‘Speed of Science’ – A Scandal Beyond Your Wildest Nightmare (mercola.com)https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/24/speed-of-science.aspx?ui=e9bc15645e33ce840f3a66be902fd766e7cc9162f9b5a99e98725540f42a943b&sd=20210224&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20221024&cid=DM1266478&bid=1627611902
- We Were Lied To About Vaccines ADMITS Pfizer! – YouTube
- European Union BLASTS Pfizer For Hiding Data – YouTube
- The premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19
- In early October 2022, during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout
- Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk”
- We’ve known for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption. In October 2020, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, highlighted that trials were not designed to reveal whether the vaccines would prevent transmission. Yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that
- It was never about science or protecting others. It was always about following a predetermined narrative that sought to get experimental mRNA technology into as many people as possible
February 9, 2021, I published an article that clarified the medical and legal definitions of a “vaccine.” In the article, I noted that mRNA COVID-19 jabs did not meet those definitions, in part because they don’t prevent infection or spread. In reality, they’re experimental gene therapies. In July that year, The New York Times published a hit piece on me citing that February 9 article:1
“The article that appeared online on Feb. 9 began with a seemingly innocuous question about the legal definition of vaccines. Then over its next 3,400 words, it declared coronavirus vaccines were ‘a medical fraud’ and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease.
Instead, the article claimed, the shots ‘alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch.’ Its assertions were easily disprovable …”
Pfizer Moved ‘at the Speed of Science’
Fast-forward to early October 2022, and my claims were officially confirmed during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament. Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout.
As noted by Roos, the entire premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19. Small replied:
“No. We had to really move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk.”2
This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. I find this shocking — even criminal. ~ Rob Roos, MEP
As noted by Roos, “This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.” Roos added that he found this deception “shocking — even criminal.”3
In the video below, biologist and nurse teacher John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews this growing scandal. He points out that U.K. government officials emphatically assured the public that everything that was normally done in clinical trials for a vaccine was done for the COVID shots. Now we’re told that was not the case after all.
The question is why? According to Small, these basic trials were not done because they “had to move at the speed of science.” But just what does that mean? As noted by Campbell, these are “just words without meaning.” It’s complete nonsense.
Moreover, what does it mean to “do everything at risk”? Campbell admits he has no idea what that means. I don’t either, but were I to venture a guess, I’d guess it means they knowingly skipped certain testing even though they knew the risks of doing so.https://www.youtube.com/embed/J6VbI8gOnUM?wmode=transparent&rel=0
Government and Media Promulgated a Blatant Lie
Over the past three years, mainstream media have promulgated the lie that the COVID shots will prevent infection and transmission, telling us that anyone who doesn’t get the shot is selfish at best, and at worst, a potential murderer at large. Anyone who refuses poses a serious biomedical threat to society, hence the need for heavy-handedness.
Alas, it was all a lie from the start. The frustrating part is that we’ve KNOWN for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption, yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that.
In October 2020, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, highlighted the fact that the trials were not designed to reveal whether the vaccines would prevent transmission, which is key if you want to end the pandemic. He wrote:4
“None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”
So, by October 2020, at the latest, it was clear that no studies had been done to determine whether the shots actually prevented transmission, which is a prerequisite for the claim that you’ll save the lives of others if you take it.
By then, Moderna had also admitted they were not testing its jab’s ability to prevent infection. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, stated that this kind of trial would require testing volunteers twice a week for long periods of time — a strategy he called “operationally untenable.”5
So, neither Pfizer nor Moderna had any clue whether their COVID shots would prevent transmission or spread, as that was never tested, yet with the aid of government officials and media, they led the public to believe they would. Below is just one example where Pfizer clearly obfuscated the truth.6 If stopping transmission was their “highest priority,” why didn’t they test and confirm that their shot was accomplishing this priority?
Similarly, in an Israeli interview7 (below), Bourla stated that “The efficacy of our vaccine in children is 80%.” The reporter asked him to clarify, “Are you talking about efficacy to prevent severe disease or to prevent infection?” and Bourla replied, “To prevent infection.” How could he say that when preventing infection has never been tested? Is that not evidence of fraud, caught on camera?
COVID Shots Have Been Fraudulently Marketed
As I stated in February 2021, the shots are a medical fraud. A true vaccine prevents infection; COVID shots don’t. Hence, they’ve also been fraudulently marketed. Governments around the world enabled this marketing fraud and media promulgated it.
As a result of mandating COVID shots and vaccine passports based on a blatant lie, millions have suffered potentially permanent harm and/or have died. Millions have also lost their jobs, forfeited careers and missed out on educational opportunities. This all happened because we DIDN’T follow the science.
Massive Conflicts of Interest Have Been Allowed
Why did government agencies go along with what was, to anyone with a microgram of critical thinking skills, an apparent fraud? Probably, because they’re in on it. As reported by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, the same PR company that serves Moderna and Pfizer also staffs the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Viral Diseases team:8
“Early last month [September 2022], CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky endorsed recommendations by the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for updated COVID-19 boosters from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.
