DR. MERYL NASS: "In 2013 and 2014, there were calls by many scientists because of the work of Kawaoka and Fouchier to stop it."

In a conversation with retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova (@sasha_latypova) physician and writer Dr. Meryl Nass (@NassMeryl) gives a ten-minute overview of biological weapons research in the U.S. from WWI all the way up to present-day gain-of-function research. pic.twitter.com/j84U7YiWnS

— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) November 17, 2023

In World War I, there was a lot of gas used, so, chlorine, phosgene, and other gases were used, and everybody felt that these were worse than bullets.  Now, I don't know why they thought that but they did.  There were also biological weapons used.  There were biological agents, for example, used to kill horses because horses are used in war.  In 1925, the Geneva Protocol came into force, where the nations that were involved in World War I, said, we don't want to use biological or chemical weapons anymore, and we're going to make this treaty.  So they did, but not everyone ratified the treaty.  The United States signed it, but we never ratified it.  It took us 50theFaars to ratify it; we didn't ratify it until 1975.  To this day, I don't know what we did between 1925 and 1942.  But by the time World War II came along, we were making chemical and biological weapons and stockpiling them in great numbers.  Everyone knows about Fort Deitrick Lab which is where the research [bioweapons] is done, but there were large places for storage underground in Alabama and in Arkansas.  When the United States tried to get rid of some of its chemical weapons by pouring them down holes in the ground, into caverns and things, actual earthquakes occurred.  And so in some places, we had to pump them out, and then a lot of our chemical weapons were actually dumped in leaking canisters into the Atlantic Ocean off a little Naval Base in New Jersey near Sandy Hook they were just scuttled from there.

2:00.  In any event, we continue to develop all sorts of weapons--electromagnetic, radiologic, chemical, nuclear, conventional, and in 1969, after a lot of complaints about what was going on in the Vietnam War, President Nixon said we would stop the biological weapons, we would no longer research them, make them, keep them, and we would encourage every other nation to do the same thing.  About four months later, he added toxins to that list, because we had quite a storage of toxins, which were primarily used for assassinations but could be used for other purposes; for instance, we had toxins that could give you diarrhea.  So if you had a small group of soldiers and you just wanted to incapacitate them for a few days, you could do it with those sorts of toxins, including cholera toxin. So the Biological Weapons Convention was written up in 1972 and came into force in 1975 and almost all the countries signed it.  But there was no enforcement mechanism in it; that was supposed to be put in later.  And there were review conferences set up every 5 years to develop a protocol for how to do inspections, you know, how could one country call for inspections of another country? What would it take? How would we do it?  What are the parameters?  And then, if we found they were cheating and actually were working on biological weapons, how would we punish them? And how would we maintain the validity of the treaty?  Those things did not get established over the first 15 years, after that the United States really got in the way.  Now, Russia and other countries may not have wanted inspections added, but it was generally the United States that was pulling the plug.  Particularly in 2001, the countries had all negotiated together and thought they had a done deal, and at the very last minute, the US pulled out.  So we had an unworkable biological weapons convention.  Now, in the 80s and '90s, we did sign a convention to ban chemical weapons, but the United States said it was going to take some enormous amount of time, like 20 years or more to get rid of all their chemical weapons . . . which, by the way, I thought was always funny because when we decided that Syria needed to get rid of their chemical weapons, it only took a few months; of course, for the US, it was going to take 20 years.  Eventually, it was only last year that the United States destroyed the last of the chemical weapons it had declared.  The Russians also got rid of the last of their chemical weapons, and Syria long ago, and other countries.  So, supposedly the chemical weapons are gone.  The biologicals, however, we don't know.  So, the Russians had a leak from an Anthrax factory in 1979, so everybody knew they were cheating.  In the book, Germs by Judith Miller, 2002, of the New York Times and two of her colleagues at the time, it was revealed that the United States had these three programs to develop Anthrax weapons in different ways and that they were also considered by most people who knew about these treaties to be transgressing, to be going against the treaty provisions.  So there we were.  There were some sort of standards that scientists were going by.  Scientists were not asking the federal government or funders to pay for biological warfare research; in general, it was considered a no-no.  But then there were experiments on avian flu, on smallpox, and the 1918-1919 Spanish flu that most scientists thought were very dangerous and were going against the biological weapons convention.  But they were basically allowed to proceed with a bit of a pause to discuss them but then they continued. 

6:30  There was a researcher Kawaoka, Yoshihiro Kawaoka . . . From Japan who works at the University of Wisconsin who is doing this work and Ron Fouchier at Erasmus University in Holland, doing this work.  So they changed the name.  If you want to let it continue or start again, you need a new name.  You need a benign name, so they called it Gain-a-Function, and that way nobody knew what the hell it was.  Now it's Gain-of-Function.  In 2013 and 2014, there were calls by many scientists because of the work of Kawaoka and Fouchier to stop it. "This is too dangerous.  We can have a pandemic and kill hundreds of m millions of people on this planet.  Why are we doing this after hundreds of scientists signed petitions?" 

