I returned from an overseas trip at the end of 2019 to news of a frightening respiratory illness that was causing people to drop like flies in Wuhan China. Television showed people dropping like flies in Wuhan, and hazmat-suited soldiers rounding up the living. Medical journals showed photos of the earliest victims in China, their lungs consumed by the deadly pathogen looking like something from the movie 'Alien'.
News said the virus came from bats, snakes, pangolins, or frozen food, according to various accounts. As the virus spread to 110 countries, CCP officials occupied themselves censoring anything linking it to the Wuhan Laboratory, and disappearing doctors who posted the genome showing signs of engineered design. The CCP-compliant WHO declared a global pandemic. Case and death counts appeared daily in newspapers and on television, bearing the implicit message 'This could happen to YOU anytime'.
Computer projections from the Imperial College of London, a job-shop run by Neil Ferguson specializing in erroneous disaster forecasts, warned that hospitals and entire medical systems would soon be overwhelmed with the millions of sick and dying. Every medical authority from Bill Gates (a very rich college dropout) to Anthony Fauci (an epidemiologist and secret promoter of transgenic virulence) to all the world's public health and political officials cited the same projections. The same figures were cited endlessly in all media.
The propagators of this hysteria, as I later surmised, had staged a global drama vividly portraying mass death on a scale never before seen. This multi-media performance featuring real-time disaster footage and stills, white-coated scientists reciting the (China-financed) Imperial College projections as gospel, and solemn pronouncements by frightened or complaisant officials at every level of government, moved billions of people into a state of child-like dependence, primed to accept any remedy.
The government-approved remedy was not long in making its debut. In fact, the mRNA 'vaccines', according to patent filings, were ready before the pathogen itself appeared. As the world breathlessly awaited pharmaceutical salvation, months of rioting and an election marred by millions of fraudulent mail-in ballots ensued. Working allegedly at 'warp speed' under a politically compressed research and testing schedule, drug companies rolled-out 'vaccines' in December 2020, accompanied by official assurances that these would prevent infection, prevent transmission, lessen the severity of symptoms, and thereby prevent what the computer projectionists promised would be a total breakdown of entire medical systems. Almost no one asked what was the actual risk of dying from covid (0.15% actually). And almost no one questioned the drug companies' safety and efficacy data -- this was an emergency, after all. Later I learned this was all a tissue of lies, as deadly in its way as the diseased 'Alien'-like lung tissue shown in medical journals. But I didn't know that at the time.
The initial period of uncertainty was agonizing, a classic case of conflict between my own vague, inchoate unease, and the impressively well-evidenced advice of everyone in authority. Ten years earlier, I had relied on expert medical and health-physics opinion to allay concerns about the Fukushima meltdown in 2011. I learned about various Greek-letter types of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma), how far they would spread from the epicenter, what levels were considered safe, and why. While panic-stricken officials of Western governments fled, I stayed home in Kamakura 250 kilometers away, confident that any radiation in the vicinity would be less than background levels in Rome or Stockholm, or from a bunch of bananas for that matter. I also found solace in the fact that low levels of radiation could actually be beneficial, something called hormesis. While regulators believed even trivial amounts of radiation were harmful, hot springs resorts with substantial levels of radiation like Masutomi Onsen had benefited many visitors.
I was familiar, then, with the phenomenon of expert panic in response to a disturbing event such as the magnitude-nine earthquake and tsunami. A dissident minority calmly advanced a persuasive case against panic.
Now, however, expert opinion appeared undivided. I was struck by the unanimity not only among experts and officials, but also among medical friends -- doctors, public health workers, epidemiologists. These people all had more experience, and knew a great deal more, than I did. Hundreds of technical articles using the most sophisticated tools of evidence-based medicine studies all reached the same conclusion, that even if the shots posed some risks, the odds favored them over the apparently more likely consequences of covid-caused illness or death. It was generally considered beyond argument. It seemed I'd be foolish, and maybe anti-social, to refuse this miracle of Science. After April or May 2021, when I was given my free tickets for the first two shots (plus taxi fare!), it was hard to dismiss the universal recommendations, and even harder to dismiss the advice of my own highly qualified doctor on this. I kept the envelope with tickets for free 'vaccinations' on top of the dining table, in case of need. The prospect of a runaway respiratory infection progressing to endothelial cells of the lungs and other organs was indeed frightening.
