Walensky and Fauci Fumble in Their Responses to the Senate Committee, with Rand Paul’s Call for Fauci to Resign – But is the Senate Culpable as Well?

Rand to Fauci: “You won’t admit that it’s dangerous, and for that lack of judgement, I think it’s time that you resign.”

This post is not meant to convey whether or not there is an existence of a “deadly virus” or not. But it is to point out the suspicious nature of experiments that the NIH has funded/endorsed in regards to gain-of-function research, and also to show the indirect and dishonest responses from two individuals who have been spear-heading the shady “coronavirus/vaccine” situation.

The spotlight is on CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, and NIH/NIAID Infectious Disease “expert” Anthony Fauci.

Now, I want to first preface by saying that I am withholding judgement on the legitimacy of Senate hearings to begin with. While I would love to believe that there are indeed good politicians in high places that can make real change in ousting corruption in big establishments, many are speculating that psyops have been put in place to prolong certain narratives while keeping people’s hopes alive that something will be done about it. And of course we can’t ignore the possibility that even if there are those who are trying to make a real positive change, they may be set against a huge criminal organization who will stop at nothing in order to drive their own agenda forward.

Case in point: Walensky, the FDA, Pfizer, etc. have already gone ahead with their atrocious approval of these dangerous COVID “vaccines” on children, in which this agenda should never have gone on so far to begin with since there is ample evidence that the vaccines have nothing to do with our health and are definitely NOT “safe and effective”.

So to continue witnessing this farce without arrests being made casts a dubious look into the justice system as it is. Not only do Fauci, Bourla, Gelman, Daszak, Walensky, Gates, their agencies, as well as complicit governmental bodies, including Joe Biden, etc. have immense crimes to answer for, but the whole legal/legislative systems seems to be right behind them if this is allowed to continue further.

(This is, of course, under the assumptions that the whole of the legal/legislative structure isn’t already completely corrupted/broken to begin with…)

With that being said, I would still like to point out the following two Senators that are at least calling out Walensky and Fauci for their complicity in keeping this ruse going. Senators Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy certainly seem as if they are trying to get to the bottom of these narratives. But could they be merely actors on a stage? Keeping us happily engaged in believing that the “good guys” are making progress? Or are they genuinely one of the few brave souls standing up to deceit and subterfuge?

I will say this: while Anthony Fauci is a known liar, how good is his acting? He certainly looks shaken up as Rand Paul questions him…

Senator Rand Paul@58:24: “Fauci, I don’t expect you today to admit that you approved of NIH funding for gain-of-function research at Wuhan. But your repeated denials have worn thin and the majority of Americans, frankly, don’t believe you.

Even the NIH now admits that EcoHealth Alliance did perform experiments in Wuhan that created viruses not found in nature that actually did gain in lethality.

The facts are clear. The NIH did fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan despite your protestations. You can deny it all you want, but even the Chinese authors of the paper, in their paper, admit that viruses not found in nature were created, and yes they gained in infectivity.

Your persistent denials though are not simply a stain on your reputation, but are clear and present danger to the country, and to the world. As Professor Kevin Esvelt of MIT has written, “Gain of function research looks like a gamble that civilization can’t afford to risk.” And yet here we are again, with you steadfast in your denials. Why does it matter? Because gain-of-function research with laboratory created viruses not found in nature, could cause a pandemic even worse the next time.

We’re suffering today from one that has a mortality of approximately 1%, they’re experimenting with viruses that have mortalities of between 15 and 50%. Yes, our civilization could be at risk from one of these viruses.

Experiments that combine unknown viruses with known pandemic causing viruses are incredibly risky. Experiments that combine unknown viruses with coronaviruses that have as much as 50% mortality could endanger civilization as we know it.

And here you sit. Unwilling to accept any responsibility for the current pandemic, and unwilling to take any steps to prevent gain-of-function research from possibly unleashing an even more deadly virus.

You mislead the public by saying that the published viruses could not be COVID. Well exactly no one is alleging that. No one is alleging that the published viruses by the Chinese are COVID. What we are saying is that this was risky type of research; gain-of-function research. It was risky to share this with the Chinese, and that COVID may have been created from a not yet revealed virus. We don’t anticipate the Chinese are going to reveal the virus if it came from their lab.

You know that, but you continue to mislead. You continue to support NIH money going to Wuhan. You continue to say you trust the Chinese scientist. You appear to have learned nothing from this pandemic.

Will you today finally take some responsibility for funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan?”

Anthony Fauci: “Senator, with all due respect, I disagree with so many of the things that you’ve said.

Gain – first of all, gain-of-function is a very nebulous term. We have spent, not us, but outside bodies, a considerable amount of effort to give a more precise definition to the type of research that is of concern that might lead to a dangerous situation.

You are aware of that. That is called P3CO.”

Senator Rand Paul: “We’re aware that you deleted “gain-of-function” from the NIH website.”

Anthony Fauci: “Well I can get back to that a moment, if we have time. But let’s get back to the operating framework and guide rails of which we operate under. And you have ignored them. The guidelines are very very clear, that you have to be dealing with a pathogen that clearly is shown and very likely to be highly transmissible in an uncontrollable way in humans and to have a high degree of morbidity and mortality, and that you do experiments to enhance that. Hence the word EPPP: Enhanced Pathogens of Potential Pandemic.”

Senator Rand Paul: “So when EcoHealth Alliance took the virus SHC-014 and combined it with WIV-1 and caused a recombinant virus that doesn’t exist in nature, and it made mice sicker, mice that had humanized cells, you’re saying that that’s not gain-of-function research?”

Anthony Fauci: “According to the framework and guidelines of – “

Senator Rand Paul: “So what you’re doing is defining away gain-of-function. You’re simply saying it doesn’t exist because you changed the definition on the NIH website. This is terrible and you’re – you’re completely trying to escape the idea that we should do something about trying to prevent a pandemic from leaking from a lab.

There’s – the preponderance of evidence now points towards this coming from the lab, and what you’ve done is change the definition on your website to try to cover your ass, basically. That’s what you’ve done. You’ve changed the website to try to have a new definition that doesn’t include the risky research that’s going on.

Until you admit that it’s risky, we’re not going to get anywhere. You have to admit that this research was risky. The NIH has now rebuked them. Your own agency has rebuked them.

But the thing is, you’re still unwilling to admit that they gained in function when they say that they became sicker. They gained in lethality; it’s a new virus. That’s not gain-of-function?”