The Obama Administration said, okay we're going to have a moratorium on this gain of function work.  And people like me thought "Oh, good, we're going to have a moratorium we're going to figure out how to regulate it and everything's going to get better," but, in fact, the only moratorium was on SARS Coronavirus and the Avian flu viruses.  So if you're doing gain a function on any other organism, you could continue.  No problem. The NIH was supposed to come up, particularly Fauci's group was supposed to come up with a way to vet these experiments.  So somebody applied to the NIH for grants for Gain-of-Function, Fauci's people were going to look at it and see if it was dangerous or not.  That never really got put into place.

8:10. A committee was established but it never looked at more than 6 experiments over the six years or so that it was in existence. Ralph Baric's experiments on the SARS Coronavirus never went through that group.  So illegally they were allowed to continue.  Baric thought that he had been given a waiver because he actually published in one of his papers that he had been doing Gain-of-Function research, and the moratorium came in, and he was given a waiver, so he was able to continue.  But the Fauci emails showed that there was no waiver, that his experiments had never been looked at.  In 2017, the moratorium was lifted, and Fauci and Francis Collins wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, saying "This gain-of-function research is so important that it's worth the risk."  That it's worth the risk!  Can you imagine the temerity of them?  

Wikipedia explains that, 

On 19 December 2017, the NIH lifted the moratorium because gain-of-function research was deemed "important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health."

So it's continued, and they've continued to fund it.  Now somewhere in the 2000s, the Department of Defense got the idea that it would be better to have some of their weapons, we assume it was the Defense Department, they're doing weapons research, be handled by Fauci at the NIH rather than being done by them.  And Fauci started farming it out, and that's how some of it wound up at Wuhan, we believe.  So the DoD added to Fauci's salary, which is how he became the highest-paid employee of the US government.  A large part of his remit was to make decisions on Gain-of-Function research that would be funded at the NIAID.

MUST-LISTEN. DR. NASS ON W.H.O. TREATY & BIOWEAPONS

Del was amazing! The WHO Treaty draft wants every country to do surveillance for potential pandemic pathogens, perform genomic sequencing, do GOF research--then share what they discover! This is Insanity, maybe worse than WW3. https://t.co/yTcQ9wKmTI

— MERYL NASS, MD (@NassMeryl) September 2, 2023

Somebody above the level of our government is giving the orders.

The W.H.O. has become a trap to entrap the nations such that they lose sovereignty over health.

We are undergoing a soft coup.

And the idea is to create a whole new set of laws and ignore the existing human rights laws. 

Dr. Meryl Nass's license is currently suspended in the state of Maine.  "Maine doctor's license suspended over Covid-19 claims." The original reason was for spreading misinformation also for prescribing Ivermectin in hydroxychloroquine she took an oath to care for her patience and I guess they expect her to break that oath.  

Spreading misinformation?  Misinformation is not a crime. Misinformation is mistaken things, and I was actually telling the truth, so it wasn't any misinformation.  The federal government and the states are trying to make everybody think that misinformation is a crime, and you should be reporting doctors and professionals who are spreading this information. So strangers reported her to the board.  Oh she was spreading this information on the internet we have something called the First Amendment Free Speech as well as freedom of religion and the press and assembly and it's against the law for governments to suppress your free speech and the Board of Medicine is a state government agency so they were actually breaking the law and now we are suing them for a malicious prosecution which they used their role you know under cover of law "Doc Suspended for COVID Misinfo Sues, Cites Freedom of Speech," Michael DePeau-Wilson, Enterprise & Investigative Writer MedPage August 21, 2023.   You're actually suing the medical board and am I wrong, are you also suing every individual on the board . . . every individual in their personal capacity

In the FDA claimed when they were under oath that they never stopped anybody from using Ivermectin.  They said that you can use it whenever you want.  How is it a medical board is even allowed to say that it is misinformation and taking someone's license without scientific studies, peer-reviewed, double-blind, randomized controlled trials that I reckon was dangerous which would be difficult to do since Millions of people take it every year for lupus.

So it isn't illegal.  it's perfectly legal to prescribe those drugs, and the Board should have known that.  They had 3 lawyers on the board and a doctor on staff, and then they have about 8 doctors on the members.  So they all knew that they were writing off-label medicine.  A lot of doctors don't really understand the legal underpinnings of medicine.  By the time it came to a hearing, they dropped all of those charges.  They did not want to litigate against the First Amendment.  They did not want to litigate against off-label prescribing.  They said "We don't want to talk about the vaccine either.  Take the vaccine out of this case."  But they knew what the law was so they were heavying me, and I was supposed to roll over and give them a win that they could put in the national news, which my case went into the national news.  And I think they were shocked that I actually fought back.  That wasn't part of their equation.  I was 70 years old.  Clearly it was going to cost me more money than I would be able to make over the rest of my  career to compensate.  And Children's Health Defense said they would fund my defense.  That was what allowed me to do this. 