‘This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion,’ Dr. Walensky said in a statement. ‘If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it’ …
[The] PR firm Weber Shandwick, which has long represented Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies and began providing public relations support to Moderna sometime in 2020.
In an odd case of synchronicity — and let’s be honest, a whiff of undue influence — Weber Shandwick employees are also embedded at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), the CDC group that implements vaccine programs and oversees the work of ACIP [CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] …
The CDC has refused to respond to questions explaining this apparent conflict … ‘[It] is irresponsible of CDC to issue a PR contract to Weber Shandwick, knowing that the firm also works for Moderna and Pfizer,’ emailed Public Citizen’s Craig Holman. ‘It raises legitimate questions of whose interests Weber Shandwick will put first — their private sector clients or the public’s interest at NCIRD.’”
Incidentally, Weber Shandwick was in 2016 found to have ghostwritten a drug study for Forest Pharmaceuticals — another unethical practice that has undermined the foundation of medical science for decades.
One PR Company, One Consistent Message
Weber Shandwick’s responsibilities at the CDC include but are not limited to “generating story ideas, distributing articles and conducting outreach to news, media and entertainment organizations” to boost vaccination rates.9 The company provides similar services to Moderna.
For example, it helped generate 7,000 news articles internationally after Moderna applied for emergency use authorization (EUA) for its jab.
In June 2022, Moderna announced a “cross-discipline team drawing on talent and expertise from Weber Shandwick” would “drive the brand’s narrative globally,” and “support Moderna in activating and engaging key internal and external audiences, including employees, consumers, health care providers, vaccine recipients and policymakers.”10
Considering the primary COVID jab makers have the same PR company as the CDC, is it any wonder that the messaging has been so consistently one-sided? As noted by Doshi in a recent interview on German television,11 mainstream media have consistently ignored COVID jab data and have “not done a good job in providing balanced coverage” about the shots.
“We’re not getting the information we need to make better choices and to have a more informed understanding of risk and benefit,” he told the interviewer, adding:12
“It was very unfortunate that from the beginning, what was presented to us by public health officials was a picture of great certainty … but the reality was that there were extremely important unknowns.
We entered a situation where essentially the stakes became too high to later present that uncertainty to people. I think that’s what set us off on the wrong foot. Public officials should have been a lot more forthright about the gaps in our knowledge.”
Reanalysis of Trial Data Confirms COVID Shot Dangers
In late September 2022, Doshi published a risk-benefit analysis focused on serious adverse events observed in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID trials. Reanalysis of the data showed 1 in 800 who get a COVID shot suffers a serious injury. As detailed in Doshi’s paper:13
“Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 respectively.
Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated; risk ratio 1.43.
The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group … The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group … Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients …”
Doshi and his coauthors also concluded that the increase in adverse events from the shots surpassed the reduction in risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. So, in short, the shots confer more harm than good.
Sen. Rand Paul Promises Investigation
A spokesperson for Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., replied to an inquiry by Thacker stating, “[T]hat CDC had a contract with the same PR firm representing the manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccine raises serious concerns,” adding that “these conflicts of interest will be thoroughly investigated” by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) — which oversees the CDC — sometime next year.
After the November midterms, Paul will be next in line as the top Republican on this committee. It’s well worth noting that, at bare minimum, this kind of conflict of interest should have been disclosed by both parties. At best, it should have been avoided altogether. The CDC did neither. It didn’t disclose its relationship with the PR firm and it didn’t prevent the conflict of interest from developing in the first place.
What Was the COVID Jab Push All About?
The rational take-home from all this is that the massive push to inject the global population with these experimental jabs was never about following science and protecting others.
It was always about promoting a false, invented narrative designed to allow for the implementation of a top-down directive to inject every person on the planet with a novel mRNA technology. This, in turn, brings up two central questions:
•Who’s at the top? — We don’t yet know. All we can say for sure is that they have a very powerful and global influence — powerful enough that government officials have willingly lied and sacrificed their own populations in an incredibly risky medical experiment.
•Why is injecting everyone with mRNA technology so important to the anonymous decision-makers? — Again, we don’t know, but it’s quite clear that there’s a reason for it, that it’s supposed to accomplish something.
As detailed in previous articles, the only rational reason for why the CDC is allowing COVID jab EUA’s for young children is because they’re assisting drug makers in their effort to obtain liability shielding by getting the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule.
ACIP is poised to add COVID shots to the childhood vaccination schedule any day now,14 and once on the childhood schedule, vaccine makers will not be liable for injuries and deaths occurring from their shots, whether they occur in children or adults.
Also, remember that even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted full approval to Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID shot, Comirnaty was never released to the public. The Pfizer shot being given is still under EUA.
Why was Comirnaty never released? Probably because once the shot has full FDA approval, liability kicks in. It appears they’re trying to avoid liability by getting the EUA shot on the childhood schedule before Comirnaty is rolled out and starts injuring and killing people.