Anthony Fauci: “According to the definition that is currently operable… you know – Senator, let’s make it clear for the people who are listening.

The current definition was done over a 2-3 year period by outside bodies, including the NSABB, two conferences by the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine, on December 2014, March 2016. We commissioned external risk benefit assessment, and then on January of 2017, the office of science and technology policy of the White House issued the current policy.

I have not changed any definition.”

Senator Rand Paul: “And coincidentally, coincidentally the definition appeared on the same day the NIH said that, yes, there was a gain of function in Wuhan, the same day the definition appeared – the new definition, to try to define a way what’s going on in Wuhan.

Until you accept it, until you accept responsibility, we’re not going to get anywhere close to trying to prevent another lab leak of this dangerous sort of experiment. You won’t admit that it’s dangerous, and for that lack of judgement, I think it’s time that you resign.”

Chairman Murray: “Thank you Senator Paul. And I would like, um, to give the time to Dr. Fauci.”

Anthony Fauci: “Yeah, well, there were so many things that are egregious misrepresentation here, uh, Madame Chair, that I don’t think I’d be able to refute all of them, but just a couple of them, for the listens to here for – 

You has said that I’m unwilling to take any responsibility for the current pandemic. I have no responsibility for the current pandemic. The current pandemic. Okay?

Number two, you said the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates that’s a lab leak; I believe most card-carrying viral phylogenists and molecular virologists would disagree with you, that is much more likely, even though we leave open all possibilities, it’s much more likely that this was a natural occurrence.

Third, you say we continue – “

Senator Rand Paul: “We’ve tested 80,000 animals and no animals have been found with COVID.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, the time is for Dr. Fauci to respond.”

Anthony Fauci: “And third, you made a statement just a moment ago that’s completely incorrect. Where you say we continue to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Senator Rand Paul: “You approved it in August of last year…”

Anthony Fauci: “No no, your statements say, quote, I wrote it down as you were writing, “You continue to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – “

Senator Rand Paul: “Your committee a month ago says you still trust the Chinese scientist and you still support the research over there. You said it a month ago in the committee.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, I have allowed Dr. Fauci to respond. You’ve had your time and I’m going to give him one more minute.”

Senator Rand Paul: “If he’s going to be dishonest he ought to be challenged.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, we will allow Dr. Fauci to respond after you’ve given accusations like that. Dr. Fauci.”

Anthony Fauci: “Well I don’t have any more to say except to say that as usual, and I’ve – I have a great deal of respect for this body of the Senate and it makes me very uncomfortable to have to say something, but he is egregiously incorrect in what he says. Thank you.”

Senator Rand Paul: “History will figure that out on its own.”

While Rand Paul seems to be on the right side of history, the complete negligence and willful ignorance on the part of the Senate committee as a whole to not continuously address the many, MANY adverse events of the COVID vaccines which have harmed MILLIONS of people, according to VAERS, and who instead continue to humor the narrative that the vaccine is the end all be all, is, quite frankly, ludicrous and criminal in and of itself. While they may allude to the information about the adverse events, no steps have been taken to fully investigate and analyze the hundreds of thousands of ACTUAL DATA provided.

There is enough substantial evidence declaring that the COVID vaccines are NOT safe nor effective, yet the ruse continues to go on.

Not to mention the push now to mass vaccinate millions of children, who were never at high risk from “COVID” to begin with… it is obvious that the vaccine effort should have been halted A LONG TIME AGO.

Keep in mind that it is common knowledge that the adverse events are under-reported by a factor of only 1-10% being reported for non-serious side effects, and a speculative estimation of 10-50% being reported for serious events.

There is also the suspicious account of the FDA presentation that flashed for a brief split-second showing a list of the “possible” side effects from the COVID vaccines to be on the lookout for:

Screenshot from: [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XTiL9rUpkg ] U.S. Food and Drug Administration@2:33:40

So to continue to ignore these facts and people’s plights from the devastating effects of the vaccines and prolonging this “pandemic” and the vaccine narrative is either complete obliviousness, to put it nicely, or downright complicity.

Again, this is not to speak of everyone in the Senate individually (unless it is in fact true…), but to point out the incredibly inane decisions of those ultimately in charge of these committees and giving their final verdict which has enabled these atrocious crimes against humanity to continue.

It is my opinion that a call for Anthony Fauci to resign does not do the damage that he has caused throughout the years (including his organizations: NIH/NIAID) justice, but instead efforts to make arrests of those initiating these crimes should be pursued as well.

Moving on to the second portion (from the same hearing), we see Rochelle Walensky responding to Senator Bill Cassidy’s inquiries to address natural immunity versus vaccine-induced immunity, and also her refusal to answer uncertainty in how many CDC employees are vaccinated.

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Dr. Walensky, couple things: as I walked in, I came in late, one of you – either you or Dr. Fauci – were saying that the reason that we’re not saying that natural immunity is protective as is a vaccine, even though there’s recent publication showing that 6-8 months out, 92% of those with natural immunity have T cells, B cells and antibodies that would be considered adequate to protect, and indeed B cell continues to climb, that we don’t have data.

Now in your response to Mr. Casey, you just mentioned that CDC has access to tens of thousands of EHRs [electronic health records]. And I’ve been told that HHS or CDC has access to patient identifiable data, as to who test positive. So I do that as a prologue.

If we don’t know that natural immunity confers protection against future infection, is because we’ve decided not to look. Because I’ve learned that there is a cohort of people that we know have been previously infected, we’ve got the bench research showing that the triad of antibodies, T cells and B cells are there, and that 92% of them are still there at 6 months out, so why don’t we – why have we not done the research showing that natural immunity confers protection against recurrent infection?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Yeah, thank you so much for allowing me to clarify this point, because I understand, I understand the question.

Um, first of all, let me just reiterate that our current stand after reviewing 96 papers in the scientific brief on this issue is that everyone who’s been previously infected should be vaccinated.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But that’s not my question.”

Rochelle Walensky: “Right, agreed. So, so – and part of the challenge here is as you know the infection induced immunity and the biases associated with retrospectively looking at the data. Several of those papers that we reviewed for that brief have demonstrated that the kind of disease that you had at the time you had it matters.

Um, did you have disease a year and a half ago? Did you have – were you an older person? Were you – ?”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “May I stop you for a second?

We could do this prospectively, because you know who is actually, apparently I’m told, you’ve got patient identifiable data, and you would be able to say, okay, 6 months ago we’re going to start everybody infected within the last 6 months, and be able to follow their EHR, prospectively, to see this.