The PREP Act allows the government and the DoD to bypass the normal regulatory frameworks and consumer safeguards,

https://t.co/PhzRwfXZba

— St. Michael, the Archangel (@aveng_angel) June 16, 2023

HERE IS THE VIDEO.  WATCH IT.  LATYPOVA'S REMARKS BEGIN AT THE 5:50 MARK.

PREP Act was a law launched in 2002, and amended in 2005 that allows the HHS Secretary to issue a declaration to expand this liability shield for using unapproved medical interventions, devices, pharmaceuticals, all sorts of things, diagnostics, therapeutics, anything, using the Emergency Use Authorization essential to bypassing the normal regulatory frameworks and consumer safeguards, which are quite extensive today for very good reasons because we want to make sure that the medications are being used as safe.  So this is a shield essentially that the government uses and now, specifically, the DoD is using extensively to shield themselves and anyone that they hire for the task from any liability from using these poorly tested, untested, experimental, and completely black box, devices, and technologies.

8:50  Dr. Meryl Nass.  The Defense Department has been accustomed to doing whatever it wants and has a history of using untested products on soldiers.  In the Gulf War, they got a memorandum of understanding with the FDA that allowed them to use products that were unapproved and unevaluated by the FDA and at other times in the past also.  The DoD is kind of a law unto itself.  So for them, this was nothing new.  It was just happening on a larger scale.  It wasn't just 2 million soldiers, but it was also 134 million Americans.  But then this method was shipped out to the rest of the world, so 8 billion people.  

9:42  Polly Tommey.  Why have we called this program, "Willful Misconduct"?  What is the purpose behind that?  

9:48  Latypova.  I think it's because of the George Watts case v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, in other words, the DoD.  His estate is suing the Dept. of Defense for his death.  The only basis that we have to break this liability shield, a very extensive one, is based on willful misconduct.  So the case complaint was that the willful misconduct was essentially a bait-and-switch scheme that the Department of Defense and Health and Human Services, HHS, ran on the American public.  

11.  PREP provides blanket immunity for covered persons such as the DOD with a sole exception for willful misconduct the enumerated sovereign immunity for the United States and an agency such as the DOD (42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(f)) is unconstitutional since for closing all redress violates due process enshrined in the 5th Amendment and it's central promise and assurance that all levels of American government must abide by the law and provide fair procedures particularly in instances such as this where Mr Wash was "deprived of life."  The enumerated sovereign immunity for the United States and an agency such as the DOD has is also an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  A "legal cause of action is property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment." 

So, now we have a death of a civilian from disregard for safety and using this PREP Act liability shield, and his attorneys are stating that "Well because this was willful misconduct because knowingly the Department of Defense administered, distributed the experimental product while telling everyone it was FDA approved.  And that was the lie that they perpetrated on this young man who died as a result of it.  

11:00  Dr. Meryl Nass.  The way that the PREP Act is written, there are almost no requirements for safety or efficacy.  What it requires is that the FDA, and the FDA issues it, simply believe, with or without evidence, that the benefits are going to be greater than the risks.  But it does say that the FDA needs to disclose the known significant risks.  And the FDA did not do that.  So the FDA was hiding many of the known risks.  But the other thing that happened was a bait-and-switch.  So in August of 2021, the Federal government announced all these mandates but only at the time that FDA approved a license for the Pfizer vaccine.  So on August 23, the FDA issued a license for the Pfizer vaccine for adults, but none of that product was made available in the United States.  So every body continued to get the Emergency Use product with a huge liability shield and the only potential way to litigate against them was to prove willful misconduct which was they knew they were doing something wrong but they hid it.  So what we're saying is, yes, they knew that the product being administered to George Watt and to everybody else in the country was not licensed, but the FDA, the DoD, and the rest of the Federal government pretended that it was.  

12:32  Tommey.  And this is Children's Healt Care case, correct?  Yep.

And the reason you're on here is because your lawyer can't talk about it. 

12:50  Latypova.  I think it's a great case because, finally, in my opinion, a correct defendent is named, in other words, which is the DoD and Lloyd J. Austin, III, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, who were the head of the operation, while the pharmaceutical companies are complicit and knowingly administered poisons because they are experts and they understand exactly what they are doing and know what consumer safeguards have been subverted. But they are operating under the Department of Defense who was heading Operation Warp Speed, OWS, now it's been renamed to Acceleration of Countermeasures, another name but essentially the same thing.  

[Huh.  The federal government is notorious for renaming projects and programs.  Remember when the Iraq invasion was initially named Operation Iraqi Liberation with the acronym of O.I.L.?  They're always trying to show how clever they are when in reality they're stupid monsters.]

This was at the time that these shots were rolled out and relevant to George Watts' case this was headed by the Department of Defense, Chief Operation Officer was General Gustave F. Perna, reporting directly to President Trump.  Structurally, the same reporting system reporting to Biden.  The Dept. of Defense leadership represents about 2/3 of Operation Warp Speed, most of them without any health care experience.  So this was all orchestrated from there, using several legal framework of several laws, so the PREP Act is one of them.   But there are others, such as Public Health Emergency Declaration to begin with, and the Emergency Use Authorization

DR. MERYL NASS: W.H.O. was selected as an easy way to win this soft coup bloodlessly.