My prior experience with doctors, hospitals, and drugs had generally been favorable. My parents gave me life; doctors sustained it. This incredibly complex system of circulating fluids, electrical impulses, renewable cells, interdependent chemical cascades, sensory interactions with the near and distant environment, and consciousness, awareness, memory, and thought -- the very thought that propels these words into YOUR consciousness -- has occasionally been ministered to by doctors using the most advanced techniques and pharmaceutical tools of the medical profession. It is no wonder that doctors as sustainers of life stand alongside parents who created it. Because doctors step naturally into the role of parents, we trust them, as the saying goes, with our lives. Going against them would feel like violating our very own precious existence. I wondered whether my misgivings about the covid shots were nothing but pure cussedness.
The science of mRNA encapsulation was brilliant, and marvelously efficient. It looked like another triumph of genetic engineering, the way it bypassed the body's immune response and harnessed its replication ability to produce tiny particles calling forth a flood of antibodies. And yet I wanted to know how the mRNA injections were supposed to work. Apparently the spike protein that latches onto receptors on endothelial cells, the virus's signature feature, would in turn activate billions of antibodies to stop the pathogen in its tracks. This prompted many questions: How would it get in? Why wouldn't the body reject it? Would it stay where injected, or circulate around, and if so, where would it go? Would it enter the cell nucleus and modify DNA? How would natural immunity be affected? Would spike protein antibody-stimulating process turn itself off when no longer needed? Being neither a doctor nor a biologist, my biological curiousity was driven by a growing awareness of the virtues of garden-fresh vegetables and herbs. Some years previously, visiting herb gardens in Urbino Italy —
and Villandry France, I was impressed by their cultivation of synergistic and wholistic effects, in contrast to the single active ingredient approach adopted for patent rather than health purposes. The questions posed above either went unanswered, were answered with vague reassurances, or were answered in unsettling ways.
I didn't see any reason to reject pharmaceuticals and injectables altogether, as they had clearly saved countless lives and cured many deadly diseases. I didn't firmly decide against getting the shots, but rather just decided to wait and see what would happen. Despite the near-universal recommendations, it was still a clinical trial not scheduled to end until October 2023, and as an experimental drug was only granted Experimental Use Authorization (EUA). I had heard of EUA status for drugs for patients with no hope of survival with available treatments. But I had never heard of EUA status applied to a mass-vaccination campaign. I checked with my medical friends to see whether this was the first time for such an anomaly, and they verified that it was. They also told me 'just do it' (get the shot) and don't worry about side effects. For several weeks I was still uncertain, hoping the global campaign would, as promised, vanquish this plague. While awaiting the outcome, I concluded that building up natural immunity with key nutrients, Vitamin C and other anti-oxidants, natural anti-virals, and adequate sleep couldn't hurt regardless of what I might eventually decide about an mRNA injection.
During the summer of 2021 as covid case numbers declined, official messaging switched from self-protection to implications that it was selfish and anti-social not to take these experimental drugs. That was when the notion of 'asymptomatic spread' took hold. At the same time, increasingly coercive means were used by previously democratic governments around the world to compel drug-taking. These seemed disproportionate to the actual threat, as if motivated more by officials' desire for control than by concern for public health. Word of collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and public health and regulatory agencies naturally increased my suspicion of their motives, and tended to diminish my trust even in apparently well-meaning doctors' advice. This was a wrenching step, because, like everyone, I want to believe that doctors always act in the best interests of their patients.