I mean, theoretically, CDC has the ability to do this right now.”

Rochelle Walensky: “Yet that too would have its own biases. So one of the things that we have demonstrated in the scientific brief is that asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic people, who might not present to their providers, might present to an urgent care clinic who might not be recorded in their own EHR, likely have less robust protection than those who’ve been severely affected.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But that could be established prospectively if using the data that you have. And you could even say, if you had symptomatic infection, you don’t need to be vaccinated, we would consider you immune, you don’t have to be subjected to the mandate, but – “

Rochelle Walensky: “If we had data – if we had data that demonstrated a correlation of protection, Dr. Fauci already mentioned data that they’re working on to look at correlates of protection, not just in antibodies, but as you noted in T cell function as well. So if we were able to document a correlate of protection we absolutely could prospectively follow – “

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But this paper that I’m reading from NIH, speaks that there is durable memory of the virus up to 8 months after infection in 95% of the people who recovered, including B cells, which continue to climb, and T cells and antibodies.

And I’m also saying you could do it clinically, because we have data that’s patient identifiable, that we could go back and look and see if they were exposed. They could be in a hot spot like Louisiana, where you know they’re being exposed, and then you would see. Not just by lab data, but empirically.

I can tell you, the American people intuitively understand this, and they feel a little bit like we’re being willfully blind to it.

I have limited time, let me just ask you something else. What percent of CDC employees are vaccinated?”

Rochelle Walensky: “We’re actively encouraging vaccination in all of our employees and doing a lot of education and outreach in order to get our agency fully vaccinated.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “And the – but the percent?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have that for you today.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “I’m told that 75… some north of 75% of CDC employees at headquarters are still working remotely. Is that correct?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Um, we are following regulations through HHS and the federal government.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “No, that’s not my question. I apologize to be rude, but – but I’m asking a very straightforward question.

I’ve been told that north of 75% of employees at CDC headquarters are working remotely. Is that correct?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Senator, I don’t actually know the number off the top of my head. So I’d have to – “

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “When you look down the hallway, are there empty desks? Are over 50% of the desk empty?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Senator, I don’t have the numbers off the top of my head. What I will tell you is that we’re working closely within HHS and the administration to follow the governmental rules for return to the workplace.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “There was a recent GAO report that shows, it was released in the last 2 weeks, that there’s been no coordinated response in the federal government to get people back into work.

Now if there’s any agency that – since we have teachers in Fulton county are back at work, that the caseload of COVID in Fulton county is about 88, at its peak it was 606, if what I’ve been told by someone who frankly kind of knows, that people in laboratories are not showing up, I have no clue how people, how laboratory workers who presumably are vaccinated, wearing PPE, would consider themselves eligible to stay at home.

I say this because, I just want to echo – we’ve got to lead by example in the federal government. If our public health agencies don’t have enough confidence in the immunization and the PPE to go back to work, fighting infectious diseases, there’s going to be a lot of undermining of a willingness to further fund public health.”

Rochelle Walensky: “We absolutely have our central labs back at work, conducting their essential research towards this response, and um, we are following the regulations and providing technical assistance and technical support to the federal government for return to work policies.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Uh, one more thing, I had – Angus King and I had sent a letter dated February the 25th, asking about genomic surveillance. We’ve still not received a response. You reference it in your earlier remarks. Both Senator King and I would appreciate a response.”

Rochelle Walensky: “We’ll get back to you. Thank you very much.”

I can sum up Walensky’s testimony in 5 short dialogues; paraphrasing, of course:

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Do you have data showing that natural immunity may offer better protection than vaccine immunity; and if not, then why?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

(By the way, I want to interject here by saying that Senator Bill Cassidy is absolutely correct when he posits that the reason that they “don’t have the data” is because they deliberately did not look for it. I also want to add the shady practice of the pharmaceutical companies breaking protocol and completely getting rid of the control group after only a few weeks into the COVID vaccine trial…)

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “What percentage of CDC employees are vaccinated?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Are around 75% of CDC employees still working remotely from home?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “When you go into the CDC headquarters, how much percentage of desks have no workers there?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Bill Cassidy: “Senator King and I asked you about “genomic sequence” back in February but have not received a response yet. We would appreciate a response.”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time… but we’ll get back to you.”

This is the Director of the CDC, ladies and gentlemen. This is who is in charge of an organization that we are supposed to entrust our lives to in order to help get us through a “deadly pandemic”.

When she cannot say, in all honesty, that 100% of her CDC employees – who presumably have complete trust in the vaccines that she kept reiterating is the most important thing needed for our health – is fully vaccinated, while at the same time preaching that young children most definitely should get it, is EXTREMELY suspect and I am amazed at the continual indulgence of these hearings to not call out this hypocrisy for what it is. (Save for a small handful of Senators, that is.)

But at least we know that Rochelle Walensky hasn’t lied about how many of her employees have been vaccinated… yet.

Lastly, during the committee hearing, there were other Senators posing additional queries as to the questionable responses and suspicious nature of those testifying and their habits of skirting away from certain questions, which I want to mention here as well.

Senators Marshall, Burr and Moran (of the additional 3 testimonies that I watched, there may have been more with similar interests) have also raised legitimate concerns over the vaccines, mandates and debates about natural immunity versus vaccine efficacy – and was also met with a jumble of non-answers mixed with endless endorsements of the COVID vaccines.

Honestly, if I, an average American citizen, can see through their facade, then surely well-educated and seemingly experienced individuals in detecting deceit and malpractice would be able to determine the illegitimacy of these corrupt establishments and their cohorts as well.

So again I have to wonder at the incredibly unnecessary perpetuation of these fraudulent activities, instead of finally taking appropriate steps to shut down this criminal conspiracy.

To those Senators and other researchers who are genuinely seeking the truth and attempting to uncover the treasons, misconduct, and egregious scandal that has corrupted our governmental body and health/medical industries, my sincere gratitude and respect to you for standing strong and having enough integrity to stand up against these depravities.

God bless.

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by Edward Lich from Pixabay

Government’s Own Data Proves COVID-19 Shots Are Causing Blood Clots, Heart Disease, and Death

17,619 COVID vaccine deaths reported into VAERS as of October 2021 (keep in mind that only a small percentage of events are even reported)

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Original article written by Brian Shilhavy / Health Impact News (November 4, 2021)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

There are currently two different and opposing narratives in the public regarding the safety of the COVID-19 shots.

One view claims they are safe, and the other view claims they are not.

Both views cannot be true. One view is correct, and one view is wrong.