The lectures from the Swedish conference are ready! Mine will be available soon. I spoke almost last. This is Meryl Nass. https://t.co/PSByaByTdM

— Jessica Rose (@JesslovesMJK) February 3, 2023

It would be good to know who Dr. Meryl Nass is. 

It didn't have to be the W.H.O., this could have been done through the U.N., this could have been done a lot of other ways, but the W.H.O. was selected as an easy way to win this soft coup bloodlessly, no shots being fired, simply by writing a set of new amendments that completely changes the tenor of the existing international health regulations which have been in existence since 1969 and by creating a new pandemic treaty which they keep changing the name of, so it's a Pandemic Accord or a Pandemic Instrument.  The current health regulations has language which says 

the implementation of these regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons. 

That language has been removed from the new version.  So "human rights and fundamental freedoms" were taken out, as well as "dignity."  These are words that have real legal meanings.  This is very critical.  Before, the IHRs were recommendations, now they are binding, they are to be enforced and countries need to create enforcement mechanisms.  There's also to be enforced surveillance of people and microorganisms.  Enforced censorship.  Enforced single narrative.  Harmonization of regulations of vaccines and drugs.  So if you thought our vaccines and drugs are being regulated now in checking for safety and efficacy, they're trying to make that process pretty much go away.  Liability will go away for all of these products.  So when will these documents come into force when the Director General of W.H.O. issues a Declaration that there is a public health emergency of international concern.  He doesn't even need an emergency.  He needs [only] a risk of a potential emergency. And his powers can be continued after the emergency has been contained.  

Genious Dr. Meryl Nass at the Conference in Stockholm pic.twitter.com/4IMnQjCXbG

— Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg (@MAHUMO20) January 21, 2023

DR. MERYL NASS: IN 2018, THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION PLANNED TO FORCE VACCINATIONS ON EUROPEANS LONG BEFORE ANY PANDEMIC

“It was found that Polio vaccines contained Simian virus 40, a monkey virus, from monkey kidneys that were used to grow Polio. & as a result, up to 100 million Americans received SV40 in the vax, & we’ve kept it in our bodies for our whole lives"

WATCH: https://t.co/XkLrRmaCG0 pic.twitter.com/DNVwdxvXxZ

— Taylor Hudak (@_taylorhudak) November 21, 2022

The European Commission had plans dating back from 2018 to force vaccines on Europeans across the continent. 

CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ALL HATE THE WORKING CLASS. ALL OF THEM

From Dr. Meryl Nass,

The judge pointed out that the NYC mayor, Eric Adams, was not applying his vaccine mandate rules equally to all; for instance, VIPs such as artists and sports stars did not need the vax, but city workers did.

In case you missed it, NYFD workers blocked the Brooklyn Bridge last week over the mandate. The winning case was brought by 16 sanitation workers, but the ruling applies to ALL municipal workers including police, fire, sanitation and some others, though teachers were not mentioned. 

Arbitrary and Capricious edicts that single out certain groups but not others are verboten, according to the judge. And NYC will be hit badly in the pocketbook, which is always the trigger for change. 

I cannot wait to bring the Maine Medical Board staff and members into court where they are likely to learn firsthand about the legal phrase “arbitrary and capricious.” 

I especially can’t wait to see the look on Nancy Drew’s face (Renee Faye-Leblanc) as we discuss her arbitrary and capricious presentation of my case to the rest of the board, and the congratulatory emails between her and Board Executive Director Dennis Smith, an attorney, over what a good job she did lying to the rest of the Members. Then there are the arbitrary and capricious grounds left to justify continued suspension of my license. 

Nancy Drew had the temerity to imply I doctored my records. I guess it didn’t occur to the sleuth (she is no Columbo) that had I done so, wouldn’t I have made them look perfect so the Board could not get up on its high heels to tar and feather me over post-it notes? 

My attorney and I feel we have gotten everything we wanted into the record, and, given a fair and unbiased jury, the outcome would be indisputable.

Strange that the Board staff lost the video so much. Next hearing date scheduled for Jan 31, 2023, by which time the Board will owe me a year’s income and a new reputation. What will they owe the COVID patients who could not find treatment? 

By the way, I wonder if the AAG Stiegelman either has his two other prosecuting AAGs whispering in his ear, under his headphones, or typing messages to him, based on his eye movements and expressions as the hearing unfolded. 

Did you know that Janssen, a J & J division, was from Belgium? Had you known that, would you have taken that, er their, vaccine or any other from a foreign government?

Thank you to Dr. Meryl Nass, dated February 27, 2021.

Yesterday, Feb 26, the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee (VRBPAC), an FDA committee called Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, met to give its assent to the third Covid vaccine candidate applying for an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). And I spent another day listening in. FDA is expected to authorize use of the vaccine today.