Now, if they’re concerned about liability, that means they know the shot is dangerous. And if they know it’s dangerous (which all available data clearly show it is), then why do they want every person on the planet to get it?
Following this line of questioning to its logical conclusion leads us to the shocking conclusion that even though we don’t know the reasons why, the injuries and deaths from these jabs are intentional.
Vaccine Makers Continue to Spread Lies
Despite Small’s unequivocally clear admission that Pfizer has not tested its COVID shot to ascertain whether it prevents transmission, Pfizer’s CEO still does not shy away from insinuating as much. Here’s what he tweeted out October 12, 2022.15 He’s not saying the shot has been confirmed to prevent COVID, but he insinuates that it does by saying the FDA authorized it for the prevention of COVID. This is also known as lying by omission.
Meanwhile, so-called fact checkers are trying to salvage Pfizer’s reputation by saying the company never actually stated the shot would stop transmission.16 That may be so, but government officials and media DID claim it would prevent both infection and spread, and Pfizer never corrected them, even as people were being fired and ostracized from society for not taking the jab.
If they were truly on the up-and-up, Pfizer officials would have clarified that the shot had not been tested to confirm it would prevent transmission, and until that was known, mandates and passports had no basis. Pfizer didn’t do that. Instead, they went along with it.
The Jabs Were Always To Be Pushed — ‘By Fair Means or Foul’
In conclusion, there’s no reason to trust government ever again, at least not in the U.S., which stands alone in pushing the jab on toddlers. (The reason for that, as mentioned earlier, is probably to get the jabs onto the childhood vaccination schedule, which will shield the vaccine makers from financial liability for harms.)
As noted by GB News host Neil Oliver in the video above, the very basis for COVID mandates or vaccine passports — that everyone had to get jabbed for the greater good, to protect others and help end the pandemic — was a deliberate lie from the start.
Many of us realized this early on, but our voices were drowned out as government, Big Tech and media pulled out all the stops, censoring anyone who told the truth. And all who have participated in this grand deception remain unrepentant to this day.
In a recent Twitter thread, a Twitter user named Daniel Hadas lays out an excellent description of what the last three years were really about:17
“The debate over whether, when, and to what extent lies were told about COVID vaccines preventing transmission misses a central point: No matter what the trial data showed, the vaccines were ALWAYS going to be pushed on entire populations, by fair means or foul.
Very early on, the COVID response was locked into a specific narrative. The world would lock down and stay safe, while brave scientists hammered away at a vaccine … You may recall that, in the first months of COVID, there was a lot of breathless talk about whether there would EVER be a vaccine.
This was all nonsense … Our authorities would not have adopted the strategy of lockdown-till-vaccine unless they were certain a vaccine could and would be made …
The purpose of sowing fear that there might never be a vaccine was to increase gratitude and enthusiasm when one came along. Indeed, every part of the early COVID response can be understood as (in part) pre-release marketing for the vaccine …
That’s why COVID risks for the young were wildly amplified. That’s why there was unending obfuscation of the central role of infection-conferred immunity both in protecting individuals and in ending the pandemic.
The plan was that the vaccine would be met by a perfectly primed population: immunologically naive, desperate to be released from lockdowns, terrified of COVID, eager to do the right thing, i.e. protect others through taking the shots.
Once so much effort had gone into priming, it is UNIMAGINABLE that authorities would have pivoted to telling us … ‘Well, actually, the vaccine’s safety profile is only so-so, efficacy is murky, and most people don’t need to worry about COVID anyway. So best most of you not take this … Sorry about the lockdowns.’
That was not in the script. So it was inevitable that the vaccine be pushed on everyone, and inevitable that the best arguments for universal vaccination would be used. Those arguments were: COVID is super-dangerous for YOU. Distrust in this vaccine is distrust in science. Refusing to get vaccinated is immoral, because you will infect others.
The veracity of these claims didn’t matter: they were in the script, and it was too late to deviate … Accordingly, the stage was also set for vaccine mandates.
None of this is conspiratorial. It is descriptive … Clarifying the details won’t alter the essence of the picture — The COVID response was determined by a script of vaccine salvation, and societies’ investment in that script was too deep for mere realities to divert its execution.”
The primary questions that still remain unanswered are: Why was this script created? What are its intended consequences? And, who created it? As mentioned earlier, the evidence suggests harm is an intended outcome — harm to our economy, our social order, our health, our life span and reproductive capacity.
As for “why,” we can just look at what has been accomplished so far. Assuming the consequences were intentional, the “why” appears to be wealth transfer, depopulation and the creation of a one world government.