The view of the pharmaceutical companies producing the shots and earning great profit from them is that they are safe, and this view is backed up by the U.S. Government regulatory agencies and the officials who lead them.

Here is their official statement through the CDC, as of November 1, 2021.

Source.

Please note that in order for the pharmaceutical companies and the government health agencies to make a claim that COVID-19 “vaccines” are “safe,” there must be a safety monitoring system in place in order to make such a claim. Otherwise, their claims would be without basis, because nobody would know whether those claims are true or not.

The CDC admits this in this statement on their website. And they go on to explain that this safety monitoring system is called VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Based on the VAERS reporting system, the CDC goes on to state:

Serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination are rare but may occur.

For public awareness and in the interest of transparency, CDC is providing timely updates on the following serious adverse events of interest:

They then list four adverse events they have noticed from VAERS, and also make a statement regarding deaths.

Here are the four adverse events they admit are recorded in VAERS:

  • Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination
  • Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 vaccination
  • CDC and FDA are monitoring reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) in people who have received the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine.
  • Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare.
  • Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare.

Notice how they frequently use the word “rare” to describe these adverse events following COVID-19 vaccinations. But how many people even know about these “rare” side effects prior to receiving a COVID-19 shot?

Two of the side effects are only linked to one of the three FDA authorized COVID-19 “vaccines,” the J&J shot, which is the one least used.

The nice thing about the Government VAERS database is that it is open to the public, and anyone can search it. I use the MedAlerts front end to search the database, and you can find that here.

So anyone around the world can do their own search of the data in the VAERS database and fact-check the CDC’s claims, which represent the view of the pharmaceutical industry and the government health agencies and their heads.

And that’s what I am going to do in the rest of this article.

Please note that I am not dealing with the issue of under-reporting in VAERS in this article. Everyone admits that the data in VAERS is vastly under-reported, which is why when the CDC states that an adverse reaction that they admit is seen in VAERS is “rare” based on how many doses of the vaccine have been distributed, we should not take their statement at face value, because they actually do not know how rare it is.

So I am only going to deal with the available data to fact-check their claims, the very same data that they are using.

What I am going to do is compare the data on adverse reactions to the COVID-19 shots to the data recorded for the past 30 years for all other vaccines, as this will be a truer “apples to apples” comparison, and it is also a simple one that anyone can search themselves.

At the end of this analysis of the available data, nobody in the pharmaceutical industry or in the government health agencies can say that the data is wrong, because it is their data. They also cannot claim ignorance, because the statements they make regarding the “safety” of these COVID-19 vaccines is based on this data in VAERS, according to their own published statements.

And what we will see when we look at the data as compared to all other data from non-COVID-19 vaccines, is that they are lying, and that the COVID-19 vaccines are most definitely causing blood clots, heart disease, and deaths.

If they are lying, then they are complicit with causing these crippling injuries and deaths, and they should all be arrested immediately for being complicit to mass murder.

CDC Claim: Deaths following COVID-19 Shots are “Rare”

Let’s begin with deaths, since this is obviously the most serious adverse event following COVID-19 vaccination.

Here is the CDC claim as of November 1, 2021:

Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 423 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through November 1, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 9,367 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths pdf icon[1.4 MB, 33 pages].

Notice that according to the CDC the only “plausible causal relationship” between a COVID-19 vaccine and death is with the J&J shot, which is linked to blood clots. And they claim that this is among 9,367 reports of death following COVID-19 shots for the past 10 months.

I am not even sure where they get this number of “9,367” from, because when we search the VAERS database for deaths following COVID-19 shots, it returns a value of 17,619. (Source.) If we exclude all the foreign reports, we still get a different value than what they are stating, with 8,068 deaths. (Source.)

So they are applying some other kind of filter to get this death count, it would seem.

For the purpose of this analysis in this article, I am going to use ALL the data in VAERS and not filter out anything, since we already know the data is vastly under-reported.

Now to determine if these reports of deaths are “rare,” let’s look at how many deaths there are from ALL vaccines that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines for the past 30+ years.

The easiest way to do this is to simply run a search for all deaths in the database, and then subtract the deaths from the COVID-19 vaccines, which as I stated above is 17,619.

Here is the result: 26,680 deaths from ALL vaccines in the database as of October 22, 2021, which covers a period of over 30 years.

17,619 of those deaths are following COVID-19 vaccines for the past 10 months. That means that for all other vaccines over the past 30 years, there have only been 9,061 deaths recorded, about 300 deaths per year. But into October of 2021, there have been already been 17,619 deaths following COVID shots.

Does this sound “rare,” or is this a national catastrophe where heads should roll and people should be locked up in jail and prosecuted?

And remember, this is THEIR DATA! They know this.

And now they are targeting children 5 to 11 years old.

Fetal Deaths

Also, the CDC and the FDA are recommending the COVID-19 shots for pregnant women, claiming it is safe for them.

But is it? What does their own data in VAERS report about fetal deaths following COVID-19 injections of pregnant women?

Through October 22, 2021 they have recorded 2,369 cases where the mother lost her baby after receiving a COVID-19 shot. (Source.)

How does that compare with fetal deaths in pregnant women following ALL vaccines that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines for the past 30+ years?

For the past 30+ years there have been 2,192 cases where the mom being given a vaccine lost her baby, about 73 a year. (Source.)

But this year, 2,369 unborn babies have already died following a COVID-19 shot injected into the pregnant mother.

Does this sound “safe” to you? Would pregnant women continue getting COVID-19 shots if they knew these statistics in the government’s own database?

CDC Claim: Blood Clots from COVID-19 Shots are “Rare”

The admission that the CDC makes for COVID-19 vaccines causing blood clots is:

Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 vaccination is rare. As of October 27, 2021, more than 15.5 million doses of the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine have been given in the United States. CDC and FDA identified 48 confirmed reports of people who got the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and later developed TTS. Women younger than 50 years old especially should be aware of the rare but increased risk of this adverse event. There are other COVID-19 vaccine options available for which this risk has not been seen. Learn more about J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS.

To date, two confirmed cases of TTS following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Moderna) have been reported to VAERS after more than 401 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered in the United States. Based on available data, there is not an increased risk for TTS after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

What the CDC is clearly doing here is only reporting one kind of blood clot, Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). They claim that this is the only kind of blood clot they found, and it is only 48 cases with J&J, and 2 cases with Moderna.

But there are many kinds of blood clots, so we should not just limit our search for only TTS. If we just search for ALL cases involving any kind of “thrombosis” following COVID-19 shots, we get a value of 13,930 cases of blood clots. (Source.)