This one requires only one dose.  For now.  The company is doing a clinical trial of two doses and they could be recommended in future. The VRBPAC committee comments were lackluster.  The members had little to go on.  There is no adenovirus vaccine in civilian use in the US, just as there were no mRNA vaccines.  The committee members simply don’t know what they have to watch out for.  One admitted it, and asked if FDA would assist and suggest what types of issues the newly licensed Ebola adenovirus vaccine or the military adenovirus vaccine had faced.  FDA responded with stony silence. Clearly this “advisory” meeting was only needed for its rubber stamp.

Most of the sponsor’s (Johnson and Johnson) presenters were from the Janssen division, based in Belgium. Many of the FDA’s presenters were non-native English speakers. The combination of an audio transmission that kept dropping out, and inability to catch many of the words made it a challenge to fully grasp the presentations. Was this intended? 

This here, is it by will or an omission?  Yeah, that's what I thought . . . .  

FDA has refused to inspect the Covid vaccine manufacturing plants before they are “authorized” under EUA.  I suspect FDA administrators were directed not to slow the warp speed down. 

FDA will have to inspect the factories by law before Covid vaccines are fully licensed, but it seems that the game plan is to get the country vaccinated before adequate data become available and licensure can take place. 

Wait, is she saying that the lack of data is precisely the thing that allows the vax manufacturers to have an emergency permission?

Okay, here is the motherload 

While Johnson and Johnson’s Janssen division designed and tested this new adenovirus vectored spike protein vaccine, the vaccine is actually being produced in a factory newly taken out of mothballs, with hundreds of new employees, that has never before produced a vaccine for mass use.  It is owned by Emergent BioSolutions, a company notorious for poisoning soldiers with its anthrax vaccine, which has failed multiple anthrax vaccine inspections.  On Emergent BioSolutions’ board is Kathryn Zoon, a former head of FDA’s Center for Biologics, which regulates vaccines. 

Here is a vague report.  This was interesting.  Turns out that the vaccine that a company will run in a trial may not be the same vaccine that gets made and distributed to the public.  Wow, we all are making way too many assumptions when it comes to how vaccines are made, their testing, distribution, and so forth.  We're all focused on their efficacy only to find ourselves in a 

This factory’s vaccine may not be exactly the same vaccine that about 20,000 subjects in the clinical trial have received. Usually vaccines for clinical trials are made in a pilot plant under stringent conditions. 

So many questions about the vaccines, where it was made, is the company reputable, do they have major lawsuits against previously deadly vaccines, etc.?  So none of these questions are asked let alone addressed.

Does the vaccine work?  The vaccine is said to be 66% effective against moderate to severe disease in the trials, and 100% protective against death. 

Okay, well, according to Fauci, where most of America got its reports on the vaccines, the vaccines started out at 95% effective and went downhill from there.  

In the clinical trials, having a headache and a cough was enough to put subjects in the “moderate to severe” category.  Like the two mRNA vaccines, the vaccine sponsors apparently did not see fit to test whether their vaccines block infection and transmission in humans. This is the fault of the FDA, which sets the standard for the data needed to obtain an EUA.  

Whoever did this deserves an award.
pic.twitter.com/cJFcgpB9Y3

— Rising serpent 🇺🇸 (@rising_serpent) October 17, 2021

You can find the below video here along with a few remarks by Deborah Birx, who admitted that the vaccines were not going to work.  Imagine that.  While Birx is telling the truth in a rare moment, Dr. Fauci doubled down on his "effective" narrative.  Even recently on the Stephen Colbert Show he praised the vaccines again, while giving a thumbs down to Hydroxychloroquine and warning people that Ivermectin was dangerous.  Ha!  

Apparently in the J&J trials, only a subset of participants were evaluated for side effects, "Only a subset of the subjects in the trials were evaluated for side effects.  Why was that?"  See what Dr. Meryl Nass said about the vaccines in general, 

I can’t tell if this vaccine is safe and I doubt anyone else can, either. Nor do I want to be injected with something manufactured by the anthrax vaccine manufacturer, famed for injuring thousands of soldiers twenty years ago, while making 300% profit margins. 

Read Dr. Meryl Nass's background here.  She's amazing.

Meryl Nass, M.D., ABIM, is an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War illness, fibromyalgia and toxicology. As a biological warfare epidemiologist, she investigated world's largest anthrax epizootic in Zimbabwe, and developed a model for analyzing epidemics to assess whether they are natural or man-made.  Continue reading . . .

Who needs data when you’ve got regulatory capture?

From Dr. Meryl Nass, May 30, 2022

Toby Rogers @ substack, "FDA Announces Updated Schedule for June Meetings Regarding Five Pivotal Vaccine Decisions," Toby Rogers, May 28, 2022

Who needs data when you’ve got regulatory capture?

Here is Dr. Toby Rogers' Substack profile.

May 29

I. The June FDA meetings

This week the Washington Post copied and pasted from a Pfizer press release to announce yet another scientific miracle(TM) that will completely fail in practice. In the process WaPo also got some quotes from the FDA who have now nailed down the schedule for the 4 meetings in June in which they intend to assemble the final pieces for Pharma’s permanent dominance over the American people.