Part two, the smoking gun:
Genetic Fingerprint Reveals Synthetic Origin of SARS-CoV-2
- November 03, 2022
- According to new research, the chance of SARS-CoV-2 having a natural origin is less than 1 in 100 million. SARS-CoV-2 has a telltale signature of genetic engineering, not previously identified
- That genetic fingerprint suggests the work of Ralph Baric, Ph.D., was used in the creation of the virus. There’s a direct match between Baric’s published research — which describes how to hide telltale signs of genetic engineering — and the genetics found in SARS-CoV-2
- In 2002, Baric invented a technique called seamless ligation, which conceals all evidence of genetic engineering in lab-created pathogens. Baric’s nickname for this technique is the “no-see’m method.” Baric taught the method to Shi Zhengli in 2016, and Shi and her colleagues at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) demonstrated mastery of Baric’s technique in a series of gain-of-function experiments
- However, while seamless ligation conceals human tampering in lab-created pathogens, the method leaves a signature of its own, and that’s the signature discovered in SARS-CoV-2
- The findings raise the possibility of liability for the University of North Carolina where Baric works, the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which funded Baric, the WIV and other parties
According to new research, the chance of SARS-CoV-2 having a natural origin is less than 1 in 100 million.1,2 The paper3 was posted on the preprint server BioRxiv October 20, 2022.
One of its authors, mathematical biologist Alex Washburn, also summarizes the work in a Substack article,4 posted that same day. The other two authors are Valentin Bruttel, a molecular immunologist, and Antonius VanDongen, a pharmacologist. There are two key take-homes from this paper:
- SARS-CoV-2 has a telltale signature of genetic engineering, not previously identified
- That genetic fingerprint also suggests the work of Ralph Baric, Ph.D., was used in the creation of the virus. There’s a direct match between Baric’s published research — in which he describes how to hide telltale signs of genetic engineering — and the genetics found in SARS-CoV-2
Seamless Ligation Conceals Genetic Tampering
In 2002, Baric and three other researchers published a paper5 in the Journal of Virology titled “Systematic Assembly of a Full-Length Infectious cDNA of Mouse Hepatitis Virus Strain A59.” In it, they describe a technique called “seamless ligation,” which conceals all evidence of genetic engineering in lab-created pathogens. Baric’s nickname for this technique is the “no-see’m method.”
The research was funded by two National Institutes of Health grants6 — AI 23946, for studies into the mechanism of MHV (mouse hepatitis virus) replication and SARS reverse genetics,7 and GM 63228, for reverse genetics with a coronavirus infectious cDNA construct.8
Seamless Litigation Leaves Signature of Its Own
However, while seamless ligation conceals human tampering in lab-created pathogens, it turns out the method leaves a signature of its own in the amino acid code, and that’s the signature Washburn and his coauthors discovered in SARS-CoV-2.
In summary, the telltale signature left behind by the no-see’m method are unique and odd “spellings” in the “genetic vocabulary” that you normally do not find in the genome of a natural virus. The lay summary in the paper describes it like this:9
“To construct synthetic variants of natural coronaviruses in the lab, researchers often use a method called in vitro genome assembly. This method utilizes special enzymes called restriction enzymes to generate DNA building blocks that then can be ‘stitched’ together in the correct order of the viral genome.
To make a virus in the lab, researchers usually engineer the viral genome to add and remove stitching sites, called restriction sites. The ways researchers modify these sites can serve as fingerprints of in vitro genome assembly.”
In an October 21, 2022, Defender article, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jay Couey, Ph.D., and Charles Rixey clarified the findings as follows:10
“The magic of Baric’s ‘no-see’m’ technique is to invisibly weave these telltale ‘spelling’ changes into the viral sequence between relevant genes without altering the viral protein. This is like changing the ‘spelling’ of the word without changing its meaning; the casual listener will never notice the difference.
The research team used forensic tools to drill down on minute ‘spelling differences’ in the SARS-CoV2 genome that betray laboratory tampering using the ‘no-see’m’ technique.
Consider how a Brit would spell ‘colour,’ ‘manoeuvre’ or ‘paediatric.’ The choice to spell a word in a certain way can reveal your nation of origin. Similarly, these nearly imperceptible changes in the viral sequence give away the laboratory origins of this virus.”
Regularly Spaced Cutting Sites Reveal Manipulation
They were able to identify the signature left behind by seamless ligation by plotting the distribution of cutting sites on the SARS-CoV-2 virus and then comparing it to the distribution of cutting sites on wild-type SARS viruses and other lab-created SARS viruses.
SARS-CoV has the restriction site fingerprint that is typical for synthetic viruses. The synthetic fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous in wild coronaviruses, and common in lab-assembled viruses. ~ Washburn, Bruttel and VanDongen
Wild-type SARS viruses had cutting sites that were randomly distributed. Lab-created SARS viruses, on the other hand — and SARS-CoV-2 — had regularly spaced cutting sites. According to the authors, that’s a clear indication that SARS-CoV-2 was manipulated in the lab using Baric’s no-see’m technique.
Another telltale sign of human manipulation is the length between the cutting sites. The longest segments found in wild-type viruses were found to be far longer than those found in lab-made viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.
The reason for this is because lab-made viruses are stitched together from smaller pieces, so the genetic segments tend to be short. In nature, however, the lengths of the segments are completely random and include both very short, medium and very long segments.