In the end it came down to trust. The story of where the virus came from (bats, monkeys, snakes) and how it was made (gain-of-function research) alerted my suspicions. From everything I could discern, including the many official denials, the covid virus appeared to have been human-engineered. I couldn't understand why anyone would do that, except as a bio-weapon. Putting the most benign possible face on the scientists' motivations, for devil's-advocate purposes, I observed that unlike nuclear research, in bio-weapons R&D there was no practical distinction between defensive and offensive research. With their careers glued to Federal grant-making controlled by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, maybe scientists like Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina and Shi Zhengli (the 'Bat Lady') at the Wuhan Lab got carried away. Trying to defend against bio-warfare, they somehow fell into developing an extraordinarily virulent bio-weapon that threatened all of humankind.
I didn't really believe they, and their chief financier Anthony Fauci, were unaware of what they were doing, especially since they went to great lengths to conceal it, laundering the U.S. taxpayers' money sent to China through a cutout called the Eco-Health Alliance run by an enterprising Brit named Peter Daszak. But I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Certainly Dr Fauci gave himself the benefit of the doubt in his Congressional testimony, innocently portraying his activities as mere academic collaboration. Engineering a bat virus so that it was precisely designed to adhere to the very different structure of human airway cells, by the ingenious method of passing it through several generations of lab animals (instead of the less laborious method of gene-editing, which would have been more easily detectable) to make it appear natural -- maybe that was just idle academic curiousity, let's see if we happen by chance to find something that will benefit all of humanity. In the event, they found something that is killing and maiming millions of people. But this is getting ahead of where I was in my own confused thinking in the summer of '21.
The apparently overwhelming case for a 'vaccine', legally defined as a drug that prevents infection, seemed like a no-brainer, and that too somehow added to my suspicions. It was a no-brainer. The message was 'no further research on this is necessary. We've done all the work, we ARE Science, now just take the injection and shut up. If you don't do it for yourself, at least have the courtesy to do it for those around you, and everyone else'. News articles cautioned against thinking too much. And for those still beset with lingering doubts, governments around the world would force people to take it. At the same time, the drug companies' exemption from lawsuits and prosecution, in the midst of trying out an experimental and potentially DNA-altering drug, together with their enormous profits and their perpetual-annuity business model, raised my suspicious even higher. I understood that a global pandemic might, at least in theory, justify some restrictions on freedom, and perhaps some windfall profits. But was this really such a dire emergency? And even if it was, what good are guarantees of freedom if they can so readily be cast aside? Isn't the very notion of such a tradeoff antithetical to a democratic society? In genuine emergencies we need more than ever the social solidarity that comes from respecting everyone's freedom even under duress. These were the thoughts that occurred to me as I considered whether to inject mRNA drugs or not.
Slowly and agonizingly, a pattern began to fall into place: The authorities are more interested in controlling the populace than in protecting it from pathogens. This drug probably doesn't even prevent infection. I had not yet proceeded to what looks now like the obvious conclusion: This mRNA drug is the pathogen. That was, then, too horrible to contemplate. And this was before any pre-market test data were available, because drug-company internal test data were only extracted later by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Even then, the FDA -- a consumer-protection regulatory agency! -- sought to delay release of that information for 75 years. After further delays, they were finally required to hand it over for public disclosure. It confirmed the sorry record of iatorgenic (drug-caused) death and disease that the poison left in its wake. But, although I had seen isolated reports of 'adverse events', data on the full scope of the carnage were still concealed. Not yet certain, it seemed reasonable to wait, which is what I did.
Computer projections should not be confused with data. They are 'forward-looking statements' with no assurance they will materialize. Therefore they are not a proper basis for public policy. The future is always uncertain. Real leaders might consider computer projections as one among many possibilities, but it is irresponsible to allow them to replace common-sense judgment. This is especially so if such leaders don't understand the assumptions, methods, and interpretations that go into them, and fail to require the projectionists to explain themselves in common-sense terms. This is true, by the way, not only in epidemiology, but in economics, international trade, and investing as well.
The first country outside China to report large numbers of covid deaths was Italy. But were these deaths really due entirely to covid? Pneumonia was traditionally known as 'the old man's friend' because it finished off the aged who were already in bad shape from other conditions. Italy's demographic profile is highly senior-skewed, and sure enough, old folks with other conditions fell in large numbers. But calling these 'covid deaths' departed from standard cause-of-death reporting protocols, and upon learning that WHO had instigated this change in reporting practices, I felt like this was an intentional effort to scare people rather than an organic cause for alarm. The fact that hospitals in America and elsewhere were compensated based on the numbers of deaths they could count as due to covid did not add to the credibility of the data.