THE NEW VACCINE SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS: 

June 7, Novavax 
June 14, Moderna in kids 6 to 17 years old
June 15, Moderna in kids 6 months to 5 years AND Pfizer in kids 6 months to 4 years
June 28, “Future Framework” (the plan to skip clinical trials in perpetuity)

There is a lot to parse in the WaPo’s brief article.

Contrary to the breathless headline, THEY STILL DON'T HAVE ANY DATA. 

Pfizer and BioNTech said the 80 percent efficacy finding was preliminary and based on 10 cases of Covid-19 in the study population as of the end of April.  Once 21 cases have occurred, the companies will conduct a more formal analysis of efficacy . . . Pfizer and BioNTech said they plan to finish filing data with the FDA this week—and warned that the efficacy number was fluid because results are still arriving.

Let’s recap how we got here:

🚩 The Pfizer clinical trial in kids under 5 failed in December 2021.

🚩 So Pfizer added a third dose and that trial also apparently failed in February (which is why Pfizer was forced to withdraw its application on February 10).

🚩 Now Pfizer is describing a jerry-rigged trial of a third dose in 1,678 kids ages 6 months to four years old. Pfizer did not disclose how the kids were divided between the treatment and control group so it is impossible to run our own calculations on efficacy. Out of that sample, 10 developed Covid — although it is not clear how the 10 were distributed between the    treatment and control group. (I suppose some quant on Twitter will figure out how to work backwards from Pfizer’s claims to calculate the numbers in each of these categories but needless to say, this is not the proper way to do science.) Of course Pfizer also failed to describe the contents of the “placebo.”

As always with “publication by press release” the announcement raised more questions than answers:

“the efficacy finding was preliminary”; just 10 cases; “the companies will conduct a more formal analysis” next month; “the efficacy number was fluid because results are still arriving” — so you’re saying that these numbers are NOT statistically significant and in fact you have no
valid “results” at all? Got it.

How exactly will Pfizer double the number of Covid-19 cases in the clinical trial in the next month given that 74.2% of kids already had natural immunity in February which means that nearly 100% of children likely have natural immunity by now?

Also, is the FDA seriously considering basing national policy, that impacts 18 million children, by relying on a study with only 10 cases?  It appears that the FDA is not even pretending to care about science anymore.

What’s perhaps most troubling about this so-called clinical trial is that Pfizer is NOT looking at health outcomes in the real world (because there are none). Instead, all of their claims are based on antibodies in the blood. That’s strange because the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee unanimously acknowledged on April 6 that there are “no correlates of protection” in connection with Covid-19 shots (this means that there are no valid proxy measures, such as antibody counts, that can determine whether someone who has received this shot is immune to the virus or not.)

WaPo dutifully copied Pfizer’s disingenuous description:

While the adult trials recruited tens of thousands of volunteers and waited to see if vaccinated people were better protected, the children’s vaccine trials were primarily designed to measure immune responses using blood tests. 

No they were not “primarily designed to measure immune responses using blood tests.” The studies were intentionally undersize to hide harms from the shots in addition to other tricks that they use to skew the results (such as kicking you out of the trial if you call 911 or go to the emergency room). But when one shrinks the sample size, surprise! it becomes impossible to detect actual health benefits from the shots (the signal would have been tiny if at all, but when one uses a sample that small then any
positive signal can also disappear into statistical insignificance.) . . . 

Click here for the full report. 

A review of how [the CDC] tasked with fighting and preventing disease has spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars for failed prevention efforts, international junkets, and lavish facilities, but cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease.”

Imagine providing public statements like these and the receiving media doesn't question, doesn't push further, or deliver devastating contradictions.  Just imagine.   

Imagine saying things like this and not having to correct or revise your statements.  Imagine saying things like and being self-deluded that your statements are a public service.  Just imagine.  Imagine the bankrupt ethics, the deliberate lies that go unchallenged.  Imagine that. 

Imagine this being standard operating procedure . . . for 20 years. 

As I have noted periodically for twenty years, and it was roundly confirmed 4 weeks ago in the NY Times, CDC spins and cherry-picks the data it presents to the public, hiding most of what it has. Then it blames its 'outdated' IT systems for the problems, if it gets caught. As the NYT noted, 

The C.D.C. has received more than $1 billion to modernize its systems, which may help pick up the pace, Ms. Nordlund [CDC's spokesperson] said. “We’re working on that,” she said. 

So imagine having a record like that while receiving $1 billion with a B from the taxpayer you're purported to serve.  Make no mistake, there is no purporting, no purportment going on at all.  

Some have claimed that the CDC is a vaccine company.  What?  Some have claimed that it is a PR branch for the FDA or any pharmaceutical company peddling its latest unchecked medicine.  Nass goes even further, affirming that it's a PR firm with its own TV studios replete

CDC is not a public health agency.  It is a public propaganda agency that collects a massive amount of data. CDC marshals its huge data library to create presentations that support the current administration's public health policies.  

CDC also has state-of-the-art PR staff, as well as TV studios, and produces videos, radio spots, and an enormous number of press releases that are distributed to the media.  CDC hosts many journalists at its Atlantia headquarters. Free junkets successfully cultivate US health reporters.