The types of mutations in SARS-CoV-2 also didn’t conform to what you see in wild-type, naturally evolved viruses. So, SARS-CoV-2 looks like a lab creation in more ways than one. As noted in their lay summary:11
“We found that SARS-CoV has the restriction site fingerprint that is typical for synthetic viruses. The synthetic fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous in wild coronaviruses, and common in lab-assembled viruses.
The type of mutations (synonymous or silent mutations) that differentiate the restriction sites in SARS-CoV-2 are characteristic of engineering, and the concentration of these silent mutations in the restriction sites is extremely unlikely to have arisen by random evolution.
Both the restriction site fingerprint and the pattern of mutations generating them are extremely unlikely in wild coronaviruses and nearly universal in synthetic viruses. Our findings strongly suggest a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2.”
Genetic Fingerprints Point Directly at Baric, Fauci and the WIV
According to Washburn and his coauthors, this artifact in the amino acid code of SARS-CoV-2 could only have emerged through the use of Baric’s seamless ligation (no see’m) method.
That’s bad news for Baric, who created the method, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who funded the development of the technique through the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). It also incriminates Shi Zhengli, aka “the Bat Lady” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As reported by Kennedy:12
“Baric taught his ‘no-see’m’ method to … Shi Zhengli in 2016. In return, Baric received Chinese coronaviruses collected by Shi from bats in Yunnan province. (Scientists have linked the COVID-19 genome’s pedigree to closely related bats.)
Shi and her colleagues at the Wuhan Institute subsequently demonstrated their mastery of Baric’s high-risk technique in a series of published — and highly controversial — gain-of-function experiments13,14 at the Wuhan lab …
Experts say that the implications of this new study could be far-reaching. By pointing the finger at Baric, the study raises the possibility of potentially devastating liability for the NIAID and the University of North Carolina and other parties …
The closest known coronavirus relative — a coronavirus from the Wuhan lab — is 96.2% identical15 to SARS-CoV-2. The peculiar spike accounts almost completely for the entire 3.8% difference. Oddly, there are multiple novel mutations in the spike and almost none in the rest of the genome.
Natural evolution would be expected to leave mutations distributed evenly across the genome. The fact that virtually all the mutations occur on the spike led these scientists to suspect that that particular Wuhan lab coronavirus collected by Shi Zhengli is the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 and that its new spike was implanted through engineering.
However, the unmistakable fingerprints of lab engineering were absent — leaving many experts wondering whether Baric’s technique was used to assemble a novel coronavirus with the engineered spike while removing the evidence of lab generation.
This new study16 connects the biological breadcrumbs that link federally funded research to a global pandemic. That trail leads directly to UNC and NIAID … In an interview last spring, Baric himself confessed, that at the time the pandemic began, only two or three labs in the world were using his protocol — including his UNC lab and the WIV.”
A Big, Risky Research Agenda
Jeffrey Sachs, chair of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, whose taskforce tried, unsuccessfully, to investigate the origins of COVID-19, commented on these latest findings:17
“Baric’s technique has long been controversial. ‘It’s the artist that doesn’t sign his name to the painting; the virologist that doesn’t put his signature into the virus to let us know whether or not it is emerging naturally or whether it is produced in a laboratory. All of it says … there was really a big, very risky research agenda underway.’”
Incidentally, Baric’s research was also the basis for Moderna’s mRNA shot for COVID,18 and he’s been involved in the development of COVID drugs as well. As reported by The News & Observer19 in December 2021, Baric’s team “conducted the preclinical development for the only approved direct-acting antiviral drug, Remdesivir,” and “studied Molnupiravir, which is the first antiviral pill shown to treat COVID-19 …”
Other Incriminating Evidence Involving Seamless Ligation
Incidentally, Baric’s seamless ligation method was also detailed in the now-infamous DEFUSE proposal20 submitted by the EcoHealth Alliance to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2018. DARPA rejected the proposal, reportedly because it had “several weaknesses.”21
The research EcoHealth Alliance proposed involved inserting human-specific cleavage sites into SARS-related bat coronaviruses — the same puzzling cleavage sites found in SARS-CoV-2 that make it so well-adapted to human lung cells. As the Daily Mail put it:22
“The $14.2 million (£10.5 million) grant bid was rejected. But did another funder pick up the proposal? At the very least, this proves the researchers were toying with precisely the sort of risky science that could have cooked up a virus eerily similar to the one behind the pandemic.”
Was There Nefarious Intent Behind Creation of SARS-CoV-2?
While Washburn, Bruttel and VanDongen are clear about SARS-CoV-2 being a lab creation, they don’t want people to assume there’s anything nefarious about the virus. In his Substack article, Washburne writes:23
“… our use of the word ‘synthetic’ derives from ‘synthesis.’ There are methods to synthesize viruses in the lab, and we study those methods. In talking with friends & family, I learned that ‘synthetic’ can have a more nefarious connotation, so I want to clarify that we find no evidence of anything nefarious.