When we search for each of the 3 FDA authorized COVID-19 vaccines where blood clots are recorded along with deaths, we get 626 total deaths when blood clots are present: 381 deaths for Pfizer, 118 deaths for Moderna, and 127 deaths for J&J.

So this horrible side effect is not related to only one manufacturer.

How does this compare with cases of “thrombosis” from ALL vaccines that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines for the past 30 years? With the available data we find only 489 cases of any kind of thrombosis for ALL vaccines for the past 30+ years, resulting in only 18 deaths. (Source.)

This is not a “rare” event following COVID-19 shots. This is criminal.

And frontline doctors are confirming that they are seeing high rates of blood clots in patients who have been vaccinated for COVID-19.

Canadian doctors were the first ones to blow the whistle on this. This past July we published an interview with Dr. Charles Hoffe, a doctor who has been practicing medicine for 28 years in the small, rural town of Lytton in British Columbia, Canada.

He was the first one to state publicly that these blood clots were not rare, as he tested vaccinated patients in his province in Canada and found that 62% of them had evidence of small blood clots.

The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc. The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test. (Source.)

Since then an emergency medicine doctor, Dr. Rochagné Kilian, has come forward to tell the public what she was seeing in fully vaccinated patients, and the high rate of blood clots. She lost her job in order to bring this information to the public, so it is well worth listening to.

This is on our Rumble and Bitchute channel.

CDC Claim: Heart Disease from COVID-19 Shots is Rare

Here is what the CDC admits for heart disease following COVID-19 shots:

Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. As of October 27, 2021, VAERS has received 1,784 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine. Most cases have been reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), particularly in male adolescents and young adults. Through follow-up, including medical record reviews, CDC and FDA have confirmed 1,005 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis. CDC and its partners are investigating these reports to assess whether there is a relationship to COVID-19 vaccination. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis.

Notice that they admit to 1,784 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis in people under age 30, and yet still choose to call these events “rare.”

Again, myocarditis and pericarditis are just two kinds of heart diseases, so let’s select all cases where a “carditis” is listed as an adverse event following COVID-19 shots. When we expand the search of the available data, we find 9,859 cases of cardits, resulting in 136 deaths and 327 permanent disabilities. (Source.)

This is a lot more than what the CDC is telling us, because they only included 2 kinds of “carditis.”

How does this compare with reported cases of “carditis” following ALL vaccines for the past 30+ years that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines?

For the past 30+ years there have been only 913 cases of “carditis” following ALL vaccines, resulting in only 95 deaths, about 3 deaths per year. (Source.)

Heart disease following COVID-19 shots is most certainly not rare! Young people, especially athletes, are having heart attacks in record numbers this year, as almost every day now we are seeing news reports of young, healthy athletes having heart attacks, like this professional hockey player who was in the news yesterday. There’s a list of athletes dying, mostly from cardiac arrest, here.

America is Run by Criminals and Mass Murderers

Your government is lying to you. They have this data, because it is their data. They know all of this.

But who will bring them to justice?

Sadly, these people in government who run the “health” agencies are simply pawns and puppets in these crimes against humanity.

The real decision makers who are guilty of mass murder are in corporate America. We have already shown how each of the pharmaceutical companies that currently have a COVID-19 “vaccine” authorized by the FDA also employ a former FDA Commissioner. See: All 3 FDA-Authorized COVID-19 Vaccine Companies Employ Former FDA Commissioners

Charles Hugh Smith published an article today highlighting just how corrupt and evil corporate America has become.

Some excerpts:

It’s becoming a routine story: a whistleblower emerges with copious documentation, revealing the ethical / managerial rot at the very top of Corporate America icons. Recently it was Facebook that was revealed as devoting far more resources to masking corporate guile than to actually improving longstanding ethical and quality issues.

Now it’s Pfizer’s fast and loose treatment of supposedly rigorous protocols that’s been heavily documented. The prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) stated that the whistleblower provided “The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.”BMJ Investigation: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial.

The purpose of playing fast and loose is to maximize profits regardless of any other factors. And while corporations exist to maximize profits, the trend in Corporate America is to sacrifice everything to maximize profits and keep the putrid sewage hidden from regulators, the media and the public.

This isn’t about profit, it’s about hiding the rot that has seeped into every nook and cranny of Corporate America. The foundation of the stock market’s extreme valuations is corporate profits, and the stock market bubble is now the precarious foundation of the entire U.S. economy: should the bubble pop, everyone knows the economy and the financial system will both crash.

The usual corporate strategy–defame the whistleblower and blow smoke to cover the rot–loses traction when the rot is documented by internal memos, recordings, etc. It’s difficult for the lackeys of Corporate America to dismiss the British Medical Journal as just another tin-foil-hat outlet of “fake news,” especially with all the documentation now made public.

Lost in the obsession to profiteer and hide the rot is the notion that corporations have responsibilities to the public and their customers/users, not just to greedy managers and shareholders. These responsibilities have been tossed into the muddy ditch.

Regulations only exist in name in America. Corporate America plays by its own rules. Corporate America is not longer regulated in any consequential fashion, as the list of Pfizer’s actions reveal:

— Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff

— Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events

— Protocol deviations not being reported

— Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures

— Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and

— Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.

The last item appears in virtually every whistleblower case: the corporation doesn’t rush to fix its glaring ethical and quality issues, it rushes to silence the whistleblower and “manage the narrative” to protect its precious profits. Never mind that the public pays the price for corporations saying one thing and doing another, for hiding what they dare not let regulators, users, customers and patients learn about their practices and behind-closed-doors goals.

The Prime Directive of Corporate America is to hide the rot that’s permeated the entire corporation, starting at the top.

We shouldn’t be too surprised that Corporate America is rotten to the core–the entire status quo is rotten to the core. Ethics and regulations are annoyances to be skirted, and if some random regulator catches insiders in the act, the corporation pays an inconsequential fine and then returns to BAU–business as usual, rotten to the core.

Any citizen who desires to be well-informed would be well-served to read this report closely: BMJ Investigation: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial.

He goes on to write about an amazing database someone has put together which documents all the “Corporate fines and Settlements” over criminal cases since the 1990s. Pfizer, for example, has paid out over $8 BILLION in fines for criminal activities over the years.