And finally, to end this preface,

A 2007 Senate oversight report on the CDC noted the agency spent $106 million on the Thomas R. Harkin Global Communications (and Visitor) Center, and summarized its 115 page report with the following: “A review of how an agency tasked with fighting and preventing disease has spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars for failed prevention efforts, international junkets, and lavish facilities, but cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease.”

"CDC managed to spin these data into an appearance of terrible danger for little kids: [but]... if you parse the data by total number of cases, ... there were many fewer hospitalizations per number of cases for Omicron than for Delta."  https://t.co/FKZIrhfZuQ

— Stephanie Seneff (@stephanieseneff) April 27, 2022

EARLY TREATMENT, EARLY TREATMENT. FDA BLOCKED EARLY TREATMENT

By Dr. Meryl Nass

South Africa acted to prevent its citizens from accessing ivermectin for COVID on Christmas Eve, 2020. This was ten days after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines rolled out in the US. Was it a coincidence?

South Africa’s government did this by directly banning the drug’s importation in the midst of a serious COVID wave. The government was taken to court, and after a few months, the people won, and the drug returned to the shelves.

In the US, starting in early 2021, a variety of methods were used to stop use of ivermectin for COVID, but all of them were indirect and covert. There was no clear action one could bring to a court. Instead, roadblocks were placed in the way of importing the drug, but importation was not banned outright. FDA claimed ivermectin was a “horse dewormer” in tweets and its website—and the tweeter was congratulated by the acting FDA Commissioner, FDA’s top official. But FDA never issued an official warning regarding safety, did not add a warning to the label, never recalled a single lot nor took ivermectin off the market.

I detailed the many methods that were used to stop doctors prescribing the drug in an earlier substack article. The point I want to make here is that none of the strategies that were used to choke off its use employed the normal, legal mechanisms for taking a dangerous drug off the market. Instead, hidden hands used underhanded methods in order to wrest control of medical care away from the doctor and patient. In place of patient autonomy, a single COVID protocol was imposed on all Americans. A protocol crafted opaquely by one of Tony Fauci’s handpicked, Pharma-conflicted teams of experts.

Americans pay, on average, $13,000 per person per year for healthcare. We have just lost the right to direct how that money is spent. It is critically important for the country to understand this. We are experiencing a hostile takeover of the $4.1 trillion dollar US healthcare industry under the guise of COVID. Will we stand for it? We must quickly grasp that the right to choose our own healthcare was just usurped by a mafia fronted by people in white coats who pose as medical experts.

Ivermectin is today’s example. What will it be tomorrow? How much is choosing your own healthcare worth to you?

Below is my prescient article from 14 months ago.  

Continue reading . . . 

THE PATRIOT ACT of EMERGENCY HEALTH?

@NassMeryl Episode 673 w/Dr. Meryl Nass https://t.co/Vcw4HECIaW

— Tommy’sPodcast (@tommys_podcast) January 19, 2022

CDC's Powers Act, or more fully, Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, originally drafted by the CDC,

to aid the United States' state legislatures in revising their public health laws to control epidemics and respond to bioterrorism. The CDC's draft was revised by the Center for Law and the Public's Health, a collaboration between Georgetown University and Johns Hopkins University. By December 21, 2001, the act was released to state legislatures for review and approval. Critics immediately charged that the MSEHPA failed to protect the general public from abuses arising from the tremendous powers it would grant individual states in an emergency. The MSEHPA provisions also went beyond the scope of addressing bioterrorism while disregarding medical privacy standards.^[1] As of August 1, 2011, forty states have passed various forms of MSEHPA legislation.

This gives governors the power to pass orders that have the weight of law though it's not a law.  And under these emergency orders triggered by the pandemic, the legislature stopped meeting, and the governor took over as the sole ruler.  The governor could tell you when to wear masks when to socially distances, which stores could remain open, Enormous powers.  What happened to the legislators of each state--how did they react to these powers granted by the Health Powers Act?  No one knew the extent of these powers and what society could devolve into.  

Back in March 2020, governors decided that Hydroxychloroquine could be used for acute COVID but not for prevention.  The justification for that order at the time was that doctors were prescribing it for their families and governors wanted to stockpile.  Hydroxychloroquine was an over-the-counter drug in most of the world until the pandemic when countries started to clamp down on it and make it hard to get.  At the end of March, beginning of April, about 30 states put restrictions on Hydroxychloroquine drugs.  Not sure why.  Been in use for over 40 years; I'm gonna guess we know how to use it by now.  No black box warnings on it.  EUA allowed the government to restrict Hydroxychloroquine.  Prior to the pandemic, Hydroxychloroquine wasn't Emergency Use, it was fully licensed to be prescribed and dispensed from pharmacies.  So doctors could no longer use it the way that doctors wanted to use it.  The restriction placed on Hydroxychloroquine was that it could only be used on hospitalized patients.  That, in her opinion, was basically a crime.  Because by the time that you're hospitalized, you tend to have been sick for about 10 to 14 days, and it's too late for the drug to work; you're not growing any virus anymore.  The virus has been in your system, replicated for 10 to 14 days, and now it is gone.  By the time you need to be hospitalized, you're dealing with autoimmune illness, cytokine storm, inflammation that needs to be treated completely differently than by killing viruses.  It needs to be treated with immune suppressants, things to prevent blood-clotting.  So by restricting the drug to hospitalized patients, they knew it was going to be used in a way they knew it was not going to be useful and it would look like it didn't work for this disease.  And doctors didn't know what was going on.  They'd never heard of EUAs before, so they just went along with it.  