We find no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 being a bioweapon (on the contrary, this looks like an accident) or any gain of function work. We find evidence suggesting SARS-CoV-2 may have been synthesized in the lab with known methods, probably for normal pre-COVID research purposes.”
While I can certainly understand their desire to avoid the conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon, I disagree with their assumption that it wasn’t intended as such. Too many geopolitical agendas point toward COVID being intentionally used for global wealth transfer and the implementation of The Great Reset.
But even if there was no nefarious intent behind its creation, the end results remain the same. The global economy is crashing, wealth has been stolen from the lower and middle classes, fear of the virus has been used to force us to not only surrender our rights and freedoms but also to submit to medical experimentation under duress, and much more. If there was no nefarious intent, governments’ reaction to the virus would likely have been saner.
The Smoking Gun
What’s more, even if the virus was intended as a bioweapon or not, and whether it got out by accident or intentional release, we need to hold people accountable for its creation in the first place. Unless we ban the creation of Frankenstein viruses, we’ll never be safe. Another lab creation could slip through the doors of a lab on any given day. As noted by Kennedy:24
“The world now has proof positive that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered laboratory creation generated with technology developed by Ralph Baric with U.S. government funding.
Prosecutors and private attorneys representing clients injured by the COVID-19 pandemic now have a smoking gun … Forensic scientists have now successfully lifted faint but precise fingerprints from the lethal pistol’s grip and trigger. Those fingerprints belong to the NIAID and the University of North Carolina …
UNC’s role in enabling [Baric’s] questionable conduct may have precipitated a global pandemic that could easily give rise to liability for negligence.
UNC and NIAID’s liability is now clear. But do we have positive proof that the Wuhan lab created the monstrosity that caused COVID-19? The cumulative evidence strongly suggests that the Wuhan lab used Baric’s methodologies to cobble together the chimeric virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
But a few missing puzzle pieces still prevent us from definitively proving that this dangerous construction project occurred at the Wuhan lab. Stay tuned!”
Lastly, Twitter user Justin B. Kinney makes a very good point:25
“Bioweapons are more likely to be used post-COVID-19, in part because bad actors now know that virologists and biosecurity experts will cover for them by reflexively insisting the attack was a zoonotic spillover.”
Why You Need to Stop Using PayPal
- November 05, 2022
- PayPal’s true function is as a politically biased extremist-activist platform
- Natural health organizations, antiwar journalists, Christian organizations, anti-child-grooming organizations, nonprofits fighting vaccine mandates, organizations promoting early COVID treatments, alternative media and free speech unions are among those who have had their PayPal accounts canceled without warning
- PayPal is also seizing any money you might have in your account on the day of deplatforming. Funds may or may not be returned to you after a six-month review
- October 7, 2022, PayPal issued a new user agreement that included fining users $2,500 for “misinformation” or material “unfit for publication.” The determination of what could be deemed “misinformation” was to be at the sole discretion of PayPal, and the fine was to be “debited directly from your PayPal account”
- Amid a storm of backlash, PayPal backtracked the next day, saying the user agreement had been issued in error. It’s now been revealed the $2,500 fine has been in its user agreement for over a year. The primary change was the addition of “misinformation” as a fineable offense. PayPal will continue to seize funds, so get out of PayPal as soon as possible
While PayPal has acted as “moral police” for over a decade,1 in the last couple of years, its true purpose has crystallized. You probably thought PayPal was nothing more than an online payment service, but its true function is as a politically biased extremist-activist platform. PayPal’s chief executive Dan Schulman himself has publicly stated he was “born with social activism in my DNA.”2
Natural health organizations, antiwar journalists,3,4 Christian organizations,5 anti-child-grooming organizations,6 nonprofits fighting vaccine mandates, organizations promoting early COVID treatments, alternative media7 and free speech unions8 are just a sampling of the individuals and groups that have had their PayPal accounts cancelled without warning.
PayPal Is Stealing Funds
Adding insult to injury, PayPal is also seizing any money you might have in your account on the day of deplatforming. As reported by independent journalist Matt Taibbi in May 2022:9
“In the last week or so, the online payment platform PayPal without explanation suspended the accounts of a series of individual journalists and media outlets, including the well-known alt sites Consortium News and MintPress …
Consortium editor Joe Lauria succeeded in reaching a human being at the company in search of details about the frozen or ‘held’ funds referenced in the note. The PayPal rep told him that if the company decided ‘there was a violation’ after a half-year review period, then ‘it is possible’ PayPal would keep the $9,348.14 remaining in Consortium’s account, as ‘damages.’
‘A secretive process in which they could award themselves damages, not by a judge or a jury,’ Lauria says. ‘Totally in secret’ … This episode ups the ante again on the content moderation movement … where having the wrong opinions can result in your money being frozen or seized. Going after cash is a big jump from simply deleting speech, with a much bigger chilling effect.”
