from the “emerged from nature” narrative the powers that be seem to have decided upon;
“Way back on Feb. 23, The Post ran an opinion piece by Steven Mosher saying that we couldn’t trust China’s story about the origins of COVID-19. He argued that the virus might — might — have jumped to the human population thanks to errors at a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan, rather than via that city’s now-notorious ‘wet market.’ The piece was widely read online — until Facebook stepped in. The social media giant’s ‘fact checkers’ decided this was not a valid opinion. If you tried to share Mosher’s column on Facebook, the social network stuck a ‘False Information’ alert on top, saying that finding was ‘checked by independent fact-checkers’ and preventing your friends from clicking to connect to the original article to see for themselves. Again, this was an opinion column, not a news report. Mosher cited a host of suggestive facts, including urgent government directives, the sudden trip of China’s top biowar expert to Wuhan and that nation’s shoddy record of lab safety — as well as gaping holes in the wet-market explanation, such as the fact that the market in question doesn’t sell bats, the animal from which the bug supposedly jumped.” (71)
And just as there has been a conflict of interest in those weighing in on the issue of the origin of COVID-19 – mainly vaccine pushers and those involved in the manufacture of lethal viruses – there’s a conflict of interest in the “fact checker” community at Facebook itself;
“And who did this fact checker rely on for their opinion? As reporter Sharyl Attkisson notes, one expert consulted had a clear conflict of interest: She has regularly worked with Wuhan’s researchers, and even done her own experiments there. Danielle E. Anderson, assistant professor, Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, personally attested to the lab’s ‘strict control and containment measures.’” (72)
As of May 2nd, the Facebook fact checker service still maintains that the bioweapon origin theory can be dismissed as a “conspiracy theory”, quoting Adam Lauring, Michigan Medical School professor. (73)
This is in spite of the fact that SARS-COV-2 has 1) “Gain Of Function” evidence, 2) insert evidence, 3) no natural reservoir yet found, and 4) arises out of a 70 year history of US bioweapons production and use (see Part 1 and also below). And guess where Lauring gets his expert opinion from? The, often-cited, (74) NIH-funded, pretty much debunked Kristian Andersen et al. March 17 Nature Medicine article;
“‘This origin story is not currently supported at all by the available data,’ said Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School. Lauring pointed to a study published March 17 in the journal Nature Medicine, which provided evidence against the idea that the virus was engineered in a lab.” (75)
Recent Lab-Origin Discussions
More and more, the official story is being questioned. On June 8th, biotech expert Yuri Deigin and biologist Bret Weinstein had a very frank discussion about the possible lab origin of SARS-COV-2. During the discussion, the topic of the “RaTG” strain of coronavirus came up. The RaTG strain is viewed as the most closely-related coronavirus to SARS-COV-2. (76) Deigin stated;
“It would probably have to be a huge inside job for them to know that Wuhan would have the RaTG strain.” (77)
In other words, Deigin was speculating on the likelihood of Wuhan being the patsy lab, and who might have been involved if that was the case.
On July 2nd, a story came out about Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen, and his difficulties getting his findings regarding the lab origin of SARS-COV-2 published;
“Together with his colleagues, Angus Dalgleish and Andres Susrud have authored an article that looks into the most plausible explanations regarding the origins of the novel coronavirus. The article builds upon an already published article in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics that describes newly discovered properties in the virus spike protein. The authors are still in dialogue with scientific journals regarding an upcoming publication of the article. News outlets are thus confronted with a difficult question: Are the findings and arguments Sørensen and his colleagues put forward of a sufficiently high quality to be presented and discussed in the public sphere? Sørensen explains that they in their dialogue with scientific journals are encountering a certain reluctance to publishing the article – without, however, proper scientific objections. Minerva has read a draft of the article, and has after an overall assessment decided that the findings and arguments do deserve public debate, and that this discussion cannot depend entirely on the publication process of scientific journals. . . . In 2008, Sørensen’s work came to international attention when he launched a new immunotherapy for HIV. Angus Dalgleish is the professor at St. George’s Medical School in London who became world famous in 1984 after having discovered a novel receptor that the HIV virus uses to enter human cells. . . . ‘Secondly, this indicates that the structure of the virus cannot have evolved naturally. When we compare the novel coronavirus with the one that caused SARS, we see that there are altogether six inserts in this virus that stand out compared to other known SARS viruses,’ he goes on explaining. Sørensen says that several of these changes in the virus are unique, and that they do not exist in other known SARS coronaviruses. ‘Four of these six changes have the property that they are suited to infect humans. This kind of aggregation of a type of property can be done simply in a laboratory, and helps to substantiate such an origin,’ Sørensen points out. . . . ‘The properties that we now see in the virus, we have yet to discover anywhere in nature. We know that these properties make the virus very infectious, so if it came from nature, there should also be many animals infected with this, but we have still not been able to trace the virus in nature. The only place we are aware of where an equivalent virus to that which causes Covid-19 exists, is in a laboratory. So the simplest and most logical explanation is that it comes from a laboratory. Those who claim otherwise, have the burden of proof,’ Sørensen says.” (78)
In a July 7th Peak Prosperity video, Dr. Chris Martenson published an email which provides a very powerful indication that the virus was lab-made. This email is worth reading in its entirety in order to fully contemplate the conclusions it suggests;
“After re-reading the Henry Ford Hospital Study this morning and noting no zinc was used, I started a literature search on Zinc and ionophores. This paper caught my eye. Back in 2010, Robert (sic) Baric and other coronavirus researchers studied the potential for Zn and ionophores to block viral replication in vitro and in cell culture. That’s 10 years ago. What first surprised me was how old these data are. We’ve known this for a long time. But then what caught my eye and startled me was the author list. Robert Baric. In 2015, Robert (sic) Baric and his protégé, Shi Zheng Li from Wuhan Institute of Virology, among others, published their creation of a chimeric SARS virus with S protein adapted for greater infectivity and morbidity – part of the gain of function research program. https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985 Notice what they report: ‘The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHCO14 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. (original SARS) Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis. Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein. . . . We synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHCO14 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo. Our work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.” Now if Drs. Baric et al – who are world renowned coronavirus experts – demonstrated the potential risk of SARS CoV re-emergence not responsive to immune therapy or potential vaccine therapy via ‘gain-of-function research’, but also did research to show the potential for Zinc and ionophores might be effective at inhibiting replication of RNA-viruses (of which SARS-COV-2 is one), then why – now that there HAS been a ‘re-emergence’ of a SARS-COV virus – aren’t they vigorously advocating for post-exposure trials of cheap and available Zinc in combo with ionophores (of chloroquines and quercetin flavonoids are two examples) to mitigate this disease, if their own research shows this simple treatment has potential but immune modalities don’t? I’m suffering cognitive and moral dissonance. I think I just went down the rabbit hole.” (79)
In other words, Zinc and Hydroxychloroquine (or zinc and quercetin) work – but vaccines don’t work – on SARS-COV-2. The bioweapons producers have known this for 10 years, but they’re not talking about it now, for some odd reason. I guess “Dual Use” research should really be called “Uni Use” research or “Mono Use” research, as it doesn’t have a “good use” after all – only a bad one.
It turns out Ralph Baric was asked about “gain-of-function research” back in 2015, and he has this to say;
“According to Baric, the risk of ‘gain-of-function’ research is worth it. The findings could provide a way to create vaccines and immunotherapy treatments before the next epidemic strikes. Because we have identified both SARS and SHC014-CoV, it’s now possible to develop vaccines that could target those viruses and the viruses that share commonalities between them. In other words, the new findings may help develop vaccines for many more strains of infectious diseases even though we haven’t identified them yet. ‘Now, we can capture the entire swarm,’ Baric said. ‘That’s the beauty of the study and most important take-home.’” (80)
Baric knew in 2010 that zinc works, and knew in 2015 that vaccines don’t, and yet he’s not bothering to “capture the entire swarm” like he promised. I wonder why?
In a blog post written in June 2020 that was reported on in the New York Times, Dr. Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University gave WHO investigators headed to China to explore the origins of the coronavirus pandemic some tips on what questions to ask. One of the questions involved “gain of function”;
“Even so, given the wet market’s downgrading in the investigation, ‘It is important to address questions about any potential laboratory source of the virus, whether in Wuhan or elsewhere,’ Dr. Lucey wrote in his blog post. To that end, he urges the W.H.O. investigators to look for any signs of ‘gain of function’ research — the deliberate enhancement of pathogens to make them more dangerous. The technique is highly contentious. Critics question its merits and warn that it could lead to catastrophic lab leaks. Proponents see it as a legitimate way to learn how viruses and other infectious organisms might evolve to infect and kill people, and thus help in devising new protections and precautions. Debate over its wisdom erupted in 2011 after researchers announced success in making the highly lethal H5N1 strain of avian flu easily transmissible through the air between ferrets, at least in the laboratory. In his blog, Dr. Lucey asks ‘what, if any,’ gain-of-function studies were done on coronaviruses in Wuhan, elsewhere in China, or in collaboration with foreign laboratories. ‘If done well scientifically, then this investigation should allay persistent concerns about the origin of this virus,’ he wrote. ‘It could also help set an improved standard for investigating and stopping the awful viruses, and other pathogens, in the decades ahead.’” (81)
One might also ask the following question: why have 100% of those who have pronounced SARS-COV-2 “natural” not bothered to look into gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, to see if there’s any possible overlap between the work that’s been done in this area and SARS-COV-2? Seems like a catastrophic oversight to me. Or catastrophic cowardice. Or even catastrophic complicity.
Spreading Misinformation, Spreading Hatred
At least 30 countries have arrested people for “spreading misinformation” about the virus. (82) The problem with insisting it comes from a Chinese bat – or even a Chinese laboratory – are the predictable consequences: every Chinese-hating racist in the world is emboldened to take their rage out on any unlucky Chinese person that happens to be within shouting distance, as recently happened in Vancouver, where I live. (83) And US President Trump keeps calling it the “Chinese virus”;
Lately, Trump has begun calling it the “Kung Flu”. (85) Trump has also promised – back on April 15th – to look into the origin of the virus. (86) But don’t hold your breath for an honest appraisal. For much of the evidence – be it the Gain-Of-Function experiments and Dual-Use-Research-of-Concern – or the history of bioweapons research – points back at the United States. Also, Trump shut down the Ft. Detrick lab that was in charge of investigating such things back in 2017. (87)
“‘Attention is devoted to basic studies in genetics to understand the mechanisms involved, evolve new concepts and increase the body of knowledge in general,’ (Maj. Gen. Marshall) Stubbs said, adding that research into the basic ingredients of life ‘has indicated ways in which these ingredients may be altered or transformed to suit man’s desires.’ Such work could make a previously harmless disease highly lethal, or help produce mutants with increased infectivity.”
- Seymour M. Hersh, ‘Dare We Develop Biological Weapons?’ The New York Times, September 28th, 1969 (88)
As was mentioned in Part 1, until the emergence of SARS in 2002, all coronaviruses were “non-lethal”. Coronaviruses have been studied since 1968, as a cache of 5352 studies – recently uploaded to the internet – reveals. (89) The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) began investigating coronaviruses in 1969, (90) the year after the now-famous Dr. Anthony Fauci arrived there. (91)
The headquarters of the NIAID is in Bethesda, Maryland. (92) Interstate highway 270 is the road that connects Bethesda, Maryland, with Frederick, Maryland, arguably the center of biological weapons research on planet earth. A closer look at Frederick’s largest employer (93) – Ft. Detrick – will demonstrate that NIAID’s connection to the bioweapons industry is more than just geographic proximity.
A History Of US Involvement In Biological Weapons Production And Use
“Utilizing the recent advances in genetics, researchers have been working for years on techniques that will enable them to develop a variety of diseases such as bubonic plague, pneumonic plague and anthrax, that no longer could be cured by antibiotics such as penicillin or streptomycin. Thus, man’s ingenuity could develop what in effect would be a ‘doomsday bug,’ a disease so uncontrollable it would trigger a pandemic across the world.”
– Seymour M. Hersh, ‘Dare We Develop Biological Weapons?’
The New York Times, September 28th, 1969 (94)
“Look, those two specimens are worth millions to the bioweapons division, right? Now if you’re smart, we can both come out as heroes, and we will be set up for life.”
– Carter J. Burke, Special Projects Director, Weyland-Yutani, from the film Aliens 2, 1986 (95)
There are many different places where bioweapons are made and tested in the USA. But the center of bioweapons “defense” research in the United States is undoubtedly Ft. Detrick, Maryland. The word “defense” is in quotes, because – as many bioweapons researchers will tell you;
“. . . there is no feasible defense against biological attack . . . Vaccination can’t work because the variety of attack agents is too large . . . offensive and defensive research is indistinguishable. To make a vaccine, you must first make the pathogen the vaccine will defend against.” (96)
The US – like many countries – pretends it doesn’t have any bioweapons. After all, the US came up with the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (97) – it would look bad if it was seen as breaking its own rules. Mark Sanborne, who’s monumental history of biowarfare – “Bionoia” – I borrowed liberally from to fill out this section – described the “fatal loophole” of the 1972 bioweapons treaty:
“But the larger reason for Washington’s adamant if lonely opposition (to enforcement of the treaty) may have more to do with the treaty’s other fatal loophole: the ‘defensive’ research exception. The convention’s signatories pledge not to develop, produce, stockpile, or acquire biological agents or toxins ‘of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective, and other peaceful purposes.’ Unfortunately, that has been interpreted as allowing countries to continue developing ever-more-deadly pathogens, as long as it’s done in small amounts and only for the purpose of developing countermeasures, like drugs and vaccines. That exception allowed the U.S. and others—principally Britain and the Soviets—to continue business as usual by labeling their biowar programs as now being defensive in nature. The U.S. junked its germ stockpiles from the early Cold War period and launched a new generation of biowar research, using cutting-edge advances in recombinant DNA to devise new versions of already virulent diseases. Over the years more and more of that work has been farmed out to spooky ‘defense’ contractors like Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) and the Battelle Memorial Institute. Never mind international inspectors, it’s not clear that anyone—and certainly not Congress—is overseeing this sprawling bio-industrial complex to ensure it’s in compliance with international treaty and domestic law.” (98)
The origin of the 1972 fatal loophole may very well have been National Security Decision Memoranda 35, section 3c, written by Henry Kissinger on November 25th, 1969. He wrote;
“The United States bacteriological/biological programs will be confined to research and development for defensive purposes (immunization, safety measures, et cetera). This does not preclude research into those offensive aspects of bacteriological/biological agents necessary to determine what defensive measures are required.” (99)
All the scientists working at Ft. Detrick are careful to maintain the fiction that they’re only involved in defensive research – even though small-scale bioweapons production can be just as deadly as large-scale weapons production (once released, these weapons go into large-scale production all on their own), and even though the topic of some Ft. Detrick-related studies are undeniably offensive bioweapons research – like studies involving how to make viruses airborne, such as this study written by Ft. Detrick-connected scientists, entitled “AEROBIOLOGY: HISTORY, DEVELOPMENT, AND PROGRAMS”;
“Collectively, in the aftermath of the decommissioning of the offensive biological programs, much of the infrastructure needed to effectively perform research for medical countermeasures was effectively rebuilt, albeit on a much smaller scale with significant technical and engineering limitations in mind. Present-day research organizations that incorporate aerobiology resources and expertise, such as the program at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland, embody a small-scale, sophisticated support structure similar to many programs at other federally supported, contracting, and academic laboratories
throughout the nation.” (100)
The people who run Ft. Detrick insist over and over again to the media that they do not involve themselves in bioweapons research:
“Until President Nixon renounced the use of chemical or biological warfare in 1969, and the U.S. signed the Weapons Convention in 1972, the biggest center for the development of biological warfare agents (including bubonic plague) was Ft. Detrick, Maryland. However, in 1989, a San Francisco Examiner article reassuringly quotes Col. David Hudson, currently the commander of Ft. Detrick: ‘Read my lips – we have no biological weapons. We develop vaccines, oxides, drugs, and antitoxins.’” (101)
This fiction has been echoed recently in relation to SARS-COV-2, in a Frederick, Maryland newspaper – the town that Ft. Detrick is located in, discussing United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, or “USAMRIID” – the US Army’s “biodefense” research institute;
“But now the conspiracy theorists and Chinese officials have turned their attention to another target: the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases on Fort Detrick. The conspiracy specifically points to the shutdown of biosafety level 3 and 4 work at USAMRIID by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in July 2019, suggesting that the laboratory was responsible for the virus. ‘That is an absolutely false claim,’ U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command spokeswoman Lori Salvatore wrote in an email to The News-Post. ‘USAMRIID does not take part in offensive research.’” (102)
As was pointed out in Part 1, instead of calling it “offensive bioweapons research” the US bioweapons research community just calls it “Dual Use Research of Concern” and “Gain Of Function Research” or even “chimeric virus research” (103) … and then they cross their fingers and hope nobody catches on.
There was an attempt to create an entity which would enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention back in 2001, but it was derailed by John Bolton, who would later go on to be President Trump’s National Security Advisor:
“Bolton played a leading role in derailing a 2001 bio-weapons conference in Geneva that sought to endorse a U.N. proposal on how to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. U.S. officials, led by Bolton, argued that the plan would have put U.S. national security at risk by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites. Without U.S. participation, any enforcement plan would be meaningless, so U.S. opposition essentially killed the proposal. As a result, there is no practical mechanism to stop the spread of biological weapons.” (104)
What sort of viruses do they do research on at Ft. Detrick? This author hasn’t seen much evidence of any limits in that category, so I would guess “all of them”. In the 2016 Documentary “Ghosts Of Ft. Detrick”, a local activist narrowed it down to “pretty much everything that is known to man that is deadly.” (105) In chapter 19 of the book “Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare” entitled “The U.S. Biological Warfare and Biological Defense Programs”, the list of disease agents that isolation procedures were developed for include;
“Ebola virus, Marburg virus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, Variola (smallpox) and monkeypox viruses . . . Yersinia pestis (pneumonic form), Lassa fever virus, Argentine hemorrhagic fever, (Junin) virus, Venezuelan hemorrhagic fever (Guanarito) virus . . . Tick-borne encephalitis complex, Yellow fever virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Rift Valley fever virus, Chikungunya virus, Dengue virus, Brucella species, Vibrio cholera, Bacillus anthracis (pulmonary or cutaneous forms), Francisella tularensis (pulmonary form), Yersinia pestis (bubonic or septicemic form) . . . Eastern equine encephalitis virus, Western equine encephalitis virus, Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome Hantaan, Seoul, Puumala viruses), Japanese encephalitis virus, Sandfly fever viruses, Coxiella burnetii (Q fever), Chlamydia psittaci, Botulinum toxin, Staphylococcal enterotoxin B, Ricin toxin, Saxitoxin, Trichothecene mycotoxins” (106)
It’s a near certainty that the biological warfare agents they have developed isolation procedures for are the same agents they have stockpiles of and/or do research on.
There’s evidence they still do research on the plague (Yersinia pestis) – in 1425 Porter Street – the exact same building they weaponize diseases by making them airborne! (107) The plague, of course, was responsible for the most devastating pandemic in human history: the Black Death, which killed somewhere between 75 million to 200 million people. (108)
Fun fact – this very bacteria popped up in China at exactly the same time SARS-COV-2 did – in November of 2019! (109) What an amazing coincidence! I mean really . . . what are the odds?
As was pointed out in Part 1, the United States has long been involved in bioweapons development – and use – be it the massive stockpiles of anthrax and brucellosis in WW2, to Ft. Detrick’s (then Camp Detrick’s) program to attack food crops in the Soviet Union and China beginning in 1951, to accusations of the use of anthrax, plague, yellow fever against Korea and China in reports from the International Association of Democratic Lawyers in 1952, to the viral haemorrhagic fever Australian historian Gavan McCormack accused the US of releasing into Korea in 1951, to the 1956 US policy amendment on the use of biological weapons allowing for first-strike surprise attacks with Presidential go-ahead, to the Litton Bionetics/Merck/Pfizer “Special Virus Cancer Program” (Secret Cancer Virus Program) – some of which took place at Ft. Detrick – using cutting edge technology to recombine different viruses together to make viruses functionally identical to HIV, to the tell-tale fingerprints of US involvement in the Oct. 2001 anthrax attacks.
Lethal Human Experiments & Torture: Terrible Mistakes
The history of US involvement in bioweapons manufacture and use is massive, and finding more examples is just a matter of looking for them. For example, there is the tale of Frank Olson, a bioweapons technician who worked at Camp Detrick from 1943 to 1953, where he worked on such weapons as aerosolized anthrax. In 1948 Olson was made head of the Special Operations Division, in charge of coming up with “new and secret biological means for effective interrogation and warfare”. (110)
In May of 1953, Olsen was witness to one of thousands of horrible experiments on human beings with nerve gas;
“Frank Olson witnesses MI6 terminal experiments at Porton Down, U.K, where innocent soldiers (who think they are testing a cure for the common cold) are administered steadily increasing doses of Sarin nerve gas, resulting in horrible deaths. The purpose is to determine the ED50 and LD50 of Sarin nerve gas in man.” (111)
Apparently, there was quite a few of these experiments going on in the UK, America and Canada;
“From 1945 to 1989, Porton exposed more than 3,400 human ‘guinea pigs’ to nerve gas. It seems probable that Porton has tested more human subjects with nerve gas, for the longest period of time, than any other scientific establishment in the world. Two other nations have admitted testing nerve gas on humans: the American military exposed about 1,100 soldiers between 1945 and 1975, and Canada tested a small number before 1968.” (112)
In August of that same year, Olsen witnessed torture during interrogations by the CIA in Berlin. By that time he confided to a friend that “he was disgusted with what the CIA was doing and was determined to leave.” (113)
To make a long story short, the CIA lured Olsen out on a work retreat on Thursday, November 19th, 1953, and dosed him with LSD, probably to see if he would blab about secret things under its influence. When he found out he had been dosed without his permission, he was livid. When he returned home the next day, he admitted to his wife that he had made “a terrible mistake”. The next Monday morning, he resigned from work. (114)
The CIA convinced him not to resign, and told him to go to New York to see a Doctor on the CIA payroll. On November 28th, 1953, Olsen had either committed suicide, or was more likely “suicided”. The official story was that he threw himself out the window of his hotel room, but lots of evidence points to the probability that he was thrown out. (115)
A book about the Frank Olsen story – “A Terrible Mistake” – was written in 2009, (116) and a Netflix mini series – “Wormwood” – was released in 2017. (117)
Drowning In Evidence
Researching this subject is like studying the history of cannabis – you could spend your whole life devoted to the subject and never exhaust yourself of new data. Reviewing Mark Sanborne’s “Bionoia” series, a whack of other examples arise. There’s “Operation Marshall Plan” – a plan to blanket Cuba with equine encephalitis and Q fever had the US invaded during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, (118) or the admission by the U.S. government that it “released Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in a Pacific island in 1965” – (119) and – with the help of the World Health Organization – almost did the same thing to a densely-populated section of India in 1975;
“Indian scientists who had worked on the project say the latest revelation has convinced them that they were unwittingly helping the US biowarfare research under the cover of a public health programme to control malaria. NP Gupta, former director of the National Institute of Virology, told PTI that the then prime minister Indira Gandhi “acted correctly” and at the right time by ordering closure of the project before the planned massive release of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in 1975 at Sonepat, Haryana. . . . Apparently the U.S interest in development of yellow fever as a biological warfare weapon was sustained even after President Nixon supposedly ended the biological warfare program in 1970, says Gupta. Only this time the trial was conducted outside the United States in a developing country under the umbrella of the WHO, he says. Rajagopalan is also surprised at the different standards employed by the US. Baker Island was unpopulated and remote from the mainland, the trial used informed volunteers and the mosquitoes were eradicated after the trial was over. No such plans existed for the proposed release in Sonepat, whose entire population of half a million was to become unwilling volunteers while the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) was in the dark about the real intention behind the release experiment, said Rajagopalan, who retired from an ICMR institute.” (120)
Then there’s the suspicious emergency in 1975 of lyme disease – 10 miles away from the US biological weapons testing ground Plum Island at the northeastern tip of Long Island, (121) or the apparent introduction of hemorrhagic dengue fever into Cuba in 1981 just as everyone at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay were vaccinated for it, (122) and there’s even some evidence of Tularemia (rabbit fever) being used against anti-war protesters in Washington, D.C., in 2005. (123)
Protests at Ft. Detrick
Ft. Detrick has been the subject of many protests, beginning in 1959, with the year-long “Vigil at Fort Detrick”, organized by the Middle Atlantic Region of Fellowship of Reconciliation, a group of interfaith pacifists who first organized demonstrations against war back in WW1. (124)
The vigil resulted in many newspaper stories and magazine articles, and a pledge from “scientists at Columbia University, Rockefeller Institute and other research centers” “never to participate in any effort to develop germ warfare, for such participation would constitute a crime against mankind.” (125)
Then there was the 12 hour picket that took place on March 21st, 1967, which got some attention in the local newspapers. Some of the demonstrators even blocked traffic in and out of the Fort. The Fellowship of Reconciliation, and various student groups, took responsibility. (126) The same group picketed on August 5th, 1969, demanding;
“Initiation by the United States of serious chemical-biological warfare discussions leading to international disarmament agreements, civilian supervision of disposal of existing stockpiles of such weapons and re-submission of the 125 Geneva Protocol for ratification.” (127)
Did the public attention from the August 1969 protests lead to the Seymour Hersh New York Times September 1969 article, which led to the superficial policy changes in bioweapons policy by Nixon’s Department of Defense and Henry Kissinger in October and November of 1969? And, more importantly, could further protesting against the superficiality of these reforms lead to further policy changes?
A similar coalition of Quakers, ex-G.I.s, folk-singers and Fellowship members planted a pine tree on July 9th, 1970, outside the main gate, where all of the protests had taken place. (128)
All these efforts no doubt played some part in the creation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. But in spite of this toothless international treaty, and in spite of a similarly toothless “Containment Laboratory Community Advisory Committee” formed in Frederick, the municipality that Ft. Detrick resides in, in 2010, (129) the bioweapons labs at Ft. Detrick continue to conduct insane gain-of-function, dual use research, under the supervision of literally nobody.
Protests at the Ft. Detrick main gate have recently evolved into concern over all the cancer-causing chemicals from the bioweapons buried near the aquifer that supplies Frederick with water. Over 1300 documented cases of cancer have arisen in a one-mile radius next to the chemical dump site – “Area B” – at Detrick. A documentary about this chemical weapons pollution was released in 2016, entitled “The Ghosts of Ft. Detrick” – involving the activist group “The Yes Men” – can be found online. (130)
These recent protests are small and local in nature. But there’s no guarantee they will remain that way – levels of awareness in the age of information can change very rapidly, depending upon who gets – and how many get – involved in raising awareness.
Violations of International Law
Some researchers have indicated that gain-of-function research might run afoul of the Nuremberg Code – the rules guiding scientific experiments set up after WW2 in response to Nazi experiments on death camp attendees;
“The Nuremberg Code’s second point states: ‘The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.’ When projecting the benefits of experiments that put human life at risk, therefore, it is critical to compare against alternatives. What unique public health benefits do PPP (potential pandemic pathogens) experiments offer relative to the benefits of investing equivalent resources in alternative research strategies? If there are unique benefits to novel PPP experiments, do they justify the risks entailed? This concept, too, is partially incorporated in the HHS frameworks, which permit funding of H5N1 or H7N9 transmissibility gain-of-function experiments only if ‘there are no feasible alternative methods to address the same scientific question in a manner that poses less risk than does the proposed approach’. The Nuremberg Code suggests a broader criterion: that PPP experiments should be performed if the public health benefits envisaged cannot be obtained by safer methods. We argue that alternative scientific approaches are not only less risky, but also more likely to generate results that can be readily translated into public health benefits.” (131)
On the subject of the “public health benefits”: one of the “good use” duties, supposedly, of the “dual use bio-defense” program at Ft. Detrick is to determine whether an emerging virus is natural or human-made. Remember, Trump shut down the Ft. Detrick lab that did such things back in 2017. (132)
If coronavirus gain-of-function researchers are refusing to share what they know about dealing with coronaviruses during a coronavirus pandemic, and if labs that are supposed to be identifying the origins of emerging viruses are being shut down, is there anything going on in the “bio-defense” community other than secret bioweapons production and deployment? Are those responsible for the bio-defense program in violation of the Nuremberg Code right now? And is anyone in a position of responsibility able or willing to do anything about it?
Recent Research Of Concern
There’s also the matter of murky origins – no natural reservoir – to SARS, MERS and the 2009 swine flu (H1N1), and some indication of gain of function elements to those three viruses and bird flu (H5N1) as well.
In fact, scientists had even admitted to making bird flu airborne. Two famous papers (to virologists, anyway) were written about it – one in the journal Nature in May of 2012, (133) and one in the journal Science in June of 2012. (134)
The weaponization of Avian Flu (H5N1) to make it more transmissible – called “Dual Use Research of Concern” or “DURC” – was the topic of an article in Science in June of 2012 – the same issue the second paper was released in. In attempting to make the case for the “good use” of such research, the paper outlined the possible benefits;
“One of the goals of pandemic influenza research is to recognize and anticipate how viruses are evolving in the wild toward a phenotype that is dangerous to humans, thereby staying one step ahead of potential pandemics. In this regard, compelling research questions relevant to global health and pandemic preparedness include determining whether highly pathogenic viruses, such as H5N1, have the ability to mutate and/or reassort with another influenza virus to become readily transmissible by the airborne route among humans. If so, (i) what is the likelihood that such mutations or reassortments will happen in nature? (ii) Is there a genetic signature of such a virus that might be helpful in surveillance? (iii) Would such a virus be highly pathogenic for humans? And (iv), would such a virus be sensitive to currently available antiviral drugs and vaccines, or would new ones be necessary? In response to these and related questions, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has intensified the research we conduct and support on pandemic influenza.” (135)
I am not particularly convinced that learning the answer to any or all of those questions is worth risking a global pandemic with potentially millions of deaths. In fact, I am unable to find a single example of any of these types of benefits achieved at any time to any real-world scenario since “defensive research” began in 1972.
The authors then explored the downside of DURC – the “bad use”;
“However, whenever one deliberately manipulates a virus or a microbe, it is always possible, at least theoretically, that the research results could be used by bioterrorists to intentionally cause harm, or that an accidental release of a pathogen from a laboratory could inadvertently cause harm. Such research is referred to as ‘dual-use research,’ as the research potentially has both positive and negative applications. A particular subset of dual-use research is referred to as ‘dual-use research of concern’ or DURC. DURC is defined as life sciences research that, on the basis of current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that can be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security. If a particular experiment is identified as DURC, that designation does not inherently mean that such research should be prohibited or not widely published. However, it does call for us to balance carefully the benefit of the research to public health, the biosafety and biosecurity conditions under which the research is conducted, and the potential risk that the knowledge gained from such research may fall into the hands of individuals with ill intent. Research that could enhance the transmissibility of H5N1 viruses clearly is DURC.” (136)
When listing the downsides – a) bioterrorists and b) accidental release – they forgot three others: c) creating universal/global demand for drugs or vaccines as a way for elites to get stupidly rich, and/or d) culling the global population as an unimaginative solution to ecological problems, and/or e) constructing an Orwellian police state nightmare for the sake of power-tripping control freaks. An honest review of the facts shows some evidence in support of c) d) and e), as well as evidence of better solutions to our medical, ecological and political problems.
High Profile Bio Warlords
When I looked to see who the authors of this paper happened to be, I noticed two names that I had become familiar with in my research. One was Francis S. Collins – head of the National Institute of Health, overseer of the exceptions to (and removal of) the prohibition on the manufacture of lethal viruses that existed between 2014 and 2017, and one of the people most likely to be held criminally responsible should any of the little monsters created under his watch escape or be released.
The other is Anthony Fauci – head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who has a vested interest – at least with regards to his reputation – in vaccination as a cure for COVID-19. Apart from being the most high-profile COVID-19 doctor in the United States, Fauci is also on the Leadership Council of the Global Vaccine Action Plan, initiated by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). (137)
The group dedicated themselves to make the years 2010 through 2020 the “Decade of Vaccines”;
“The collaboration follows the January 2010 call by Bill and Melinda Gates for the next ten years to be the Decade of Vaccines. The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups – national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.” (138)
On top of the 10 billion dollars Gates put towards the Global Vaccine Action Plan, in 0ctober of 2019, as the pandemic began, Gates gave the National Institute of Health – NIAID’s umbrella organization – 100 million dollars, in part to help with NIAID’s HIV research. (139)
Not only has Fauci committed himself to promoting vaccination, but has also promoted gain-of-function research. In fact, he has done so in Wuhan, China, ground zero of the outbreak;
“But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses. In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.” (140)
Perhaps the easiest way to make the last ten years the “Decade of Vaccines” would be to release a disease that devastated millions of people while promoting vaccination as the cure for such a disease. Given the history of the medical establishment to involve itself in unethical activities in the pursuit of profits, prestige and power, it’s definitely one of the possibilities to consider.
Rumors of a direct financial gain from the promotion of remdesivir – an expensive drug being investigated as a possible COVID-19 treatment – prompted USA Today to look into Fauci’s financial investments;
“The National Institutes of Health confirmed that Fauci has not authored any studies on remdesivir and does not own stock in any biomedical or pharmaceutical companies. . . . Similarly, Gates was not involved in the development of remdesivir or research into the drug. In March, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation convened a group of companies, including Gilead Sciences, to accelerate research on the new coronavirus.” (141)
So Fauci’s reasons for promoting various drugs or vaccines aren’t directly (or obviously) financial. But power and prestige – or something less obvious – hasn’t been ruled out. And Bill Gates doesn’t have any investments in remdesivir. But does Gates have investments in vaccines?
Vaccine Profitability and Pathology
The website statesman.com did a fact check on the issue of whether Fauci or Gates would profit from a COVID-19 vaccine. They determined that Fauci wouldn’t benefit, but didn’t discuss the Gates Foundation’s return on its investment;
“There are 70 potential COVID-19 vaccines in development, one of which was created by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases scientists in partnership with Moderna, Inc. That vaccine is being manufactured by an organization that the Gates Foundation supports, but there’s no evidence that the agency or Fauci will directly profit from that support. And the Gates Foundation has pledged up to $60 million for vaccine development, not $100 million, as the post says.” (142)
Reporters who cover the Gates Foundation’s investments in vaccines have a good reason to investigate the possible profitability of such investments, as the Foundation has a bit of a reputation for being focused on profits at the expense of all other considerations – even on their Wikipedia page;
“The foundation trust invests undistributed assets, with the exclusive goal of maximizing the return on investment. As a result, its investments include companies that have been criticized for worsening poverty in the same developing countries where the foundation is attempting to relieve poverty. These include companies that pollute heavily and pharmaceutical companies that do not sell into the developing world. In response to press criticism, the foundation announced in 2007 a review of its investments to assess social responsibility. It subsequently canceled the review and stood by its policy of investing for maximum return, while using voting rights to influence company practices.” (143)
“Maximum return”? But isn’t the whole goal of a foundation to do good works? Only on the surface. A foundation basically has two goals: 1) as PR for the oligarchs: “using the occasional generous gift to try justifying their enormous wealth and power”, (144) but also 2) as a cover for making huge amounts of cash – ostensibly to be able to keep being generous, but mainly to keep the PR machine rolling and to maintain power and influence. Are foundations allowed to make a profit? Of course! If they don’t make a profit, they can’t afford to be generous! There are certain limits, of course;
“To maintain its status as a charitable foundation, it must donate at least 5% of its assets each year. Thus the donations from the foundation each year would amount to over US$1.5 billion at a minimum.” (145)
But the focus on a foundation’s needs to make those profits can sometimes be at odds with their PR goals. This appears to be true in the Gates Foundation’s case;
“In 2007, with colleagues at the Los Angeles Times, I examined whether those investments tended generally to support the foundation’s philanthropic goals. Instead, we found that it reaped vast profits by placing billions of dollars in firms whose activities and products subverted the foundation’s good works. . . . It had vast holdings in Big Pharma firms that priced AIDS drugs out of reach for desperate victims the foundation wanted to save.” (146)
According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Gates has major investments in vaccine companies;
“In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine.” (147)
The profits from selling vaccines are vast. The profits from providing clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development are either tiny or non-existent by comparison. Thus the emphasis on vaccination by the rich and powerful. This concern is brought up by multiple sources;
“Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation only spends about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas. They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.” (148)
“Why are vaccines being pushed so strongly in a country which lacks clean drinking water and basic sanitation services? UNICEF blames Chad’s recurrent outbreaks of disease, including meningitis, on this vital, common-sense need. Why have major organizations spent $571 million on a vaccination project, when wells to provide access to clean drinking water have been constructed for less than $3,000 by the International Committee of the Red Cross?” (149)
“Another concern that comes up in the academic literature is that the Gates Foundation is too focused on drugs, vaccines, and other technological solutions for global health problems. But many researchers, by contrast, would prefer a focus on the less exciting but crucial work of strengthening the health systems of poorer countries.” (150)
This isn’t just an assumption, it’s a fact backed up by a lot of data. Take, for example, an article entitled “Draining the swamp: How sanitation conquered disease long before vaccines or antibiotics”, put online in January 2020. Everything stated in this concluding paragraph was backed up by data in the body of the text – it’s worth a read, but far too big to quote in full;
“The bottom line is that sanitation—pest control, water filtration and chlorination, safe sewage disposal, milk pasteurization and other food safety, and public education about general hygiene—probably did more than anything else to reduce mortality rates, if only because these techniques were available decades, and in some cases centuries, before anything else. Antibiotics were dramatically effective when they were finally introduced, but by this point a lot of the work had already been done. Vaccines too were extremely effective, but merely delivered the coup de grace for many diseases.” (151)
The crucial and seldom-stated difference between clean drinking water, hygiene, nutrition, economic development and health system infrastructure – not to mention sanitation, labour rights, a social safety net etc – on the one hand, and vaccines and proprietary medicines on the other hand, is that you can’t make billions of dollars and keep people under your control if you invest in the former, but you can if you invest in the latter. This also happens to be the major reason why cannabis was made illegal and kept illegal and now kept over-regulated, and why we are still using fossil fuels instead of hemp ethanol for our energy needs – the economy is organized to meet the desires of producers at the expense of consumers.
The Return Of I.G. Farben
Gates’ partners in vaccine development are an assortment of the least ethical corporations on planet earth;
“Following a conference call with Gates Foundation leadership earlier this month, companies are working to identify concrete actions that will accelerate treatments, vaccines, and diagnostics to the field. As a first step, 15 companies have agreed to share their proprietary libraries of molecular compounds that already have some degree of safety and activity data with the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator—launched by the Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard two weeks ago—to quickly screen them for potential use against COVID-19. Successful hits would move rapidly into in vivo trials in as little as two months. . . . Companies participating in the collaboration include Bayer, BD, bioMérieux, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck (known as MSD outside the U.S. and Canada), Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.” (152)
As was mentioned in part 1, Bayer and Novartis – in a previous cooperative effort known as “I.G. Farben” (153) – were responsible for putting the Nazi party into power, massive amounts of war profiteering, and testing vaccines on death camp inmates, (154) using mandatory vaccination policies as justification for such experiments, (155) which led to the Nuremberg Doctor’s code, (156) which was supposed to have ended such practices forever.
Merck, Pfizer and Litton Bionetics were responsible for the creation and distribution of AIDS in Merck’s Hep B vaccines in the mid 1970s in New York and Uganda – where AIDS first emerged. (157) Or consider, for example, Pfizer’s history of pharmaceutical product price mark-ups in the third world;
“In South Africa, where 4.5 million people have HIV, no one can afford Pfizer’s killer prices. AIDS activists in South Africa and the United States have been demanding that Pfizer drop the price or allow generic production of the drug. Instead, Pfizer opposes efforts by foreign companies to make and sell the same or similar medicines at considerably lower prices. In South Africa, Pfizer’s patent means that even the government must pay $4.15 (£2,83) per pill, while in Thailand, where Pfizer does not have a patent on fluconazole, the drug is only $0.29 (£0,19) per pill. In Kenya, where Pfizer also has exclusive rights, fluconazole costs $18.00 (£12,28) per pill — more expensive, even, than US prices.” (158)
Given the tendency of corporations to focus on the bottom line above all other considerations, (159) and the history of the pharmaceutical industry of price gouging, it is unlikely that the Gates Foundation or their corporate partners will pass up an opportunity to make a killing on the COVID-19 vaccine.
As was pointed out in part 1, Gates was inspired by Rockefeller in many ways. Rockefeller believed in Eugenics (called “population control” after WW2), and monopolistic capitalism, and vaccination. Rockefeller was a pioneer in using foundation money to shape global medicine to be fundamentally proprietary in nature. The Rockefeller Foundation’s International Health Division;
“. . . prioritised vector control, drug development and vaccine research as part of a ‘utopian, millenarian vision of applied science uniting a divided world’.” (160)
The Rockefeller Foundation let it slip in their 1968 annual report that they were thinking about using vaccines to “reduce fertility”! It was only a one-sentence mention in a report that was mainly about birth control . . . but still, it’s an astonishing statement;
“Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.” (161)
Coincidentally, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was business partners with I.G. Farben beginning in the late 1920s. (162)
Gates has been interested in matters related to overpopulation from an early age – a concern he shared with his father and namesake, Bill Gates Sr. (163) To see how Gates’ long-held plans for population control tie into his digital I.D. plans and his post-cash society plans (the “Better Than Cash Alliance”), please check out the YouTube video entitled “Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid”, from the Corbett Report. (164)
Gates’ Vaccines Safety Records
Gates’ organization GAVI – the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (165) – was set up by the Gates Foundation in 1999. (166) GAVI – by itself – seems to have had an effect on infant mortality, but not the one promised;
“Overall, child mortality improved more often in nations that received smaller than average GAVI grants per capita. In seven nations that received greater than average funding, child mortality rates worsened.” (167)
The inverse relationship between vaccines and infant mortality has been demonstrated in other research;
“. . . nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.” (168)
Bill & Melinda Gates used India as a testing ground for both HPV vaccines and polio vaccines. There was an investigation by the Indian government in 2013 into the Gates Foundation’s HPV vaccine program, which revealed problems with both vaccine safety and proper informed consent protocols. The program resulted in seven deaths. (169)
This event has been “fact-checked” with misinformation, in much the same way as the SARS-COV-2 origin issue was “fact-checked” with misinformation. (170) The author who did the fact-checking failed to mention the analysis of the much more recent report regarding the seven deaths, which regarded the initial investigation as superficial. (171) The investigation concluded that the program had little to do with public health. Rather, it was a “fishy” money-making “scheme”;
“2.5 The Committee finds the entire matter very intriguing and fishy. The choice of countries and population groups; the monopolistic nature, at that point of time, of the product being pushed; the unlimited market potential and opportunities in the universal immunization progammes of the respective countries are all pointers to a well planned scheme to commercially exploit a situation. Had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the universal immunization programme of the concerned countries, this would have generated windfall profit for the manufacturer(s) by way of automatic sale, year after year, without any promotional or marketing expenses. It is well known that once introduced into the immunization programme it becomes politically impossible to stop any vaccination.” (172)
Similar concerns over safety and fraudulent practices have been raised about Gates’ meningitis vaccine. (173) Reports of temporary paralysis began circulating in late 2012 and early 2013. (174) According to one report (funded partially by Gates) written in 2015;
“Chadian authorities invited an international team of clinicians and epidemiologists to investigate the problem. An investigation proceeded; all cases were examined by physicians, who did not find cases of paralysis, and all of the affected individuals recovered without incident.” (175)
But according to a journalist who lives in Chad, the doctors didn’t even bother to examine the paralyzed children in person! (176) Other fact-check websites – partially funded by the Gates Foundation – have also ignored the evidence of this shoddy follow-up research. (177) Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine skeptic, had this to say about the safety and efficacy of the Bill Gates’ polio vaccine;
“Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate Polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously. In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70% of global polio cases were vaccine strain.” (178)
Polio vaccines have been fraught with problems from the beginning. Consider the 1955 polio vaccine tragedy in the United States, that resulted in 40 thousand vaccine-caused cases of polio, with 51 paralyzations and 5 deaths. (179)
It’s not just Gates’ HPV and meningitis and polio vaccines that have had problems. There’s also the DTP vaccine – for diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and tetanus. There is evidence that the DTP vaccine kills more children than the disease it targets;
“. . . girls vaccinated with the DTP vaccine—the flagship of Bill Gates’s GAVI/WHO African vaccine program—died at 10 times the rate of unvaccinated kids.” (180)
When asked to comment on the return on his over 10 billion dollar investment in vaccination, Gates refuses to admit any problem with his vaccines – or even discuss how he personally benefits from their sales. He will only speak about the “human benefit” and the economic boon they are to other countries. (181)
This “pretend to help but actually harm the third world” strategy by Bill Gates extends to agriculture – specifically the effort to privatize seed selling with GMO technology. (182) In another stunning coincidence, the Gates’s efforts to monopolize seed production is in cooperation with BASF and Bayer – both members of the I.G. Farben crime family. (183) Non-GMO seed activist Dr. Vandana Shiva recently called for a “war” on Bill Gates and his attempt to monopolize the production and sale of seeds. (184)
Vaccines Are “Unavoidably Unsafe”
Gates will probably never suffer any consequences for his actions in India or the Philippines or Afghanistan or Africa, or anywhere else, it seems. Unfortunately, it’s not illegal to monopolize seed production and distribution with GMO tech, and it appears that vaccine makers are never held accountable for anything they ever do.
There is a lot of high-quality evidence that vaccines are unsafe. This evidence has been collected by researchers, and been made available free online (185) for the general public to examine for themselves. As far as I can tell, this research is completely ignored by those advocating for vaccines. In fact, there is no mention of vaccine risk in some of the vaccine information produced by the World Health Organization and similar establishment groups. (186)
The risks are mentioned under “Adverse Reactions” in the package inserts produced by the FDA – but few people who get vaccinated read these inserts – or are even aware they exist. (187) The vaccine industry itself will concede their product is unsafe – in the vaccine inserts, and also behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny, in certain court cases that focus on corporate liability. In the case of Bruesewitz Et Al. v. Wyeth LLC, FKA Wyeth, Inc., Et Al. 2011, the third circuit US court found that vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe”, and that the producers of vaccines were protected from liability if the vaccines performed as unsafely as expected;
“Respondent (Wyeth) suggests an alternative reading of the 1986 Report. According to respondent, ‘the principle in Comment K’ is simply that of nonliability for ‘unavoidably unsafe’ products, and thus Congress’ stated intent in the 1986 Report to apply the ‘principle in Comment K’ to ‘the vaccines covered in the bill’ means that Congress viewed the covered vaccines as a class to be ‘unavoidably unsafe’.” (188)
But don’t worry. If they don’t end up killing or hurting you, they still might not end up helping you.
Vaccines Might Not Work
Aside from the issue of vaccine safety, there’s also a problem with vaccine efficacy. The “herd immunity” theory of vaccines that remains unquestioned by most medical experts is that, above a certain undetermined threshold, if the right number of people are vaccinated in a community, that community will be protected from the disease the vaccine was designed to guard against. But, as one doctor pointed out;
“If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.” (189)
But the problems of vaccine efficacy are not limited to the myth of herd immunity. There is also the problem of the vaccine not performing as required in clinical trials – some vaccines don’t even appear to work in the short term. And novel coronaviruses are particularly at risk of performance failure. According to leading experts on COVID-19, “there is no guarantee that a vaccine can be successfully developed”. (190)
Why might that be? Because lethal, novel coronaviruses are notoriously difficult to make vaccines for. Unlike SARS – which only existed between 2002 and 2004, (191) the MERS outbreak “continues to infect several dozen patients each year”. (192)
Even though MERS hasn’t gone away in 8 years, there’s no vaccine for it;
“Seventeen years after the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak and seven years since the first Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) case, there is still no coronavirus vaccine despite dozens of attempts to develop them.” (193)
Many people in the healthcare industry are ignorant of this fact, with some even maintaining that there actually is a SARS vaccine. (194) There were attempts to make a SARS vaccine – but the vaccine just made the condition worse;
“In one study, an experimental SARS vaccine made lab animals worse, says Arinjay Banerjee, an emerging-viruses researcher at McMaster University in Hamilton. ‘This study showed that when mice were vaccinated and then challenged with the pathogen, there was an enhancement of the infection,’ he says. ‘The vaccinated mice developed disease more rapidly and died more rapidly than the unvaccinated mice.’” (195)
Recent data indicates that difficulties will be present with the creation of the SARS-COV-2 vaccine;
“The day after data appeared from the vaccine maker Sinovac showed complete protection of rhesus monkeys by their vaccine candidate (whole inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus particles), scientists from the Jenner Institute in Oxford issued a press release announcing that their vaccine (an adenovirus vector based vaccine that carried the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) worked to protect rhesus monkeys and that they were moving forward with large scale human safety trials. At the time, the substantiating data was not available. Now it is, in the form of a May 13 BioRxiv preprint. Does the data support the claim? Not really. All of the vaccinated monkeys treated with the Oxford vaccine became infected when challenged, as judged by recovery of virus genomic RNA from nasal secretions. There was no difference in the amount of viral RNA detected from this site in the vaccinated monkeys as compared to the unvaccinated animals. Which is to say, all vaccinated animals were infected.” (196)
Gates continues to ignore all evidence of vaccine safety and efficacy pathology (he never addresses any of it and pretends it doesn’t exist), and paints anyone who does not ignore this evidence as “crazy”:
“As the search goes on to find a vaccine for coronavirus, Bill Gates has hit out at the ‘worrying’ level of misinformation and conspiracy theories on social media. The co-founder of Microsoft, whose Gates Foundation is heavily involved with Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance in trying to find a coronavirus vaccination, said that those against the vaccine – the so called ‘anti-vaxxers’ – would let COVID-19 ‘continue to kill people’. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘It is troubling that in times like that, and accelerated by digital tools, there is so much craziness. Eventually when we have the vaccine, we will want to develop the herd immunity to have over 80% of the population taken. If they have heard that it is a plot, or vaccines in general are bad, and we don’t have people willing to take the vaccine, then that will let the disease continue to kill people. So it is a bit worrying that there is some of that crazy stuff.’” (197)
By arguing that vaccine skeptics “will let the disease continue to kill people”, he is really saying that there is no effective treatments to COVID-19 other than vaccination. That is untrue, as is explored below.
The Stupid And The Greedy
In spite of all the risks of vaccination and the difficulty with success in coronavirus vaccine production – or, perhaps due to ignorance of the risks and difficulties – thousands of people are eager to participate in upcoming COVID-19 vaccine trials, going so far as to volunteer to get the disease on purpose in the attempt to find out if the vaccine works.
“Researchers expect it will take at least a year to develop a safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19, a lengthy process that involves injecting healthy people with potential vaccines and then waiting weeks or months to see if those individuals fall ill. But thousands of healthy volunteers, including hundreds of Canadians, have offered to try a far riskier approach: getting injected with a potential vaccine and then purposely becoming infected with COVID-19 to test if the vaccine works. The method is called a ‘human challenge trial,’ and it’s been used before to develop treatments against smallpox, influenza and malaria. The World Health Organization says the approach can be ‘substantially faster’ than standard vaccine field trials and, if designed properly, human challenge trials could lead to better vaccines. But purposefully infecting healthy individuals with a potentially deadly virus has obvious ethical concerns, including the inherent risk of life-altering side-effects or death.” (198)
And speaking of the ignorant . . . it is interesting to note that Bill Gates isn’t the only greasy oligarch looking to make bank from the no-doubt possible goldmine – yet improbably safe or effective medicine – that is the COVID-19 vaccine. A “financial columnist” with the New York Times argued on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert that investors are betting on a vaccine;
“. . . I think the hope is – the hope – that there is going to be either a vaccine, or a therapeutic, and that unemployment doesn’t look anything like it looks today, and that it looks a lot better . . .” (199)
Even Donald Trump himself sees the dollar signs, and is looking to get his beak wet on the deal;
“The Donald Trump administration offered ‘large sums of money’ to get exclusive access to a coronavirus vaccine being developed by a German company, Die Welt reported Sunday. According to the article, Trump was trying to get the Tübingen-based CureVac company — which also has sites in Frankfurt and Boston — to move its research wing to the United States and develop the vaccine ‘for the U.S. only.’ . . . ‘The American regime has committed an extremely unfriendly act,’ said Social Democrat MP Karl Lauterbach, who said that German health workers on the front lines — as well as people around the world — needed to have access to something developed in Germany, and that no country should be able to purchase exclusive access to the vaccine. ‘Capitalism has limits,’ he said.” (200)
Whether the attempt at exploiting COVID-19 for maximum profit continues – or whether capitalism actually “has limits” – remains to be seen.
Even though the Trump administration has taken credit for “responding with great speed and professionalism” (March 8th) (201) to the pandemic, there was evidence that Trump had actionable intelligence regarding SARS-COV-2 back in November of 2019. (202) From November until March 13th, when Trump announced COVID-19 was a “national emergency”, Trump basically did nothing to prepare for the virus, (203) going so far as to refer to the Democratic party’s critique of his response a “new hoax”. (204) Trump said this in a speech less than a minute before questioning the seriousness of COVID-19 itself, planting the idea in people’s minds that the virus itself was a hoax, in spite of Snopes pointing out that, technically, he didn’t directly call the virus a hoax. (205)
Was Trump’s notoriously slow and dismissive response (206) in part motivated by a desire to make sure the disease had maximum impact and then financially capitalize off the vaccine? Or was it something far more sinister? Perhaps it was financial, Malthusian AND Orwellian. We may never know for sure, but nothing is stopping us from taking an honest look at all the evidence and making an educated guess.
Orwellian Police States & Malthusian Population Culls
As was explored in Part 1, a very likely motive for releasing the SARS-COV-2 bioweapon could have been for the purposes of making billions in vaccine sales, but it could also have had the benefit of a dramatic increase in the power of the state over the individual, or even a terribly ill-considered strategy to save our ecology from the over-use of climate-destabilizing energy sources through a population cull.
On May 8th, Shock Doctrine author Naomi Klein was asked what she thought the “worst-case scenario” was for the pandemic. Her response was grim;
“Amazon and Walmart preside over a small business slaughter. Millions lose their homes because they never received the government relief they deserved. The racial wealth gap dramatically widens because the people with little or no savings get wiped out first. States and cities get stuck with the bill for the corporate bailouts. Those budget shortfalls are offset by mass closures of public schools and hospitals, with thousands of teachers and healthcare workers joining the unemployment rolls. And we are even less prepared for the next disaster. Around the world, authoritarians like Trump sow even more division and hatred to deflect blame for their gruesome failures with wishy-washy centrists failing to offer angry people real alternatives. Mass incarceration expands, especially on the borders. Disease spreads in the jails and this leads to more hatred and vilification of ‘the other.’ Domestic violence skyrockets as stressed men take the rage out on the women and children in their lives. Schools never really re-open and women are expected to pick up the slack by doing the lion’s share of homeschooling, setting feminism back decades. The pandemic spreads through the Global South with no serious aid from the North. Slums are patrolled by soldiers preventing the poor from leaving their homes, all in the name of controlling the pandemic. I could go on but you get the picture—we’ve all seen the movie.” (207)
A quick investigation into what’s already happened so far confirms her stark view of the future.
Protests: Double Plus Ungood
Indisputably, the effect of the emergence of SARS-COV-2 has been to allow an attack on civil rights. This attack has taken various forms in different parts of the world, from the removal of privacy rights in New Zealand to the indefinite postponement of elections in Ethiopia. (208)
The government of Alberta recently passed “Bill 1”, which makes many forms of assembly and protest illegal. (209) Lawyers have summed up the types of protests that have been made illegal under the bill;
- “Holding a vigil for Regis Korchinski-Paquet in Olympic Plaza – a square in downtown Calgary – in conjunction with Black Lives Matters protests across the country, and the vigil spills onto Stephen Avenue Mall, where bicycles are permitted.
- Indigenous persons and their allies protesting against construction of a pipeline on-site in Alberta.
- Workers rallying in a parking lot outside a meat packing plant to bring attention to the gendered and racialized impact of the Alberta government’s response to COVID-19.
- Persons with disabilities and their allies protesting cuts to AISH on the sidewalk adjacent to the High Level Bridge in Edmonton.
- LGBTQ2S+ groups holding a sit-in under a flagpole on the grounds of the Alberta Legislature after the Pride flag is taken down only one day into Pride month.” (210)
Penalties under Bill 1 are severe;
“. . . those who violate the act can be arrested without a warrant, fined between $1,000 and $10,000 for a first offence and serve up to six months in jail. The fine would increase for second offences, amounting to $25,000. Finally, “organizations who direct, authorize or otherwise participate in these activities” could be fined up to $200,000.” (211)
First Nations groups have called the Bill “Racially Targeted”, as it appears to be designed to ram pipelines through First Nations territories over the objections of First Nations, in spite of a UN Treaty – “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, or “UNDRIP” – that Canada signed which was designed to prevent just such unilateral actions. (212)
Journalists have noted that the Bill would also prevent protests against draconian health measures recently put in place to deal with COVID-19. (213)
Chemical/Biological Protest Control
As for back in Amerikkka, the struggle to maintain white supremacy by any means necessary has hit a new level of extremism on the part of the police. The latest protests against racist police brutality and murder – this time spawned by the video of the murder of Minneapolis resident George Floyd at the hands of the police – has resulted in widespread protests – both peaceful and destructive. Police have met both types of protests with more brutality and extreme force. Health experts have warned that combining the pandemic with tear-gassing protesters could have potentially lethal consequences;
“There are sufficient data proving that tear gas can increase the susceptibility to pathogens, to viruses.” (214)
Tear gas was banned as a weapon of war, but the Ford administration made sure an exception was allowed for it to be used for “riot control” before signing the treaty in 1975 (215) – and then, of course, any government that wanted to use the gas could call any protest it didn’t approve of a “riot”.
Big Brother Now Calling The Shots
Alberta also recently passed “Bill 10”, (216) which granted the provincial government dictatorial powers (217) and would allow for “mass vaccination”;
“Without review or approval of the legislature, a minister can now create a new order requiring people to install tracking devices on their cellphones, and requiring them to register their phones with the government. Without any oversight, a minister can create an exclusive list of people who are legally permitted to go outside, or legally authorized to drive a vehicle, and impose a $1,000 fine on those who walk outside or drive “illegally” because they are not on the list. The health minister could unilaterally declare that all sick people must be forcibly removed from their homes, as the World Health Organization has suggested. And an order could be issued for mass vaccination, without any discussion or debate in the legislature.” (218)
The Bill is being challenged using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (219)
A mandatory vaccination bill earmarked for students in New Brunswick was having difficulty getting support back in November (220) but because of COVID-19 and all the positive hype in favor of vaccination in the media, New Brunswick’s education minister anticipates the bill will pass in the summer;
“Cardy’s bill was introduced long before the COVID-19 pandemic and has no specific reference to the coronavirus, for which no vaccine is expected to exist until next year. The bill would eliminate philosophical, religious and other non-medical exemptions from an existing requirement that all school children be vaccinated. Children not vaccinated for any reason other than health concerns would not be allowed to go to public schools starting in the fall of 2021. Cardy pointed out that when he introduced the bill a year ago, he spoke about New Brunswickers being lucky to live at a time ‘where death and disability from infectious diseases is something we’ve largely been able to forget. Of course that’s not the world we’re in any more, and no one’s going to forget the last few months,’ he said. ‘I think the importance of vaccines has become a lot more central in people’s minds. . . . Look at what a world without a vaccine for one disease looks like.’” (221)
It’s not just Canadian provincial governments that show signs of being fascistic. The current Chief Public Health Officer of Canada – Dr. Theresa Tam – indicated in 2010 in a documentary film entitled “Outbreak – Anatomy Of A Plague” that she was prepared to go full Orwell;
“She warned ‘if there are people who are non-compliant, there are definitely laws and public health powers that can quarantine people in mandatory settings.’ In the film, the visuals go back and forth between her being interviewed to scenes of a man being handcuffed and arrested by armed police. The narration has Tam saying there is ‘potential you can track people, put bracelets on their arms, have police and their setups to ensure quarantine is undertaken.’ Narrator Colm Feore explains: ‘Police checkpoints are set up on all the bridges and everyone leaving the city is required to show proof of vaccination. Those who refuse to cooperate are taken away to temporary detention centres.’ Tam reappears and explains, ‘It’s better to be pre-emptive and precautionary and take the heat of people thinking you might be over-reactionary, get ahead of the curve, and then think about whether you’ve overreacted later. It’s such a serious situation that I think decisive early action is the key.’” (222)
According to Wikipedia, Tam was in charge of “Promoting education on substances (especially alcohol, opioids and marijuana), particularly their effects on youth” during the roll-out of cannabis legalization in Canada in 2018. (223) Considering what a fiasco that has been – and how data regarding it’s safety (224) and efficacy for the treatment of youth-related health problems (225) has been totally ignored – one is not installed with a sense of confidence that appropriate (non-fascistic) options to mitigate COVID-19 related problems will come from Dr. Tam . . . or any branch of the Canadian federal or provincial governments, for that matter.
It appears that British Columbia has now introduced legislation similar to Alberta’s Bill 10. In BC it’s called “Bill 19”:
“Bill 19 gives the BC government sweeping, unchallenged powers to enact other potentially authoritarian and fascist state actions, including:
- Ongoing, uncontested, and unending ‘State of Emergency’ enactments that have no reason to have been enacted in the first place, or to continue.
- The violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Candians through the BC government’s implementation, and continued use of covert secretive, state-sponsored unlawful forced confinement, detention, and forced isolation of citizens, with no disclosure of how these detention programs operate, the cost to BC taxpayers, what legislation people are detained under, or what actions they can take to challenge their unlawful detentions.
- The possibility/potential of forced health measures, which could potentially include forced and mass vaccinations; mask use; or other measures that are not supported by evidence-based science, research, or data.
- The ability to bring in new regulations, or laws, which systematically violate the Charter rights of Canadian citizens in BC at will.
- Transforming and restructuring BC’s socio-economic and business structures and systems, including businesses, schools, communities, and anything else they so desire in any manner without comment, challenge, debate, questions, or opposition.
- Allowing for the ongoing transformation of BC to a “cashless” society by allowing and not preventing, or constraining businesses from refusing cash, which is legal tender in Canada.
- Increasing state-sponsored powers to implement and systematically use of “surveillance” tools and measures, such as using apps and collected data from a range of sources to investigate, track, monitor, and identify individuals/citizens and their movements in their communities and the province.” (226)
All Shot To Hell
Of course, it’s not just the Canadian government expressing interest in mandatory vaccination. California has had a mandatory vaccination law for students since 2015. (227) It is unclear if the COVID-19 vaccine will be part of that program.
In 2019, the Democrats attempted to make vaccination “more mandatory” for students in 6 US states:
“Democrats in six states — Colorado, Arizona, New Jersey, Washington, New York and Maine — have authored or co-sponsored bills to make it harder for parents to avoid vaccinating their school-age children, and mostly faced GOP opposition.” (228)
SARS-COV-2 has largely eroded Republican resistance to mandatory vaccination. On March 25th, 2020, a blog revealed that Republican-controlled Florida had plans for a COVID-19 related mandatory vaccination program:
“‘Pursuant to Executive Order 20-80 and the Florida Department of Health declaration of a Public Emergency, the State Health Officer and Surgeon General can order any individual to be examined, tested, vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for COVID-19.’ the notice reads.” (229)
The blog was “fact-checked” on May 2nd by USA Today, and the fact-checkers determined it was partly true – or in their words, “partly false”;
“It is true that Florida statute 381.00315, as cited in DeSantis’s executive orders, makes it legal to order an individual to be vaccinated, among other public safety measures, during a public health emergency. But because there is not yet a coronavirus vaccine, it is false to imply this action is imminent, or that Florida health officials would use a vaccine in the near future. For this reason, the claim is rated as partly false.” (230)
It seems to this author that the “false” part is based on the false premise that the blog indicated the “that Florida health officials would use a vaccine in the near future” – it said no such thing. The fact-checkers made up a bogus statement that it could then call “partly false”. It appears that USA Today needs fact-checkers for their fact-checkers. NBC made basically the same assumption and the same mistake. (231)
The New York State Bar Association is also backing mandatory vaccination;
“When a vaccine becomes available, there will be a majority of Americans who want the vaccination. However, some Americans may push back on the COVID-19 vaccination for religious, philosophical or personal reasons. Nonetheless, for the sake of public health, mandatory vaccinations for COVID-19 should be required in the United States as soon as it is available. Mandatory vaccinations are supported by the authority of the state police power when the vaccinations are necessary to protect the health of the community. Constitutional challenges under the religious freedom clause under the First Amendment and under the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have failed, when the individual interests are not strong enough to outweigh the public benefit. In New York State, the courts have found that religious, personal or ‘unsupported . . . medical literature’ arguments persuasive. Healthcare workers and parents of unvaccinated children have unsuccessfully challenged compulsory vaccination on administrative law grounds – questioning the NYS and NYC Department of Health’s authority in mandating flu and measles vaccinations, as well as challenging the regulations as arbitrary and capricious. The courts found the policies mandating that healthcare workers be vaccinated for influenza, and children vaccinated for measles during an outbreak, were not arbitrary and capricious and the regulations were promulgated under proper authority. Further, on June 13, 2019, the religious exemption for vaccinating school-attending children was repealed. The gravity of COVID-19 presents compelling justification for State legislatures and Congress to mandate a COVID-19 vaccination.” (232)
Congress is looking to implement near-universal mandatory vaccination of all children in elementary or secondary school (233) and claims it has the case law necessary to ram it through. (234) The University of Tennessee appears to have mandated vaccines for their students – for both the flu shot and a COVID-19 vaccine if it becomes available. (235)
Sadly, the only hope of US citizens who don’t want to be vaccinated against their will might be in Trump’s promise to not make the vaccine mandatory – it will be, in his words, “for everyone who wants to get it”. (236) Of course, Trump isn’t known for keeping his promises, so nobody should bet on it.
It’s difficult to determine Biden’s views on mandatory vaccination. Politifact looked into the Democratic party’s views on mandatory vaccination, and determined that;
“. . . the idea that Democrats are pushing for this power is exaggerated, because the Supreme Court long ago decided that the government has that power.” (237)
49 percent of Americans polled said they would get the COVID-19 vaccine, whereas 31 percent said they were unsure, and 20 percent said they would not get the vaccine. (238)
Big Brother Is Watching
It’s not just the opportunity for mandatory vaccination that the virus has provided. There are other totalitarian measures being introduced. In the dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell, telescreens were the technology used by the state to keep track of people where they live;
“Telescreens are devices that operate as televisions, security cameras, and microphones. They are featured in George Orwell‘s dystopian 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four as well as all film adaptations of the novel. In the novel and its adaptations, telescreens are used by the ruling party in the totalitarian fictional State of Oceania to keep its subjects under constant surveillance, thus eliminating the chance of secret conspiracies against Oceania.” (239)
A similar system of surveillance has been introduced by certain corporations and businesses since the “work from home” transformation of the economy has taken place;
“After two weeks of working from her Brooklyn apartment, a 25-year-old e-commerce worker received a staffwide email from her company: Employees were to install software called Hubstaff immediately on their personal computers so it could track their mouse movements and keyboard strokes, and record the webpages they visited. They also had to download an app called TSheets to their phones to keep tabs on their whereabouts during work hours. ‘There are five of us. And we always came to work. We always came on time. There was no reason to start location-tracking us,’ the woman told NPR. She spoke on the condition of anonymity, fearing she could lose her job. Company emails that she provided to NPR show her employer believed the tracking software would improve the team’s productivity and efficiency while everyone was working from home. Such rationales are increasingly ringing throughout workplaces nationwide. The coronavirus pandemic has forced about a third of U.S. workers to do their jobs from home. In turn, companies are ramping up the use of software to monitor what their employees do all day.” (240)
Then there’s “contact tracing” – a method of tracking infected people and all their contacts, which could also be used to quarantine the infected and all their contacts. If no acquired immunity is possible, it could result in the infected (and all their contacts) being quarantined until they receive their yearly – or perhaps even monthly – vaccine. (241)
This high-tech Orwellian nightmare goes by various names – Naomi Klein calls it the “Screen New Deal” – and it will transform not just the workplace, but every sector of society;
“This is a future in which, for the privileged, almost everything is home delivered, either virtually via streaming and cloud technology, or physically via driverless vehicle or drone, then screen ‘shared’ on a mediated platform. It’s a future that employs far fewer teachers, doctors, and drivers. It accepts no cash or credit cards (under guise of virus control) and has skeletal mass transit and far less live art. It’s a future that claims to be run on ‘artificial intelligence’ but is actually held together by tens of millions of anonymous workers tucked away in warehouses, data centers, content moderation mills, electronic sweatshops, lithium mines, industrial farms, meat-processing plants, and prisons, where they are left unprotected from disease and hyperexploitation. It’s a future in which our every move, our every word, our every relationship is trackable, traceable, and data-mineable by unprecedented collaborations between government and tech giants.” (242)
Things have gotten so bad, the United Nations has stepped in and told the governments of the world to ease-up on the fascism:
“UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet on April 27 condemned the abuse of emergency powers to commit rights violations under cover of containing the pandemic. Emergency powers ‘need to be necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory,’ reads the statement. ‘They also need to be limited in duration and key safeguards against excesses must be put in place.’ She warned that authorities have used emergency powers as an excuse for unlawful detention and other abuses. In Cambodia, emergency powers in response to the pandemic impose up to 10 years imprisonment for lockdown violators—a move Amnesty International called ‘a naked power grab which seeks to manipulate the COVID-19 crisis in order to severely undercut human rights.’ The UN has released a set of policy guidelines advising states to follow principles such as legality, proportionality and non-discrimination during ‘humane application of emergency powers,’ pursuant to the International Covenant on Human Rights. ‘Given the exceptional nature of the crisis, it is clear States need additional powers to cope,’ Bachelet’s statement concluded. ‘However, if the rule of law is not upheld, then the public health emergency risks becoming a human rights disaster, with negative effects that will long outlast the pandemic itself.’” (243)
Authoritarian governments are unlikely to heed the United Nations, however. Already in the Philippines, the police are conducting house to house searches for those infected with COVID-19:
“Philippine authorities and police will carry out house-to-house searches for COVID-19 patients to prevent wider transmission, a minister said on Tuesday, amid soaring death and infection numbers and some areas returning to a stricter lockdown. Interior Minister Eduardo Año urged the public to report cases in their neighbourhoods, warning that anyone infected who refused to cooperate faced imprisonment. The tough approach comes during a week where the Philippines recorded Southeast Asia’s biggest daily jump in coronavirus deaths and saw hospital occupancy grow sharply, after a tripling of infections since a tough lockdown was eased on June 1 to allow more movement and commerce. ‘We don’t want positive patients to stay home in (self) quarantine especially if their homes don’t have the capacity,’ Ano told a news conference. ‘So what we will do . . . is to go house-to-house and we will bring the positive cases to our COVID-19 isolation facilities.’ . . . The plan will likely alarm human rights groups battling what they say is impunity for abusive police who have systematically targeted poor communities in a bloody war on drugs, as noted in a recent United Nations report. Police have rejected that. Police are accused of being heavy handed during the pandemic, including arrests for minor infringements and reports by activists of children killed while violating curfews.” (244)
It seems like – at least today in the Philippines (and maybe one day in the future, everywhere) – the police will not only break your door down for the herbs you choose to take, but also for the vaccines you choose not to take. It is clear to this author that the cure for both the drug war and the Orwellian pandemic police state is human medical autonomy.
Prisons Dropping Soap Obligations
The situation in the United States created by SARS-COV-2 is showing every sign of being an opportunity to cull poor and non-white populations, already suffering from the injustices of institutional racism and the drug war. Take the treatment of prisoners, for example.
The US Bureau Of Prisons screening process with regards to staff or new inmates is laughable – it ignores the reality of asymptomatic transmission, with the possible exception of “asymptomatic inmates with exposure risk factors”, who are quarantined. (245) The risk factors in question are not described in detail, but given the reality of asymptomatic transmission, just walking around indoors in public without a mask any time since January is an “exposure risk factor”.
The hygienic conditions in US prisons are so bad that prisoners are escaping . . . just to get some soap;
“An inmate who fled a federal prison camp in Butner and remains on the loose told The News & Observer on Thursday that he escaped because he feared death from coronavirus. ‘I take ownership of having to serve my time,’ said Richard R. Cephas, 54, who had been at the Federal Correctional Complex serving time on a drug conviction. ‘I signed up for a jail sentence, not a death sentence.’ Prison officials first reported a positive test at Butner on March 26. Since then, as the numbers grew, Cephas said he grew more fearful for his life. He said he sought early release but said the staff at Butner had not responded to his requests. Making matters worse, he said, was the way the prison handled the outbreak. He said he works as an orderly at the prison camp, so he was acutely aware of a lack of soap. A staffer told him there wasn’t enough to go around, he said, and inmates were urged to use soap they had purchased.” (246)
While a small number of prisoners in Canada, (247) parts of Europe (248) and even the United States (249) have been released to lessen the possibility of a COVID-19 outbreak in the prison system, outbreaks have occurred anyway, in China, (250) the United Kingdom, (251) British Columbia, (252) Alberta, (253) Ontario, (254) Quebec, (255) California, (256) Tennessee, (257) Pennsylvania, (258) Texas, (259) Oregon, (260) Florida, (261) Wisconsin, (262) in immigrant detention centers all over the United States, (263) and other US and Canadian prisons as well. (264)
Prison riots have occurred over COVID-19 in many countries, including Argentina, (265) Venezuela, (266) Columbia, (267) and Italy. (268)
The Devil Takes The Hindmost
SARS-COV-2 threatens the lives of the non-incarcerated, too. The poor and the lower-income people, for example, face even more starvation than usual, due to the disruption in the economy and in the food supply chain;
“Already, 135 million people had been facing acute food shortages, but now with the pandemic, 130 million more could go hungry in 2020, said Arif Husain, chief economist at the World Food Program, a United Nations agency. Altogether, an estimated 265 million people could be pushed to the brink of starvation by year’s end.” (269)
The Third World poor – as always – have the worst situation. But the First World poor – whose numbers are ever-increasing – are also experiencing quite a lot of suffering. The food supply chains are suffering from underpaid workers in cramped conditions getting hit with the virus, resulting in a slowdown in production and a reduction in quality control. (270)
The United States is filled with “Christians” who ignore tales of Christ feeding the poor, (271) and who call any attempt to feed hungry people “communism”. (272) The virus has made this difficult situation even worse;
“More than 30 million people have applied for unemployment as of April 30, as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Many are falling behind on their rent and are being evicted, despite new rules designed to stop evictions.” (273)
It’s difficult to know exactly how bad the situation actually is in the US because the Trump administration has chosen not to keep track of it’s eviction statistics;
“In the US, an estimated 2.3 million Americans were evicted from their home in 2016, the latest year of available data, as rent prices around the US continue to rise while affordable housing units disappear and the legal system is weighted towards wealthy landlords, not tenants.” (274)
Evictions were halted in the US temporarily – until the end of April for some (275) – but journalists covering the story now predict an “avalanche of evictions” in the near future. (276)
Poor Canadians are doing a bit better, with some provinces providing eviction halts and rent subsidies “until the pandemic has passed”, whatever that means. (277) The mayor of Vancouver, BC, actually tried to pass a motion to remove renter protections in May! The motion was withdrawn – perhaps after it got some attention in the media. (278) On July 16th, the Government of British Columbia announced that the ban on evictions due to non-payment of rent will be removed on September 1st, thus paving the way for mass evictions. (279)
Even if you – by some miracle – do manage to keep a roof over your head, poor workers die from COVID-19 in greater numbers than well-paid workers. (280) And with the Federal Reserve printing money like there’s no tomorrow, rewarding those playing the stock market at the expense of the taxpayers, the class war has been shifted into high gear. (281)
The war on the poor – with the virus being just one of the many weapons the rich have at their disposal – has now gone from “brutal” to “atrocious”, with no end in sight.
Food Security “Not Essential”
In some parts of North America, seed and garden stores have been deemed “not essential”, which has left some gardeners wondering what they’re going to eat in the fall, and who is in charge of determining what is considered essential and what is not. Apparently, the guy’s name is “Earl”;
“Can you buy plants and seeds to garden at home? County officials said, in short: no. ‘That’s not an essential activity necessarily, and therefore would not be deemed an appropriate use,’ said Earl Stoddard, with the county’s Emergency Management Department. ‘The challenge for law enforcement will be able to weed that out. They’ve been given some discretion.’” (282)
While it appears gardening stores being classified as “non-essential” is exceptional in the United States, in Canada it’s much more pervasive;
“Only four provinces have designated the horticulture industry an essential service, so nurseries outside of Alberta, BC, Manitoba and Quebec have to keep their doors closed.” (283)
Quebec settled on a “compromise” – big stores could sell gardening equipment, but little ones couldn’t. (284) Fortunately for those living in Ontario, after a petition effort (285) the Province backed away from the gardening store lockdown in late April and deemed them essential. (286) At some point Saskatchewan appears to have put gardening stores on its “allowable” list. (287) And Newfoundland and Labrador have allowed gardening stores to be open as well. (288) The fact that this wasn’t a given in all jurisdictions from the beginning is very, very disturbing.
COVID Astroturfing And Disinformation
Before the current anti-police brutality protests that have swept the world, there were quite a large number of protests against the lockdown in the United States. And unlike the anti-police brutality protests (which were no doubt prompted by a nearly 9 minute-long video of police officers choking the life out of George Floyd) the anti-lockdown protests show signs of support from corporations that are financially suffering from the lockdown;
“Dozens of individuals and groups urging states to reopen amid the Covid-19 pandemic have historical financial ties to coal and oil and gas companies and conservative billionaires who have invested in climate disinformation. Past funders of the current critics of stay-at-home orders include the bankrupt coal company Murray Energy and oil giant ExxonMobil, as well as Koch and Mercer family foundations, according to DeSmog, a group that tracks the money behind anti-climate-action campaigns.” (289)
Of course the billionaires who paid for these protests weren’t out there with the protesters. They didn’t even encourage anyone to wear masks.
These days, many stories circulate about right wingers who were convinced COVID-19 was a hoax suddenly changing their minds after getting sick. (290)
While far-right corporate fascists were telling people to go and protest the lockdown, far-right disinformation agents were telling people that the virus was a big hoax. particularly Q Anon, (291) a disinformation source that has been proven to be a liar time and time again, (292) which pretends to be a patriotic leaker of information from the intelligence community but who is infact a fascist perpetrating a campaign designed to tie quite reasonable questions about conflicts of interest in the medical establishment together with the most fantastic and unbelievable conspiracies possible, in order to discredit anyone engaged in the former.
For example, some QAnon followers have been led to believe the lockdown is a “cover for the rescue of children held captive by a network of pedophiles”, (293) while others believe Trump wearing a yellow tie is a signal to the true believers that the whole thing is a hoax, because yellow is the color of the maritime flag that indicates there’s no infected people aboard a ship. (294)
Then there are the people behind the movie “Plandemic”, (295) a conspiracy video removed from YouTube in early May, (296) which has spawned many “debunk” video responses (297) and articles. (298) The gist of the film is that a renegade virologist – Dr. Judy Mikovits – who began working at the NCI lab in Ft. Detrick in 1988 (299) – and has worked with NCI doctors operating out of Ft. Detrick as late as 2010 (300) – is warning humanity that “the virus was engineered to increase vaccination rates” and “wearing face masks are actually harmful”. (301)
Arguably the first point can be made in a compelling way after hundreds of hours of research and dozens of citations (see above), and the second point can be totally debunked (see below). Those attempting to debunk first point often cite the March 17th Andersen et al. paper in Nature as proof that SARS-COV-2 couldn’t possibly be lab-made, ignoring all the debunking of that paper that has come out in response, and the evidence of a lack of natural reservoir, the Gain-Of-Function work on coronaviruses, the SARS-COV-2 inserts and the massive history of bioweapons production and use by the USA over the last 70 years, indicating a very superficial level of debunking. The video is a combination of true facts that are unconvincingly presented and total fabrications that are easily debunked. The effect of “Plandemic” is to discredit those skeptical of the official story, while at the same time providing skeptics with terrible health advice meant to increase the likelihood of their infection.
Jewish Lizard Aliens Want To Infect You!
And then there’s David Icke, famous for suggesting that lizard Jews from another planet have successfully enslaved humanity (302), who is now suggesting that COVID-19 is part of the (Jewish alien lizard) conspiracy:
“In April 2020, Icke claimed in a YouTube video on the London Real channel that there was a link between the COVID-19 pandemic and 5G mobile phone networks. The video was removed from the platform, and YouTube tightened its rules to prevent its website being used to spread conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also later deleted from Facebook. A number of mobile phone masts were subject to arson attacks at this time, as well as telecom engineers being abused. Nick Cohen in The Observer thought Icke was ambiguous as to whether the phone masts should be left alone. Icke said in the London Real interview: ‘If 5G continues and reaches where they want to take it, human life as we know it is over . . . so people have to make a decision.’ London Live screened a similar interview with Icke about coronavirus on 8 April 2020. He made an unsupported claim that Israel was using the crisis ‘to test its technology’ and suggested any attempt to require people to be vaccinated against Covid-19 amounted to ‘fascism’.” (303)
These views have now become mainstream in rightwing circles, and have been viewed tens of millions of times on social media:
“Antisemitic conspiracy theories circulated by former sports presenter David Icke – including a claim that Jewish cultists or ‘Sabbatian Frankists’ are responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic – have been viewed over 30 million times on social media, a new report has revealed.” (304)
The same month Icke pushed his Jew/pandemic theories, Jew haters began appearing at anti-lockdown protests. (305) Blaming disease on Jews is nothing new. The Nazis, for example, have blamed Jews for the very disease – typhus – they themselves were injecting into death camp prisoners (see Part 1). And the Black Death – the worst plague in recorded history – was blamed on the Jews back in the 1340s (306) while it was still in full swing. (307)
To make matters worse, groups like the ADL have catalogued a massive amount of evidence of Jew haters trying to tie the virus to Jews in general and George Soros in particular, and then mixed that evidence up with genuine concerns about conflict of interest by the likes of Bill Gates and the medical establishment (308) – tarring all conspiracies – evidence based and not evidence based – with the same brush.
Racist Pandemic & Racist Pandemic Reactions
The way in which the virus affects poor people – who are very often non-white people – more than it affects rich people and white people is predictable, as was pointed out in Part 1. The poor and the non-white are less likely to have summer cottages to flee to, are less likely to be able to take time off work, are less likely to be able to afford nutritional food, certain medicines and healthcare options, and as a result, they always get the worst of every pandemic;
“New data from the Centers for Disease Control released on April 17 found that while black people make up 13% of the U.S. population, they’re currently accounting for 30% of reported COVID-19 cases.” (309)
“The coronavirus is killing black and Latino people in New York City at twice the rate that it is killing white people, according to preliminary data released on Wednesday by the city.” (310)
The evidence of the white supremacist element to the COVID-19 pandemic is also seen Canada;
“Global News analyzed Toronto demographic data alongside new data about which neighbourhoods in Canada’s most populous city have the most coronavirus cases. The analysis found a strong association between high coronavirus rates and low income, conditions of work, visible minority status and low levels of education. There was an even stronger association between neighbourhoods with a high number of coronavirus cases and those with a higher population of Black people.” (311)
In spite of this racism – or perhaps because of it – Canadian health officials refuse to keep track of the race of COVID-19 victims, which ends up hiding the racist results of the pandemic reaction – the racism that underlies every aspect of society. (312) Evidence of the same effects of white supremacy on the pandemic can also be seen in the UK. (313) As was discussed in Part 1, every outbreak of disease – including but not limited to the Yellow Fever epidemic of 1793 and the ongoing AIDS pandemic – predictably harms the poor and non-white communities more than the rich and white ones.
257 Years Of Biological Warfare Against First Nations People
It’s not only the black community that gets hit hard by pandemics. First Nations communities – targets of biological warfare by the British beginning in the American Colonies in the 1760s (314) and in Canada in the 1860s (315) – continue to serve as targets of biological warfare to this day. For one example, First Nations communities suffer from underfunded healthcare systems and are currently deemed vulnerable to COVID-19. (316)
For another example, when the Cheyenne River and Oglala Sioux Tribes set up checkpoints on the highways in their own territory to keep out those who were potentially infected with COVID-19, the South Dakota Republican governor ordered the checkpoints closed. (317) The governor has backed away from that threat, and the checkpoints are still operating. (318)
In Canada, the Provincial Energy Minister of Alberta has publicly admitted to using the pandemic to ignore international and national treaties with First Nations (such as UNDRIP and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada) (319) and calls from the BC Union of Indian Chiefs to “stay home,” (320) and instead push through an environmentally catastrophic and legally sketchy pipeline through First Nation lands;
“Environmental advocates have reacted with outrage after a provincial energy minister in Canada said that coronavirus restrictions on public gatherings make it a ‘great time’ to push on with a contentious pipeline project. During a podcast hosted by the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, Alberta’s energy minister Sonya Savage was asked about the Trans Mountain expansion project, which is under construction despite despite fierce opposition from environmentalists and some Indigenous groups. ‘Now is a great time to be building a pipeline because you can’t have protests of more than 15 people,’ Savage said. ‘People are not going to have tolerance and patience for protests that get in the way of people working. People need jobs and those types of ideological protests that get in the way are not going to be tolerated by ordinary Canadians.’ Her comments prompted disbelief and indignation among environmentalists. ‘Wait, she said the true part out loud – they’re literally using covid as a cover to build pipelines because they know protest is impossible,’ tweeted the prominent climate activist Bill McKibben, who has long voiced opposition to the project. Walking Eagle News, an Indigenous satirical news site, tweeted: ‘We didn’t write this one. But holy shit, do we wish we had.’” (321)
This is all transpiring at the same time that the world’s largest wealth fund is divesting from fossil fuels (322) and demand for fossil fuels is so low that the world is running out of places to store it. (323) The fall in demand – and the subsequent fall in prices – signals the death of the non-renewable energy sector. (324) The renewable energy sector – such as the very promising hemp ethanol (325) shows signs of growth, such as a 2 billion dollar hemp ethanol plant being built in Prince George, BC. (326) Yet in spite of all this, the pipeline building in Canada proceeds full steam ahead.
Non-White Lives Don’t Matter
Then there are brutal reports coming from medical professionals and patients that seem, at first, too outrageous to be true. In spite of a global war against whistleblowers in the healthcare and research communities (327) there exists a video – circulating since early May – from a nurse named Nicole Sirotek, who is on the Nursing Practice Advisory Committee of Nevada (328) and moved to New York City to work on the front lines of the pandemic, (329) who says she’s witnessed doctors murdering minorities under the guise of poor care practices;
“‘Yes people are going to die of COVID, I know this. I am literally saying they’re murdering these people. And nobody cares because they’re all minorities and we’re in the f***ing hood and that’s not okay.’ . . . She says one patient died while waiting to go for an x-ray because a ventilator tube hadn’t been placed properly, and her attempts to warn other medics were ignored. ‘Literally only one side of his chest is inflating. He dies,’ she said. She described on occasion on which a resident doctor used a defibrillator – which administers an electric shock to the body to restart a stopped heart – on a man whose heart was already beating. ‘The resident starts doing chest compressions which is not what you do,’ she said. ‘I run to stop him. He f***ing defibrillates him and kills him. I was literally saying, ‘Can you stop him he’s going to kill that patient?’ And the director of nursing just shook his head and I turned around and he killed the dude.’” (330)
Similar stories of malpractice, murder and willful violations of the Hippocratic Oath have been circulating, from another nurse echoing similar statements passed on from an anonymous NYC nurse, (331) and yet ANOTHER New York Nurse with a similar story. (332)
Then there’s a woman named Gertrude Taveras who witnessed possible “lethal injections” – including possibly her own – on her deathbed, and to describe this injection on a voice message she left before she died that was circulated on YouTube. (333)
Then there is the matter of the New York nurses union suing the State of New York and two hospitals over their life-endangering policies and practices. (334) Nurses in Detroit, (335) Washington State, (336) New York State, (337) and New Jersey (338) have been fired for speaking out about COVID-19 related practices at their places of work. It’s very likely that similar problems exist everywhere, and concerns over paying for food and rent keep most healthcare professionals from speaking freely.
Fools Russian Where Angels Fear To Tread
Russia has violently arrested a doctor for the crime of drawing attention to poor health practices – similar to China’s crackdown on doctors mentioned in Part 1 – which has drawn the attention of Amnesty International:
“It is staggering that the Russian authorities appear to fear criticism more than the deadly COVID-19 pandemic. They justify the arrest and detention of Anastasia Vasilyeva on the pretext that she and her fellow medics violated travel restrictions – in fact they were attempting to deliver vital protective equipment to medics at a local hospital. By keeping her behind bars they expose their true motive – they are willing to punish health professionals who dare contradict the official Russian narrative and expose flaws in the public health system.” (339)
And similar to how the Chinese government hid the true extent of COVID-19 death rates there (see Part 1), there are indications that Russia’s COVID-19 problems are much worse than they are letting on. (340)
Masters Of War
The United Nations attempted to use the pandemic as an opportunity to create a global cease-fire through issuing a pro-cease-fire statement, but the United States has blocked that attempt, using the excuse that the UN statement refers to the WHO (not even by name), and the Trump administration blames the WHO for the pandemic – without evidence – which indicates that their rationale is a pretext rather than the actual reason. (341)
Thanks to US obstructionism, wars in Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya continue on, with no end in sight. (342)
Here Is Where A Dog Is Buried
The term “Här ligger en hund begraven” (translation: Here is where a dog is buried) is the Swedish equivalent to “something is rotten in the State of Denmark” – i.e. something is wrong, amiss, perhaps even corrupt. When you look at the Swedish approach to dealing with SARS-COV-2, something certainly stinks about it.
Sweden became one of the only countries in the world with little to no lockdown in response to the virus – aside from shutting down high schools and universities, recommending some social distancing, banning large gatherings, recommending limiting travel, and making it easier to take time off work for sickness. (343)
On April 30th, the WHO was calling Sweden a “model” for the rest of the world, and Swedish health policy experts were claiming that herd immunity would be achieved almost immediately;
“‘We think that up to 25% people in Stockholm have been exposed to coronavirus and are possibly immune,’ said Tegnell. ‘A recent survey from one of our hospitals in Stockholm found that 27% of staff there are immune. We could reach herd immunity in Stockholm within a matter of weeks.’” (344)
With a population of just over 10 million, Sweden (as of July 23rd) has the seventh highest per-million-people death rate from COVID-19 on the planet, with 561. Neighbouring Denmark, with nearly 5.8 million people, which did have a stricter lockdown, has the 38th highest per-million-people death rate, with 106. And the Czech Republic, with just over 10.7 million people, and with universal mask laws, has the 81st highest per-capita death rate, with 34. (345)
The two rationales Sweden used to justify their strategy – “to quickly acquire herd immunity” and “to protect the economy from damage” – have both turned out to have been unsuccessful. A study done in May indicated “only 7.3% of Stockholm’s inhabitants had developed Covid-19 antibodies by the end of April”, (346) a number which rose to 10% in June, and 17.6% by July, (347) far less than the estimated 70% to 90% infection levels to achieve herd immunity for COVID-19, according to most members of the medical establishment. (348)
As for the Swedish economy;
“For all the loss Swedes have endured, there has been no associated economic gain, which is what many claimed was the saving grace of the Swedish approach. According to the European Commission, Sweden’s economic forecast of a 6% reduction in GDP for 2020 is on par with its neighbors, Norway and Denmark who implemented much stricter lockdown measures.” (349)
To what can we attribute this unique Swedish health strategy? A connection to Malthusian philosophy that dates back to the 1880s? (350) A rise in far-right, callous, anti-immigrant politics? (351) Investment in vaccination that requires a maximum return? (352) The answer is probably a mix of the three. It’s reasonable to assume there is some overlap in evil, elite groups – in Sweden, and elsewhere.
Opening Up Economy Without Masks = Death
What is certain is that there are members of the political and medical establishment in various countries who are – for one reason or another – determined to ignore Sweden’s (and South Korea’s and Germany’s) (353) bad example – and the Czech Republic’s good example – of how to deal with this virus.
The US Federal Government has allowed States to re-open their economy, against the recommendations of health authorities, (354) and with no universal mask laws in place. By June 11th, at least 21 US States saw a rise in cases after the re-opening. (355) By July 17th the number of states with noticeable increases in cases rose to 43. (356)
Florida, for example, has seen a massive spike, with thousands of new cases each day. Florida began reopening its beaches in mid-April. (357) Between June 24th and July 17th, the daily new case rate in Florida has varied between 5004 cases and 15,300 cases per day. (358) At the same time, it seems that Florida has also been deleting non-resident deaths from it’s public databases, in order to appear to be handling the virus better than it really is. (359) On July 15th, it was announced that nearly one third of children tested for COVID-19 in Florida have tested positive. (360)
It’s not only the case rates that have gone up. The US daily death rate has increased between June 1st and July 15th in 20 US states. (361)
BC: Hiding Infections, Lying About Masks
British Columbia has been heralded by the New York Times as an exceptionally well-managed part of North America in terms of pandemic response, lavishing praise upon the Provincial Health Officer, Bonnie Henry. (362)
On Monday, May 4th, the BC Ministry of Health, of which Andrian Dix is the Minister of and Bonnie Henry is the senior public health official of, released a graphic to accompany their presentation: “COVID-19: Going Forward”. The presentation had to do with the reopening of sectors of the BC economy. The graphic appeared to indicate that COVID-19 cases in BC had dropped to zero, when in actual fact there were 53 new cases over the weekend, and hundreds of cases that had not resolved themselves. (363)
What’s worse, while masks were mentioned as a way to assist in avoiding infection in places where physical distancing could not take place, their efficacy was downplayed. They were deemed “less effective” than all other forms of controls, according to their power-point presentation. (364) In order to justify this mask-efficacy-minimalization position, Henry cites a report from Johns Hopkins University entitled “CAN A MASK PROTECT ME?” (365)
This document will be unpacked in the section on facemask safety and efficacy, below. As will be demonstrated, masks are the alternative to both the lockdowns that have ravaged the poorest workers, threatening them with homelessness and starvation, AND the mass graves the poorest members of society are, more and more, being dumped into.
It seems evident, to this author at least, that these police state and population cull efforts – manifesting in anti protest laws and tactics, mandatory vaccination laws, new methods of surveillance, unsanitary prisons, increased attacks on the poor, attacks on food security, multiple disinformation campaigns, blatantly racist policies, unjustifiable hospital protocols, continued war profiteering and indefensible pandemic response plans – are unlikely to be the result of incompetent leaders, just as the virus is quite unlikely to be the result of natural mutation. Events that transfer massive amounts of wealth and power to the already-wealthy and powerful are very seldom, if ever, accidental, regardless of the official story.
“Historical anchors such as the Black Death, and just within living memory at the time, the 1918 Spanish Flu could provide some clues as to what a biological weapons attack might be like, as could the imaginaries of science fiction.”
- Preventing ‘A Virological Hiroshima’: Cold War Press Coverage of Biological Weapons Disarmament, Brian Balmer, Alex Spelling, Caitríona McLeish, Journal of War & Culture Studies, 2016 (366)
As was mentioned in Part 1, evidence of prior knowledge is another indicator that COVID-19 was a lab-made bioweapon rather than a naturally emerging virus. Evidence of prior knowledge discussed in part 1 involved certain lessons from history that would facilitate predictable outcomes for policy-makers, along with the bizarre resemblance of the “Wuhan-400” virus in the Dean Koontz novel “The Eyes Of Darkness” to COVID-19, and the even spookier list of similarities between the current pandemic and the “Event 201” germ games held by Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Upon further examination, there are additional examples – from history, from other works of fiction, and from additional establishment “scenarios” – to consider.
Poorer Neighborhoods = Higher Death Tolls
Just like the Yellow Fever outbreak examined in part 1, most of the other outbreaks in history have confirmed the fact that diseases destroy the poor in far greater numbers than they do the rich;
“Poor neighbourhoods have the highest death tolls. Reformers’ maps from the 1800s demonstrated this in the United Kingdom (Edwin Chadwick, 1834) and France (Réné Villermé, 1832). The same pattern has emerged in 2020 in New York (the Bronx) and Montréal (North Montréal).” (367)
The evidence of bioweapons – as well as poverty itself – being inherent class war weapons is overwhelming. The statistics regarding “diseases of poverty” tell a sad tale:
“Diseases of poverty (also known as poverty related diseases) are diseases that are more prevalent in low-income populations. They include infectious diseases, as well as diseases related to malnutrition and poor health behaviors. Poverty is one of the major social determinants of health. The World Health Report, 2002 states that diseases of poverty account for 45% of the disease burden in the countries with high poverty rate which are preventable or treatable with existing interventions. Diseases of poverty are often co-morbid and ubiquitous with malnutrition. . . . Together, diseases of poverty kill approximately 14 million people annually. Gastroenteritis with its associated diarrhea results in about 1.8 million deaths in children yearly with most of these in the world’s poorest nations. At the global level, the three primary PRDs are tuberculosis, AIDS/HIV and malaria. Developing countries account for 95% of the global AIDS prevalence and 98% of active tuberculosis infections. Furthermore, 90% of malaria deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa. Together, these three diseases account for 10% of global mortality.” (368)
Given how predictable the effects of disease are on the poor, it is not an exaggeration to state that all bio-warfare is a form of class warfare, and any group of people who created a disease in a laboratory that they planned on releasing would have known the effects on poor people ahead of time.
Forced Vaccination Raids Also Target The Poor
History tells of smallpox epidemics that occurred in the New York City area between 1892 and 1894, and again between 1901 and 1903. Teams of vaccinators swarmed the apartments of poor people and immigrants, forcing vaccinations, instituting quarantines, and sometimes hauling people away to be quarantined in sub-standard accommodations. In the case of the 1892 epidemic, instances of quarantines that prevented food deliveries from occurring were recorded. (369)
In 1901, the anti-vaccination squads focused mainly on poor and immigrant families, in order to avoid a backlash from the wealthy, who could afford lawyers;
“How could New York City’s health authorities convince people to undergo this procedure when it was so widely feared and little understood, and how could they make such a thing compulsory—even for only the highest risk populations—without being demonized by an increasingly anti-vaccination public? Their strategy centered on low income—often immigrant—neighborhoods, and it came with a rash of misinformation.” (370)
This focus on using epidemics as a weapon against immigrants can be seen today in the current policy of various elements of the US government in blaming migrant farm workers on the outbreak, (371) and deporting COVID-19 positive immigrants to Haiti and Guatemala. (372)
In 1893, a landmark ruling was handed down by a New York State judge. Judge Bartlett ruled that, while the state could mandate vaccinations for school children, it could not make vaccinations mandatory for all citizens;
“To vaccinate a person against his will, without legal authority to do so, would be an assault.” (373)
This progress in the evolution of human medical autonomy would be undone by the US Supreme Court in 1905, when in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the government found the support it needed for forced vaccination raids and island quarantines, when the court affirmed;
“the right of the majority to override individual liberties when the health of the community requires it.” (374)
Unfortunately, this 1905 case stands to this day as the leading case in the matter.
1919 Anti-Mask League of San Francisco: Protesting Against Mask Efficacy
In the case of the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu pandemic, officials in San Francisco ended the ordinance that required face coverings in November of 1918, transforming it into a recommendation. Predictable consequences ensued:
“But three weeks after that celebration of removing their masks, the city saw a dramatic resurgence. Officials at first rejected the idea of reopening the city and suggested residents could voluntarily wear face coverings. But shortly after the New Year in 1919, the city was hit with 600 new cases in one day, prompting the Board of Supervisors to re-enact the mandatory mask ordinance. Protests against the mandate eventually led to the formation of the Anti-Mask League. The detractors eventually got their way when the order was lifted in February.” (375)
612 new cases were found on January 10, and the surge prompted Hassler to push for a reinstated mask law. On January 17, it was made official. (376) Like today, there was a suggestion that reasons other than public safety and civil liberties for the creation of the Anti-Mask League were at play;
“The president of the League, suffragette, attorney, and labor rights activist Mrs. E.C. Harrington, was a fierce critic of the mayor, and it has been suggested that the anti-mask league protests were politically motivated.” (377)
The lifting of the mask ordinance in late November 1918 allowed a second wave of the disease to wash across San Francisco. (378) Journalists at the time are united with today’s researchers regarding the efficacy of masks in reducing both the first and second spikes and limiting the Spanish Flu pandemic in San Francisco. Due to the amount of controversy that the mask issue elicits today, and also due to the potential of masks to prevent a horrible dystopian nightmare from unfolding with a minimal amount of effort, a full review of the historical record is warranted.
“Friends of the ‘flu’ mask saw it vindicated today. Since the masks were donned the average in new cases has decreased from something over 500 daily to 118 yesterday. Deaths have dropped from nearly 40 daily to 11.” (379)
“During the 1918–19 influenza pandemic, wearing a mask became mandatory for police forces, medical workers, and even residents in some US cities, although its use was often controversial. Yet in cities like San Francisco, the decline in deaths from influenza was partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies.” (380)
“What is clear is that communities that implemented stronger health measures overall fared better than those that didn’t. ‘Today we can look back and see that they flattened the curve and the communities that did enforce much stricter regulations and for a longer period of time and began earlier had lower death rates,’ Bristow says.” (381)
“These findings demonstrate a strong association between early, sustained, and layered application of nonpharmaceutical interventions and mitigating the consequences of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in the United States. In planning for future severe influenza pandemics, nonpharmaceutical interventions should be considered for inclusion as companion measures to developing effective vaccines and medications for prophylaxis and treatment. . . . Nonpharmaceutical interventions were grouped into 3 major categories: school closure; public gathering bans; and isolation and quarantine. We also considered an additional general category of ancillary nonpharmaceutical interventions (eg, altering work schedules, limited closure or regulations of businesses, transportation restrictions, public risk communications, face mask ordinances).” (382)
“In early December 1918, the Times newspaper in London reported that it had been established, by doctors in the United States, that the influenza was ‘contact-borne and consequently preventable.’ The Times noted that in one London hospital all staff and patients had been issued with, and instructed to constantly wear, face masks. The newspaper cited the successes of face masks on one ship. The ocean liner sailing between the United States and England had suffered a terrible infection rate coming from New York, the Times reported. When returning to the United States, the captain instituted a face-mask order for crew and passengers, after having read about their use in San Francisco. . . . Science journalist Laura Spinney, author of the 2017 book ‘The Pale Rider: The Spanish Flu of 1918 and How it Changed the World,’ notes that after their experiences in Manchuria in 1911, the Japanese took swiftly to wearing masks in public in 1918. The Japanese authorities argued that masks were a courteous gesture in protecting others from germs and had been effective in previous, more localized, outbreaks of disease in Japan. And mask wearing did seem to have a flattening effect on infection rates.” (383)
“In 1918, when cities removed these social distancing orders and closure orders, in cities that faced another spike in cases when the epidemic wasn’t quite done yet, it was almost impossible to reimplement closure orders a second time, because the business community in particular and residents overall pushed back so much. Today, if we’re not gonna do things like socially distance whenever possible, if we’re not going to wear masks while in public and get widespread compliance, I don’t see how we mitigate the pandemic as it rolls on.” (384)
Those that insist on ignoring this historical record condemn themselves – and the rest of us – to repeat it. It is in everyone’s interest that this record becomes common knowledge.
Blame Scapegoats For Disease = Win Elections
A side effect of the Spanish Flu in Germany was that the Nazi party tended to do better in elections held in areas hardest hit by the pandemic. As was explored in Part 1, the Nazis blamed the Jews for the spread of typhus – even going so far as to make posters blaming them for it in 1941 – and then in 1941 and 1942 the Nazis experimented on death camp inmates by injecting them with typhus (and malaria) to test vaccines. This disease-based scapegoating not only made genocide easier in the 1940s, but also might have helped them seize power in the early 1930s;
“The findings come amid concerns about a rise in anti-Semitic abuse fueled by the coronavirus pandemic. The Anti-Defamation League has reported a spike in rhetoric falsely accusing Jewish people or Israel of manufacturing or spreading the virus to maintain control over the world. Jews were similarly blamed for the bubonic plague in the 14th century — a smear that may have helped the Nazis in the 20th century. The Fed researchers found a stronger correlation between flu deaths and right-wing extremist voting ‘in regions that had historically blamed minorities, particularly Jews, for medieval plagues,’ Blickle wrote.” (385)
“. . . influenza deaths of 1918 are correlated with an increase in the share of votes won by right-wing extremists, such as the National Socialist Workers party (aka. the Nazi party), in the crucial elections of 1932 and 1933.” (386)
We do know that I.G. Farben was the main campaign contributor to the Nazi party for those elections, (387) and we also know that Hitler had blamed the Jews for spreading infections in his 1925 Nazi how-to book, Mein Kampf. (388) And we also know that the famous diarist Anne Frank died in a Nazi death camp – not in a gas chamber, but of typhus. (389)
Today’s demagogues may be counting on the same disease/scapegoating-based electoral strategy to motivate their hateful, ignorant bases into providing an enthusiastic voter turnout – at least from those who manage to survive the pandemic. Already, the Jew-blaming has begun. (390)
Of course, it’s not just the Jews that are being scapegoated. In India, it’s Muslims;
“Take India, where the spread of the virus has been dubbed a ‘corona jihad’ by supporters of the far-right BJP government; they claim the pandemic is a conspiracy by Muslims to infect and poison Hindus. The government itself has blamed around a third of India’s confirmed Covid-19 cases on a gathering held in Delhi by a conservative Muslim missionary group called the Tablighi Jamaat; one BJP minister called it a ‘Talibani crime.’ As The Guardian reports, ‘Muslims have now seen their businesses across India boycotted, volunteers distributing rations called ‘coronavirus terrorists’, and others accused of spitting in food and infecting water supplies with the virus. Posters have appeared barring Muslims from entering certain neighbourhoods in states as far apart as Delhi, Karnataka, Telangana and Madhya Pradesh.’ There have even been reports of Indian Muslims being attacked, beaten, and lynched.” (391)
And in places like France and Quebec, Canada, religious face-coverings are banned while at the same time COVID-19-related masks are recommended, or in the case of France, mandatory;
“On April 9, the Supreme Court of Canada denied an appeal filed by civil rights groups to suspend portions of Bill 21, the discriminatory Quebec bill banning religious symbols from being worn at work by certain government workers, until the constitutional challenge to the bill is heard on its merits at the Quebec Superior Court. . . . To be clear: one day after celebrating the Bill 21 appeal’s failure at the Supreme Court, Legault commended the precautionary measures being taken by Quebecers in the fight against COVID-19, which include recommendations to wear face coverings in public.” (392)
“This hypocrisy is most stark in the example of France, where the government made all religious face coverings illegal in 2011. On 10 May 2020 they made Covid-19 face coverings mandatory with penalty fines for those who disobey. Burqas are still banned.” (393)
Scapegoating happens everywhere. If humans are to evolve into a sustainable species, the ability to identify scapegoating and separate truly harmful activities and groups from not-inherently-harmful ones will have to be improved in every nation, and every sector of society.
Death Imitates Art
In the fiction department, there is the American television show “The Dead Zone”. In season 2, episode 14 – entitled “Plague” – the plot centers around a “coronavirus” from China that appears to only be treatable with Hydroxycholoroquine. (394) The author of the episode, Jill Ellen Blotevogel, was interviewed recently and asked about her inspiration for the plot;
“My goal for the [Dead Zone] plotline was to come up with a cure that would have taken weeks or months or years to find through normal medical research – an outlier/rare possibility. In my research, I found an actual case where someone who was suffering from malaria as well as a coronavirus was treated with an anti-malarial drug that happened to kill his virus as well. It was one very isolated case that gave me an interesting solution for my FICTIONAL plotline.” (395)
The author of the episode may have considered her work as “fictional”, but the method she used to arrive at a potential treatment for her novel coronavirus was unhampered by considerations of profit, and thus came closer to reality than the current medical establishment does.
V For Virus
The 2005 film “V For Vendetta”, unlike the comic book it was based on, had a particular plot element that explained the fascistic, dystopian nightmare world it was situated in – with more than one similarity to the current situation;
“Finch searches for V’s true identity, tracing him to a bioweapons program in Larkhill. Finch meets William Rookwood, who tells him about the program. Fourteen years earlier, Sutler, Secretary of Defence at the time, launched a secret project at Larkhill which resulted in the creation of the St. Mary’s virus. Creedy, the current leader of the Norsefire party, suggested releasing the virus onto the UK. Targeting St. Mary’s School, a tube station and a water treatment plant, the virus killed more than 100,000 people. The outbreak was blamed on a terrorist organisation. Norsefire used the wave of fear and chaos to elevate Sutler to the office of High Chancellor and win an overwhelming majority in Parliament, taking control of the country, as well as profiting off the cure for the virus.” (396)
The dystopian setting with the racist, immigrant-hating, authoritarian state as the antagonist was supposed to have taken place in the near future – the year 2020, to be exact. (397)
Dark Winter And The Darkest Winter
In July of 2001, a germ game scenario called “Dark Winter” (398) involving a smallpox bioweapons attack which was to have supposedly taken place in Oklahoma, Georgia and Pennsylvania – was held at Andrews Air Force Base just southeast of Washington, DC. (399) The scenario involved two suspected perpetrators: Iraq and “terrorist groups based in Afghanistan”;
“Still, no group claims responsibility for unleashing the deadly smallpox virus. But NCN has learned that Iraq may have provided the technology behind the attack to terrorist groups based in Afghanistan.” (400)
Keep in mind this was just 2 months before the US would blame the 9/11 attacks on terrorist groups based in Afghanistan – and also try to blame the attacks on Iraq (401) – and 3 months before the October 2001 anthrax attacks would be attempted to be pinned on both groups. (402)
Dark Winter was co-hosted by Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security – the same organization that co-hosted Event 201 in 2019 (403) – along with other bio-terror-focused Washington think tanks. And just like Event 201, (404) scripted TV news clips were created to accompany the Dark Winter scenario – to make it seem more real. (405)
The exercise resulted in five key findings, including “An attack on the United States with biological weapons could threaten vital national security interests”, “Current organizational structures and capabilities are not well suited for the management of a biowarfare attack”, and “There is no surge capability in the U.S. healthcare and public health systems, or in the pharmaceutical and vaccine industries.” The last two findings are of particular interest to a student of today’s pandemic:
- “Dealing with the media will be a major immediate challenge for all levels of government.
Dark Winter revealed that information management and communication (e.g., dealing with the press effectively, communication with citizens, maintaining the information flows necessary for command and control at all institutional levels) will be a critical element in crisis/consequence management. For example, participants worried that it would not be possible to forcibly impose vaccination or travel restrictions on large groups of the population without their general cooperation. To gain that cooperation, the President and other leaders in Dark Winter recognized the importance of persuading their constituents that there was fairness in the distribution of vaccine and other scarce resources, that the disease-containment measures were for the general good of society, that all possible measures were being taken to prevent the further spread of the disease, and that the government remained firmly in control despite the expanding epidemic.
- Should a contagious bioweapon pathogen be used, containing the spread of disease will present significant ethical, political, cultural, operational, and legal challenges.
In Dark Winter, some members advised the imposition of geographic quarantines around affected areas, but the implications of these measures (e.g., interruption of the normal flow of medicines, food and energy supplies, and other critical needs) were not clearly understood at first. In the end, it is not clear whether such draconian measures would have led to a more effective interruption of disease spread. What’s more allocation of scarce resources necessitated some degree of rationing, creating conflict and significant debate between participants representing competing interests.” (406)
Right off the bat, it is interesting to note that forced vaccination – arguably the most extreme and most-often opposed and resisted measure – is characterized as “crisis management”, whereas the far less extreme measure of geographic quarantines is characterized as “draconian”. Secondly, the emphasis on persuasion (propaganda) in the implementation of forced vaccination resembles “recommendation 7” in the 7 recommendations that came out of Event 201 – except persuasion has now morphed into “countering misinformation” – in other words, addressing the inevitable debunking of propaganda through social media that is to be expected in this day and age:
“Governments and the private sector should assign a greater priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response. Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation. This will require developing the ability to flood media with fast, accurate, and consistent information. Public health authorities should work with private employers and trusted community leaders such as faith leaders, to promulgate factual information to employees and citizens. Trusted, influential private-sector employers should create the capacity to readily and reliably augment public messaging, manage rumors and misinformation, and amplify credible information to support emergency public communications. National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages. For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though the use of technology.” (407)
Interestingly, one of the participants of Dark Winter – James Woolsey, one of the CIA directors under Bill Clinton, (408) went on to become a long-time hemp advocate and a board member of the North American Industrial Hemp Council, (409) then from 2002 to 2008 the Vice President of the privately-run spy organization Booz Allen Hamilton (where Edward Snowden was employed), (410) and eventually (in 2020) becoming a consultant at Jay Pharma, (411) a pharmaceutical firm that specializes in high CBD cannabis strain production. (412)
Then there is the matter of the recent testimony of Dr. Rick Bright. Dr. Bright was director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority – BARDA – from 2016 until April 20th, 2020. (413) BARDA is a civilian, federal entity within the sprawling US Biodefense industrial complex, under the control of the department of Health and Human Services. While saying some good things that could be interpreted as vaccine skepticism (but more likely just stressing the importance of vaccine quality-control and caution) and the importance of masks, (414) Dr. Bright also described chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as “potentially harmful”. (415) But the most revealing moment of his testimony was when Dr. Bright alluded to the germ games of 19 years ago;
“Without better planning, 2020 could be the darkest winter in modern history.” (416)
One must assume that all these officials within the US Biodefense industrial complex are well-versed in germ-game lore, and have the lessons of these games – manifested in their key findings and recommendations – in mind at all times.
Anticipating Mindless Obedience
In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation – along with the (now defunked) Global Business Network – released a report entitled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”. One of the four scenarios was a pandemic-based dystopian nightmare named “Lockstep”. The Lockstep scenario involved a naturally-emerging flu virus that arose from wild geese in 2012, quickly infected 20 percent of the world’s population and killed 8 million people in 7 months.
I would remind readers that the definition of “lockstep” is basically to perform some function such as march in formation with mindless obedience. (417) Aside from expecting mindless obedience, there were other themes that students of COVID-19-related current events have now become familiar with:
“China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world ﬂexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of facemasks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensiﬁed. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a ﬁrmer grip on power. At ﬁrst, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw ﬁt. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.” (418)
Bill Gates, a big fan of the Rockefeller Foundation and its work, (419) is also a big fan of biometric IDs, (420) and “digital health passports”. (421)
Having helped to host Event 201 back in October of 2019, where a frightening amount of accurate predictions regarding the outbreak that was simultaneously beginning were made, Bill Gates appeared on the Late Show with Steven Colbert in April of 2020, and indicated yet again that he was a fountain of foreknowledge.
First, Gates mentioned something about “Pandemic 2” – hinting that there may be another virus that was locked & loaded and ready for release. Perhaps he meant that the pneumonic plague (AKA the “black death”), three cases of which appeared briefly in China at exactly the same time COVID-19 first appeared, might be given another chance to appear. (422) Or perhaps it’s a reference to the new “unknown pneumonia” that has recently emerged in Kazakhstan. (423)
Regardless of which “Pandemic 2” he means, Gates’ statement involves a frightening element of certainty about it:
“The idea of a bioterrorist attack is kind of the nightmare scenario because there, a pathogen with a high death rate would be picked. Now the good news is . . . most of the work we’re going to do to be ready for ‘Pandemic 2’ – I call this ‘Pandemic 1’ – most of the work we’ll do to be ready for that are also the things we need to do to minimize the threat of bioterrorism.” (424)
In the first part of the same interview, as an added bonus, Gates made what seems like a massive Freudian slip when he called vaccination “the Final Solution” to the COVID-19 pandemic. (425) Of course, the last time the corporate-supported believers in eugenics came up with a final solution to anything, millions died in the Holocaust. (426)
Facemask Safety And Efficacy
As was indicated by data coming out of the Spanish Flu of 1918-1919, facemasks can be a way to reduce both the death rate and the infection rate of a major pandemic with very little risk to health or to civil rights. But it appears that the Malthusian Death Cult and Orwellian police state engineers mentioned in Part 1 wish to exploit the natural human impulse to resist being told what to do and what to wear in order to increase the amount of carnage resulting from SARS-COV-2. Also, the higher the infected rate, the bigger the vaccine sales, which also might explain the establishment’s mixed messages to the public regarding masks. Still, it may instead just be the usual total incompetence typically displayed by anyone in a position of responsibility that results in bad mask policy. It’s a tough call.
WHO Downplays Masks
The BC Ministry of Health, heralded as the gold standard in the mass media for COVID-19 management, cites a Johns Hopkins article from April 2nd, “Can a mask protect me?”, as a source of their masks-aren’t-very-important strategy. (427)
The article they cite seems to be written by a couple of Environmental Health and Engineering Professors who have heard of asymptomatic transmission, but do not apply this knowledge to the subject:
“The most effective means to prevent exposures to COVID-19 is through elimination – physically removing the hazard (COVID-19). For workplaces deemed necessary, such as hospitals, supermarkets, and banks, this means making sure workers are not coming in when they are ill or have potentially been exposed to others who are ill. In this way, we can eliminate (to the best of our ability) the means of transmission among the workers.” (428)
Just to emphasize this point again: The BC Health Ministry is basing their “masks aren’t important” COVID-19 strategy on an article that was written by a couple professors who think the most effective strategy is to not come in when one feels sick.
They then go on to mention asymptomatic transmission, which proves the advice they just gave was dangerous;
“Social isolation is especially important in the context of COVID-19 because many individuals are asymptomatic and can, unknowingly, spread the virus any time they leave their home.” (429)
The authors go on to discuss masks themselves;
“The final, and LEAST effective control strategy is Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) – protecting workers with masks, gloves and other equipment. It is tempting to use PPE as the first line of defense, because it is (typically) readily available and inexpensive, but in reality, PPE is the least effective strategy because it relies on adequate supplies and proper and continuous use, which is difficult to achieve. . . . The use of homemade masks has gained a lot of attention on social media to help individuals reduce their risk of exposure to COVID-19. This is because when we cough, sneeze, and even talk, we all emit droplets into the air—small drops of moisture from the upper respiratory system—of various sizes. These droplets may carry viruses like the one that causes COVID-19. But there are two important things to consider: 1) Can the homemade masks remove virus-containing droplets? and 2) Will the homemade masks be used correctly to limit virus exposure? Homemade masks may remove some virus-containing droplets, but cannot remove them to the extent that PPE can. Thus, using homemade masks will still expose people to some risk. Furthermore, the use of PPE without some training may reduce their effectiveness and may enhance risk if contaminated masks are not handled properly. Perhaps you’ve seen someone at the grocery store wearing gloves, but still touching their face and using their cellphone. The virus does not penetrate the skin, so if someone is still spreading the virus to their face and high touch surfaces, the gloves provided no benefit. The use of disposable goods like gloves can also lead to unnecessary environmental pollution. Incorrectly used homemade masks could spread virus when people touch the mask then their face or other surfaces. Using homemade masks could also give people a false sense of security making them more likely to go out than if they didn’t have a mask, while providing only limited protection. Homemade masks are not traditional PPE.” (430)
The level of ignorance displayed by these authors is astounding. They must think that those who do not attend four years of med school are unable to properly follow face-covering-related instructions.
One need only look at the data coming out of countries with mandatory mask laws in place to understand that homemade masks are both safe and effective when dealing with SARS-COV-2. Some of this data existed before the April 2nd Johns Hopkins article came out, which inspired pro-mask public policies that also came into effect before April 2nd – which means that the researchers at Johns Hopkins had no excuse for dropping the ball. Take, for example, the Czech Republic – the first country in Europe to require the use of masks by the general public:
“The growth of coronavirus cases has ‘flattened’ in the Czech Republic ever since the country’s government has made masks compulsory, claimed data scientist Jeremy Howard. In the Czech Republic, the growth of news is low whereas in other parts of Europe the pandemic is largely out of control. This occurred after the government announced it was compulsory to wear something covering a part of your mouth and nose when leaving your residences – such as a home-made mask or a scarf on March 18. Howard claimed that ‘one of the key reasons for the decrease in the growth of the cases is a massive country-wide community initiative to create and wear home-made masks,’. In just 10 days, the country went from no mask usage to nearly 100 per cent usage, with nearly all the masks made at home with easily accessible materials, like old t-shirts. . . . Howard claimed that in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan as theses countries are using masks to prevent the spread of the disease. ‘In South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan there is no lock-down. Yet COVID-19 is being controlled in these countries. How has this happened? One of the key reasons is that mask-wearing in public is ubiquitous and socially expected,’ Howard said.” (431)
The Czech Republic overcame a mask shortage by encouraging people to make their own masks, beginning on March 19th. (432) They achieved such a great success with this policy, that it was just 19 days later – on April 7th – that they began easing restrictions. Most restrictions were lifted by May 11th. (433) As of July 19th, the Czech Republic’s cases per million statistic was 1294, and their deaths per million statistic was 33. (434)
Or take, say, Austria:
“The number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in Austria dropped from 90 to 10 cases per one million people, two weeks after the government required everyone to wear a face mask on April 6.” (435)
As of July 19th, Austria’s cases per million statistic was 2182, and their deaths per million statistic was 79.
In Slovakia, where the elected representatives of the people modeled the proper behavior and regularly wore masks, (436) as of July 19th, their cases per million statistic was 362, and their deaths per million statistic was just 5.
Compare that to Canada, where as of July 19th, the Prime Minister of Canada, who sometimes wears a mask, presides over 2913 cases and 234 deaths per million. The Prime Minister of the UK (4331 cases and 667 deaths per million), and the President of the United States (11579 cases and 432 deaths per million) almost never wear a mask.
Germany, famous the world over for cutting edge medical services and technology, still did not out-perform mask-wearing nations. On March 6th, the German Health Minister ruled out “restrictions on travel” and the EU and Robert Koch Institute emphasized that masks “should not be used by healthy private persons”. When lockdown restrictions eased for religious groups in May, they held services without masks, and had an outbreak of 107 individuals from just one church. (437) As of July 19th, Germany’s cases per million was 2417, and their death per million statistic was 109.
In contrast to Germany, Japan’s government organized the distribution of masks to the public and recommended masks be worn during all conversations. (438) As of July 19th, Japan’s cases per million statistic was 191, and their deaths per million statistic was 8.
In Hong Kong, masks were credited for keeping deaths to a minimum:
“Wearing masks in public has been ingrained in Hong Kongers’ collective psyche since the deadly severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic of 2003, and experts now believe the habit helped the city of 7.4 million keep its Covid-19 numbers down to 845, with four deaths as of Friday.” (439)
hat quote was from April 4th. As of July 19th, Hong Kong’s cases per million statistic was 251, and their deaths per million statistic was 2.
Masks Dissed By Medical Establishment
On February 29th, the U.S. Surgeon General sent out the following tweet:
“Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!” (440)
And on March 8th, Dr. Anthony Fauci made the following statement on CBS television:
“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” (441)
The website Factcheck.org attempted to explain away this non-factual statement with another non-factual statement – by arguing that “in early March” it was “just not known” that asymptomatic transmission was a thing. (442)
On April 6th, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam reversed her advice on masks, stating that evidence of presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission only came to light “in the last 10 days or so”. (443)
Similarly, on April 13th, the Surgeon General was asked to explain the April 3rd flip flop on masks by the WHO, the CDC and himself, and he argued that they were all operating on the “best evidence available”. (444)
All these explanations are demonstrably false. By February 29th, a lot had already been published regarding how COVID-19 could be passed around through asymptomatic transmission. (445) (446) (447) (448) More evidence of asymptomatic transmission was released by March 8th. (449) And still more has been released since. (450) (451) (452) (453) (454)
Health care professionals that don’t advise people to wear masks ignore a pile of evidence of facemask efficacy, in relation to the seasonal flu, (455) (456) to SARS, (457) (458) and to SARS-COV-2. (459) (460) (461) (462) (463) (464) (465) (466) (467) (468) (469) (470) (471) (472) (473)
In spite of this massive pile of evidence, at late as June 1st, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons was recommending that people not use masks, arguing that if masks worked, the virus would have been contained in Asia, (474)
ignoring the fact that by the time the first indications of asymptomatic transmission were written about – January 24th (475) – Chinese New Year (the biggest migration of human beings on planet earth) (476) would be the next day (477) – far too late in the game to prevent the widespread dissemination of the virus, but not too late to announce a global mask policy to minimize the impact.
The CDC – as late as June 29th – has announced that nothing can be done to contain the virus from spreading further in the United States:
“With the current level of spread, Schuchat said the U.S. public should ‘expect this virus to continue to circulate.’ She added that people can help to curb the spread of infection by practicing social distancing, wearing a mask and washing their hands, but no one should count on any kind of relief to stop the virus until there’s a vaccine.” (478)
This has now been contradicted by an even more recent announcement from the CDC director, that the virus could be under control 4 to 8 weeks if everyone in the US wears a mask. (479)
Unbelievably, as of July 29th, the WHO still maintains the following fiction on their website:
“If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection” (480)
We know masks work because of the historical data, the general population stats, the information about asymptomatic transmission and the reports of mask efficacy in relation to SARS-COV-2. But we also know that mask work because of evidence regarding airborne transmission, droplet size, and the effects of various viral loads on health outcomes.
Airborne Evidence: Nothing To Sneeze At
Some officials even question if COVID-19 is airborne. For example, on March 23rd, Alberta Health Services issued a notice stating that:
“Studies done to date have demonstrated no evidence of SARS-CoV- 2 in air samples at the bedside . . . ” (481)
And the Deputy provincial health officer of British Columbia, as late as June 1st, said:
“‘There is absolutely no evidence that this disease is airborne, and we know that if it were airborne, then the measures that we took to control COVID-19 would not have worked,’ Dr. Reka Gustafson, B.C.’s deputy provincial health officer, told CTV Morning Live Monday.” (482)
These positions were reinforced by a WHO report from March 29th, which said much the same thing. (483) But the science wasn’t settled. Not even in March. One March 26th JAMA study indicated sneezes could send SARS-COV-2 as far as 8 meters – or 27 feet. (484) Another study came out April 10th suggesting airborne transmission. (485) And another on May 13th:
“Speech droplets generated by asymptomatic carriers of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are increasingly considered to be a likely mode of disease transmission. Highly sensitive laser light scattering observations have revealed that loud speech can emit thousands of oral fluid droplets per second. In a closed, stagnant air environment, they disappear from the window of view with time constants in the range of 8 to 14 min, which corresponds to droplet nuclei of ca. 4 μm diameter, or 12- to 21-μm droplets prior to dehydration. These observations confirm that there is a substantial probability that normal speaking causes airborne virus transmission in confined environments.” (486)
This conclusion was confirmed by another study on June 11th:
“We have elucidated the transmission pathways of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by analyzing the trend and mitigation measures in the three epicenters. Our results show that the airborne transmission route is highly virulent and dominant for the spread of COVID-19. The mitigation measures are discernable from the trends of the pandemic. Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic. This protective measure significantly reduces the number of infections. Other mitigation measures, such as social distancing implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public. Our work also highlights the necessity that sound science is essential in decision-making for the current and future public health pandemics.” (487)
The fact is, scientists had known about coronaviruses being airborne for a very long time – since at least the mid 1980s. (488) Scientists have also known that SARS was airborne since 2003. (489) (490) (491) (492) (493)
If this unaccredited, high-school graduate author could find evidence of asymptomatic SARS-COV-2 transmission, facemask efficacy against influenza, SARS and SARS-COV-2 and airborne coronavirus, SARS and SARS-COV-2 transmission just from doing a few months worth of research, healthcare professionals with years of formal education and decades of experience have absolutely no excuse not to know this information.
It’s Not Virus Size, It’s Droplet Size
One of the most commonly-produced arguments by the mask skeptics is that the SARS-COV-2 virus is much too small to be caught in any sort of mask:
“This virus is really, really small. It is 0.125 microns. And even an N95 respirator . . . can not filter out a coronavirus COVID19 particulate. They go down to the smallest size an N95 mask will filter is 0.3 microns.” (494)
But this virus doesn’t just jump from person to person using it’s own little legs, it rides droplets of saliva, mucus and other body fluids. While it’s true that N95 masks provide “at least 95%” filtration efficiency “at 0.3 microns”, (495) the longest that a smallish droplet of saliva tends to linger in the air is 14 minutes, (496) which is typical of a droplet 20 microns in size (497) – around 67 times larger than the smallest thing caught in an N95 mask.
Studies that are helpful to understanding the true nature of SARS-COV-2 transmissibility understand the difference between the virus and the droplets, and that tests involving things that don’t ride droplets – “nonbiological particles” – won’t tell us if masks are effective against SARS-COV-2, which does ride droplets;
“However, most of the existing evidence on the filtering efficacy of face masks and respirators comes from in vitro experiments with nonbiological particles, which may not be generalizable to infectious respiratory virus droplets. There is little information on the efficacy of face masks in filtering respiratory viruses and reducing viral release from an individual with respiratory infections, and most research has focused on influenza. Here we aimed to explore the importance of respiratory droplet and aerosol routes of transmission with a particular focus on coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses, by quantifying the amount of respiratory virus in exhaled breath of participants with medically attended ARIs and determining the potential efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory virus transmission. . . . Our findings indicate that surgical masks can efficaciously reduce the emission of influenza virus particles into the environment in respiratory droplets, but not in aerosols. Both the previous and current study used a bioaerosol collecting device, the Gesundheit-II (G-II), to capture exhaled breath particles and differentiated them into two size fractions, where exhaled breath coarse particles >5 μm (respiratory droplets) were collected by impaction with a 5-μm slit inertial Teflon impactor and the remaining fine particles ≤5 μm (aerosols) were collected by condensation in buffer. We also demonstrated the efficacy of surgical masks to reduce coronavirus detection and viral copies in large respiratory droplets and in aerosols (Table 1b). This has important implications for control of COVID-19, suggesting that surgical face masks could be used by ill people to reduce onward transmission.” (498)
That’s fine for those who have N95 masks, but what about bandanas? While not as effective as N95 or even a CVS cone-face commercial mask, a single-layer bandana has been shown to reduce the jet distance of a cough by more than half that of an uncovered face. (499)
Which leads to the next point – that preventing a full load of virus with some protection actually results in better health outcomes – which explains why home-made masks worked in the Czech Republic to minimize the impact of the pandemic in that country.
Lower Viral Loads = Better Health Outcomes
Most people who misunderstand the facemask efficacy issue see a photo of a BSL-4 pressure suit and figure anything less than that will be ineffective to prevent COVID-19 from ravishing their immune systems. The reality is far more nuanced.
It has long been understood – and has been recently re-affirmed – that lowering the amount of inoculum – or viral load – that is introduced into the body at one time gives the immune system more time to react, which leads to better health outcomes:
“Research shows that even a cotton mask dramatically reduces the number of virus particles emitted from our mouths—by as much as 99 percent. This reduction provides two huge benefits. Fewer virus particles mean that people have a better chance of avoiding infection, and if they are infected, the lower viral-exposure load may give them a better chance of contracting only a mild illness.” (500)
“Humans also exhibit sensitivity to viral dose. Volunteers have allowed themselves to be exposed to low or high doses of relatively benign viruses causing colds or diarrhea. Those receiving the low doses have rarely developed visible signs of infection, while high doses have typically led to infections and more severe symptoms.” (501)
This research has been done on SARS-COV-2 itself:
“The mean viral load of severe cases was around 60 times higher than that of mild cases, suggesting that higher viral loads might be associated with severe clinical outcomes.” (502)
The solution to the problem of high viral loads – apart from avoiding enclosed spaces with yelling or singing crowds – is to wear a mask:
“Apart from avoiding crowded indoor spaces, the most effective thing people can do is wear masks, all of the experts said. Even if masks don’t fully shield you from droplets loaded with virus, they can cut down the amount you receive, and perhaps bring it below the infectious dose.” (503)
It’s easy to learn how to use a mask properly – there are plenty of tutorials on YouTube. It’s not rocket surgery. (504) Scientists know that wearing a facemask is not typically dangerous, unless one is wearing a tight-fitting mask for a long period of time during strenuous physical activity, or if one wears a tight-fitting mask and has difficulty breathing to begin with (easy fix – don’t wear a tight-fitting mask in these instances), or if one doesn’t know how to throw a bandana in the wash or spray hydrogen peroxide or alcohol onto an non washable mask, or rotate masks to let them dry out, or expose them to sunlight for long enough to kill microbes.
Many websites have provided data which debunks the typical facemask safety misinformation. (505) Links with collections of studies have been circulating with titles such as “Baylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy” (506) and “Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD.” (507)
These articles look very official and impressive, but they ignore all the data above coming from the Spanish Flu or from other countries with mask laws that have defeated the SARS-COV-2, and all the other studies mentioned above that don’t agree with the conclusions. In fact, only one study which actually deals with masks and SARS-COV-2 is presented – and the concern mentioned is about headaches. The study in question only dealt with tight-fitting hospital masks and didn’t factor that out, or factor out caffeine use disruption or dehydration as a cause of the headaches, either. (508) Ignoring the real-world relevant current and historical data entirely does not install one with confidence in the findings.
While it is true that there have been reports of at least 2 deaths from people wearing N95 masks while running, (509) there has been no confirmation that the masks were the primary reason for the deaths. And again, there have been no reports of similar problems with loose fitting bandanas.
One does not have to wear a tight-fitting N95 mask to get full-filtration, though. Long distance runner Galen Rupp wears an allergy mask when he runs competitively, and he also suffers from asthma. (510) Recently, a doctor from Ireland put on six facemasks while hooked up to an oxygen monitor while on camera, and put the video online to debunk the myth of facemask oxygen deprivation. (511)
From April 7th onward, the Czech government permitted people to exercise alone, without masks, so long as they kept two meters apart from others. (512) The Czech government also provided other mask exceptions for the mentally ill, children under the age of 7, actors, singers, TV presenters, kindergarten teachers, students taking exams and those providing counseling services. From May 25th onward, those not inside buildings (other than home) or riding public transit were no longer required to wear masks. (513)
Those living in Southern Ontario now have mask laws in place, with certain exceptions:
“There are exemptions to the policy and a person will be exempt from wearing a non-medical mask or face covering in the premises if: – The person is a child under the age of two years; or a child under the age of 5 years either chronologically or developmentally and he or she refuses to wear a face covering and cannot be persuaded to do so by their caregiver; – The person is incapacitated and unable to remove their mask without assistance; – For any other medical reason, the person cannot safely wear a non-medical mask or face covering such as, but not limited to, respiratory disease, cognitive difficulties or difficulties in hearing or processing information. – For any religious reason, the person cannot wear a non-medical mask or face covering or cannot cover the face in a manner that would properly control the source.” (514)
Places with high-infection rates might still want to maintain a mask rule for outside, as SARS-COV-2 does stay active on surfaces for at least hours – sometimes days (515) – and a mask helps people who may have touched contaminated surfaces remember not to touch their nose and mouth. Normally people touch their faces about 16 times per hour. (516)
I have found that isopropyl alcohol or H202 spray will disinfect an N95 mask, and, along with rotating the wearing of different mask units to allow them time to dry out, they disinfect effectively, allowing re-use for months.
Mask Laws Come To North America
By April, some Mexican states – and Mexico City – had instituted mask laws. But the Mexican federal government resisted making the policy nation-wide:
“While millions of Mexicans have now been told to wear masks by their local authorities, it appears unlikely that the federal government will make their use in public mandatory across the country. Deputy Health Minister Hugo López-Gatell said last week that there is no solid scientific evidence that the widespread use of masks will help to limit the spread of Covid-19. He said earlier this month that people can be lulled into a ‘false sense of security’ while wearing masks, believing that they are not susceptible to infection when in fact they are.” (517)
By June, some mask laws had also arrived in the United States. For example, California:
“Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday ordered all Californians to wear face coverings while in public or high-risk settings, including when shopping, taking public transit or seeking medical care, after growing concerns that an increase in coronavirus cases has been caused by residents failing to voluntarily take that precaution.” (518)
A mask rule has been instituted in Congress committee hearings:
“Since returning to Washington, DC, most members of the House of Representatives have been wearing masks to prevent the transmission of Covid-19. But a small number of conservative lawmakers have staunchly refused. That will no longer be acceptable — at least in committee hearings — according to a Washington Post report by Tim Elfrink and Felicia Sonmez. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) asked committee chairs late Tuesday to require masks at all their hearings, indicating that the chamber’s Sergeant at Arms would be enforcing the new requirement.” (519)
As of June 29th, 27 US states have implemented health orders requiring the wearing of face coverings at least in businesses, and all but two have mask ordinances of some kind. (520)
On June 26th it was announced that Kingston, Ontario, would become one of the few cities to require masks in “any indoor public setting” – including buses and taxis – as a result of an outbreak from a nail salon. (521) On June 30th, Toronto joined Kingston in this policy. (522) Sudbury announced a similar policy on July 3rd. (523)
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has suggested the use of social pressure instead of fines or other punishments to get people to wear masks;
“The governor said people will have 3 days to comply so they have time to get masks or coverings. Although there will be no penalty for violating the rule, Cuomo said he hopes people will comply. ‘You’re not going to go to jail for not wearing a mask,’ he said. ‘People will enforce it – ‘Where’s your mask, buddy?’ – in a nice, New York kind of way.’” (524)
As of July 29th, the Canadian federal government has “recommended” (but not required) masks “in situations where physical distancing from others is difficult, like buying groceries, or public transit”. (525)
The mask debate has transformed from a discussion over what exactly constitutes an “airborne” virus into a conspicuous ritual involving a demonstration of one’s support for – or opposition to – Donald Trump, by fighting for or against a superficial “freedom” to infect and get infected . . . by refusing to wear a mask:
“Joe Biden says he would make wearing a mask in public mandatory. But Trump and the bulk of the Republican establishment are opposed, and many of their supporters are following their lead.” (526)
A group in Connecticut held a “No Mask Day” rally, with what appears to be dozens of participants. Many pro-Trump signs, hats, logos, mottos and flags were visible in photos. (527) In fact, a surprisingly large segment of the population has fallen for the anti-mask hype:
“In the last few weeks a spate of American stores have made headlines after putting up signs telling customers who wear masks they will be denied entry. On Thursday, Vice reported on a Kentucky convenience store that put up a sign reading: ‘NO Face Masks allowed in store. Lower your mask or go somewhere else. Stop listening to [Kentucky governor Andy] Beshear, he’s a dumbass.’ Another sign was posted by a Californian construction store earlier this month encouraging hugs but not masks. In Illinois, a gas station employee who put up a similar sign has since defended herself, arguing that mask-wearing made it hard to differentiate between adults and children when selling booze and cigarettes. Meanwhile, Donald Trump finally caved and wore a face mask yesterday – something he didn’t want to ‘give the press the pleasure of seeing’. But while it is gratifying to see the emperor finally forced to wear clothes, you’ve got to wonder to what extent the virus will spread thanks to the actions of citizens insisting on protecting their ‘freedom’ over the right of others not to get sick.” (528)
It’s not just mask-wearing customers who are under attack. Employees have been threatened with losing their jobs if they wear a mask at work. (529)
Some people have tried to argue that God doesn’t like masks, and that local lawmakers can’t make health-based regulations:
“A third woman named Cindy denounced the city officials for their science-based approach and claimed they were ‘arrogant’ to try to regulate her breathing. ‘Where do you derive the authority to regulate human breathing?’ she asked, after citing lines from the Bible. She also falsely claimed that Congress is the only place where laws are made. ‘You cannot just make laws!’ she told the city lawmakers. ‘That is unconstitutional. That is not how we run this country as a republic.’” (530)
It’s bad enough that some employers and religious wingnuts have come out publicly against masks. But a sheriff of a county in Washington State has added his voice to the chorus:
“Sheriff Robert Snaza, a Republican from Lewis County, said people should break the coronavirus safety order during a speech in a church parking lot Tuesday, according to footage posted by a Daily Chronicle photographer. ‘In case you guys didn’t hear, Gov. Inslee in his infinite wisdom has decided after over a hundred and some odd days that we should all wear face masks — inside and out,’ Snaza declared into a bullhorn while wearing a police uniform and no face cover. ‘Here’s what I say: Don’t be a sheep.’ Dozens of people gathered around him are then shown cheering, clapping and waving American flags. The defiant pep rally came several hours after the Democratic governor ordered residents to wear masks both inside and outside — or face a $1,000 fine and up to 90 days in jail — to slow the spread of COVID-19.” (531)
Recently, fake anti-mask disinformation pretending to be from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and a nearly identical one pretending to be from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) have been circulating in hard copies and on the internet. Fortunately, they have been debunked by Snopes. (532)
As late as July 12th, the United Kingdom decided not to make masks mandatory indoors. (533)
Canada’s Racist Anti-Mask Movement
In Canada, the anti-mask movement is a collection of far-right wingnuts, racists and bigots. There is “Press For Truth” videoblogger Dan Dicks, (534) who works with white supremacists and who considers David Icke, (535) the pro-Putin RT website and pro-Trump, pro-hate InfoWars website as legit sources. (536)
There are also various members of the Yellow Vests Movement of Canada, (537) who are a described in Wikipedia as “ . . . mostly focused on anti-immigration, anti-Islam, antisemitic and white supremacist rhetoric” (538) but who have now added being anti-mask dupes of the Malthusian cull to their playlist.
There is a group called, ironically, “Unify The People”, whose YouTube channel features plenty of interviews with Doug Christie, the far-right lawyer most often representing racist and fascist activists in BC until he died in 2013, along with lots of Yellow Vests Movement-related stuff. (539)
There are also an assortment of individual “lone wolf” racists, at least one of which argues that masks are being used to “eradicate any white identity”. (540) The anti-mask groups are a spinoff of the anti-lockdown groups, also organized by racists, who need something to protest post-lockdown. (541)
They have begun protesting in small groups all over Canada – and posting photos – in such places as Vernon, BC on April 12th, (542) in late June in Ottawa, Canada, (543)
and on July 1st, in Victoria, BC. (544)
All the racist anti-mask propaganda is working. Public anti-mask sentiments are sometimes accompanied by racist sentiments, as was evidenced in a video from Mississauga posted on July 15th. (545) On July 19th, “Masks Off Canada” held a rally in Edmonton. Video from the rally indicated “Unify The People” were there. (546)
With some world leaders and some health officials of densely-populated countries displaying a lack of support for mask use by the general population – and certain politicians and activists turning mask use into a political and/or ideological-allegiance signal instead of a universal health measure – the Malthusian Death Cult, Orwellian police state engineers and vaccine sales departments cannot help but be pleased with how things are turning out, and the daily global infection rate rises faster and faster as a result.
How Proprietary Concerns Shape Treatment Policies
This “meet the needs of the elite at the expense of the general population” approach to business isn’t limited to mask use. The same strategy can be seen across the entire economic system in general, in the bioweapons and vaccine industries discussed above, as well as the drugs, supplements and herbal medicines discussed below.
Take, for example, the use of aspirin during the Spanish Flu. There is evidence that the over-prescription of aspirin could have been responsible for “a significant proportion of the deaths” blamed for the flu. (547)
Or take, for another example, the use of Cipro during the anthrax attacks of October 2001. Many postal workers alleged they suffered “serious adverse effects” from taking it. (548)
Of course, Bayer makes both aspirin and Cipro, and has already demonstrated a lack of ethics when it comes to their support for the Nazis, their war profiteering and their use of death camp inmates in vaccine experiments, so the additional charge of reckless endangerment of their customers during pandemics and bio-warfare attacks is just par for the course.
As was outlined in Part 1, the medical industrial complex favors those drugs that involve a large profit margin for the manufacturer, and ignores potentially better treatments because they are non-proprietary in nature. This accusation has not just been limited to Bayer and the other former members of I.G. Farben, but has also been leveled at the Gates Foundation:
“For similar reasons, the Gates Foundation’s work on malaria drew criticism from some corners. In a 2013 article in Global Society, Youde pointed out that the head of WHO’s malaria research, Arata Kochi, sent a memo complaining that the foundation ‘was stifling debate on the best ways to treat and combat malaria, prioritising only those methods that relied on new technology or developing new drugs.’” (549)
The reason there is so much more focus on new technologies and new drugs is that many of the old drugs have had their patents run out, but a new drug has a patent that allows pharmaceutical companies to jack up the price for 20 years – and sometimes longer. (550)
The media will look down upon “unproven” treatments like elderberry and colloidal silver and endorse – unquestioningly – the looming COVID-19 vaccine, even though the COVID-19 vaccine is also unproven, and there is a lot of evidence that elderberry and colloidal silver have antiviral action:
“From pricey herbal ‘coronavirus prevention’ tea to claims elderberry extract can lead to ‘significant reduction in viral load’ to bottled colloidal silver and a form of bleach that users drink that purportedly ‘kills every pathogen, every virus, every bacteria, every fungus, every parasite’ – experts are urging caution and evaluating claims with a skeptical eye. . . . ‘If it’s going to harm somebody because it’s toxic or it’s expensive so they’re going to have to make a choice about purchasing this versus something else, that is a type of harm,’ said Gobis. ‘If it’s preventing them from getting known treatments that can benefit them, all of those situations are harmful.’” (551)
While every pandemic is seen by elites as an opportunity for price gouging and captive markets, there is another COVID-19-inspired trend that actually favors the consumer and the farmer – the “direct sales” trend:
“Farms across Florida have taken a big hit since restaurants, amusement parks and cruise lines halted business. There are nearly 47,000 farms in Florida that are providing the world with food and our communities with jobs. To help ease the pain of lost revenue due to the steep drop in demand, farmers are now selling their crops directly to consumers. If you can’t find certain fruits or veggies at your local grocery store, CLICK HERE to see if there is a farm near you and pick up what you need. On the Florida Farm To You webpage, you can learn where to get farm-fresh items like Florida-grown produce, milk, seafood and more, straight from Florida farmers.” (552)
Perhaps the pandemic will transform the food and medicine economies into predominantly “direct to consumers” economies. Farmers markets could cut out the retailer markup, which could simultaneously get the farmers better prices for their goods and the consumer better goods and better prices for their grocery and herbarium needs.
The Cinchona tree provides a bark that people use to make medicines for such ailments as mild influenza, swine flu, the common cold (including coronaviruses), malaria, and fever. (553) Cinchona bark was used by the indigenous people of Peru, and discovered by Europeans in the mid to late 1500s. (554) The name “cinchona” comes from the wife of the Viceroy of Peru, Countess Cinchona, who acquired malaria in 1638:
“Rather than getting the ‘approved’ therapy, blood-letting, she was treated by an Incan herbalist with the bark of a tree (eventually, named for the countess-Cinchona Tree). Her response was dramatic; when the Viceroy returned to Spain, he brought with him large supplies of the powder for general use, which at the time was controlled by the Church and was thus called ‘Jesuit’s Powder’.” (555)
Quinine – the “tonic” in “tonic water” (556) – was isolated from Cinchona bark and used as an extract by 1820. Bayer created a synthetic version – “Resochin” – in 1934, (557) and patented it in 1939. In 1945, it was renamed “chloroquine” by Eli Kennerly Marshall Jr. of Johns Hopkins University. (558) The same year, it was discovered that hydroxylation would make chloroquine less toxic to humans, and thus was born Hydroxychloroquine, which has remained in use, without change, to this day. (559)
Hydroxychloroquine, or HCQ as it’s also known as, was considered as a potential treatment for SARS back in 2003. It appeared both relatively safe and potentially effective:
“Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine has a well-studied toxicity profile. The half-century-long use of this drug in the therapy of malaria demonstrates the safety of acute administration of chloroquine to human beings. The use of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in rheumatic diseases and for antimalarial prophylaxis showed a low incidence of adverse events during chronic administration of this drug for periods of up to a few years. In these cases, the most serious toxic effect is a macular retinopathy, which depends on the cumulative dose rather than on the daily dose, and permanent damage may be prevented with regular visual monitoring during treatment. A recent study provided encouraging results on the safety of a high dosage of the drug (up to 500 mg of chloroquine base per day) even during pregnancy. We conclude that chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine administration presents limited and well-preventable toxicity and may thus result in a low risk/benefit balance at least when it is used in life-threatening conditions. …Finally, we want to share with the scientific community the speculative hypothesis that chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, due to its antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, may have some effect on SARS. We emphasise the need of testing in cell cultures infected with SARS coronavirus the effects of chloroquine, as well as those of other substances possessing in-vitro activity against members of the coronaviridae family. We should remember that the possibility of new outbreaks of SARS cannot be excluded.” (560)
It was again evaluated in 2005, and considered “relatively safe, effective and cheap”;
“Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases including malaria, amoebiosis and human immunodeficiency virus is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. The fact that the drug has significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use.” (561)
Old Drug = No Patent = Affordable
As was mentioned before, one of the advantages of using a drug that’s been around for at least a couple of decades is that there is no patent, and therefore the price will be lower than a drug developed in the last 19 years. HCQ – around since 1945 – ends up being about 37 cents per 200 ml tablet. (562)
Another old drug being looked at as a treatment for COVID-19 – Dexamethasone – was introduced in 1957, and cost about 25 dollars in the US or 50 cents in India. (563)
To compare, Remdesivir, which was released in 2009 as a potential treatment for hepatitis C, has a patent that will last as least as far as 2029 – maybe longer if Gilead Sciences’ lawyers can justify it. (564) Remdesivir should cost $10 to consumers for a ten-day course, but because it’s a patent medicine, the company can charge what it likes, and the numbers that have been discussed are in the US$2340 to US$4500 range! (565)
If one wonders why politicians go along with this scam instead of doing what’s in the best interest of the voters, one must look closely at how much more powerful lobbying is than voting over what most politicians choose to say and do:
“Gilead Sciences, the drugmaker behind the experimental COVID-19 treatment remdesivir, spent more on lobbying Congress and the administration in the first quarter of 2020 than it ever has before, according to federal filings. The pharmaceutical company spent $2.45 million on lobbying in the first three months of the year, a 32% increase over the $1.86 million it spent in the first quarter of 2019.” (566)
This bias in favor of proprietary medicine – which also manifests as a bias against herbal medicine – results in pro-Remdesivir and anti-HCQ messaging from much of the medical establishment and the corporate press. Many studies have shown poor results for HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19, (567) (568) (569) (570) (571) (572) (573) (574) but these studies invariably ignore the fact that the addition of both zinc and early intervention are required for the HCQ to work properly. (575)
Many studies that looked at HCQ during early intervention showed promise, (576) (577) (578) (579) (580) including an ongoing literature review of 66 studies (so far, as of July 31st, 2020) that compare early intervention – “100% positive” – with late intervention – “62% positive”. (581) Studies that included zinc showed even more promise. (582) (583) Observations by journalists of real-world situations have also showed promise for HCQ. In India, 9 policemen out of 5500 who refused HCQ as a prophylactic died, but zero policemen who have taken HCQ died – or even got very ill. (584)
Medical Establishment Wrong, Trump Right – Wait, WHAT ?!?
On April 20th, a panel under the direction of NIAID – the institute headed by Dr. Fauci – recommended against using HCQ and azithromycin based on concerns about the heart that did not exist pre-COVID19. (585) Tellingly, information provided by the CDC about HCQ before the COVID-19 outbreak makes no mention of serious risks, irregular heartbeats or death. (586)
Compounding the problem, President Donald Trump – famous for lying and giving terrible advice – has stated publicly that he’s taking HCQ – with zinc – as a prophylactic . . . so he’s actually using it properly. (587) This announcement was made just over a week after it was announced that 11 secret service members tested positive for the virus. (588)
If people don’t look into the matter too carefully, they will naturally assume Trump is wrong and Dr. Fauci and the National Institute of Health are right. The cynic inside me says that this is all by design. Of course, the other and slightly more believable explanation for Trump giving out good advice is that Trump stands to make a little money off HCQ sales, as he has a small stake in a French company – Sanofi – that makes the stuff, and recently gave them and GlaxoSmithKline 2.1 billion dollars for a COVID-19 vaccine. (589)
Days after Trump announced he was taking HCQ, on May 20th, the WHO warned the world of the potential side effects of the drug. (590) Just five days later, the WHO used supposed health concerns over HCQ to shut down clinical trials of the drug:
“The World Health Organization says it is temporarily dropping hydroxychloroquine — the malaria drug U.S. President Donald Trump said he was taking — from its global study into experimental COVID-19 treatments. In a press briefing on Monday, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in light of a paper published last week in the Lancet that suggested people taking hydroxychloroquine were at higher risk of death and heart problems, there would be ‘a temporary pause’ on the hydroxychloroquine arm of its global clinical trial.” (591)
This is in spite of a report the WHO released four years earlier, concluding the side effects of HCQ did not involve death;
“Despite hundreds of millions of doses administered in the treatment of malaria, there have been no reports of sudden unexplained death associated with quinine, chloroquine or amodiaquine, although each drug causes QT/QTc interval prolongation. Unfortunately, there are relatively few prospective studies of the electrocardiographic effects of these drugs.” (592)
HCQ Research Was Designed To Fail
Basically, the WHO pointed to studies with HCQ that did not involve zinc or early intervention, and then blamed the bad outcomes on the HCQ itself instead of the improper use of HCQ. As with most cannabis research by the US government, the study was designed to fail. Just like putting control of all cannabis research since 1974 into the hands of the National Institute on Drug Abuse means that “marijuana research will logically tilt toward the potential harms, not benefits, of cannabis,” (593) putting control of plague treatment in the hands of medical establishment elites who hang out with those who profit from proprietary medicine means that epidemic treatment research will logically tilt towards the potential harms, not benefits, of non-proprietary medicine.
Suspiciously, France banned over-the-counter sales of HCQ back in mid January. By May 27th, France, Italy and Belgium were all official hydroxy-haters:
“France, Italy and Belgium have all taken steps against the use of hydroxychloroquine in treating patients with Covid-19 as safety concerns over the drug, touted by Donald Trump and Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, continue to grow. Paris on Wednesday revoked a decree allowing doctors to use the drug with severely ill coronavirus patients, while the Italian and Belgian medicine agencies either suspended or warned against its use except in clinical trials. Days after the World Health Organization suspended a global trial of the drug citing safety concerns, Oxford University also paused an international hydroxychloroquine trial less than a week after it started. An observational study published in the Lancet of nearly 100,000 patients in 671 hospitals has suggested hydroxychloroquine – promoted by the controversial French infectious diseases specialist Didier Raoult – might increase mortality rates.” (594)
The same day, Dr. Fauci, the US’s “top infectious disease expert” also came out against HCQ, saying:
“The scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy for it . . . (there’s likelihood of) adverse events with regard to cardiovascular.” (595)
Basis For Banning HCQ Research Retracted – Research Remains Banned
The next day the WHO told Indonesia to stop using HCQ. (596) The key fact missing in HCQ media coverage today is that France, Italy, Belgium, Fauci and the WHO all based their scare tactics on a Lancet article that was later retracted. (597)
Sure, some media have mentioned the retraction, (598) but the health experts are not taken to task for shutting down access to the drug based on the retracted study.
And because this hasn’t been done, the hydroxy-hate continues unabated. On June 15th, the FDA:
“. . . revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible.” (599)
It did so mostly based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), according to a document released to the public on July 1st. (600) This system is similar to the VAERS system (mentioned in part 1) that monitors vaccines in that both systems avoid establishing any causality to the adverse events that are reported. (601)
The avoiding of causal evaluation in FAERS and VAERS methodologies works to big pharma’s benefit in two ways. When vaccines kill people, the data can be ignored, so that the (new, expensive, sometimes mandated) medicine can continue to be sold, and when people die while using a (old, cheap, patent-expired) medicine the FDA wishes to create a scare about, the death can be associated with that medicine without actual proof of causality, and clinical trials can be abandoned so that newer and more expensive medicines can be used instead.
Not only is there no concrete proof that HCQ kills people, the attempt to explain exactly how it might kill people is filled with vague language and uncertainty. (602)
Politifact has taken the scare tactics over HCQ at face value without looking into it at all – no mention of zinc or early intervention as key parts of proper use, no mention of HRC’s safety record pre-COVID-19, and no understanding of how the health problems are abuse-related, and not inherent from the effects of proper use. (603)
Having studied carefully the fraud behind “cannabis psychosis” for the last 27 years (604) (this author is currently writing a book on the subject), I can tell you that the fraud behind the demonization of hydroxychloroquine resembles the fraud behind the demonization of cannabis in every way. Decent doctors and researchers and journalists try and get the truth out, (605) but the onslaught of bullshit from the major media and major healthcare institutions is difficult to fight against. (606) It is nearly impossible to advocate for affordable medicine, be it HCQ, or cannabis, or colloidal silver, just as it is difficult to be a skeptic of expensive (possibly mandatory) medicine such as vaccines, but one must try regardless.
Colloidal Silver – A Silver Bullet
The use of silver in medicine is thousands of years old, (607) dating back to the writings of Hippocrates (circa 460 -370 BC), who discussed its use in wound care. (608) It has been used in Ayurvedic medicine for fever and inflammation – amongst other things (609) – and in its “colloidal” (nanoparticles) form, was used against the Spanish Flu and other diseases in the first half of the 20th century. (610)
Colloidal silver was once well-regarded, its virtues being extolled in The Lancet in 1914, (611) and Nature Magazine in 1920, (612) in an advertisement for “NEO-SILVOL” in a medical magazine by Parke, Davis & Company (the largest drug company in America) in 1929, (613) and in the 1947 Dispensary of the United States of America:
“Colloidal silver chloride is an antiseptic and germicide which even in the most concentrated dispersions causes neither irritation of the mucous membranes nor coagulation of albumin. It does not stain the skin on topical application. Solutions of colloidal silver chloride are intended for prophylaxis and treatment of infections of the accessible mucous membranes, such as the genitourinary tract and the eye, ear, nose and throat.” (614)
More recently, in 2010 silver nanoparticles were studied as a potential treatment for HIV:
“Our data suggest that silver nanoparticles exert anti-HIV activity at an early stage of viral replication, most likely as a virucidal agent or as an inhibitor of viral entry. . . . These properties make them a broad-spectrum agent not prone to inducing resistance that could be used preventively against a wide variety of circulating HIV-1 strains.” (615)
In 2011, this efficacy as a treatment for HIV – and other viruses and microbes – was confirmed:
“The AgNPs (silver nanoparticles) have been found to be effective against many viruses and bacterial species. The use of noble metals at nanosizes to treat many conditions is gaining importance. The recent development in nanotechnology has provided tremendous impetus in this direction due to its capacity of modulating metals into nanosizes and various shapes, which drastically changes the chemical, physical and optical properties and their use. The efficacy of AgNPs against HIV-1 has been reported by many laboratories including ours. It has been shown that AgNPs have got anti-HIV-1 activity and can help the host immune system against HIV-1. This has laid ground for the development of new, potent antiviral drugs capable of preventing HIV infection and controlling virus replication. Recently, it has been demonstrated that AgNPs function as broad-spectrum virucidal and bactericidal agents, and in addition, increase wound healing. Nonetheless, conclusive safety has not been demonstrated extensively in animal models, and therefore, additional testing of AgNPs is needed before they can be used in clinical applications.” (616)
In 2014 silver nanoparticles were again shown to be effective against a variety of viruses, and could be recovered after use using a magnet, sparing stress on the environment:
“. . . these particles can be easily recovered using a magnet, thus reducing their potential harmful effects on human health and the environment. This study showed that the AgNP composite can be an effective antiviral in various environmental settings, without significant ecological risks.” (617)
In 2014 silver nanomaterials were shown to be effective against coronaviruses in pigs:
“Coronaviruses belong to the family Coronaviridae, which primarily cause infection of the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract of hosts. Transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) is an economically significant coronavirus that can cause severe diarrhea in pigs. . . . Our data indicate that Ag NMs are effective in prevention of TGEV-mediated cell infection as a virucidal agent or as an inhibitor of viral entry and the present findings may provide new insights into antiviral therapy of coronaviruses.” (618)
And in 2016, even more confirmation of the efficacy of silver nanoparticles against both HIV and hepatitis B was published, especially at certain sizes;
“AgNPs have been evaluated for their antiviral action mode against HIV-1 using a number of in vitro experiments, where at non-cytotoxic concentrations AgNPs exerted the antiviral activity against HIV-1; . . . In this perspective, the size of the nanoparticles has substantial impact on antiviral potency of the AgNPs, which can be further enhanced by optimizing AgNPs size at nanolevel. Another case of size-dependent interaction of AgNPs with virus is AgNPs-Hepatitis B virus (HBV) interaction studied in a human hepatoma cell line, HepAD38 (Lu et al., 2008).” (619)
Rather than wait for some pharmaceutical company to corner the market on silver and then conduct 300 million dollars worth of safety and efficacy testing needed to give the thumbs up to silver as a medicine, this author has taken it upon himself to be his own guinea pig, and self-treat the occasional scratchy throat with home-made colloidal silver. The nice thing about colloidal silver is that it’s super effective, and super cheap (you can get a lifetime’s supply from a couple of silver coins, some alligator clips, a couple copper wires, 3 nine-volt batteries (two or three big batches per three batteries) and some distilled water. There are YouTube tutorials online that will get you set up. (620)
And what about the fabled blue-staining of the skin that never goes away? Fortunately, it appears that colloidal silver is effective in doses far smaller than would be required to turn one’s self into a big smurf. According to various sources, it took drinking a “10-ounce tumbler” daily for a “few years” – perhaps more than 10 – to turn blue. (621) When I take it, it’s less than a shot glass worth, and only when I have a sore throat.
For those that might argue that eating metals is inherently a bad thing, I would like to remind them that the “vitamin and mineral” section of their local drug store currently offers quite a few:
“Examples of necessary minerals include calcium, chromium, copper, iodine, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, and zinc.” (622)
Of course, as with any medicine, dose is everything.
“The fastest selling supplements are those that have long been the subject of research on cold and flu relief, including zinc, vitamin D and elderberry extract. Zinc is thought to inhibit replication of the virus that causes the common cold. Some randomized trials have found that taking high doses of it may help to lower the risk of contracting a cold and potentially shorten its duration by 20 percent. Supplementing with moderate doses of vitamin D has been shown in some trials to help lower the risk of contracting the cold and flu, but the effect is mainly seen in people who have very low or deficient levels. And a handful of small, industry-funded trials have found that elderberry extract can shorten the duration and severity of the cold and flu.”
– Supplements for Coronavirus Probably Won’t Help, and May Harm, Anahad O’Connor, New York Times, March 23, 2020 (623)
“Although natural products have been marginalized by major pharmaceutical companies all over the world in the last 30+ years, the changing landscape of drug discovery — as Pharma strives to develop innovative and highly effective new drugs — will eventually now favour a greatly enhanced role for natural products as valued sources of novel leads whose further drug development.”
– Anti-coronavirus natural products and In silico screening, Marina T Alamanou PhD, Towards Data Science, March 28, 2020 (624)
Artemisia Annua – AKA Sweet Wormwood
Artemisia is a genus of plant that has hundreds of species. One species famous in the psychoactive drug culture is Artemisia absinthium – AKA wormwood or grand wormwood – which produces the chemical compound thujone, which is supposedly the psychoactive ingredient in the popular 19th century drink, absinthe. (625)
The species of Artemisia being looked at for a possible treatment to COVID19 is called Artemisia annua, AKA sweet wormwood or annual wormwood. It’s native to Asia, but is grown in many countries including North America.
Artemisia annua, also known as sweet wormwood, sweet annie, sweet sagewort, annual mugwort or annual wormwood, is a common type of wormwood native to temperate Asia, but naturalized in many countries including scattered parts of North America. (626) Its active ingredient – artemisinin – is considered by many “the most effective treatment for malaria”. (627)
Chinese herbal medicine has used sweet wormwood for over a thousand years to treat fever (628) as well as “summer colds” (629) – which could very well include coronaviruses, the second most common cause of cold after rhinoviruses. (630) In 2005, over 200 Chinese medicinal herbal extracts were screened for antiviral activity against SARS. Four of these showed promise, including Artemisia annua:
“As shown in Fig. 1, four of the extracts, Lycoris radiata, Artemisia annua, Pyrrosia lingua, and Lindera aggregata exhibited significant inhibition effects on virus-induced CPE when SARS-CoV strain BJ001 was used in screening.” (631)
A paper was published in 2007 which compared integrating traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine (WM) against Western medicine alone in SARS treatments:
“The included TCM studies used compound herbs of anti-SARS formulae (including gypsum, anemarrhena, atractylodes, aspidum, Artemisia/sweet wormwood herb, bupleurum, peony, scute, antelope horn powder, rhizaoma copitidis, golden thread, curcuma, re-rooted sage, fritillaria, coptis), other combinations of herbal medicines, or herbal extracts. The included WM studies used empiric antibiotics such as azithromycin (0.5 g/day), levofloxacin (0.4 g/day) and ceftriaxone (2 to 4 g/day); antiviral drugs such as ribavirin (0.5 to 1 g/day); corticosteroid such as methylprednisolone (80 to 320 mg/day); and/or thymosin (50 to 200 mg/day). Where reported, the duration of treatment ranged from 10 days to 3 weeks. . . . There was a significant difference in mortality rates (10 studies) between the treatment groups, with lower mortality among patients receiving TCM-WM than among patients receiving WM: 3.7% versus 10.9% . . . There was a significant difference in cure rates (9 studies) between the treatment groups, with a higher cure rate for patients receiving TCM-WM than WM alone: 86.5% versus 76.8% . . . ” (632)
Sweet Wormwood VS. COVID-19
On April 8th, 2020, Algerian researchers submitted a pre-peer-review paper which indicated Artemisinin worked better than HCQ to inhibit the growth of SARS-COV-2:
“The inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 SProtein RBD with HCQ was successfully studied using molecular docking techniques. HCQ was found to selectively interact with the Lys353 hotspot binding pocket via the formation of an inclined tape over the binding site with the OH group of HCQ acting like a hook. Artemisinin class of compounds were also found to interact the same binding pocket. In addition, artemisinin & derived molecules showed extra mode of interaction with the Lys31 binding hotspot, although at slightly lower Vina score. These results demonstrate the likelihood of repurposing artemisinin as a less toxic HCQ substitute to block the SProtein RBD of the virus from docking onto hACE2, while at the same time enhancing the immune system of the patient.” (633)
On the same day, a collaboration was announced between the Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces in Germany and a producer of artemisinin in the US – ArtemiLife, Inc. – to study the effects of Artemisia annua on SARS-COV-2;
“The Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Potsdam (Germany) will collaborate with ArtemiLife Inc., a US based company and medical researchers in Denmark and Germany to test Artemisia annua plant extract and artemisinin derivatives in laboratory cell studies against the novel coronavirus Sars-CoV-2. Currently, there are no effective treatments against Covid-19. Medications commonly used against malaria or Ebola, as well as antiviral drugs, are being considered for repurposing. Herbal treatments used in Traditional Chinese Medicine were explored to treat coronavirus infections during the Sars-CoV and Mers-CoV outbreaks. Initial studies in China showed the alcoholic extract of sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua) was the second most potent herbal medicine used on the 2005 Sars-CoV.” (634)
Also on April 8th, California-based Mateon Therapeutics announced it would involve itself in artemisinin-based medicine to expand “the company’s intellectual property portfolio.” (635) Unfortunately, the idea of herbal medicine as part of community heritage, rather than intellectual property, was not the focus of these activities.
In May, Science Magazine condemned the idea of using artemisinin against COVID-19, calling the treatment “unproven” and warning of the possibility of a resistance being developed to artemisinin by malaria because the artemisinin wouldn’t be used in combination with other antiviral herbal extracts:
“To prevent resistance taking hold, most artemisinin-based malaria treatments include a second antimalarial drug, so that if the parasite develops resistance to artemisinin, the other drug will still kill it. The World Health Organization (WHO) strongly discourages countries from using artemisinin to treat malaria on its own as a ‘monotherapy,’ because it could hasten the development of drug resistance.” (636)
Why Science decided to call characterize artemisinin as “unproven” instead of “a possible candidate currently undergoing clinical trials” – and why it too could not be used along with other anti-malarial drugs against COVID-19 as it has been with malaria – could be explained by the pro-proprietary drug modus operandi of the medical establishment.
On May 19th, a peer-reviewed paper was published in the journal Phytotherapy Research, calling for clinical trials for Artemisia annua in the treatment of COVID-19, noting a wide array of antiviral action:
“Natural products found in A. annua as chemical weapons to protect against infections by viruses, specifically herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, bovine viral diarrhea virus, and Epstein–Barr virus (Efferth et al., 2008).” (637)
On June 8th, the WHO produced a fact sheet entitled “Q&A: Malaria and COVID-19” which had this to say about “Artemisia plant material”:
“The most widely used antimalarial treatments, artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs), are produced using the pure artemisinin compound extracted from the plant Artemisia annua. In recent years, some news reports have suggested that a range of non-pharmaceutical products made from Artemisia plant material – such as herbal teas and tablets – may be effective in preventing or treating malaria. Now, there are reports that products made from Artemisia plant material may also have a preventive or curative effect on COVID-19. WHO urges extreme caution over reports touting the efficacy of such products. As explained in a WHO position statement, there is no scientific evidence base to support the use of non-pharmaceutical forms of Artemisia for the prevention or treatment of malaria. There is also no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 can be prevented or treated with products made from Artemisia-based plant material.” (638)
In other words, “there’s no 300 million dollar safety and efficacy studies that have been done to suggests herb-based pharmaceuticals work – at least none of the non-pharmacized ones, anyways.”
“On May 15th, a WHO spokesman warned against people using herbs against COVID-19; While it’s possible new treatments might come from traditional medicines, says Michel Yao from the WHO Regional Office for Africa, people should refrain from using untested remedies for coronavirus. ‘There is no evidence. We do not know how these traditional medicines, which are recommended by countries or authorities, are actually effective and whether they are harmless to human health,’ he told DW.” (639)
The WHO seems oblivious to the costs of “rigorous clinical trials” – and that cost being a barrier to the acceptance of herbal medicine – whenever it comments on the subject:
“According to the World Health Organization, Africans deserve to use medicines tested to the same standards as people in the rest of the world. Even if therapies are derived from traditional practice and natural, establishing their efficacy and safety through rigorous clinical trials is critical.” (640)
For example, one source pegs the cost of a phase 1 through 4 set of clinical trials for a drug dealing with the respiratory system at $115.3 million dollars. (641) Rather than assist with the evaluation of these natural healthcare products (which, in my opinion, is what they should be doing), institutions such as Health Canada and the FDA focus their attention on preventing any health claims being made by the producers, (642) thus making it very likely that medicine will be the realm of the super-rich and will exclude less wealthy herbalists, farmers, gardeners and wildcrafters.
It should be noted that there has been reports of damage to the liver from Artemisia annua tea, but these have been described as “rare”, and no cost-benefit analysis has been done between the risks of using the herb and the risks of not using it in the age of COVID-19, as the report was produced pre-outbreak. (643) Regardless, others have noted that:
“Artemisia annua extracts show very little toxicity and artemisinin-based drugs are widely used to treat malaria even in newborns.” (644)
On June 25th, the Max Planck institute confirmed that artemisinin was “active against SARS-COV-2”, and researchers in the United Kingdom announced a partnership with the University of Kentucky to also conduct similar studies. (645)
Pure Doesn’t Equal Better
There were a few surprising results from the initial phase of the Max Planck study;
“‘I was surprised to find that A. annua extracts worked significantly better than pure artemisinin derivatives and that the addition of coffee further enhanced the activity’ says Klaus Osterrieder, Professor of Virology at Freie Universität Berlin who conducted all activity assays.” (646)
“The two extracts resulted in less of the virus forming, with the ethanol and coffee found to be the most active. Pure artemisinin on its own did not provide much antiviral activity.” (647)
If it is indeed true that a basic herbal extract works better than a pure pharmacized version, it bodes well for those who would like to see farmers and gardeners included in the emerging COVID-19 prevention and treatment economy. A close watch should be kept on this aspect of the research.
There has been a drink developed called “COVID Organics”, released on April 20th, 2020, which is now being tested by the WHO for efficacy in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19:
“Covid-Organics (CVO) is an Artemisia based drink that Andry Rajoelina, president of Madagascar, claims could prevent and cure Coronavirus disease 2019. The herbal drink is produced from a species under the Artemisia genus from which Artemisinin is extracted for malaria treatment. Covid-Organics was developed and produced in Madagascar by the Malagasy Institute of Applied Research. Madagascar was the first country to decide to integrate Artemisia into COVID-19 treatment when the NGO Maison de l’Artemisia France contacted numerous African countries during the pandemic. At least one researcher from another part of Africa, Dr. Jérôme Munyangi of the DRC, contributed. Some of the research on Artemisia, led by African scientists, had been carried out in France and Canada. On 20 April 2020, Rajoelina announced in a television broadcast that his country had found ‘preventive and curative’ cure for COVID-19. Rajoelina publicly sipped from a bottle of Covid-Organics and ordered a nation-wide distribution to families. As of 20 May 2020, Madagascar has confirmed a total of 326 cases of COVID-19, and two deaths. . . . A wide range of scientific criticism followed the launch of Covid-Organics from within and outside Africa. Before cooperating with Madagascar, the World Health Organisation (WHO) issued a warning against use of an untested COVID-19 remedy and said Africans deserve medicine that went through proper scientific trials. At the time, Covid-Organics efficacy and safety was tested on fewer than 20 people within a period of three weeks. In order to meet established scientific standards, the two parties later agreed on a partnership for Covid-Organics to be registered for WHO’s Solidarity trials, an international program for fast tracking clinical trials on COVID-19 treatment candidates. The African Union (AU) demanded detailed scientific data on Covid-Organics for analysis by Africa CDC after it had been briefed by Madagascar authorities about the herbal remedy. Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention expressed its interest in data for Covid-Organics for the purpose of quickly scaling up an effective and safe remedy. In April, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) denied ordering a package of CVO after media reports that it had ordered for CVO and said the West Africa Health Organization (WAHO) would only endorse products shown to be effective and safe for use through well-known scientific procedure. As concerns about the safety of CVO grow, South Africa offered to help Madagascar conduct a clinical trial on the herbal tonic. There are concerns over widespread usage of Artemisia accelerating drug resistance toward ACTs for malaria treatment.” (648)
At least the government of South Africa is willing to put money into studying a remedy that will benefit farmers rather than drug companies. Perhaps big pharma doesn’t yet control that country’s government.
Let Your Food Be Your Medicine
Some say one of the active ingredients in Artemisia annua is also available in red onions:
“In short, our venture EMSKE Phytochem comes out very much in support of COVID-Organics, and we’re happy to help put a loudspeaker on that. But you don’t have to go all the way to Madagascar to get the benefits of this extract. Most of what we see as demonstrating efficacy in the extract is in a lot of common everyday fruits & vegetables as well. Most prevalently among them, red onions. (Of course, it would take consuming an entire onion or two per day to achieve the expected inhibitory dose required, so a more isolated / extracted approach might be preferred).” (649)
What could be in red onions that might be helpful against SARS-COV-2? One of the elements of red onions being discussed is the supplement “quercetin” – available in some supplement stores – which has anticarcinogenic and antioxidant properties, (650) as well as the possible effect of inhibiting the replication of viruses. (651)
A herbal medicine containing quercetin has recently demonstrated efficacy in treating SARS. (652) Quercetin is currently undergoing clinical trials in the treatment of COVID-19, which is expected to be completed by the end of the summer. (653)
Another element of red onions that might be helpful against SARS-COV-2 are “anthocyanins”:
“In addition to acting as antioxidants and fighting free radicals, anthocyanins may offer anti-inflammatory, anti-viral, and anti-cancer benefits. . . . Anthocyanins are found in berries, red onions, kidney beans, pomegranates, grapes (including wine), tomatoes, acai, bilberry, chokeberry, elderberry, and tart cherries.” (654)
Anthocyanins are also found in cocoa seeds, which chocolate is made from:
“According to the results of a review article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, cyanidin-3-arabinoside and cyanidin-3-galactoside—the two main anthocyanins found in cocoa seeds—elicit dose-dependent activity against influenza A, influenza B, and avian influenza viruses. Such action was due to cocoa’s inhibition of the adsorption phase of the viruses.” (655)
A paper that did a very intensive review of all the evidence of anti-viral activity of anthocyanins concluded:
“The potential of anthocyanin to show its antiviral effects through binding to host cells, inhibiting viral life cycle, or stimulating host immunity, strengthens the idea that anthocyanin would be an essential brick and a potential therapeutic agent to find novel antiviral lead-compounds.” (656)
Other foods being looked at as COVID-19 treatments or preventatives are citrus (657) garlic, cinnamon, yoghurt, mushrooms and liquorice root. (658)
You Want The D . . . The Vitamin D
Another non-pharmaceutical therapeutic being looked at regarding its effects on COVID-19 survival rates is vitamin D. There have been studies out of the UK and Illinois that have suggested vitamin D deficiency plays a role in both COVID-19 case rates and infection severity:
“Ilie and colleagues from the UK noted that countries with low levels of vitamin D had a higher number of COVID cases, as well as the highest mortality rates from COVID. Similarly, Daneshkhah and colleagues from Northwestern University also found that severe COVID-19 infections appeared to be more common in countries where vitamin D deficiency is more common.” (659)
There has also been a study on vitamin D’s role in infection severity from New Orleans:
“In a study of COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit in New Orleans, doctors found that 100 per cent of the sickest patients under the age of 75 were deficient in the vitamin, many of them to critical levels. ‘We suspected that we would find a high proportion, but to find any population that’s 100 per cent deficient is quite striking,’ said Dr. Frank Lau, associate professor of clinical surgery at Louisiana State University. ‘It’s definitely worth looking more into.’” (660)
There has also been a study in the Philippines regarding vitamin D and COVID-19 case outcomes:
“The results suggest that an increase in serum 25(OH)D level in the body could either improve clinical outcomes or mitigate worst (severe to critical) outcomes, while a decrease in serum 25(OH)D level in the body could worsen clinical outcomes of COVID-2019 patients. . . . In conclusion, this study provides substantial information to clinicians and health policy-makers. Vitamin D supplementation could possibly improve clinical outcomes of patients infected with COVID-19.” (661)
Some people have theorized that because non-white people have a harder time getting vitamin D from sunlight, they are more vulnerable to the virus:
“Public health officials in the United Kingdom have launched an urgent review into the potential role of vitamin D in protecting people against the coronavirus, exploring whether vitamin D deficiency could help explain why Black and Asian citizens are more likely to die of the virus. This review comes in the wake of an alarming revelation that 94% of the doctors who have died from COVID 19 in the UK were Black, Asian and from other minority ethnic groups. . . . Experts agree that it’s bad for your immune system to have low levels of vitamin D, some point to limited evidence that such a deficiency could make it harder to recover from lung infections. People with darker skin may need more sunlight to get the recommended levels of vitamin D than people with lighter skin, prompting the theory that Black and Asian British citizens may not be getting enough vitamin D, in turn making them more vulnerable to COVID-19.” (662)
“But racial disparities in COVID-19 infections have been far more dramatic than this effect could even potentially account for. Black Americans constitute 13 percent of the United States population, but 24 percent of deaths (where race is known). In England, black people are more than four times more likely to die of COVID-19 than white people are.” (663)
Vitamin D seems to be pretty safe to take:
“Michael Holick, an expert on Vitamin D research from Boston University, warns that taking too much vitamin D can result in vitamin D toxicity and have negative side effects including kidney damage, bone pain and calcium stones. But Holick told CTVNews.ca that someone would have to take “tens of thousands of units of vitamin D for half a year” for those side effects to occur. … Osteoporosis Canada advises healthy adults aged 19-50 consume 400-1,000 IU of vitamin D per day, and those over 50, or younger adults at high risk, take 800-2,000 IU daily. The organization advises year-round vitamin D supplementation for all Canadian adults.” (664)
Researchers in Edmonton are currently conducting trials using various doses of Vitamin D on COVID-19 patients. (665) Another clinical trial is being conducted in France, with results expected in July. (666) It is estimated that about 40% of the US population is vitamin D deficient. (667)
Celine Dion? No! Selenium
Another supplement that is being talked about in relation to COVID-19 is selenium. Known for its key role in the proper functioning of the immune system and counteracting the development of viruses such as HIV, (668) selenium shows anti-viral activity in polio and influenza. (669)
In relation to SARS-COV-2, there has been evidence provided that areas with more natural selenium in the soil had much better COVID-19 recovery rates:
“Examining data from provinces and municipalities with more than 200 cases and cities with more than 40 cases, researchers found that areas with high levels of selenium were more likely to recover from the virus. For example, in the city of Enshi in Hubei Province, which has the highest selenium intake in China, the cure rate (percentage of COVID-19 patients declared ‘cured’) was almost three-times higher than the average for all the other cities in Hubei Province.” (670)
This study echoed earlier studies that showed the same effect with such viruses as HIV, SARS, Ebola, Swine Flu and Bird Flu. (671)
Elderberry – The Yummiest Medicine
Elderberry, AKA Sambucus nigra, AKA elder, is a traditional herbal medicine which has historically been used against viruses. The juice from elderberries is delicious, and in certain products, such as the “Biotta Elderberry Sureau” – a combination of elderberry juice, elderflower infusion and agave syrup – is one of the most delightfully-tasting medicines this author has had the pleasure to sample. The flower shows up in formulas combined with other herbs for the treatment of the flu:
“One of the most famous formulas for influenza is: 1 oz. Peppermint leaves (Mentha piperita), 1 oz. Elder flower (Sambucus Canadensis), 1 oz. Yarrow flower (Achillea millefolium). Pour two pints of boiling water over the herbs, cover tightly, and keep warm for fifteen minutes. Then strain. The preparation should be consumed warm and the individual should be kept covered. Honey can be added if desired.” (672)
“The flowers are the mildest part of the plant and prepared as a tea, are used to break dry fevers and stimulate perspiration, aid headache, indigestion, twitching eyes, dropsy, rheumatism, appendix inflammation, bladder or kidney infections, colds, influenza, consumption (bleeding in lungs), and is helpful to newborn babies (Hutchens 1991).” (673)
An ethanol extract made from the stem of elderberry showed promise in its antiviral activity against human coronavirus in a 2019 study. (674) And the juice from elderberries showed excellent antiviral action – better than pharmaceuticals – against influenza A, otherwise known as H1N1, or Swine Flu. (675) In fact, elderberry extract has shown antiviral activity for all types of influenza:
“Considering the efficacy of the extract in vitro on all strains of influenza virus tested, the clinical results, its low cost, and absence of side-effects, this preparation could offer a possibility for safe treatment for influenza A and B.” (676)
Most of the talk on the internet regarding elderberry and COVID-19 involve warnings about elderberry making things worse by amplifying the immune reaction during a “cytokine storm” – when the immune system goes beast mode and gets out of control. The simple solution is to treat elderberry as a preventive medicine and to stop using it when you get sick:
“Elderberry extracts may help to prevent the early stage of corona virus infections, which includes COVID-19. Elderberry contains compounds which decrease the ability of viruses to infect cells. Elderberry is considered generally safe and in influenza B (cause of common cold), use of elderberry shortens the duration of symptoms. However, as a part of its immune supportive actions, elderberry increases immune cell release of tiny chemicals called cytokines. Specifically, elderberry increases the release of a cytokine called IL-1B which is a part of the inflammatory reaction to COVID-19 that can result in acute respiratory distress. For this reason, to minimize the possibility that elderberry could aggravate the inflammatory ‘cytokine storm’ associated with the more severe COVID-19 infections, it is recommended to stop elderberry at the first signs of infection (fever, cough, sore throat) and/or if you test positive for the virus.” (677)
Others have looked upon this “aggravation of the cytokine storm” controversy with skepticism:
“‘The elderberry cytokine storm thing,’ said herbalist Chris Kilham, known as the Medicine Hunter, ‘it reported an increase of pro-inflammatory cytokines but what it didn’t report was the corresponding increase in anti-inflammatory cytokines, which is just plain irresponsible. I’m very suspicious that a safe wholesome fruit that’s been consumed by tens of millions of human beings over time would potentially be inflammatory. It makes no sense.’” (678)
What may have happened with the “elderberry cytokine storm thing” was that every possible negative of elderberry has been amplified while every positive has been dismissed in the establishment press, as has been the case with cannabis and, really, all non-proprietary medicines. One last consideration: elderberry also contains quercetin, one of the active ingredients in red onions (see above). (679)
Herbal Medicine – You Got The NAC Of It
One last non-cannabis based, inexpensive medicine worth mentioning is N-acetylcysteine, AKA “NAC”:
“Acetylcysteine, also known as N-acetylcysteine (NAC), is a medication that is used to treat paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose, and to loosen thick mucus in individuals with cystic fibrosis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It can be taken intravenously, by mouth, or inhaled as a mist. Some people use it as a dietary supplement. Common side effects include nausea and vomiting when taken by mouth. The skin may occasionally become red and itchy with either form. A non-immune type of anaphylaxis may also occur. It appears to be safe in pregnancy. For paracetamol overdose, it works by increasing the level of glutathione, an antioxidant that can neutralise the toxic breakdown products of paracetamol. When inhaled, it acts as a mucolytic by decreasing the thickness of mucus. Acetylcysteine was initially patented in 1960 and came into medical use in 1968. It is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. It is available as a generic medication and is inexpensive.” (680)
For over 20 years, it has been known that NAC has been an effective treatment for the flu. (681) Since 2012, NAC has been known to be effective in the management of respiratory viruses. (682) It has been hypothesized that NAC would work as a therapy for COVID-19, in that it could suppress the cytokine storm;
“The beneficial action of 1200 mg/d of oral NAC in respiratory diseases has been previously demonstrated in prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. Moreover, a recent study including patients with community-acquired pneumonia, showed that the addition of this dose of NAC to conventional treatment improves oxidative stress and inflammatory response. The positive effects of NAC in viral lower respiratory tract infections have been associated with inhibition of IL-8, IL-6, and TNF-α expression and release in alveolar type II cells infected with influenza virus A and B and respiratory syncytial virus. The results of these studies offer reasonable basis for the addition of 1200 mg/d oral NAC on therapeutic schemes of patients with COVID-19, as a measure that could potentially prevent the development of the cytokine storm syndrome and ARDS. This hypothesis is worth clarifying in appropriately designed clinical studies.” (683)
Multiple clinical trials have been planned with NAC against COVID19, and results are expected in 2021. (684)
While there has been a bit of information that hint at cannabis as a source of antiviral action, (685) and while at least one group is conducting a clinical trial involving cannabis’s role in boosting the immune system in response to COVID-19, (686) and while the role of hemp seed oil in maintaining a healthy immune system should not be ignored, (687) a recent literature review has ignored hempseeds completely, typified the evidence for anti-viral activity as “rare”, and instead pointed to cannabis’s role as an anti-inflammatory agent as a potential treatment of COVID-19. (688)
This author’s own literature review can confirm that cannabis’s role as an anti-inflammatory for COVID-19 shows the most promise – or at least provides the largest array of evidence – and so that’s the area that will be investigated in this article.
Given Canada’s long history of cannabis activism and cannabis culture, and Canada’s recent legalization/cartelization of certain parts of the production and distribution supply lines, it comes as no surprise that Canadian companies are a world leader in cannabis/COVID-19 research. Israel, home to Raphael Mechoulam (the discoverer of THC) and longstanding center of cannabis research for decades, is right alongside Canada in researching cannabis and COVID-19.
In April, the Canadian company InnoCan, along with it’s Israeli subsidiary – InnoCan Pharma Ltd. – announced their project involving both CBD and stem cell-made non-self-replicating micro-messengers called “Exosomes”:
“Herzeliya, Israel and Calgary, Alberta–(Newsfile Corp. – April 17, 2020) – InnoCan Pharma Corporation (CSE: INNO) (“InnoCan” or the “Company”) announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary, InnoCan Pharma Ltd. of Herzliya Israel, has entered into a sponsored research agreement dated April 17, 2020 (the “Research Agreement”) with Ramot at Tel Aviv University (“Ramot”) to collaborate with Tel Aviv university to develop a novel, revolutionary approach to treat COVID-19 by using Cannabidiol (CBD) loaded Exosomes (“ICLX”). Under the terms of the Research Agreement, InnoCan and a team led by Prof. Daniel Offen, a leading researcher specializing in Neuroscience and Exosome technology at Tel Aviv University, will collaborate to develop the cell therapy product, based on Prof. Offen’s work in the field. Innocan has agreed to fund the research based on agreed milestones, in the aggregate amount of approximately US $450,000 for the first stage. InnoCan and Ramot are collaborating on a new, revolutionary exosome-based technology that targets both central nervous system (CNS) indications and the Covid-19 Corona Virus. CBD-Loaded Exosomes hold the potential to provide a highly synergistic effect of anti-inflammatory properties and help in the recovery of infected lung cells. This product, which is expected to be administrated by inhalation, will be tested against a variety of lung infections. Exosomes are small particles created when stem cells are multiplied. Exosomes can act as “homing missiles”, targeting specific damaged organs and have an important role in cell-to-cell communication. When the cell healing properties of the exosomes are combined with the anti-inflammatory properties of CBD, it is expected to reach high synergetic effect. The research results may be beneficial to additional treatments for Central Nerve System ( CNS ) indications such as epilepsy and Alzheimer’s Disease.” (689)
Stero Biotechs, another corporation headquartered in Israel, announced another CBD/COVID-19 project in April;
“Steroid treatment is usually the first or second line of treatment for hospitalized patients. CBD enhances the therapeutic effect of steroid treatment and treats the bio-mechanism affected by the virus. The initial study will evaluate the tolerability, safety, and efficacy of the CBD treatment, for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 Infections.” (690)
CannaSoul and Eybna, cannabis-specific companies also headquartered in Israel, are also involved in COVID-19-related research:
“The novel formulation is designed to be consumed by direct inhalation. CannaSoul Chairman, Professor Dedi Meiri of the Israel Institute of Technology, said: ‘Our lab has been approved to operate as a corona lab, and in doing so, we are promoting two studies based on existing cannabis studies. First, we will try to identify the plant’s own molecules that are capable of suppressing the immune response to the COVID-19 coronavirus – which causes inflammation and severe disease – to lower the immune system response without suppressing it, thereby providing better complementary treatment to the steroids, which completely suppress the immune system.’ The second study is looking at the ACE2 receptor – which allows the virus to inject its genetic expression into human cells and proliferate. Meiri continued: ‘There is a process that examines the effect of cannabis molecules on proteins as well, and we are now examining which ones are relevant to the same receptor, with the goal of reducing its expression, making it difficult for the virus to enter the cell and proliferate.’ Eybna’s CEO, Nadav Eyal, said that: ‘This type of delivery method is a game-changer, enabling us to achieve therapeutic qualities from these unique phytochemicals like never before.’ The studies hope to provide treatment for viral infections via modulation of ‘Cytokine Storms’. A number of COVID-19 cases have been linked to ‘Cytokine Storm Syndrome’ whereby the immune system goes into overdrive and releases too many cytokines – proteins important in cell signaling – into the body at once, attacking healthy lungs and causing massive organ failure. The collaboration will enable CannaSoul’s analytical expertise, which is based on accumulated clinical data, and Professor Meiri’s pioneering research to customise Eybna’s novel terpene formulation for optimising its anti-inflammatory and anti-viral properties.” (691)
Also in April, Tetra Bio-Pharma – a group run out of Ontario – announced their SARS-COV-2-related project involving their “synthetic cannabinoid drug” named “PPP003”:
“Panag Pharma’s (Panag), a subsidiary of Tetra, PPP003 is a synthetic cannabinoid drug that selectively acts at the type 2 cannabinoid receptor (CB2R). “Panag’s scientific team and academic collaborators have been studying the role of the CB2R in acute immune responses for over a decade. The active molecule in PPP003 can reduce inflammation and dampen pro-inflammatory cytokine release, therefore, PPP003 should be carefully examined as a candidate drug to help reduce symptoms of acute lung inflammation and immune system dysregulation in those SARS-CoV-2 patients at risk”, states Tetra’s CSO, Dr. Melanie Kelly, Ph.D.” (692)
For those who are more interested in non-synthetic cannabinoid medicine, some of the most promising research in the world is happening right now at the University of Lethbridge, in Alberta:
“Cannabis extracts are showing potential in making people more resistant to the novel coronavirus, says an Alberta researcher leading a study. After sifting through 400 cannabis strains, researchers at the University of Lethbridge are concentrating on about a dozen that show promising results in ensuring less fertile ground for the potentially lethal virus to take root, said biological scientist Dr. Igor Kovalchuk. ‘A number of them have reduced the number of these (virus) receptors by 73 per cent, the chance of it getting in is much lower,’ said Kovalchuk. ‘If they can reduce the number of receptors, there’s much less chance of getting infected.’ Employing cannabis sativa strains over the past three months, the researcher said the effective balance between cannabis components THC and CBD — the latter more typically associated with medical use — is still unclear in blocking the novel coronavirus. ‘It will take a long time to find what the active ingredient is — there may be many,’ said Kovalchuk, whose Pathway RX is owned partly by Olds-based licensed cannabis producer Sundial Growers and partnered with Alberta cannabis researcher Swysh. But it’s generally the anti-inflammatory properties of high-CBD content that have shown most promise, he added. ‘We focus more on the higher CBD because people can take higher doses and not be impaired,’ said Kovalchuk. The study under Health Canada licence using artificial human 3-D tissue models has been seeking ways to hinder the highly contagious novel coronavirus from finding a host in the lungs, intestines, and oral cavity. If successful, the work could find practical medical use in the form of mouth wash, gargle, inhalants or gel caps, said Kovalchuk. ‘It would be cheaper for people and have a lot less side-effects,’ he said. But the absence of clinical trials remains a barrier, and funding from an increasingly cash-strapped cannabis industry isn’t there to fuel that, said Kovalchuk. ‘We have clinicians who are willing to work with us but for a lot of companies in the cannabis business, it’s significant cash that they can’t afford,’ he said. The scientist emphasized the findings wouldn’t lead to a vaccine — something ‘less specific and precise’ but nonetheless another possible weapon against COVID-19. ‘The extracts of our most successful and novel high CBD C sativa lines, pending further investigation, may become a useful and safe addition to the treatment of COVID-19 as an adjunct therapy,’ said Kovalchuk. ‘Given the current dire and rapidly evolving epidemiological situation, every possible therapeutic opportunity and avenue must be considered.’ Israeli researchers have begun clinical trials of CBD as a treatment to repair cells damaged by COVID-19 by using its anti-inflammatory abilities. It’s thought CBD could enhance the traditional effect of steroids in such treatment of patients in life-threatening condition and also bolster the immune system. It’s the kind of research and his own that deserves government support in Canada, whose federal government has pledged $1.1 billion in funding for COVID-19 research said the U of L scientist. ‘Our work could have a huge influence — there aren’t many drugs that have the potential of reducing infection by 70 to 80 per cent,’ he said.” (693)
These researchers have gotten international attention:
“Researchers at the University of Lethbridge recently released results from a study that shows the benefits of CBD as an aid in blocking the cells that enter the body from the novel coronavirus. The study, published in peer journal Preprints, was conducted by the scientists in April, and the results were released in a non-peer-reviewed, preclinical study titled ‘In Search of Preventative Strategies: Novel Anti-Inflammatory High-CBD Cannabis Sativa Extracts Modulate ACE2 Expression in COVID-19 Gateway Tissues’ earlier this month, according to a release from pharmaceutical research company Pathway RX. The study is a partnership among the university, Pathway, which works to develop cannabis therapies to treat specific diseases, and cannabinoid-based oral health company Swysh Inc. The researchers in Alberta, Canada, conducted a study using artificial 3D models of oral, airway and intestinal tissues coupled with a limited sample of high CBD Cannabis sativa extracts modulate ACE2 gene expression and ACE2 protein levels. The results indicated hemp extracts high in CBD may help block proteins that provide a ‘gateway’ for COVID-19 to enter host cells. ‘Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) has been generally accepted by the scientific community as a receptor required for the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into human cells,’ said Dr. Igor Kovalchuk, CEO of Pathway Rx and holder of a Health Canada License for Cannabis Research. He added that, ‘Our initial findings warrant further investigation but it’s possible that medical cannabis products could become a safe adjunct therapy for the treatment of COVID-19.’ The study results were recently shared publicly, and the research paper was submitted to a scientific journal for peer review, according to Pathway Rx. Among the 1,000 Cannabis sativa varieties that have been screened by Pathway Rx, only a small number have expressed medicinal properties. The research company is seeking funding to continue its efforts to support scientific initiatives to address COVID-19.” (694)
On the Preprints page’s comment section, the CEO of Pathway Research – Dr. Igor Kovalchuk (695) – has responded to certain questions with additional details regarding the study:
“Received: 22 May 2020 Commenter: Igor Kovalchuk . . . ‘Thank you for your questions Anon. These are unique varieties. There is no intention to hide them, but they are not available commercially yet because there should be a clinical trial to validate our finding. Hope this helps. Igor’”
“Received: 25 May 2020 Commenter: Igor Kovalchuk … ‘All varieties were hybrids produced in our lab; they don’t have common names and are not commercially available yet.’”
“Received: 25 May 2020 Commenter: Igor Kovalchuk … ‘… it is not a ‘strain’ of CBD, but extracts high in CBD, meaning that CBD is a dominant molecule in the extract. Hope this helps. Igor’” (696)
When asked by a commenter “. . . why not test CBD isolate directly?”, Kovalchuk replied “Yes, we are working on single cannabinoids now.” (697)
This team also published a different report a month later, mentioning the “lines” or cultivars (by code number, not by name) of cannabis that were most useful as anti-inflammatory agents:
“We noted that out of seven studied extracts of novel C. sativa lines, three (#4, #8 and #14) were the most effective, causing profound and concerted down-regulation of TNFα, IL-6, CCL2, and other cytokines and pathways related to inflammation and fibrosis. Most importantly, one of the tested extracts had no effects at all, and one exerted effects that may be deleterious, signifying that cannabis is not generic and cultivar selection must be based on thorough pre-clinical studies.” (698)
Media coverage of this second preliminary report reveals the “soft-drug” nature of the research material in question:
“Igor Kovalchuk says it’s generally recommended that THC dosage be limited to 25 mg a day to prevent impairment, so the strains they are studying as potential answers for COVID-19 would allow a dose of 500 mg of CBD without hitting that limit. Cannabis has a good safety profile and often can improve quality of life through reducing anxiety, improving sleep and boosting appetite, says Olga Kovalchuk.” (699)
Of course, what isn’t being said but should be said is that – if cannabis – or even just industrial hemp – wasn’t over-regulated as if it was a lethal narcotic drug but rather the non-toxic, non-lethal herbal medicine/co-evolutionary plant partner that it actually is, there would be millions of small empirical tests going on in gardens all over the world with hundreds of thousands of cultivars, with all kinds of people growing various types of low-THC high-CBD hemp and testing these extracts out on themselves as anti-COVID-19-related-inflammation agents, rather than the exclusivity relationships that limit hemp research to the absolute minimum number of participants, in order to profit the few at the expense of the many.
To that effect, this author reached out to the Lethbridge team at Sundial Growers Inc. on July 16th with and email with four questions:
“1) Was it difficult obtaining a license to do the research?
2) When are the clinical trials expected to be completed?
3) Will the cultivars that are found to be clinically useful be available to purchase in viable seed, feminized seed, and/or clone form? Will the general public be able to purchase them?
4) Olga Kovalchuck was quoted in the media as saying “Cannabis has a good safety profile …”. (link attached) How can a herb be so dangerous as to warrant strict regulations that prevent most people from growing it and researching it, and yet at the same time have such a good safety profile? Do the dangers of cannabis mis-use justify the strict regulations surrounding its growing and use?