This donated stockpile, some of which was made in Pakistan, and some of it was expired.  It was only this batch of Hydroxychloroquine that had a EUA placed on it.  Rick Bright of the Rockefeller Foundation and Janet Woodcock, Director of Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, CDER, and acting FDA Commissioner, fooled the public and the pharmacists and the doctors.

I knew about EUAs because I worked with a group that brought a lawsuit against the licensing of the anthrax vaccine.  We got a judge to remove the license, and within weeks the federal government had slapped an EUA use on the anthrax vaccine so it still could be used for soldiers even without a license.  And then they tried to mandate it, and then we went back to court and the judge told them, "You cannot mandate an experimental product."  So that's basically all the case law on mandating of EUAs.  There's no other case that's been brought in the United States, and that's how it sits.  EUAs are experimental products, and there's no question about that because anything that's not a licensed product in U.S. law is defined as experimental.  Whether it's used in an experiment or you're just giving it to people because you think it works and you're not collecting data, it doesn't matter.  It's still by definition experimental.  Now, if it's experimental that means the Nuremberg Code applies.  You can't force people to be experimental subjects and federal law says the same thing.  So, there you have it.  19:31  

19:32  We have these now vaccines for COVID, all the vaccines available in the United States, despite what President Biden or Janet Woodcock would have you believe, and we know that Janet Woodcock is not the most reliable source, she's still the Acting Director of the FDA, she's due to leave the position at any moment--she's had her year as Acting Director; she can't do it any longer by law--they haven't approved another commissioner yet.  What we have now is an FDA under Janet Woodcock that gave a license to one vaccine for COVID, which was the Pfizer vaccine, only for adults, only for the first two doses, not for any boosters.  And then Pfizer, by giving it a license that meant the licensed vaccine would have normal liability.  Pfizer said we're not making it available in the United States until you use up the EUA product, the Emergency Use Authorized product, for which Pfizer has no liability.  You can't sue anybody if you get injured or killed.  So basically, anybody . . . all the vaccines--the Moderna, the J & J, which is also called Janssen, and the Pfizer BioNTech vaccines in the United States that are available, the only ones you can get right now are all Emergency Use Authorized.  Every one of them is experimental, and by law, they cannot be mandated.  The way the Biden Administration pushed out its mandate was by telling the FDA to license one of them, telling the world that a COVID vaccine was now licensed, and under the guise of licensure, even though you cannot get a licensed vaccine in the United States, all these mandates were put into place and again the American public was fooled, just like they were fooled with Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine.  So right now, we are being governed under a system of smoke and mirrors, and the government is the one that is basically breaking the law.  

22:00  Dr. Keith Rose when I had him on, said that the government is pulling a bait and switch.  Technically, the FDA approved Corminaty but it's not available in the United States.  So it is an FDA-approved vaccine, 

24:00  Well, as of right now, the people who are most subject to the mandate as a class are the healthcare workers, since the Supreme Court chose to completely ignore this issue of the legality and Emergency Use and mandates, and the Supreme Court chose to completely bypass the question of whether the vaccine is even effective anymore against Omicron, okay?  So that has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court so don't think that all of your possible ways of getting relief from this terrible situation of mandates have gone by.  They haven't yet.  Still, there are cases that can go up to the Supreme Court on the mandates.  I would say that the best thing is for lots of healthcare workers to get together and bring a lawsuit.  I mean if they've lost their jobs, they deserve to be reinstated and get back pay.  It has happened before, very rarely, but

Written by Lawrence Gostin and giving states enormous power under emergencies and pandemics.  Powers beyond even the recipients of these powers can comprehend.  Check this out.  

The preliminary draft named the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, and the National Association of County and City Health Officials as collaborators without Gostin contacting them. The second draft, dated December 21, 2001, made the revised statement on its title page that the law was a "draft for discussion … to assist" those organizations.^[5]

What was Gostin trying to do, write a new constitution?  How does this happen?  How does a single lawyer moonlighting as a professor draft a law that strips all Americans of constitutional protections? 

The only criticism at the time came from, of all places, the AARP.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons claimed that the draft used sweeping language to the extent that it "could turn governors into dictators" since the MSEHPA gave governors the authority to declare public health emergencies, and afterward force vaccinations on the general public without their informed consent. The deployment of state National Guards could be used to administer the vaccines or substances. Legal liabilities for drug companies which manufactured the vaccines and/or substances were removed.

looks like they've set themselves up for serial emergencies and serial pandemics.  I mean this law is the goose that lays the golden egg, authoritarian speaking, of course.