PayPal’s Terms of Service: $2,500 Fine for Misinformation
On top of its deplatforming of political opponents and freezing their funds, PayPal recently threatened to fine users who express opinions that the company doesn’t agree with.10,11,12 In other words, they’ve devised yet another way of stealing your funds, even if they don’t seize your entire account and close it down. As reported by the DailyWire November 7, 2022:13
“A new policy update from PayPal will permit the firm to sanction users who advance purported ‘misinformation’ or present risks to user ‘wellbeing’ with fines of up to $2,500 per offense.
The financial services company, which has repeatedly deplatformed organizations and individual commentators for their political views, will expand its ‘existing list of prohibited activities’ on November 3.
Among the changes are prohibitions on ‘the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials’ that ‘promote misinformation’ or ‘present a risk to user safety or wellbeing.’ Users are also barred from ‘the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory.’”
According to the notice, the determination of what could be deemed “misinformation” was to be at the sole discretion of PayPal, and the fine was to be “debited directly from your PayPal account.”
It’s worth noting that undefined “misinformation” wasn’t the only thing that could incur a fine; item (i) of the policy also included materials “otherwise unfit for publication.”14 Unfit? What could that be? Your guess is as good as mine.
Based on whom they’ve deplatformed and seized funds from so far, people who would see thousands of dollars swiped from their PayPal accounts as fines for wrongthink would include anyone who doesn’t care for global tyranny, censorship, government overreach, forced medical interventions, nuclear war, The Great Reset or pedophile grooming of children, just to name a few.
PayPal Temporarily Backtracked Amid Backlash
The updated terms of service resulted in thousands of users swiftly closing their accounts and taking their outrage to social media. PayPal’s former president, David Marcus, referred to the new terms as “Insanity,”15 and company stocks tanked nearly 12%.16
The backlash was so great, PayPal backtracked the very next day and apologized for causing “confusion,” claiming the new terms of service had been sent out “in error.” According to a PayPal spokesperson:17
“An [Accepted Use Policy] notice recently went out in error that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy. We’re sorry for the confusion this has caused.”
Anyone who believes PayPal would send out new terms of service by mistake is truly gullible. A company like PayPal would have to go through multiple steps and levels of organization, including legal, in order to update its terms of service. No doubt it was approved and authorized at the highest levels.
It was not a mistake, and its sudden U-turn was merely for show (more on that in a moment). They realized they moved a bit too far, too fast, by tying the fine directly to “misinformation.” So, they backtracked.
The $2,500 fine has been part of PayPal’s terms of service since September 20, 2021, at the latest — and it still remains.
Surprise! Fines Have Been on the Books for a Year Already
Unbeknownst to many, the $2,500 fine has actually been part of PayPal’s terms of service since September 20, 2021, at the latest — and it still remains. What!? Yes.
Here’s the deal: PayPal is not removing the possibility of robbing you of $2,500. The supposed “mistake” in language was the addition of “misinformation” as a fineable offense to an already existing policy that says they can issue fines of up to $2,500 for noncompliance with its use policy. In other words, they merely delayed the implementation of fines for misinformation specifically. Tech Dirt explains:18
“… PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy already includes a claim that if you violate its policy they can take $2,500 from your account. While PayPal walked back some of these newly announced changes (we’ll get to that in a second), the policy about the $2,500 has existed for at least a year.
Here’s the policy I just grabbed from their website, showing it was last updated on September 20, 2021, with the $2,500 ‘liquidated damages’ clause in there:
… Lots of sites reported that PayPal had retracted its plan to fine people $2,500 for misinformation, but the $2,500 amount is still in the policy. It’s just that the misinformation part is not going live — yet.
Of course, this raises another question: if the $2,500 liquidated damages thing has been in there since at least 2021… has PayPal ever actually done that? … The fact that the $2,500 damages clause is still in the PayPal policy today still seems like a pretty big deal.
Hiding the fact that a company might take $2,500 from you by burying it in an acceptable use policy no one is going to read seems like not a great thing, whether or not the policy includes ‘misinformation’ as a triggering event.”
PayPal Reverses Course Again — Fines Are Back
But the story doesn’t end there. After backing off its thought police policies for a short while, PayPal turned around and doubled down on them October 27, 2022. As reported by The Gateway Pundit:19
“Paypal’s policy of charging $2,500 for spreading ‘inaccurate or misleading information’ has been reinstated as outlined in the Restricted Activities under the User Agreement …
Starting November 3, 2022, PayPal is expanding the existing list of prohibited activities to include the sending, posting, or publication of messages, content, or materials under its Acceptable Use Policy.
‘Violation of this Acceptable Use Policy constitutes a violation of the PayPal User Agreement and may subject you to damages, including liquidated damages of $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation, which may be debited directly from your PayPal account(s) as outlined in the User Agreement,’ said PayPal.
Users will be subject to a financial penalty if they violate the revised policy in any way, including by spreading false information, engaging in discrimination against the LGBTQ community, posing a risk to user safety, and so on … They just lied to you. PayPal is not to be trusted.”
Don’t Wait, Ditch PayPal Today
Do you really want to entrust your money to an activist organization intent on stealing your funds at the first opportune moment? I cannot encourage you strongly enough to ditch PayPal.
They have repeatedly proven they are against Constitutional rights and are willing to use their leverage in people’s lives to impose their own anti-American, anti-Constitutional and anti-humanitarian ideologies.
Understand that by using them, you’re supporting all of those things as well. Furthermore, make no mistake, PayPal is part of the blossoming social credit system,20 and that must be nipped in the bud, sooner rather than later.
Call on Lawmakers to Take Action
Getting out of PayPal as quickly as possible is not enough. As noted by Revolver news, we also need to call on lawmakers to step in and make sure PayPal and other banking and financial transaction services can never implement theft of users’ funds based on ideological differences:21
“Don’t be fooled by PayPal’s fakeout. The company wants your money, and it wants wokeness, and it’s planning on how to take both. And unless it is punished quickly, other banks will look to do the same thing …
Saturday afternoon, just a day after the planned changes broke, PayPal walked everything back, pathetically suggesting that the changes to its terms of service were the product of a typo. ‘Oops! Sorry about the mistake! Now please move along and stop asking questions.’
Obviously, only an idiot would believe this. Friday’s leaked policies were no stray typo, but the product of substantial work. And there was nothing shocking about them. For years, PayPal has increasingly let political priorities override neutral business practices …
PayPal trying to outright steal the money of non-woke users is just the rational culmination of the company’s priorities. This time, at least, some shouting on Twitter was able to reverse the policy before it began. But there is no reason to let things stop there.
Lawmakers and regulators should act immediately make sure PayPal can never consider reimposing such a policy … This isn’t just about PayPal. PayPal’s justification for confiscating its users’ assets could likely be copied by any bank with sufficient political motivation. And according to one notable finance and tech investor … there are ‘high odds’ other banks will adopt similar policies sooner rather than later …
[F]ortunately, the fix is easy. There are a whole raft of laws that any state can pass right now to protect their citizens from unjust monetary seizures or financial deplatforming:
- Decree that no person’s account may be frozen or forcibly closed absent evidence of an actual crime.
- Ban any predefined fines in excess of some nominal amount (such at $40) suitable for covering things like overdraft fees. For any larger amount, a company must sue in court for damages.
- Legally clarify — and have state regulators issue guidance — that ‘reputational’ risk-management frameworks for financial institutions should, as a matter of policy, consider only the reputation for solvency. Not ‘environmental,’ ‘social,’ or political matters. Prohibit banks from collecting any liquidated damages for so-called reputational harm.”
Financial Institutions Must Act as Servants
The Washington Examiner has expressed the same ideas, stating:22
“A congressional investigation of PayPal is in order … Companies that handle other people’s money should not be permitted to use their position to steal or to leverage the personal freedom of their clients. Much like government, they are supposed to be the servants and not masters of their customers.
Before PayPal and other companies attempt to establish some kind of unaccountable social credit system, they should worry about the reputational harm they will cause to themselves when they get caught.”
Deseret News has also published an article23 discussing the need for new laws. “Access to the financial system regardless of one’s views is a human-rights issue for our time,” Deseret writer Valerie Hudson wrote. In March 2021, Sen. Kevin Cramer introduced the Fair Access to Banking Act24 (S563), which could act as a foundation upon which to build further. As noted by Hudson:
“The proposed Fair Access to Banking Act is a good start, but in light of PayPal’s antics, this legislation should be strengthened and prioritized. In the United States, your life should not be held hostage by financial organizations on the basis of your political viewpoints, period.”
A Foreshadowing of a Future Hell
PayPal’s tactics foreshadow what we can expect from a central bank digital currency (CBDC). As noted by The Hill,25 “PayPal just gave America an eerie glimpse into the future.” So, we not only need legislation to prevent social engineering by the likes of PayPal, we also need laws to prevent the future use of CBDCs as a tool for mass control — which is precisely their intended function.
If we can get our representatives to understand the stakes, we could nip that preplanned tyranny in the bud. Combined with a social credit system, CBDCs will be like PayPal at its most egregious, on steroids.
A CBDC will have the ability to control where and when you spend every dime. It will also have the ability to automatically withdraw taxes and fines for crimethink and unapproved behavior. To understand what awaits us in the West, all you have to do is look at the Chinese social credit system,26 and how it controls people through a combination of financial, social and physical threats.
CBDCs can also be preprogrammed by the issuer to restrict how the currency is used by the receiver from the get-go. Discrimination and wrecking of lives for the purpose of quelling dissenting ideologies are a given under such a system.
Anyone who wants their children to grow up free have a duty to resist this financial reset, and that includes not using platforms like PayPal, which promises censorship rather than freedom. Getting laws on the books ahead of time could also go a long way toward minimizing the number of martyrs required to keep ultimate tyranny at bay.