As further documentation, I am honored to share a remarkable data base of Corporate Fines and Settlements from the early 1990s to the present compiled by Jon Morse. Here is Jon’s description of his project to assemble a comprehensive list of all corporate fines and settlements that can be verified by media reports:

“This spreadsheet is all the corporate fines/settlements I’ve been able to find sourced articles about, mostly in the period from the 1990s up to today (with a few 80s and 70s). This is by far the most comprehensive list of such things online. At least that I could find, because the lack of any decent list is what made me start compiling this list in the first place.”

What’s noteworthy is the sheer number of corporate violations of laws and regulations–thousands upon thousands, the vast majority of which occurred since corporate profits began their incredible ascent in the early 2000s–and the list of those paying hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and settlements, which reads like a who’s who of Corporate America and Top 100 Global Corporations.

I encourage you to open one of the three alphabetical tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet on Google Docs and scroll down to find your favorite super-profitable corporation.

Many have a long list of fines and settlements, and many of the fines are in excess of $100 million. Many are for blatant cartel price-fixing, not disclosing the dangers of the company’s heavily promoted medications, destroying documents to thwart an investigation of wrong-doing, etc.

In other words, these were not wrist-slaps for minor oversights of complex regulations— these are blatant violations of core laws of the land.

Jon offered this commentary on Corporate America’s slide to the bottom of the moral cesspool:

“With the increases in concentration of wealth there has been a culture of idolizing wealth, one example is how prosecutors no longer find it appropriate to put bankers and CEOs in jail. I think one side-effect of the culture changing has been an increased willingness to break the law to increase profits.

The settlements with the banks along with the ongoing investigations have shown that virtually every market is being manipulated; the stocks, metals markets, LIBOR, FOREX, everything. The companies would only break so many laws if they felt they would have a reasonable chance of getting away with it; they would also need a reason to do it, which is provided by the infinite growth model our economy is based on.”

Thank you, Jon, for compiling a tremendously important and valuable database, and for connecting this staggering list of violations to the cultural worship of maximizing private gains at any cost. I am reminded of socio-economist Immanuel Wallerstein’s description of the current system of central-state/private-corporation collusion as “a particular historical configuration of markets and state structures where private economic gain by almost any means is the paramount goal and measure of success.”

Read the full article here.

It is time to STOP the killer COVID-19 vaccine campaigns, and way past time to round up all of these murderers and lock them up.

These talking heads on TV use what is called an “appeal to authority” to try and convince the public to get these shots. The data and the science is NOT on their side, and they are not nearly as intelligent as they want you to believe they are.

I know there is great risk right now in refusing the COVID-19 shots for some people, as your livelihood and means to earn income could be at stake.

But this is NOT a sustainable path we are on, and at some point those who refused the shots are going to be needed again, and chances are you will, at some point, be able to earn income again.

Just remember one indisputable FACT:

If you risk getting a COVID-19 shot, you could die or become crippled with very serious injuries. Deaths and injuries are happening at a record pace, and they are not “rare” as is being claimed, based on the data.

If you do not take a COVID-19 shot, you cannot die from that shot.

It really is that simple.

Parents who subject their children to these shots are guilty of child abuse, and attempted murder. Keep your children home, and safe, no matter what the cost, if you truly love them.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Vaccines.news

Craig Venter of the NIH and Human Genome: Creating Synthetic Life | ” – trying to design what we want biology to do”

Agenda of the Human Genome Project: ” – for manufacturing and operating a complete human being.”

Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the Meaning of Life
– [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837218/ ]

Thanks to a pingback post by the following site: There Is No Pandemic, it led me to a very interesting video featuring a Mr. Craig Venter, delving into an incredibly topical subject – even though the video was made in 2010.

Don’t think synthetic life-forms are possible in vaccines? Or that there’s even an agenda to do this?

Craig Venter, genetic researcher for the NIH and the Human Genome Project, would tell you otherwise…

“operating system”

“all the characteristics of the first species disappear”

“new species emerges from this software”

“making the flu vaccine each year by using these new synthetic techniques”

Click image for archived video. Original source can be found here: [ https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form ]
“Craig Venter creates synthetic life form”
Full transcript. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis.

Craig Venter: “Well this has been about a 15 year process. It started back in 1995, when we sequenced the first two genomes in history. Including the smallest genome, that of mycoplasma genitalium. And we set out a goal to try and understand what the smallest genome you can have as an operating system, to try and understand the basic components of life. It’s taken us through this long journey. Much longer than we ever anticipated. But that’s what happens when you enter into areas that nobody’s ever been before.

So at first we had to learn how to write the genetic code to synthesize pieces. Because the largest piece that ever has been synthesized other than our work has been only 30,000 letters. The first chromosome we were trying to make was over 500,000. And the one that we ultimately made and report in this paper is over 1,000,000 letters of genetic code. And we start with 4 bottles of chemicals, and the computer code in the computer, the digital code in the computer from DNA sequence. So, just learning how to do the synthesis was mastering a lot of chemistry that has never been done before. And we learned sequentially over the years how to build larger and larger molecules.

In 2003 we reported making a 5,000 letter bacterial virus, 5X174, and how to error correct the pieces. So, we start with pieces of DNA coming off DNA synthesizers; they’re only about 50-80 letters long. That’s pretty much the limit of what you can make with a chemical synthesizer. So everything we make from that has to be putting these little pieces together. Much like having a box of legos and having to assemble them back in the right order to get what you started with. So it’s been progressive over this entire time period. We thought we would have this almost 3 years ago. But we kept running into very significant biological roadblocks.”

Interviewer: “All right. And what do you ultimately hope to do with a method like this?

Craig Venter: “Well, this is an important step, we think, both scientifically and philosophically. It certainly changed my views of definitions of life and how life works. It’s pretty stunning when you just replace the DNA software in the cell, and the cell instantly starts reading that new software, starts making a whole different set of proteins. And within a short while, all the characteristics of the first species disappear. And a new species emerges from this software that controls that cell going forward.

When we look at life forms we see them as sort of fixed entities. But this shows, in fact how dynamic they are. That they change from second to second. And that life is basically a result of an information process, a software process. Our genetic code is our software. And our cells are dynamically constantly reading that genetic code, making new proteins, the proteins make the other cellular components, and that’s what we see. But it’s hard to imagine how dynamic it is until we found, simply by replacing the software, it started making a whole new cell, whatever is defined by that software. So that’s, that’s a pretty important change in how we approach and think about life.

Also this is now the first time where we’ve started with information in the computer, built that software molecule, now over a million letters of genetic code, put that into a recipient cell, and have this process start where that information converted that cell into a new species. So this becomes a very powerful tool for trying to design what we want biology to do.