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.” (700)
I received a reply on July 21st from their Director of Communications and Stakeholder Relations, Claire Buffone-Blair, which stated;
“I have forwarded your email to the lead investigators of the study and the holders of the research license. They will be in touch.” (701)
It’s now August 1st and I have yet to get a reply. If they ever do get back to me I will post their response in a separate article on CannabisCulture.com. I can’t imagine what they will say, though. They’re in the unfortunate position of trying to save the world working within unfair regulations, but pointing out the regulations are unfair may hurt their chances of success somehow. But without such pointed questions being asked as often as possible, what chance is there to make the situation more fair?
Cannabis’s role as an anti-inflammatory as the basis for research into it’s possible therapeutic effect with regards to COVID-19 has been confirmed by an Italian study, published in June:
“We have discussed the clinical features of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the severe acute inflammation that causes cytokine storm in COVID-19 patients. CB2 receptors stimulation is known to exert anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating effects by reducing the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, by shifting the M1/M2 ratio towards the anti-inflammatory M2 macrophage phenotype and by improving the MSCs-repairing properties. It is also well documented that human lungs, macrophages and MSCs, express CB2 receptors. Estrogens exert a protective effect in COVID-19, which explains sex-specific differences observed in SARS-CoV-2 infection. This could also be related to a CB2 activation. We suggest therefore, the possibility of using CB2 as a pharmacological target for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We hypothesize that the selective stimulation of CB2 could reduce the inflammatory response in SARS-CoV-2 patients and could improve the outcome. The stimulation of CB2 could control the inflammatory cascade in several checkpoints, considering its capability to reduce the production of a large number of cytokines, contrarily to the extremely selective action of monoclonal antibodies directed against a specific interleukin. On the other hand, CB2 receptor stimulation has a well-documented immunosuppressive effect by reducing immune cells proliferation and production of antibodies; thus, it could be greatly beneficial in containing the exacerbated inflammatory response in COVID-19 patients. To date, there are no commercially available agonists, approved for the use in human subjects, that specifically bind to CB2 receptors. HU910, HU308 and JWH133 have high specificity to CB2 receptors and are recommended to study the role of this receptor in biological processes and diseases. Cannabidiol (CBD) is also involved in modulation of inflammatory processes through a CB2-dependent mechanism. It induces CB2 activation indirectly, by increasing AEA levels, and exerts its anti-inflammatory properties by reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines release in experimental model of allergic contact dermatitis. A novel ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9-THCP) binds with high affinity to both human CB1 and CB2 receptors. In particular, the affinity shown for CB1 is thirty-fold higher compared to the one reported for Δ9-THC in the literature, and it was 5 to 10 times more active on the CB2 receptor. It has also been demonstrated that Δ9-THCP showed a cannabimimetic activity several times higher than its pentyl homolog Δ9-THC, also at lower doses. Nevertheless, more studies are necessary to develop a commercially available CB2 selective agonist, and clinical studies with the available phytocannabinoids should be encouraged. Another interesting field of investigation could be the screening of COVID-19 patients for CB2 Q63R. In this way, it would be possible to clarify if, also in this case, the variant is a predisposing factor to the infection and also if it is associated with the appearance of the most severe side effects (respiratory distress, pulmonary fibrosis and death). All these actions could produce better knowledge on SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis and significantly improve the management of COVID-19 patients.” (702)
The above information demonstrates genuine interest from both the cannabis-research community and the medical community in some of the chemical constituents of cannabis to both block and treat COVID-19 infections.
Of course, along with the good news from the medical marijuana research world, there’s some reefer madness from the corporate press, who have never passed on an opportunity to stigmatize cannabis in the last 130 years or so. In this case, there’s disinformation coming from CNN (703) and the UK tabloid paper known as The Sun (704) regarding cannabis smoke inflaming the lungs, making the body more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. In both articles, it was written that:
“‘What happens to your airways when you smoke cannabis is that it causes some degree of inflammation, very similar to bronchitis, very similar to the type of inflammation that cigarette smoking can cause,’ said pulmonologist Dr. Albert Rizzo, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association. ‘Now you have some airway inflammation and you get an infection on top of it. So, yes, your chance of getting more complications is there.’”
The Sun article then went on to conflate cannabis smoke with tobacco smoke – a myth that has been debunked elsewhere, as the carcinogenic element of tobacco smoke has been shown to be the polonium 210, lead 210 and radium found in the apatite rock used in the phosphate portion of the chemical fertilizer that tobacco has been grown in for the last 120 years. (705) This smoke-a-phobia was echoed by the Canadian Center on Substance Abuse a few months later in the Toronto Sun:
“The Canadian Centre On Substance Use and Addiction says there is much inaccurate information on social media about the positive effects of THC for COVID-19. ‘There is no scientific evidence that demonstrates the benefits of THC in preventing or treating COVID-19. On the contrary, the evidence shows that inhaling cannabis smoke, as with smoke from other sources such as tobacco, can have negative effects on the respiratory system,’ the CCOSA says.” (706)
None of the articles mention the massive amount of evidence of cannabis’s anti-inflammatory action that has come out in the last 12 years:
“These results identify (E)-BCP as a functional nonpsychoactive CB2 receptor ligand in foodstuff and as a macrocyclic antiinflammatory cannabinoid in Cannabis.” (707)
“Studies from our laboratory have suggested that administration of endocannabinoids or use of inhibitors of enzymes that breakdown the endocannabinoids, leads to immunosuppression and recovery from immune-mediated injury to organs such as the liver. Thus, manipulation of endocannabinoids in vivo may constitute a novel treatment modality against inflammatory disorders.” (708)
“The anti-inflammatory activity of cannabinoids may compromise host inflammatory responses to acute viral infections, but may be beneficial in persistent infections.” (709)
“Cannabinoids suppress inflammatory response and subsequently attenuate disease symptoms. This property of cannabinoids is mediated through multiple pathways such as induction of apoptosis in activated immune cells, suppression of cytokines and chemokines at inflammatory sites and upregulation of FoxP3+ regulatory T cells.” (710)
“We show for the first time that a single dose of cannabidiol has anti-inflammatory effects in a murine model of LPS-induced acute lung injury. Additionally, we show that augmentation of adenosine signaling through the adenosine A2A receptor is the most likely mechanism controlling the actions of cannabidiol in our work. Currently, we are investigating whether cannabidiol is able to decrease LPS-induced acute lung injury when the inflammatory process is already installed. Additionally, care should be taken when extrapolating these data to patients; nevertheless, in the future, cannabidiol may prove useful as a therapeutic tool for the treatment/attenuation of inflammatory lung diseases, such as acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.” (711)
“The present findings reveal an attractive therapeutic profile of CBD and suggest that CBD will have efficacy in controlling neuroinflammatory diseases such as MS. This compound can limit the harmful effects of an exacerbated inflammatory response, likely by increasing adenosine signaling, and prevent the development of secondary and irreversible damage. . . . In this study we present evidence that the non psychotropic cannabinoid CBD has beneficial immunoregulatory actions in the TMEV-IDD model.” (712)
As with vaccines, and colloidal silver, and HCQ, and herbal medicine, the corporate press remains willfully ignorant of anything that might vindicate the non-proprietary medicine sector, or anything that might harm the reputation of the proprietary medicine sector.
Reefer Madness = More Raids For The Benefit Of The Pot Cartel
The predictable consequences of continued cannabis disinformation campaign is the continued persecution of the non-licensed – and/or not-yet-licensed – cannabis producers and retailers by the police.
In the United States, the reefer madness has extended to the non-psychoactive cannabis/hemp extract CBD, (713) which has resulted in the Pentagon prohibiting US soldiers from using CBD in February of 2020. (714) In late July of 2020, the US congress approved the use of CBD for members of the military. (715) Both CBD and THC-based cannabis products are allowed – off duty under certain circumstances – in the Canadian military. (716)
In Canada, raids continue to occur, targeting both in-person retail stores and mail-order services, in spite of “legalization” (cartelization) and in spite of cannabis retail outlets being considered “essential services” by both Canadian provincial (717) and federal governments. (718)
Edmonton Police, for example, have made a big stink about going after online cannabis mail-order services, going so far as to seize websites:
“In an attempt to curb the number of black market cannabis shipments coming into Edmonton, city police have begun seizing the web addresses of companies illegally selling cannabis online. Police say many of the illegal cannabis shipments seized by investigators last year were traced back to websites distributing recreational cannabis products in contravention of the federal Cannabis Act. ‘These illegal websites would often feature misleading statements that suggested to would-be buyers that the site is legal,’ Const. Dexx Williams, EPS cannabis compliance officer said in a statement. ‘We have also seen instances of youth who were in possession of cannabis that was identified as being from some of these illicit sites.’ Starting this week, investigators began seizing more than 100 of the offending web addresses, effectively shutting the sites down, police said in a statement Thursday. In Alberta, albertacannabis.org, a website run by the Alberta Gaming, Liquor & Cannabis website is the only legal online retailer of recreational cannabis in the province. Police have launched an online advertising campaign to help educate the public about illegal websites. Investigators continue to search for any customers of the illegal sites. ‘As part of this investigation, we are identifying individuals who may have ordered from or communicated with these sites, and may have additional evidence related to their activities and the individuals running them,’ Williams said. ‘This is a unique investigative approach for police, and we believe this will strengthen our evidence against the individuals involved while also directing citizens to legal avenues to purchase their cannabis.’” (719)
Stolen Economy On Stolen Land
Meanwhile in B.C., the ironically-named/Orwellian “Community Safety Unit” has been focusing much of its attention on raiding Indigenous-owned cannabis retail outlets:
“Tupas Joint, in downtown Vernon, had products seized by the Province of B.C.’s Community Safety Unit (CSU) for the second time this month. … When asked what the province of B.C. is doing to engage First Nations in the cannabis industry, a representative from the government says First Nations entrepreneurs need to apply for a provincial license, just like anybody else. ‘Indigenous people who are interested in operating a licensed retail store can contact the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch (LCRB) for assistance.’ ‘LCRB (Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch) issues licences for stores operating both on and off-reserve,’ says Hope Latham, public affairs officer for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. ‘The federal government is responsible for licensing cannabis production. It has established an Indigenous Navigator service that provides ongoing support to Indigenous applicants throughout the licensing process,’ says Latham. Although Brewer’s shop is located in Vernon on traditional Syilx territory, cannabis licensing is under provincial jurisdiction. ‘The provincial Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch is responsible for enforcement of the provincial regulations regarding retail cannabis stores. Municipal government does not have a role in the adjudication of Aboriginal rights and title,’ wrote City of Vernon Communications and Grants Manager, Christy Poirier, via email.” (720)
The “Community Safety Unit” have been busy raiding and attacking harmless cannabis retailers – including other First Nations-owned outlets – for the past year or so. (721)
This is in spite of a promise by both the Canadian federal government and the BC provincial government to formally recognise “UNDRIP” – the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (722) – in spite of UNDRIP’s assertions of the rights of Indigenous peoples to their “traditional medicines”, “medicinal plants” and “human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora” (723) and in spite of First Nations people’s long-held pre-colonial relationship with the hemp plant. (724)
Aside from being a First Nations rights issue, the right of every human of every nation to grow, sell and use our co-evolutionary plant partner also involves matters related to human rights and the principles of fundamental justice that deal with affronts to human liberty, including over-breadth, arbitrariness, gross dis-proportionality, monopoly, and the unfair placement of the burden of proof. (725)
LP Cannabis: Sick Workers, Immoral Practices
Meanwhile, the Canadian licensed producers (LPs) of cannabis continue to make headlines for all the wrong reasons. After the 2018 rollout of national legalization, LPs have made headlines over quality control issues, (726) issues related to organized crime connections, (727) issues related to the RCMP covering up their criminal activities (728) and issues related to blatant pro-cartel public statements made by their representatives. (729)
After COVID-19, the LPs have also gotten attention for layoffs, (730) for a worker who tested positive for COVID-19, (731) and for buying expensive art while laying off workers at the same time;
“According to the location’s manager, John Smith, they received a fair amount of backlash after it was suggested that Canopy Growth, the owner of the Tokyo Smoke brand, was purchasing art for their stores while also reportedly laying off employees during the pandemic.” (732)
It is clear to this writer that the legalization of cannabis has become a farce. Election-inspired promises of “freedom” and “a fresh approach” and getting “this right in a way that suits Canadians broadly” (733) have been replaced with a corrupt, criminal, cartel economy, filled with Liberal party elites, (734) and with no care for quality or customers or employees or anything other than a quick buck. Now, with COVID-19 threatening to kill or cripple over half the world, it is time for whatever is left of the pot movement to unite behind the soft-drug distribution model that united the pioneers back in the 1990s:
“NO regulatory controls on who may cultivate and distribute cannabis: marijuana, hashish, hemp and all their by-products. No government controls on the economic aspect of our culture is to be permitted. (No provincial marijuana control boards, or quotas in cultivation, no discriminatory licensing requirements for vending, etc.).” (735)
Cannabis is our co-evolutionary plant partner. If we are to evolve beyond the point of being vulnerable to an Orwellian, Malthusian vaccine sales department, we must assert the right of all humans to be medically and economically self-sufficient.
“‘You may be a mighty king,’ he said. ‘But you’re sitting in oobleck up to your chin. And so is everyone else in your land. And if you won’t even say you’re sorry, you’re no sort of a king at all!’”
– Bartholomew and the Oobleck, Dr. Seuss, 1949
In conclusion, I have been asked by my editor at Cannabis Culture – Danny – to come up with an assessment of the COVID-19 crisis – an analysis of what’s happened so far, and a prediction of where we are headed.
My analysis of what has happened so far is that we have discovered the COVID-19 is much more destructive than previously believed, with the ability to kill and maim all ages and health categories, apparently disabling – perhaps permanently – over half the “recovered”, leaving little reason to believe acquired immunity – or a safe, effective and long lasting vaccine for it – it is possible. We have discovered the virus that causes it – SARS-COV-2 was most likely created in a lab, and was deployed in a manner similar to other diseases the US biowarfare industrial complex has deployed over the last 70 years. We have confirmed it to be used as a weapon against the poor and/or non-white and/or marginalized populations of the world – the immigrants and incarcerated – as a way to thin their numbers and keep them under control, justified with a perverse and untenible strategy for ecological stustainability. We have confirmed that it is being used as an opportunity for control freaks to institute a nightmarish police-state control grid, where human political and medical autonomy exist only as distant memories – legends – if they had ever existed at all.
We have learned that proprietary medicines – like vaccines and other expensive, patentable medications – have been hyped, but are less effective, more costly, and more dangerous than non-proprietary alternatives, such as masks, Hydroxychloroquine, colloidal silver, sweet wormwood, elderberry, and cannabis. And we’ve confirmed that the monopolization of the cannabis industry is a pandemic of a different kind – a pandemic of greed – which threatens humanity’s ability to pay for our food and rent and supply ourselves with our own medicine.
We’ve learned that those in the political and medical establishments have lied about virtually everything – about the severity of the virus, about its origin, about who to blame for making the situation worse, about the proper response, and about which medicines to take. Even the fact-checkers have been wrong about more than half of what they have been put in charge of investigating.
What happens next is up to the general public – up to people like you and me. The forces of evil await our response. If we do nothing, and let the disinformation stand, let the evil forces have their way, we are virtually guaranteed that the virus will continue to spread in the countries with no effective mask-laws and counter-measures and spill over into the countries that do, infecting and disabling billions of people and killing hundreds of millions. No doubt this will lead to the Orwellian nightmare we all fear. Treatments will be expensive and ineffective, and the vaccine – if it manages to get developed, may very well be even more dangerous than the virus. Any effective remedies will be monopolized, utilizing similar specious arguments that cannabis is currently monopolized with. Cash will be phased out. Only the healthy (with “healthy” defined by the state) will have good jobs. It will be a dystopian nightmare
If, on the other hand, information such as that presented here is disseminated widely, and transformed into even more powerful mediums of communication, if people do their homework and familiarize themselves with terms like “gain of function” and “asymptomatic transmission”, and “viral load” and “cytokine storm”, if we work together and fight for our rights to privacy and human medical autonomy and freedom from infection, if we recognize masks as a way to avoid mass vaccination and the control grid rather than mistaking them for the first steps towards those things, if we continue to destigmatize and explain and fight for access to (and the right to provide ourselves and others with) cannabis medicine and expand those efforts to also include other non-proprietary medicines, if we switch all our economies – especially the medicine and fuel sectors – to be sustainable and consumer-needs-focused, if we insist on robust government support for safety and efficacy testing of traditional, herbal and non-proprietary medicines along with robust support for whistle-blowers in the vaccine and biodefence industries, then perhaps we have a chance – a chance at avoiding the Malthusian/Orwellian nightmare that looms in our near future. A chance to evolve into something better. something sustainable and decent. Something worthy of calling “humanity”.
One thing is certain: the path to survival involves a lot of home-schooling – and direct, non-violent, creative, assertive action – from at least as many of us as it took to push society away from cannabis prohibition and towards “legalization” – as bad as the first version of that legalization might be. If we wait around for an apology from our rulers for what they have done to us, we are doomed. Those apologies only exist in fairy tales.
My thanks to my partner, Signe Knutson, for editing and help with some of the research that went into this monster.
- Bartholomew and the Oobleck, Dr. Seuss, Random House, New York, 1949
- A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted, Donald G. McNeil Jr., Dec. 19, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih.html
- Genomic Study Points to Natural Origin of COVID-19, Dr. Francis Collins, NIH Director’s Blog, March 26th, 2020
5. Peter Kropotkin, Memoirs Of A Revolutionist, 1899, Vol. 1, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York, p. 105
6. Pericles, Funeral Oration, 431 BC, quoted in Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War, (Excerpt) translated by Benjamin Jowett Chapter 7 https://wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs7a.htm
7. How does coronavirus kill? Clinicians trace a ferocious rampage through the body, from brain to toes By Meredith Wadman, Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, Jocelyn Kaiser, Catherine MatacicApr. 17, 2020 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-does-coronavirus-kill-clinicians-trace-ferocious-rampage-through-body-brain-toes
8. Young and middle-aged people, barely sick with covid-19, are dying of strokes, Ariana Eunjung Cha April 25, 2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/
See also: Why Is COVID-19 Coronavirus Causing Strokes In Young And Middle-Aged People? Robert Glatter, MD, Apr 27, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2020/04/27/why-is-covid-19-coronavirus-causing-strokes-in-young-and-middle-aged-people/#2a19919834df
Think a ‘mild’ case of Covid-19 doesn’t sound so bad? Think again, Adrienne Matei, 6 Jul 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/06/coronavirus-covid-19-mild-symptoms-who
Even Mild Coronavirus Cases Can Result In Lifelong Lung Damage, Peak Prosperity, April 21st 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COQY0et2J-E&t=654s
Coronavirus: More Evidence Of Long-Term Lung Damage, Peak Prosperity, May 13, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qg-NCWDIuI
Will We See A Covid-19 Spike In The Next 3-5 Weeks? Peak Prosperity, June 9th, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjyNw8qgkaw
Outrage! Why The US Gov’t Lied To Us About Masks, Peak Prosperity, June 16th, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnS4MbRribw
Scans Reveal Heart Damage in Over Half of COVID-19 Patients in Study BY KASHMIRA GANDER ON 7/13/20 https://www.newsweek.com/scans-reveal-heart-damage-over-half-covid-19-patients-study-1517293
Coronavirus Damages Lungs of Asymptomatic Patients Too, Medical Examiner Says BY JASON LEMON ON 6/29/20 https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-damages-lungs-asymptomatic-patients-too-medical-examiner-says-1514084
9. “Approximately 3.2% of patients with COVID-19 required intubation and invasive ventilation at some point in the disease course.” https://anesthesiology.pubs.asahq.org/article.aspx?articleid=2763453
COVID-19 Putting Patients at Risk of Unplanned Extubation and Airway Providers at Increased Risk of Contamination, Anesth Analg. 2020 Apr 22 : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7179054/
“Estimates of the incidence of unplanned extubation among patients in intensive care units range from 3.4% to 22.5%. Unplanned extubation can increase the amount of time a patient must remain on mechanical ventilation, the duration of the patient’s hospital stay, and the patient’s medical costs. It is also estimated that 60% of patients who experience an unplanned extubation require re-intubation, which may increase the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia.”
11. Ventilators are being overused on COVID-19 patients, world-renowned critical care specialist says, Apr 17, 2020 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ventilators-covid-overuse-1.5534097
Why Ventilators May Not Be Working as Well for COVID-19 Patients as Doctors Hoped, JAMIE DUCHARME APRIL 16, 2020 https://time.com/5820556/ventilators-covid-19/
12. ‘It’s frightening’: Doctors say half of ‘cured’ COVID patients still suffer, NATHAN JEFFAY 28 June 2020 https://www.timesofisrael.com/its-frightening-doctors-say-half-of-cured-covid-patients-still-suffer/
In some COVID-19 survivors, lingering effects create a steep climb to full recovery, JULY 21, 2020 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-in-some-covid-19-survivors-lingering-effects-create-a-steep-climb-to/
13. Warning of serious brain disorders in people with mild coronavirus symptoms, Ian Sample Science editor 8 Jul 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/08/warning-of-serious-brain-disorders-in-people-with-mild-covid-symptoms
16. Coronavirus has mutated into at least 30 different strains, Chinese study finds By Christopher Carbone, Fox NewsApril 21, 2020 https://nypost.com/2020/04/21/coronavirus-has-mutated-into-at-least-30-different-strains-study/
Everything We Know About the Mysterious Childhood Illness Linked to Coronavirus By Amanda Arnold, JULY 31, 2020 https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/is-kawasaki-disease-linked-to-coronavirus.html
17. KAWASAKI DISEASE AND CLEANING https://cleanfax.com/management/kawasaki-disease-and-cleaning/
18. “Since April 2020, a slight increase in childhood illnesses similar to the Kawasaki syndrome has been observed in the USA and some European countries. The World Health Organization is examining a possible link with COVID-19. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has named the condition “paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome” and issued guidance.”
19. “A tiny genetic mutation in the SARS coronavirus 2 variant circulating throughout Europe and the United States significantly increases the virus’ ability to infect cells, lab experiments performed at Scripps Research show. … Initially, this unusual feature produced unstable spikes, Farzan says. Only about a quarter of the hundreds of spikes on each SARS-CoV-2 virus maintain the structure they need to successfully infect a target cell. With the mutation, the tripod breaks much less frequently, meaning more of its spikes are fully functional, he says. The addition of the D614G mutation means that the amino acid at that location is switched from aspartic acid to glycine. That renders it more bendable, Farzan says. Evidence of its success can be seen in the sequenced strains that scientists globally are contributing to databases including GenBank, the duo reports. In February, no sequences deposited to the GenBank database showed the D614G mutation. But by March, it appeared in 1 out of 4 samples. In May, it appeared in 70 percent of samples, Farzan says.”
Mutated coronavirus shows significant boost in infectivity COVID-19-causing viral variant taking over in the United States and Europe now carries more functional, cell-binding spikes. June 12, 2020 https://www.scripps.edu/news-and-events/press-room/2020/20200612-choe-farzan-coronavirus-spike-mutation.html
20. COVID-19 vs. the flu in the United States (May 16th update) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rEO8iJB45A&fbclid=IwAR1DWmjNY11vrzqerVn1e2o9LWwkCOUO5BaiVMGDOL0bgHzd4VHQCxjJo1U
Global Deaths Due to Various Causes and COVID-19, Gavin Wood on 31 May 2020 https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/2634167/
23. “In the last six flu seasons, the CDC’s reported number of actual confirmed flu deaths—that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620, which is far lower than the numbers commonly repeated by public officials and even public health experts.”
Comparing COVID-19 Deaths to Flu Deaths Is like Comparing Apples to Oranges The former are actual numbers; the latter are inflated statistical estimates By Jeremy Samuel Faust on April 28, 2020 https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/
24. Official U.S. coronavirus death toll is ‘a substantial undercount’ of actual tally, Yale study finds, Berkeley Lovelace Jr., JUL 1 2020 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/01/official-us-coronavirus-death-toll-is-a-substantial-undercount-of-actual-tally-new-yale-study-finds.html
25. Tracking covid-19 excess deaths across countries Official covid-19 death tolls still under-count the true number of fatalities Graphic detail APR 16TH 2020 https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries
28. Woodstock Occurred in the Middle of a Pandemic, Jeffrey A. Tucker – May 1, 2020 https://www.aier.org/article/woodstock-occurred-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic/
29. Hong Kong flu of 1968: patterns of an epidemic brooklinebeacon.com/2020/04/15/hong-kong-flu-of-1968-patterns-of-an-epidemic/
31. Chinese doctors say Wuhan coronavirus reinfection even deadlier – Instead of creating immunity the virus can reportedly reinfect an individual and hasten fatal heart attack, Jules Quartly, Taiwan News, Contributing Writer, 2020/02/14 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3876197
32. Covid-19: Wuhan to quarantine all cured patients for 14 days after some test positive again, 23 FEBRUARY, 2020
33. 14% of Recovered Covid-19 Patients in Guangdong Tested Positive Again https://www.caixinglobal.com/2020-02-26/14-of-recovered-covid-19-patients-in-guangdong-tested-positive-again-101520415.html
Japan reports possible case of patient reinfected with coronavirus, Joseph Guzman, Feb 27, 2020, Changing America https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/484942-japan-confirms-first-case-of-person-reinfected
Can you get coronavirus twice? Joseph Guzman, March 13, 2020
They survived the coronavirus. Then they tested positive again. Why?
Doctor’s Note: Can the coronavirus reactivate? 12 Apr 2020 https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/doctor-note-coronavirus-reactivate-200412062905537.html
34. The time course of the immune response to experimental coronavirus infection of man, K. A. CALLOW, F. PARRY, M. SERGEANT, D. A. J. TYRRELL, 10 May 1990, Epidemiol. Infect. (1990), 105, 435-446 435,
35. COVID-19 relapse or reinfection? The mysterious case of Shilan Garousi, seemingly hit twice by coronavirus, Eric Rankin, Paisley Woodward · CBC News · Posted: Apr 29, 2020
36. Dallas Woman Battling Coronavirus, Again, Meredith Yeomans • June 15, 2020 https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavirus/dallas-woman-battling-coronavirus-again/2389265/
37. “As of 24 April 2020, no study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection by this virus in humans.”
“Immunity passports” in the context of COVID-19 Scientific Brief 24 April 2020
38. Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, 18 June 2020 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0965-6#Sec8
39. Asymptomatic COVID-19 findings dim hopes for ‘herd immunity’ and ‘immunity passports’, Emily Chung, Christine Birak, Marcy Cuttler · CBC News · Posted: Jun 28, 2020 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/asymptomatic-covid-19-1.5629172
What if immunity to covid-19 doesn’t last? Researchers say people can catch mild, cold-causing coronaviruses twice in the same year. Antonio Regalado, April 27, 2020 magic 8 ball MS TECH | TWENTY20 https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/27/1000569/how-long-are-people-immune-to-covid-19/
“Scientists stress that just because someone has recovered from Covid-19 and produced antibodies to the coronavirus does not mean they are protected from contracting it a second time. No one’s yet proven that. … With Covid-19, immunity — whether from an infection or a vaccine — is expected to wane over perhaps a few years; that is what happens with the four human coronaviruses that cause colds.”
Immunity to the coronavirus remains a mystery. Scientists are trying to crack the case By ANDREW JOSEPH JUNE 11, 2020 https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/11/coronavirus-immunity-vaccine-development/
41. Scientists explore a simple question with big implications: Can people be reinfected by COVID-19? IVAN SEMENIUKSCIENCE, MAY 8, 2020 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-scientists-explore-a-simple-question-with-big-implications-can-people/
Many People Lack Protective Antibodies After COVID-19 Infection F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE DISCLOSURES June 24, 2020 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/932715
42. How the Coronavirus Short-Circuits the Immune System In a disturbing parallel to H.I.V., the coronavirus can cause a depletion of important immune cells, recent studies found. Gina Kolata June 26, 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/health/coronavirus-immune-system.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
43. Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag Prashant Pradhan, Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Akhilesh Mishra, Parul Gupta, Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Manoj Balakrishnan Menon, James Gomes, Perumal Vivekanandan, Bishwajit Kundu, January 31st, 2020 https://medicalveritas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Pradham-et-al-Coronavirus-HIV-paper.pdf
44. Studies Report Rapid Loss of COVID-19 Antibodies The results, while preliminary, suggest that survivors of SARS-CoV-2 infection may be susceptible to reinfection within weeks or months. Amanda Heidt, Jun 19, 2020
Yes, You Can Get Covid-19 Twice, Peak Prosperity, July 9th, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyEBIpaIaM
My patient caught Covid-19 twice. So long to herd immunity hopes? D. Clay Ackerly Jul 12, 2020 https://www.vox.com/2020/7/12/21321653/getting-covid-19-twice-reinfection-antibody-herd-immunity
Coronavirus antibodies can start to fade away within weeks, according to a new study which puts a ‘nail in the coffin’ in the idea of herd immunity Adam Payne Jul 13, 2020 https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-new-uk-study-shows-antibodies-fade-after-three-weeks-2020-7
With coronavirus antibodies fading fast, vaccine hopes fade, too Photo of Peter Fimrite Peter Fimrite July 17, 2020 https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/With-coronavirus-antibodies-fading-fast-focus-15414533.php
46. Mdical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, chapter 35: Medical Challenges In Chemical And Biological Defense For The 21st Century, Borden Institute, 1997, p. 680 https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html# https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1997/cwbw/Ch35.pdf
50. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes & Robert F. Garry, Nature Medicine, volume 26, pages 450–452, 17 March 2020
51. The Controversial Experiments and Wuhan Lab Suspected of Starting the Coronavirus Pandemic BY FRED GUTERL, NAVEED JAMALI AND TOM O’CONNOR ON 4/27/20
52. Meryl Nass, MD, Is COVID-19 the Result of a US Government- Funded Experiment in China? May 16, 2020 ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION https://ahrp.org/is-covid-19-the-result-of-a-us-government-funded-experiment/
53. Another expert challenges assertions that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered, 27 April 2020 https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19387-another-expert-challenges-assertions-sars-cov-2-was-not-genetically-engineered
Science . 2005 Sep 16;309(5742):1864-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1116480. Structure of SARS Coronavirus Spike Receptor-Binding Domain Complexed With Receptor Fang Li 1, Wenhui Li, Michael Farzan, Stephen C Harrison
54. Jonathan Latham, PhD, Allison Wilson, PhD, JUNE 2, 2020, The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origi/
60. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes & Robert F. Garry Nature Medicine volume 26, pages 450–452, 17 March 2020
61. A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted, Donald G. McNeil Jr., Dec. 19, 2017, nytimes.com https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih.html
63. A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted, Donald G. McNeil Jr., Dec. 19, 2017, nytimes.com https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih.html
64. A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence, 09 November 2015, Vineet D Menachery, Boyd L Yount Jr, Kari Debbink, Sudhakar Agnihothram, Lisa E Gralinski, Jessica A Plante, Rachel L Graham, Trevor Scobey, Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F Donaldson, Scott H Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia, Wayne A Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi & Ralph S Baric, Nature Medicine volume 21, pages 1508–1513(2015) https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
65. Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis, Michael J. Selgelid, Science and Engineering Ethics volume 22, pages 923–964, 08 August 2016
66. Is the recent corona virus, COVID-19 a biological weapon?, tmancuso, March 24, 2020
67. The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade, B. Coutard, C. Valle, X. de Lamballerie, B. Canard, N.G. Seidah, E. Decroly, Antiviral Research Volume 176, April 2020, 104742
68. HIV-1 did not contribute to the 2019-nCoV genome, Chuan Xiao, Xiaojun Li, Shuying Liu, Yongming Sang, Shou-Jiang Gao, Feng Gao, Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020; 9(1): 378–381. 2020 Feb 14.
71. Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ are the real fake news after censoring Post story, Post Editorial Board, April 17, 2020 https://nypost.com/2020/04/17/facebook-fact-checkers-foul-again-after-censoring-post-story/amp/
72. Ibid. See also: https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/04/18/ny-post-wrecks-facebook-wuhan-lab-fact-checking/amp/ https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/04/20/facebook-sheryl-sandberg-poppy-harlow-coronavirus.cnn-business
73. S3:E49 – Did coronavirus accidentally escape from a Wuhan lab? It’s doubtful. | The Fact Checker, at 1:00 of the video
75. Wuhan lab says there’s no way coronavirus originated there. Here’s the science, Jeanna Bryner – Live Science Editor-in-Chief April 18, 2020 https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-complicated-origins.html
76. “Examination of the protein sequence of the S glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 reveals the presence of a furin cleavage sequence (PRRARS|V). The CoV with the highest nucleotide sequence homology, isolated from a bat in Yunnan in 2013 (RaTG-13), does not have the furin cleavage sequence. Because furin proteases are abundant in the respiratory tract, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 S glycoprotein is cleaved upon exit from epithelial cells and consequently can efficiently infect other cells. In contrast, the highly related bat CoV RaTG-13 does not have the furin cleavage site. … Acquisition of the furin cleavage site might be viewed as a ‘gain of function’ that enabled a bat CoV to jump into humans and begin its current epidemic spread.”
Furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus glycoprotein 13 FEBRUARY 2020 https://www.virology.ws/2020/02/13/furin-cleavage-site-in-the-sars-cov-2-coronavirus-glycoprotein/
“To date, the most closely related virus to SARS-CoV-2 is RaTG13, identified from a Rhinolophus affinis bat sampled in Yunnan province in 2013.”
A Novel Bat Coronavirus Closely Related to SARSCoV-2 Contains Natural Insertions at the S1/S2 Cleavage Site of the Spike Protein, Zhou et al., 2020, Current Biology 30, 2196–2203 June 8, 2020 https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(20)30662-X.pdf
77. Bret Weinstein and Yuri Deigin: Did Covid-19 leak From a Lab? Bret Weinstein, Jun 8, 2020, at 1:27:06 of the video.
78. The most logical explanation is that it comes from a laboratory, 02. juli 2020 https://www.minervanett.no/corona/the-most-logical-explanation-is-that-it-comes-from-a-laboratory/361860
See also: “Thus, while countless scientific publications on the pandemic assert in their introductions that a zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2 is a matter of fact or near-certainty (and Andersen et al has 860 citations as of July 14th), there is still not one published scientific paper asserting that a lab escape is even a credible hypothesis that deserves investigation. Anyone who doubts this pressure should read the interview with Birger Sørensen in Norway’s Minerva magazine in which Sørensen discusses the ‘reluctance’ of journals to publish his assessment that the existence of a virus that is ‘exceptionally well adjusted to infect humans’ is ‘suspicious’ and ‘cannot have evolved naturally’. The source of this reluctance, says Sørensen, is not rationality or scientific evidence. It results from conflicts of interest.” A Proposed Origin for SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 Pandemic, Jonathan Latham, PhD and Allison Wilson, PhD JULY 15, 2020 https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/
79. Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work! Peak Prosperity, July 7th, 2020 – beginning at 28:13 of the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1plkwhi5KUE&fbclid=IwAR1WguhlO1qZ6ALsQP4W8RIBMZ0QOI5P8rnU2jJhZKtgG_oDcgcTLa7b73c
See also: Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture, Aartjan J. W. te Velthuis, Sjoerd H. E. van den Worm,Amy C. Sims, Ralph S. Baric, Eric J. Snijder ,Martijn J. van Hemert Published: November 4, 2010 https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1001176
A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence Vineet D Menachery, Boyd L Yount Jr, Kari Debbink, Sudhakar Agnihothram, Lisa E Gralinski, Jessica A Plante, Rachel L Graham, Trevor Scobey, Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F Donaldson, Scott H Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia, Wayne A Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi & Ralph S Baric, 09 November 2015 https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
80. Ethical Questions Arise After Scientists Brew Super Powerful ‘SARS 2.0’ Virus Creating powerful new viruses has benefits and dangers. Melissa Cronin By Melissa Cronin November 15, 2015, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wnxqnm/ethical-questions-arise-after-scientists-brew-super-powerful-sars-20-virus
81. 8 Questions From a Disease Detective on the Pandemic’s Origins, William J. Broad July 8, 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/health/coronavirus-origin-china-lucey.html
COVID-19: COVID: Eight questions for the WHO team going to China next week to investigate pandemic origins, Daniel R. Lucey M.D., MPH, FIDSA
84. Donald Trump’s ‘Chinese virus’: the politics of naming April 21, 2020
85. Donald Trump calls COVID-19 ‘kung flu’ at rally US President Donald Trump called coronavirus ‘kung flu’ at a campaign rally in Tulsa. 29 Jun 2020 https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/newsfeed/2020/06/donald-trump-calls-covid-19-kung-flu-rally-200629091258959.html
Kellyanne Conway reacts to Trump’s use of ‘kung flu,’ months after calling term ‘highly offensive’, MAX COHEN 06/24/2020 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/24/kellyanne-conway-trump-kung-flu-coronavirus-337682
Trump again refers to coronavirus as ‘kung flu’ BY JUSTINE COLEMAN – 06/23/20 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/504224-trump-again-refers-to-coronavirus-as-kung-flu
86. Trump says US investigating whether virus came from Wuhan lab, Reuters, Steve Holland and David Brunnstrom, April 15, 2020 https://nationalpost.com/pmn/health-pmn/trump-says-us-investigating-whether-virus-came-from-wuhan-lab
87. Lab at Fort Detrick faces closing under proposed federal budget By Danielle E. Gaines [email protected] May 24, 2017
“Construction of a new facility for NBACC at Ft. Detrick began in June 2006. The 160,000 square foot facility will house the Biological Threat Characterization Center and the National Bioforensic Analysis Center (NBFAC). It will include over 70,000 square feet of laboratory space, 20% of which will be built to BL-4 standards.”
Controlling Dangerous Pathogens A Prototype Protective Oversight System John Steinbruner Elisa D. Harris Nancy Gallagher Stacy M. Okutani The Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland Advanced Methods of Cooperative Security Program The University of Maryland College Park, Maryland March 2007
“NBACC is barely seven years old and is the government’s leading organization for forensic epidemiology in the event of a biocrime or bioterrorism. It is a world class facility for biodefense, collaborates with NIH and the DoD to conduct research gaps, and maintains several partnerships to strengthen U.S. biodefense and global health security.”
88. Seymour M. Hersh, ‘Dare We Develop Biological Weapons?’ The New York Times, September 28th, 1969, p. 78
90. Isolation from Man of “Avian Infectious Bronchitis Virus-like” Viruses (Corona- viruses* ) similar to 229E Virus, with Some Epidemiological Observations Albert Z. Kapikian, Harvey D. James, Jr. Sara J. Kelly, Jane H. Dees, Horace C. Turner, Kenneth Mcintosh, Hyun Wha Kini, Robert H. Parrott, Monroe M. Vincent, Robert M. Chanock From the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Laboratory of Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 119, No. 3 (Mar., 1969), pp. 282-290
91. “In 1968, Fauci joined the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a clinical associate in the Laboratory of Clinical Investigation (LCI) at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.”
94. Seymour M. Hersh, ‘Dare We Develop Biological Weapons?’
The New York Times, September 28th, 1969, p. 28
95. Aliens – These people are dead, Burke! Aug 4, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=casQQhO1jkw
Burke’s Plan to Gather Xenomorph Specimens on LV-426 – Explained, Alien Theory, March 27th, 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru-yA60TpoI
96. Bayer Buys Berkeley, Jenny Miller, Z Magazine, 1992, https://www.berkeleycitizen.org/Bayer/bayer.htm
98. “BIONOIA”, Did U.S. Use Germ Warfare Against DC Peace March? Or Are We Just Being Bionoid…? Mark Sanborne, December 1, 2005
99. National Security Decision Memoranda 35, Henry Kissinger, November 25th, 1969 https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdm-nixon/nsdm-35.pdf See also:
“I understand that the Department of Defense in its contribution to NSSM-59 indicates a willingness to forego the further development of an offensive BW capability while maintaining R&D programs on defensive measures and to an extent that would avoid technological surprise by an enemy.” Lee A. DuBridge, Science Adviser, Memorandum for Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, 22 October 1969 https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB58/RNCBW5.pdf
US Chemical and Biological Warfare Documents https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/chemical.htm
Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/tracer-bullets/chemicalbiotb.html
100. Medical Aspects of Biological War, Chapter 29 AEROBIOLOGY: HISTORY, DEVELOPMENT, AND PROGRAMS, DOUGLAS S. REED, PhD; Associate Professor, Aerobiological Manager, RBI, Department of Immunology, University of Pittsburgh, 3501 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261; formerly, Microbiologist, Center for Aerobiological Sciences, US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, 1425 Porter Street, Fort Detrick, Maryland, AYSEGUL NALCA, MD, PhD; Chief, Department of Animal Studies, Center for Aerobiological Sciences, US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, 1425 Porter Street, Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702, CHAD J. ROY, PhD https://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=53784c1f-21ea-41c9-8672-0d47b792953e
101. Bayer Buys Berkeley, Jenny Miller, Z Magazine, 1992, https://www.berkeleycitizen.org/Bayer/bayer.htm
102. As Trump, China trade barbs, a Fort Detrick laboratory finds itself in the middle By Heather Mongilio [email protected] May 6, 2020
Coronavirus Could Be a ‘Chimera’ of Two Different Viruses, Genome Analysis Suggests ALEXANDRE HASSANIN, THE CONVERSATION24 MARCH 2020
104. Bolton a ‘guided missile’, Barbara Slavin and Bill Nichols, USA TODAY, 11/30/2003 https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-30-bolton-usat_x.htm
105. Ghosts of Ft. Detrick https://vimeo.com/151047507 @ 2:34
106. EXHIBIT 19-1: ISOLATION PROCEDURES FOR PATIENT CARE AT USAMRIID, BY DISEASE AGENT OR TYPE OF EXPOSURE, taken from Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Chapter 19: The U.S. Biological Warfare and Biological Defense Programs, Borden Institute, 1997, p. 433 https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1997/cwbw/Ch19.pdf
107. “Footnotes: 2 Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Kamal U. Saikh or Dr. Robert G. Ulrich, Laboratory of Molecular Immunology, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, 1425 Porter Street, Frederick, MD 21702.”
Human Monocytes Infected with Yersinia pestis Express Cell Surface TLR9 and Differentiate into Dendritic Cells, Kamal U. Saikh, Teri L. Kissner, Afroz Sultana, Gordon Ruthel and Robert G. Ulrich J Immunol December 15, 2004, 173 (12) 7426-7434; https://www.jimmunol.org/content/173/12/7426
“The United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID; pronounced: you-SAM-rid) is the U.S Army‘s main institution and facility for defensive research into countermeasures against biological warfare. It is located on Fort Detrick, Maryland and is a subordinate lab of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command (USAMRDC), headquartered on the same installation.”
Medical Aspects of Biological War, Chapter 29 AEROBIOLOGY: HISTORY, DEVELOPMENT, AND PROGRAMS, DOUGLAS S. REED, PhD; Associate Professor, Aerobiological Manager, RBI, Department of Immunology, University of Pittsburgh, 3501 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261; formerly, Microbiologist, Center for Aerobiological Sciences, US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, 1425 Porter Stree, Fort Detrick, Maryland, AYSEGUL NALCA, MD, PhD; Chief, Department of Animal Studies, Center for Aerobiological Sciences, US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, 1425 Porter Street, Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702, CHAD J. ROY, PhD https://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=53784c1f-21ea-41c9-8672-0d47b792953e
112. The past Porton Down can’t hide, Rob Evans, May 6th, 2004 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/may/06/science.research
See also: Porton Down unlawfully killed airman in sarin tests, Rob Evans, Sandra Laville, Nov. 16th, 2004 https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/nov/16/military.robevans
113. “Frank Olson witnessed several brutal interrogations involving torture and the use of drugs while in Berlin. On his return to the U.S. he confided to a friend and colleague at Fort Detrick, Norman Cournoyer, that he was disgusted with what the CIA was doing and was determined to leave.”
114. LOOKING BACK 1953: CIA doses men with LSD at Deep Creek Lake (part 1), September 10, 2015 https://historyarchive.wordpress.com/tag/lsd/
116. A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War … By H. P. Albarelli, 2009 https://books.google.ca/books?id=Ov-0BQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
117. “BIONOIA” part 2: The Nuts, Bolts and Crimes of Biological Warfare, Mark Sanborne, January 25, 2006
119. “BIONOIA” part 4: Dengue in Cuba, West Nile in New York: When Mosquitoes Come Home to Roost, Mark Sanborne, July 4, 2006 https://countervortex.org/bionoia-part-4/
“a mosquito that can spread dengue fever, chikungunya, Zika fever, Mayaro and yellow fever viruses, and other disease agents” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedes_aegypti
120. “BIONOIA” part 4: Dengue in Cuba, West Nile in New York: When Mosquitoes Come Home to Roost, Mark Sanborne, July 4, 2006 https://countervortex.org/bionoia-part-4/
121. “BIONOIA” part 3: The Mystery of Plum Island: Nazis, Ticks and Weapons of Mass Infection, Mark Sanborne, April 30, 2006
122. “BIONOIA” part 2: The Nuts, Bolts and Crimes of Biological Warfare, Mark Sanborne, January 25, 2006
123. “BIONOIA”, Did U.S. Use Germ Warfare Against DC Peace March? Or Are We Just Being Bionoid…? Mark Sanborne, December 1, 2005
1960 Germ Warfare Vigil at Fort Detrick Maryland Vietnam Original News Wirephoto https://www.ebay.com/i/402002088870?chn=ps
125. “From July 1, 1959 to July 4, 1960 a vigil was held at Fort Detrick, Maryland to protest against the germ warfare research that was being conducted there.”
126. “Pacifists Picket Ft. Detrick’s Labs”, The Morning Herald, Hagerstown, Maryland, March 22nd, 1967, p. 13
127. “Pickets Parade At Ft. Detrick”, The Daily Mail, Hagerstown, Maryland, August 6th, 1969, p. 7
128. “CBW Opponents Plant Tree At Fort Detrick Main Gate”, The News, Frederick, Maryland, July 9th, 1970, p. 1
129. The Role of the Public with Dual Use Research of Concern Policy and Research Beth Willis, Chair Containment Laboratory Community Advisory Committee Frederick, MD https://www.cityoffrederickmd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4556/DURC-Conf-B-Willis-fnl?bidId=
130. Ghosts of Ft. Detrick https://vimeo.com/151047507
131. Ethical Alternatives to Experiments with Novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens, Marc Lipsitch, Alison P. Galvani, May 20, 2014 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001646
132. Lab at Fort Detrick faces closing under proposed federal budget By Danielle E. Gaines [email protected] May 24, 2017
Controlling Dangerous Pathogens A Prototype Protective Oversight System John Steinbruner Elisa D. Harris Nancy Gallagher Stacy M. Okutani The Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland Advanced Methods of Cooperative Security Program The University of Maryland College Park, Maryland March 2007
133. Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets Masaki Imai, Tokiko Watanabe, Masato Hatta, Subash C. Das, Makoto Ozawa, Kyoko Shinya, Gongxun Zhong, Anthony Hanson, Hiroaki Katsura, Shinji Watanabe, Chengjun Li, Eiryo Kawakami, Shinya Yamada, Maki Kiso, Yasuo Suzuki, Eileen A. Maher, Gabriele Neumann & Yoshihiro Kawaoka Nature volume 486, pages 420–428, 02 May 2012 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10831
134. Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets, Sander Herfst, Eefje J. A. Schruwen, Martin Linster, Salin Chutinimitkul, Emmie de Wit, Vincent J. Munster, Erin M. Sorrell, Theo M. Bestebroer, David F. Burke, Derek J. Smith, Guus F. Rimmelzwaan, Albert D. M. E. Osterhaus, Ron A. M. Fouchier, Science, 22 Jun 2012: Vol. 336, Issue 6088, pp. 1534-1541
135. Benefits and Risks of Influenza Research: Lessons Learned, Anthony S. Fauci, Francis S. Collins, Science 22 Jun 2012: Vol. 336, Issue 6088, pp. 1522-1523 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6088/1522.full
See also: “This policy, which was released on March 29, strengthens and formalizes ongoing efforts in DURC oversight and is described in my written testimony. The ultimate goal of the NIH in its embrace of this new policy is to ensure that the conduct and communication of research in this area remain transparent and open at the same time as the risk-benefit ratio of such research clearly tips towards benefitting society.” Anthony Fauci, BIOLOGICAL SECURITY: THE RISK OF DUAL-USE RESEARCH – HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 26, 2012 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg75273/html/CHRG-112shrg75273.htm
136. Benefits and Risks of Influenza Research: Lessons Learned, Anthony S. Fauci, Francis S. Collins, Science 22 Jun 2012: Vol. 336, Issue 6088, pp. 1522-1523 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6088/1522.full
139. MUST SEE: How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health, James Corbett MAY 1, 2020 @ 15:26 https://www.activistpost.com/2020/05/must-see-how-bill-gates-monopolized-global-health.html
140. Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research BY FRED GUTERL ON 4/28/20 https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741
144. Bill Gates’s Philanthropic Giving Is a Racket BY ROB LARSON https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/04/bill-gates-foundation-philanthropy-microsoft
145. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation https://osservatorioterzosettore.fandom.com/it/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#cite_note-15
147. Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 14704.13.2020 https://thefullest.com/2020/04/13/gates-globalist-vaccine-agenda-a-win-win-for-pharma-and-mandatory-vaccination/
See also: Bill Gates says foundation will invest billions in fight to stop COVID-19, Siemny Kim, KIRO 7 News, April 6, 2020 https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/bill-gates-says-foundation-will-invest-billions-fight-stop-covid-19/MMAFTSVGKZHPTEGYKEQKMRWTWU/
149. Minimum of 40 Children Paralyzed After New Meningitis Vaccine By Toni on January 7, 2013 www.laleva.org/eng/2013/01/minimum_of_40_children_paralyzed_after_new_meningitis_vaccine.html
150. The media loves the Gates Foundation. These experts are more skeptical. By Julia [email protected]@voxmedia.com Jun 10, 2015, https://www.vox.com/2015/6/10/8760199/gates-foundation-criticism
151. Draining the swamp: How sanitation conquered disease long before vaccines or antibiotics January 28, 2020 https://rootsofprogress.org/draining-the-swamp
153. Potshot #19 at http://pot-shot.ca/
Starting world wars, inventing horrible weapons, enslaving large populations… By David Malmo-Levine on March 1, 2003 https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2003/03/01/3292/
The I.G. Farben and Krupp Trials, 1949 https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Law-Reports_Vol-10.pdf
BOOK REVIEW THE CRIME AND PUNISHMENT OF I.G. FARBEN. By Joseph Borkin.t New York: The Free Press. 1978. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2376&context=lawreview
The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben (entire online copy) – Joseph Borkin https://www.scribd.com/doc/102817080/The-Crime-and-Punishment-of-I-G-Farben-Joseph-Borkin
The Devil’s Chemists – the International Farben Cartel by Joseph E DuBois 1952 (part 1) https://www.scribd.com/document/3439488/The-Devil-s-Chemists-the-International-Farben-Cartel-by-Joseph-E-DuBois-1952-P1
The Devil’s Chemists – the International Farben Cartel by Joseph E DuBois 1952 (part 2) https://www.scribd.com/document/3439715/The-Devil-s-Chemists-the-International-Farben-Cartel-by-Joseph-E-DuBois-1952-P2
http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/transcripts/1-transcript-for-nmt-1-medical-case?seq=1199&q=Vaccine+Farben+ PAGE 1,182 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Kogon http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents/656-letter-to-behringwerke-ig?q=Farben#p.1 http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents/657-letter-to-behringwerke-ig?q=Farben#p.1 http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents/714-affidavit-concerning-the-typhus?q=Farben#p.1 http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/search/?q=issue:%22Typhus+%28and+related%29+vaccine+experiments%22 http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/search/?q=Farben+ http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents/4151-letter-to-dr-august?q=evidence:no*#p.1
157. COVID-19, Cannabis & Herbal Medicine By David Malmo-Levine on March 30, 2020 https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2020/03/30/covid-19-cannabis-herbal-medicine/ (Citations #112 through #123)
See also: Starting world wars, inventing horrible weapons, enslaving large populations… By David Malmo-Levine on March 1, 2003 (citations #149 through #178) https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2003/03/01/3292/
160. 37 Lion Munard and Patrick Zylberman, “Seeds for French Health Care: Did the Rockefeller Foundation Plant the Seeds between the Two World Wars?”,
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C:Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Vol. 31 (2000), p. 463, quoted in The Rockefeller and Gates Foundations in Global Health Governance, JEREMY YOUDE, Global Society , 2013 https://www.academia.edu/25442793/The_Rockefeller_and_Gates_Foundations_in_Global_Health_Governance
161. “PROBLEMS OF POPULATION”, THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION PRESIDENT’S FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ANNUAL REPORT, 1968, THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION, 111 WEST 50TH STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10020, P. 52
162. Yergin, Daniel, “The Prize – The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power,” 1992, Touchstone, pp. 330-331
Potshot #19, pp. 20-22 @ pot-shot.ca
Starting world wars, inventing horrible weapons, enslaving large populations… By David Malmo-Levine on March 1, 2003 https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2003/03/01/3292/
163. “But whatever you call it – ‘population control’ or ‘family planning’ — this isn’t just a billionaire fad for the Gates family. ‘Bill Gates Sr. has been deeply involved in this issue for decades,’ says Laurie S. Zabin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Zabin, who served with Gates Sr. on the national board of Planned Parenthood, was instrumental in getting the Gates Foundation grant for Johns Hopkins. But that doesn’t mean Gates Sr. is the only one who cares about overpopulation, said Zabin: Gates Jr. ‘has supported issues of real social concern and certainly this is one of them.’ Gates Sr. agreed: ‘It’s an interest he has had since he was a kid. And he has friends who are interested in supporting research into world population problems, people whom he admires — it’s just a matter of a fit between his proclivities and mine.’”
IS BILL GATES A CLOSET LIBERAL? | PAGE 2 OF 2 https://web.archive.org/web/20070918043004/http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/01/cov_29feature2.html
164. Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid, May 17, 2020, The Corbett Report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igx86PoU7v8
Meet Bill Gates, May 24, 2020, The Corbett Report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSvhPnUgyz8
167. Unintended victims of Gates Foundation generosity, CHARLES PILLER, DOUG SMITH, DEC. 16, 2007 https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gates16dec16-story.html
168. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011 Sep; 30(9): 1420–1428. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/
169. “1.1 During March, 2010 the entire world was shocked by the media reports about the deaths of some female children and adolescents in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh after being administered Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines. The vaccination trials were carried out by an American agency viz. Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH). The project was reportedly funded by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, an American charity. … 3.15 The Committee noted that all the seven deaths were summarily dismissed as unrelated to vaccinations without in-depth investigations. … 3.16 The Secretary of DHR/DG, ICMR acknowledged that certain irregularities were reported in the implementation of the project. With regard to Informed Consent, he said that though the consent was taken properly in Gujarat, there were gross violations of norms in Andhra Pradesh.”
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA DEpartMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE RAJYA SABHA REPORT NO. 72 ON HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE August, 2013/Bhadra, 1935 (Saka) SEVENTY SECOND REPORT Alleged Irregularities in the Conduct of Studies using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Vaccine by Path in India (Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) (Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 30th August, 2013), pp. 1, 6 22.214.171.124/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20Health%20and%20Family%20Welfare/72.pdf
170. “The vaccinations were halted in early 2010 after local media outlets claimed seven girls had died after receiving the HPV vaccine. After investigating the deaths, the director general of the Indian Council of Medical Research stated that ‘two deaths were due to poisoning, one died of drowning, and another due to pyrexia of unknown origin.’ A committee formed by the Indian government to investigate the deaths confirmed the director general’s findings—further clarifying that the poisoning deaths were due to insecticide—and found that the other three deaths were due to snakebite, malaria, and a disease ‘which cannot be linked possibly to HPV.’”
Did Bill Gates Test Unapproved Vaccines on Children in Africa? No., Alec Dent, Apr 22 https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/did-bill-gates-test-unapproved-vaccines
171. “3.15 The Committee noted that all the seven deaths were summarily dismissed as unrelated to vaccinations without in-depth investigations. According to Inquiry Committee report, the speculative causes were suicides, accidental drowning in well (why not suicide?), maleria, viral infections, subarachnoid haemorrhage (without autopsy) etc. The Committee has been given to understand that suicidal ideation is caused by many drugs. Since then one more death due to suicide in case of Gardasil has been reported in addition to 5 deaths reported during 2009-10. Therefore, HPV vaccine as a possible, if not probable, cause of suicidal ideation cannot be ruled out.”
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA DEpartMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE RAJYA SABHA REPORT NO. 72 ON HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE August, 2013/Bhadra, 1935 (Saka) SEVENTY SECOND REPORT Alleged Irregularities in the Conduct of Studies using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Vaccine by Path in India (Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) (Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 30th August, 2013), pp. 1, 6 126.96.36.199/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20Health%20and%20Family%20Welfare/72.pdf
172. PARLIAMENT OF INDIA DEpartMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE RAJYA SABHA REPORT NO. 72 ON HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE August, 2013/Bhadra, 1935 (Saka) SEVENTY SECOND REPORT Alleged Irregularities in the Conduct of Studies using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Vaccine by Path in India (Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) (Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 30th August, 2013), pp. 3-4 188.8.131.52/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20Health%20and%20Family%20Welfare/72.pdf
See also: Bill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7A_cMpKm6w
173. Minimum of 40 Children Paralyzed After New Meningitis Vaccine www.laleva.org/eng/2013/01/minimum_of_40_children_paralyzed_after_new_meningitis_vaccine.html
175. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Nov 15; 61(Suppl 5): S451–S458. Published online 2015 Nov 9. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ493 PMCID: PMC4639482 PMID: 26553674 Communication Challenges During the Development and Introduction of a New Meningococcal Vaccine in Africa https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4639482/
176. “1- The experts limited their investigations to N’Djamena: they did not go to Gouro, a town located 1400 kilometers from the capital; As a result, they did not contact either the Gouro vaccinating agents or the Fada vaccine conveyors in Gouro.
2- The experts saw and used the data on 31 of the 38 patients evacuated from Gouro to N’Djamena (on arrival, 7 patients were sent to Tunis). They speak of a patient with the same symptoms without having taken the vaccine. What patient is it? in any case, he is not a patient from Gouro since all those who arrived from there had been vaccinated.”
February 6, 2013Posted by Mak Reaction to the Information Note N ° 2 of the Government published dated January 21, 2013, relating to the situation of sick children in Gouro www.makaila.fr/article-reaction-a-la-note-d-information-n-2-du-gouvernement-publiee-en-date-du-21-janvier-2013-relative-a-115086203.html
181. Bill Gates and the return on investment in vaccinations – CNBC’s Becky Quick sits down with Microsoft Co-Founder Bill Gates at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Gates made a $10B investment on vaccine development and distribution over the last 20 years. WED, JAN 23 2019 @ 1:37
182. “Food sovereignty activists are shining a light on a closed-door meeting between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which are meeting in London on Monday with representatives of the biotechnology industry to discuss how to privatize the seed and agricultural markets of Africa.”
183. “Concentration of control over seed is narrowing into a handful of mega-corporations. The “Big 6” pesticide and GMO corporations which own the world’s seed, pesticide and biotechnology industries are BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto, and Syngenta. … Philanthropy has also come into the game with Bill Gates and his Foundation who, in partnership with these giant profiteers, is carving out new territories with their poisons, under the guise of doing good for humanity. … Using computer software and through genomic mapping, Gates and the corporations are taking patents on what farmers have bred through the ages. The Gates Foundation funds DivSeek, a mega piracy program of the biodiversity of the world – it is in control of the world’s gene banks, including the collection of farmers’ seeds held in the gene banks of CGIAR system. Bill Gates heavily invested his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation in the frozen and static Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway. As much as 75% of global crop diversity exists outside the big institutional seed banks, and is held instead by some of the world’s most marginal farmers, most of them women. Precious funding would be better put to supporting a living and self-sustaining agriculture, helping farmers save, breed, and sow their own seeds, the proven path to feeding the hungry of the world.”
“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has become a major player in international aid for agriculture. In 2015 alone, the Foundation distributed over $450 million in grants for agricultural development globally. The BMGF is best known for using its money to push for an agricultural “Green Revolution” in Africa, based on the use of synthetic fertilizers and patented seeds. This agenda largely benefits the agribusiness corporations that dominate input markets and global agricultural value chains. The Gates Foundation’s trust invests in the same companies it serves through its development programs, including Monsanto, BASF, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever, and many others.”
188. BRUESEWITZ ET AL. v. WYETH LLC, FKA WYETH, INC., ET AL., CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09–152. Argued October 12, 2010—Decided February 22, 2011 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
189. Dr. Russell Blaylock, quoted in Challenging What You’ve Heard about the Herd, May 17, 2017 https://www.texansforvaccinechoice.com/online/challenging-what-youve-heard-about-the-herd/
190. Don’t bet on vaccine to protect us from Covid-19, says world health expert Robin McKie, Toby Helm and Michael Savage Sat 18 Apr 2020 21.23 BST
192. “Unlike SARS, the MERS outbreak of 2012 continues to infect several dozen patients each year. The World Health Organization reports that since Sept. 2012, there have been a total of 2,494 confirmed cases and 858 fatalities, a case-fatality rate of 34.4%.”
194. “When they came up with a vaccine for SARS it took 20 months.” @ 0:42 of this video: Dr. Jon LaPook Answers Your Questions About Covid-19 •Apr 15, 2020 The Late Show with Stephen Colbert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXshM_QBg9g
195. Why will it take so long to develop a COVID-19 vaccine? PAUL TAYLOR SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL PUBLISHED APRIL 14, 2020 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/article-why-will-it-take-so-long-to-develop-a-covid-19-vaccine/
196. Did The Oxford Covid Vaccine Work In Monkeys? Not Really, William A. Haseltine, May 16, 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/05/16/did-the-oxford-covid-vaccine-work-in-monkeys-not-really/#2ae2578e3c71
See also: Coronavirus: Politicized “Medicine” May 19, 2020, Peak Prosperity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF4BzDYsXTc&fbclid=IwAR2TdoFvrKH8TePdtY6WP2cloTwjuiLMaIM3iLBABuHvC5sAE70UIU_A0FM
Bill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7A_cMpKm6w
197. COVID-19 anti-vaxxers would ‘let the disease continue to kill people’, Bill Gates warns, Andy Wells, Yahoo News UK, 4 June 2020 https://au.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-vaccine-bill-gates-114859516.html
198. Hundreds of Canadians willing to be infected with coronavirus to speed vaccine research, Avis Favaro, Elizabeth St. Philip, Graham Slaughter, May 16, 2020
202. US alerted Israel, NATO to disease outbreak in China in November — TV report, TOI STAFF 16 April 2020 https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-alerted-israel-nato-to-disease-outbreak-in-china-in-november-report/
204. From ‘hoax’ to pandemic: Trump’s shifting rhetoric on coronavirus Issued on: 20/03/2020 – 18:54 Modified: 20/03/2020 https://www.france24.com/en/20200320-from-hoax-to-pandemic-trump-s-shifting-rhetoric-on-coronavirus
205. Did President Trump Refer to the Coronavirus as a ‘Hoax’? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
206. Trump vs. history in the time of COVID-19 By Eric Black | 03/19/2020 https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2020/03/trump-vs-history-in-the-time-of-covid-19/
Trump’s claim that he imposed the first ‘China ban’ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/07/trumps-claim-that-he-imposed-first-china-ban/
Chris Hayes: Trump Is Objectively Pro-Virus | All In | MSNBC, Jul 7, 2020 1.3K 38 SHARE SAVE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj1EuAzhnHw
See also: Coronavirus hospital data will now be sent to Trump administration instead of CDC, July 15, 2020 https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/politics/trump-administration-coronavirus-hospital-data-cdc/index.html
Coronavirus data has already disappeared after Trump administration shifted control from CDC PUBLISHED THU, JUL 16 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/16/us-coronavirus-data-has-already-disappeared-after-trump-administration-shifted-control-from-cdc-to-hhs.html
207. ASK A SANE PERSON: NAOMI KLEIN IS NOT READY TO GIVE UP THE FIGHT, Christopher Bollen, May 8, 2020 https://www.interviewmagazine.com/culture/ask-a-sane-person-naomi-klein-is-not-ready-to-give-up-the-fight
210. Protests Matter: A Charter Critique of Alberta’s Bill 1 Posted on June 9, 2020 by Jennifer Koshan https://ablawg.ca/2020/06/09/protests-matter-a-charter-critique-of-albertas-bill-1/
211. Do you have a right to protest? The coronavirus’s impact on freedom of assembly June 2, 2020 1.57pm ED https://theconversation.com/do-you-have-a-right-to-protest-the-coronaviruss-impact-on-freedom-of-assembly-139363
212. POLITICS 06/11/2020 10:05 EDT | Updated 06/11/2020 10:06 EDT Alberta’s Bill 1 Is ‘Racially Targeted’: First Nations Leaders The Critical Infrastructure Defence Act bans protests at pipelines, oilsands sites, and railways. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/alberta-bill1-indigenous-first-nations-protests_ca_5ed9a4e9c5b6d90c9a5bb3b4
213. Do you have a right to protest? The coronavirus’s impact on freedom of assembly June 2, 2020 1.57pm ED https://theconversation.com/do-you-have-a-right-to-protest-the-coronaviruss-impact-on-freedom-of-assembly-139363
214. Tear-Gassing Protesters During An Infectious Outbreak Called ‘A Recipe For Disaster’ June 5, 2020 https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/05/870144402/tear-gassing-protesters-during-an-infectious-outbreak-called-a-recipe-for-disast
215. Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (Geneva Protocol) https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/4784.htm
216. “The bill, which amended the Public Health Act, was introduced by Health Minister Tyler Shandro for first reading on March 31 and passed less than 48 hours later on April 2, with opposition from the NDP, who tried to add a sunset clause and transparency requirements to the new law.”
217. “Hastily pushed through the Legislative Assembly in less than 48 hours, with only 21 out of 87 elected MLAs present and voting on the final reading, Bill 10 provides sweeping and extraordinary powers to any government minister at the stroke of a pen.”
218. John Carpay: Alberta’s Bill 10 is an affront to the rule of law, John Carpay April 14, 2020
221. Cardy hopes to pass contentious vaccination bill by summer Poitras · CBC News · Posted: May 13, 2020 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-dominic-cardy-vaccination-bill-1.5567980
222. WARMINGTON: Tam talked of tracking, bracelets in 2010 epidemic film, Joe Warmington, April 28, 2020