After that, I started actively looking for other data that would either confirm or allay my suspicions. What I found from both epidemiological and physiological data confirmed a feeling that had taken months to crystallize. Despite what was then the overwhelming weight of medical and public health advice, I came to accept the idea that natural immunity would be the best bet for health and survival. The human immune system is a wonderfully sensitive and powerful instrument for protection against disease. It works in several different ways, not only through antibodies, but also through killer T-cells and memory cells that help block pathogens similar to but not identical to those already encountered (variants, in other words). This is an extraordinarily valuable natural resource, not to be lightly tampered with. Because the covid virus was said to replicate very rapidly, many experts favored mRNA-assisted antibodies which would go to work almost immediately. Natural immunity might take three days to mount an effective response to a new pathogen, and perhaps that would be too late to save some people. That seemed reasonable (though never proved), but it also seemed to me that less damaging anti-viral medications could work just as well without interfering with natural immunity. Those who were aware the virus was lab-created also worried, perhaps understandably, that human immune systems might never recognize it. One projection that made sense to me was that of Dr Geert Vanden Bossche who noted -- long before any variants had arrived -- that viruses evolve, and that any single-target drug would soon prove useless. He was right.
Accounts of serious 'adverse effects' from mRNA shots trickled in. In the medical literature these were generally conflated with trivial effects like a sore arm at the injection site. I was much more concerned with vascular and nerve damage. Authorities generally dismissed these as 'statistically insignificant' even though numbers like those that were appearing were always enough to remove prior drugs from clinical usage. The reason for such caution is that even had the numbers really been 'statistically insignificant', they could indicate unexpected systemic pathologies in the way the drugs operate in the body, the full extent of which could take years to manifest themselves.
As time went on through 2021, my understanding of why the mRNA shots cause vascular and other problems focused on the spike proteins meant to stimulate production of anti-covid antibodies. They do that, in extremely large numbers, crowding out natural antibodies, but they also circulate throughout the bloodstream, and lodge in organs like the heart, liver, kidneys, ovaries in women, and testes in men. This was contrary to official assurances, bringing the authorities several points further down on the trust meter. Adhering to endothelial cells, irritation and inflammation by spike proteins cause blood to clump together in various ways, by a process akin to polymerization and by red blood cells stacking up ('rouleaux formation'), and in advanced stages found in autopsies, by formation of amyloid plaques. All of these forms of blood coagulation interfere with circulation and passage through narrow spaces such as those in the heart and between arteries and veins, leading to heart attacks and strokes. Spike protein effects mimic those of 'long covid', not surprisingly since the pathogens are essentially the same. (Of all the virus parts that might have been used to stimulate antibody production, the spike protein was probably among the worst choices. This is the sort of flaw that would normally be uncovered in pre-release testing, which was not done.) Also not surprisingly, the most effective methods of treating spike-protein toxicity and removing them from the body, resemble the most successful covid treatments.
Incredibly from my perspective now in September 2022, rejecting the near-universal medical advice was neither an easy nor an obvious decision during the early weeks and months of the pandemic. Governmental authorities and many doctors are still recommending them, in spite of all the evidence that has gotten through relentless censorship and threats to doctors. California recently passed legislation requiring the State Medical Board to de-certify doctors who advise their patients or the public not to take these injections. With all we know now, such actions by legislators could not possibly have been taken in good faith. So this pandemic, the weakened immune condition of the general populace, and a plague of iatrogenic illness and death, all look set to continue to fund drug companies' coffers -- hopefully not in perpetuity. But a change in public perceptions similar to the process described above will be required to stop it.