As leaders of competing genome projects, Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and J. Craig Venter, president of Celera Genomics, were recognized, correctly, as the two most important players in the worldwide effort to spell out the 3 billion “letters” of the human genome–the biochemical recipe, encoded in our DNA, for manufacturing and operating a complete human being.

[ https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,998842,00.html ]

We have a wide range of applications, so at the biotech company that funded the synthetic genomics that Ham Smith and I started a few years back, we have a major deal with ExxonMobil to try and use algae to capture carbon dioxide and make new hydrocarbons that can go into the Exxon refineries. To try and replace taking the oil out of the ground.

There’s no natural algaes that we know that can do this at the scale it’s needed. So we’re going to have to use our synthetic genomic techniques to either heavily modify existing algaes or develop whole new ones from scratch that have all the parameters that we want. These same tools, these same processes can be used for making chemicals, for making food substances, we hope for cleaning up water.

But perhaps the most important immediate application is we’re already working at the Venter Institute and working with Novartis to try and make new vaccines very quickly; we think we can shorten the process by 99% for making the flu vaccine each year by using these new synthetic techniques. But I think it’s going to be one of those situations I tell audiences I talk to that ‘we’re entering a new era we’re limited mostly by our imaginations’.”

Interviewer: “Could you ever use a method like this with a higher organism? Something more complex than bacteria?

Craig Venter: “Well, it’s certainly not in the immediate future. Bacteria have much more simplified genetic systems. They don’t have the same complex regulation that higher organisms have. But there are a number of single cell eukaryotes.

So we’re eukaryotes because we have a nucleus, I think one of the key things we mastered with our studies, particularly since 2003, and we reported the latest results a few months ago in Science at the end of last year, is we can move chromosomes across the branches of life. So we can move from bacteria into eukaryotes, we use yeast for all these processes. We can take the chromosomes out of yeast and move them back into bacteria to create new life forms.

So a next step would be try to make a simplified eukaryote. Yeast is very key for bio-manufacturing, for ethanol production, etc. And if we can have even a more efficient yeast cell, and at the same time, try and understand all its components, I think we’ll be able to make synthetic eukaryotes. Higher animals, multi-cellular systems are, I think, projects for the much more distant future.”

Interviewer: “Actually I have a couple more questions. Just about how we distinguish between any sort of synthetically – organisms with synthetic genomes versus the natural ones? One question I guess would be about containment.”

[Interview cuts out a section]

Craig Venter: ” – we were when we first started down this process, what could be an artifact that could fool us into thinking we had created synthetic life, when in fact it was just a contaminate of the native chromosome? And, where would even a single molecule of native chromosome could fool us into thinking we had created a new cell?

So early on we started designing a process of putting watermarks in the genetic code. We did this in the first chromosome we reported two years ago, basically all of us that helped build the genetic code signed the DNA, coded our names into the chromosome.

With this genome we’ve gone a little bit further; we’ve put 4 major watermarks in. We’ve developed a new code for writing English language, other languages, with punctuation and numbers into the genetic code. In the first watermark we actually have this code that needs to be decoded for people to read the rest. We even have a website built into the genetic code that if people solve it they can let us know that they’ve been able to read it.

“- and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”Revelation 13:17

All the authors of this study over the… certainly the last decade, our names are all encoded in this first genome. And we have three quotations built in there of adding a little philosophy to the genetic code at the same time. Which I think the chance of finding any of these in a naturally occurring genome is about as close to zero as you can get. So we can absolutely prove from the genetic changes, that we’ve been built in to the design of the chromosomes that it’s unquestionably the synthetic DNA that we made, not some natural contaminant.

A containment, that’s a really critical issue, and it’s one of the most important issues to us, and one of the number one questions I get asked in all my litera- all my lectures around the globe. And when we look at molecular biology for the last several decades, we all use e. coli in the laboratory, that genes from multiple species have been put in it over the years – probably tens of millions of experiments. And there’s not been a single accident. And the reason for that is that e. coli has a chemical dependency for growing in the laboratory.

So these are things we can start to build in to the design of synthetic genomes, we can build in suicide genes so they can’t escape. And so we can use artificial amino acids. There’s a number of approaches that we’re developing and other labs are developing to guarantee absolute containment.

And this first proof of principle, we’ve largely copied the mycoides genome, because as a control, if we couldn’t boot up something that was already known, we could never get to the design phase. We deleted 14 genes from this genome, and made all these other genetic modifications. This cell only grows on extremely rich [media(sp?)] on the laboratory.

The only other place it goes, the mycoides genome is a minor goat pathogen that causes mastitis in goats. We think we’ve eliminated the genes associated with that, but it will not grow outside of the laboratory unless it’s deliberately injected or sprayed into a goat. So, we don’t work with goats, so we think we have pretty good containment systems in the lab.

There’s selectable markers that’s dependent on a specific antibiotic. So these are early attempts, I think. These containment approaches would get far more sophisticated with the next versions of what we and others do.”

Interviewer: “All right. Well, are there any final points you’d like to make before we close?”

Craig Venter: “Well, this is the first synthetic cell that’s been made and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome made from 4 bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer. Starting with information in the computer.

Before we did these experiments starting back in the late 90’s, we asked for a complete bioethical review, knowing we were going into uncharted territory, trying to create new species. The review group at the University of Pennsylvania published the results in Science in 1999. Since then there’s been lots of different review processes around the world. The Sloan Foundation funded my institute, the Venter Institute, along with MIT, and a Washington think tank, to look at the security issues concerning this. That report was published and can be downloaded from JCVI.org.

There’s been ongoing discussions in the U.S. government, in the E.U., the National Academy of Sciences has done reports on this. So I think this is the first incidence in science where the extensive bioethical review took place before the experiments were done. And it’s part of an ongoing process that we’ve been driving, trying to make sure that the science proceeds in an ethical fashion, that we’re being thoughtful about what we do, and looking forward to the implications to the future.”

End of transcript.

So here is undeniable proof, that the folks at the NIH and Human Genome Project have been trying to synthesize organisms for the sole purpose of creating new species/life forms, and using these techniques for vaccines, AND states that these synthetic substances WILL CHANGE DNA.

It all ties back to the NIH and the HUMAN GENOME PROJECT. The theory that the COVID vaccines are an attempt at a worldwide genome experiment project is becoming clearer every single day, backed up with all of the data that has come forward, backed up with all of the studies pointing to this very agenda, backed up with countless interviews, positions and documentations of the likes of Anthony Fauci, Christine Grady, Bill Gates, Craig Venter, Eric Lander, Klaus Schwab, Francis Collins, their institutes and cohorts GAVI, WEF, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, NIH, Human Genome Project, World Health Organization, United Nations, MIT, Harvard, etc., etc., etc.