Enticed with numerous incentives and prodded with myriad threats, between 60 and 80 percent of the people in developed countries eventually accepted injections of an unknown, untested, genetic drug. This single injection soon morphed into a recommended, then required series of two, three, four, and (at last count) five injections. CEOs of all the suppliers pressed to make it an annual event, except when they were recommending it quarterly, with no end in sight. Politicians and public health officials fell in line behind their masters, echoing, reinforcing, and forcing a violation of bodily autonomy and personal freedom accepted with what seemed like planetary unanimity. But this was far from the actual case. In reality, news of serious adverse effects and of refusals by the not yet injured was systematically censored by all governments. Among the political class there was true unanimity. But even the most rigorous censorship ever exercised -- including collusion between dozens of government agencies and social media -- could not impede the flow of accurate information through independent channels like this one. One of the most intriguing accounts of the personal experience of censorship is given by Dr Naomi Wolf.
It's important not only as an example of the extraordinarily lengths to which a formerly democratic government has gone to suppress free speech, and the myriad subtle bureaucratic forms that such coercion takes, but also as an example of how a prominent writer recovered her common-sense.
Naomi Wolf ingeniously uses the trope of unpacking old boxes, like the madeleine in the teacup, to bring back old memories. Unpacking boxes from 2019, for her, is like an archeological dig into the remote past, so much has changed in only three years. Dr Wolf had been writing about women's health for many years, and as the vax/covid tsunami swept ashore, she continued writing in the same vein. She couldn't help noticing the frequent reports of interference with women's menstrual cycles, reproductive systems, and other serious adverse effects of mRNA injections. Apparently her 'friends' not only COULD help noticing, in the blink of an eye, they averted their glance as if Dr Wolf had violated a fundamental taboo. In that aversion her soon-to-be-former friends unwittingly revealed a previously hidden agenda at the center of a mental and philosophical vacuum.
A Grecian-style dress brings back a flood of memories to Dr Wolf about a fashionable wedding on Martha's Vineyard, playground of the glitterati. Old friends partying there and in New York's West Village, people at the top of their game in the arts, culture, politics -- they all abandoned her, justlikethat. And for what?
'The once-young, West-Wing-style politicos? The last two and a half years showed them willing to become policy wonks for a global march to tyranny that instrumentalized a murderous medical experiment on their fellow humans; on their very constituents.'
'Where was that society now? Artists, filmmakers, journalists — all of the people who are supposed to say No to discrimination, No to tyranny — they had scattered, had cowered, had complied. They had groveled.'
'We were intellectuals. We were artists. We were even activists. And yet these people — these same people — had complied — eagerly! With zero resistance! Immediately!'
Within days of her factual posts on the dreadful consequences of the mRNA injections for women, the Big-tech - Federal Government consortium removed Dr Naomi Wolf from Twitter. We know, thanks to a lawsuit by Missouri and Louisiana, this was done pursuant to direct instructions from CDC.
The current regime engaged in what we might call 'enforcement laundering', seeking to conceal its hand by having a purportedly private company carry out its orders. But Twitter's censorship is the very definition of 'state action' that would be illegal and unconstitutional if done by the Federal Government directly. Forcing private employers to force their employees to submit to a genetic experiment is likewise impermissible 'state action', as the courts have ruled.
Dr Wolf writes 'I had been made into a nonperson, overnight. Now it turns out, as America First Legal found via a recent lawsuit, that the CDC had actively colluded with Twitter officials, in reaction to an accurate tweet of mine calling attention to menstrual problems post-mRNA vaccination, to erase me from the worlds of both legacy media and digital discourse.'
Her realization of the vacuity of that long-gone life in the West Village, her discovery that the people she partied with were not her friends at all -- such painful discoveries await all who are honest about the anxious mutual stroking they were compelled to engage in. That is what the willfully deluded are afraid of, why they cling so tenaciously to demonstrably false and self-destructive beliefs about the safety of novel pharmaceuticals. Yet this is precisely the sorting-out that is essential for regaining their common-sense. Dr Naomi Wolf does all of us a valuable service in advancing the duty of honest discovery.
The health effects of the Covid pandemic were bad enough. Its politicization may prove to be even worse. Or not if we can as a people recover our courage and common sense.
This film presents the personal experiences of Dr Aseem Malhotra and others on the consequences that should inform everyone's health decisions: https://youtu.be/dIVZ5ssWB-o