“Venter and colleagues published their paper about creating a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome in the journal Science in May 2010.

“Some of you are asking, why do this? It’s great basic science, but there are some more compelling reasons,” he said, noting that synthetic DNA can be used to develop genomics-based vaccines.

“The National Institutes of Health has funded my institute to create synthetic pieces of every known flu virus, so anytime we need a new vaccine, we can just take these pieces off the shelf, and go through the assembly and have flu vaccine stocks in a very short time,” he said. “In the next year or two, you might get the first synthetic DNA vaccines.”

Web archive version: Synthetic life forms can produce vaccines, gobble up CO2 and more, says expert

Although the below excerpt specifies “intranasal”, there are also endeavors of injectable live attenuated vaccines as well:

“The company’s breakthrough Synthetic Attenuated Virus Engineering (SAVE) platform utilizes a computer algorithm to recode the genomes of viruses and construct live-attenuated vaccines to prevent viral infections or treat solid tumors.”

Web archive version: Codagenix and Serum Institute of India Announce Commencement of First-in-Human Trial of COVI-VAC, A Single Dose, Intranasal Live Attenuated Vaccine for COVID-19

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16778323/ ] “Genetically modified live attenuated parasites as vaccines for leishmaniasis” (2006)

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28620583/ ] “Engineering of Genetically Arrested Parasites (GAPs) For a Precision Malaria Vaccine” (2017)

[ https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/investigational-malaria-vaccine-gives-strong-lasting-protection ] “Investigational Malaria Vaccine Gives Strong, Lasting Protection” (2021)“The vaccine combines live parasites with either of two widely used antimalarial drugs—an approach termed chemoprophylaxis vaccination.”

Now, with all of that being said, and with this outright admission by Craig Venter about their agenda, I have to bring up one of Richard Fleming’s latest criticism of ALL the doctors that have claimed to find what seems to be graphene oxide, nanobots, and/or parasitic-like organisms in the vaccines.

Firstly, this should have been approached in a more scientific approach to researching the vaccine’s contents.

While the other doctors are investigating these vaccines and are questioning its contents, even inviting other scientists and researchers to help them identify what these substances are, Dr. Fleming is undermining their research and dismissing their conclusions. Even implying, at one point, the mention of “credentials” as to whether or not to take one seriously.

Secondly… isn’t that precisely why we’re in the mess we’re in right now? Because SO many people decided to trust the likes of Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins? Does it matter how many so-called credentials one has to determine their sincerity and integrity or even professionalism? Doesn’t look like it to me. As long as a researcher is honest and looking for the truth, I will take their word over an overpaid “expert” any day. Especially ones who conduct inhumane, atrocious experiments on other living beings.

Then, of course, when addressing anything in a scientific approach, and certainly before reaching concrete conclusions and dismissing any other research (like the fraudulent Lancet paper did, for example…) one must consider ALL variables. Take the following for consideration:

how many vials total did Richard Fleming test?

were they from the same batch, or all different batches? Different brands, or all the same brand?

were all these vials from the same country? – it is becoming more and more apparent that different countries are getting different doses/batches

at what magnification did Fleming conduct his tests compared to all of the other doctors/scientists?

are we considering that some batches/doses will contain certain substances while others consist of saline solutions only – as what has already been theorized?

if different countries are getting different batches, there is a chance that there will be different substances for each country – to perhaps test a wider set of material/organisms and/or to target certain people’s DNA/ethnicity/etc.?

what is the “garbage” and “debris” that Fleming is referencing? “Garbage” has to be something. Was there an attempt to identify these compositions? Or just label them all with the term “debris” and “garbage”?

Fleming also mentions the term “crystalline” on more than one occasion… does he realize that there are indeed nanocrystal-graphene hybrid material that has been synthesized? Does he know every possible thing that can be synthesized or genetically modified using either Venter’s DNA genetic modification technique or the CRISPR technology?

“Nanocrystal-graphene have been proposed as a new kind of promising hybrid for a wide range of application areas including catalysts, electronics, sensors, biomedicine, and energy storage, etc. Although a variety of methods have been developed for the preparation of hybrids, a facile and general synthetic approach is still highly required.”

“A rich library of highly crystalline nanocrystals, with types including noble metal, metal oxide, magnetic material and semiconductor were successfully grown on chemically converted graphene (CCG), which is simultaneously reduced from GO during the synthesis.”

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22699842/ ] “Generalized syntheses of nanocrystal-graphene hybrids in high-boiling-point organic solvents”

Is Mr. Fleming aware of all the technological and biological advancements and agendas in the arena of nanotechnology in combination with virus-based particles?

“Genetically modified viruses offer a general route for the production of materials with complex nanoscale detail, for use either directly or as templates. It appears likely that modified viruses will feature prominently in the nanotechnology of the immediate future. The possible commercial exploitation of virus-templated materials includes nanowires, high surface area materials for battery electrodes, detectors, catalytic material, light harvesting devices, quantum dots, and tunable photonic devices.”

[ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9783527671403.hlc094 ] “7 Virus Particle-Based Liquid Crystals”

Will Mr. Fleming attempt to identify these so-called “garbage” and “debris” and conduct further studies with a higher magnification, or continue to shoot down other’s legitimate attempts at trying to figure out exactly what these particles are? Notice he never tries to identify what ANYTHING in the vaccine is, other than mentioning “lipid nanoparticles”. Only giving his opinion of what it’s not.

And with all of the evidence showing that genetically modified organisms is not only highly probable but also incredibly likely, considering the NIH’s many, many, MANY horrific experiments and crimes against humanity (and animal life), and Craig Venter’s ventures, not to mention Bill Gates’ very own admission and extensive funding in this matter, I am ultimately left questioning Fleming’s motives.

Bill Gates: “You know, is there something to worry about with medicines, that is might – some of them might have side effects? Do we need safety testing? I mean and we’re taking things that are… you know, genetically modified organisms and we’re injecting them in little kids arms. We just shoot them right into the vein.”

Bottom line: yes, these vaccines are extremely dangerous. And if the ones in control of pushing these worldwide vaccines are also in control of the Human Genome Project and attempts at re-writing our DNA, our best bet would be to avoid these at all costs and address these as the crimes they are.

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay