Are the Vaccines Being Systematically Distributed to Cause Large Amounts of Deaths in the U.S.? | Professional Data Analysts Think It May

“This is a worldwide experiment. It’s intentional.”

Dr. Jane Ruby shares with Stew Peters and their viewers the shocking implication that the vaccines being sent out may be distributed to certain countries by a specific design; to initiate large numbers of disabilities outside of the U.S., and large amounts of death within the U.S.

At least according to the data being compiled of the certain batch/lot numbers that are contributing to the highest amount of vaccine adverse reactions.

This data was assessed by a team that includes:

Mike Yeadon – Ex Head of Respiratory Research at Pfizer UK

Alexandra Latypova – researcher – analyst – Biotech CEO

Craig Paardekooper – researcher – computer programmer – author

Jessica Rose – researcher – analyst – government consultant

Walter Wagner – consultant on pharma compliance and legal affairs

Source: howbad.info/background

For clarity reasons, I want to add that the howbad.info website does state that they gathered all of their information from the U.S. VAERS database. So one would have to consider that this may not take into account many of the adverse events of vaccines that are being distributed to other foreign-speaking countries (China, Germany, Israel, Russia, Africa, etc., etc., etc.)

It is not specifically clear from this interview where the outside-of-the-US data is coming from. It could have been from the hackers that Dr. Jane Ruby mentioned, or specifically from the US VAERS database; but again, it is not verified. When there is further information, I will try and update this post with the new findings.

Please keep all of this in mind and keep a discerning eye out through all of the research presented. Using critical thinking and asking additional questions should always be approached when coming across new data.

Many thanks to all of those involved for their continued research and investigation into these incredibly important matters, and the groups/individuals involved for helping to share and spread these messages.

Full transcript below. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis.

Stew Peters: “Well Happy New Year and welcome back to the Stew Peters Show. We hope that all of you had a great Christmas season with your families, despite the best efforts of Tony Fauci and the Biden junta to make it a miserable time. But that’s what sets us apart from them. We can feel real love and real joy.

Still, it’s a dangerous world out there, and the enemies of the American people will be just as committed to destroying us in 2022, as they were in ’21. And that means more masking, more restrictions, more vaccine mandates.

Dr. Jane Ruby joins us for her first segment of the year. She says that she has the receipts to prove that vaccine toxicity varies by batch, which we’ve covered before, but now it’s possible to find out if the shot that you’re being pressured to take is from one of these tainted, and deadly, batches.”

Dr. Jane Ruby: “Yes, Happy New Year’s, Stew.

Um, sorry to start out with such bad news. But what we’ve learned is, after I spent 3 hours in an interview with these analysts who have actually taken the previous work of toxicity in lot numbers to a whole new level, what they’re telling us is that this is a worldwide human experiment, it’s intentional, and there’s a subplot to this. That there is an attack on the American people.

What they basically told me is that all 3 companies: Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson&Johnson, which is essentially Janssen, are testing; they’re actively testing. And it’s worse than what we thought. Because there’s evidence that these companies are intentionally deploying toxic batches.

They’ve also identified what they call “supertoxic” batches. And they’ve released these lot numbers. And I felt it was like an emergency to get this to the American people, and the people of the world.

I want to show you what they found, on – in terms of most dangerous lots. And when we’re done with this segment, I urge everyone to go to howbad.info, where you can check the lots, and you can know which lots are deadly and dangerous, uh, before – if you’re thinking or on the fence of getting any of these bioweapon injections.

When you look at the first column here for Pfizer, I want you to know that the most deadly, dangerous lot will begin with EW. E like Edward, W like winning. EW. Second to that is F like Frank, A like apple. And then F like Frank, C like Charlie. Sorry I don’t know the military terms for that.”

Credited to: howbad.info/Stew Peters Show

Dr. Jane Ruby (cont. @2:28): The most harmful lot for children, under this EW, FA, FC, was something identified; the whole lot number is EW01A2 [editor’s note: could not verify this specific lot id in the howbad.info website] But you could go to howbad.info and look up… the company, and put your lot number in.

For under Pfizer for adults, the most toxic, deadly batches begin with E like Edward, N like Nancy. And then second to that is E like Edward, R like Robert.

Under Moderna, they found under for all ages, adults and – I don’t believe they have a young child authorization yet, but their toxic, deadly batches end in 20A – Alpha. They’re supertoxic.

Under Moderna, have, in the middle section, they got very clever. Uh, Pfizer coded their lot numbers – all companies coded their lot numbers, with – so that they would know where the most toxic batches are. And I’m going to share with you why that’s important in a little bit. But Moderna took it a step further with a little cleverness, because they embedded their code, for their most toxic amount, either in dose or, or chemical composition, under the letters – in the middle of that lot number, J, K like kite, L like love, M like Mary.

The analysts were a team that included the well-known Dr. Michael Yeadon, Craig Paardekooper, from Africa, a woman named Alexandra Latypova, who’s in California, our well-known Jessica Rose, that we’ve interviewed on the Stew Peters Show before, and another analyst named Walter Wagner.

Look. This EW lot for children, anything that starts with EW, is responsible for almost – watch this – all adverse events in children, all ER visits, all hospitalizations, all life-threatening events, disabilities, and all deaths. This is serious.

And here’s the kicker, Stew. All of these deadly lots that we’re going to show you, are already in circulation, remembering that there could be up to 1.5 million doses per lot. This quantification is set by each company. And the way they know that, is because they have looked at the companies and they’ve gotten into their systems to see how the companies have laid this out.

They made the assertion, Stew, that – and this was shocking – that what these companies are doing is they’re exporting disability as defined by the VAERs system itself, out to Europe. Ex-USA. And what they’re doing is they’re, they’re exporting, if you will, death – more death, more lethal doses, in the United States.

Now let me, let me share with everyone, there’s another chart I want to show you with a scatter plot. It’s called Pfizer batches. And when Pfizer batches, their batch codes, rather, were arranged alpha-numerically, along the X-axis, the following patterns emerged. And you can see these dots, these vertical dots, represent batch numbers. And again, there’s that EW. You can see the green stack of dots. Those are children’s doses. Even though the company claims that the amount is less than the adult dose, supposedly, we have no idea what’s in there.”

Credited to: howbad.info/Stew Peters Show

Dr. Jane Ruby (cont. @5:54): “They are actively testing… – Stew, I’m gonna tell you something. They are conducting what we call lethal dose studies.

Now in pharmaceutical drug development, lethal dose studies looks at how much you need to cause death. And obviously, we – they’re not done in humans. In people. They’re always done in animals, although they’ve slowed down in recent years because people have become concerned, even though they’re rats and mice, lower forms, they’ve become concerned about the cruelty to animals. But they’re never done in people.

And what’s happening here, is they are, basically, from the analysis, these analysts tell us that these 3 companies are actively – RIGHT NOW – conducting lethal dose studies.

Let me explain lethal dose. They take the highest amount of chemical, in terms of dosage and composition. And what they do is, they determine, the leth- what lethal amount to test half the population. It’s one of the means to assess acute toxicity prior to going into human studies. Um, and like I said, it has been largely fazed out. They are – they are conducting it without informed consent, it’s against all ethical and regulatory rules. In other words, we believe these companies are just proceeding with impunity, because there is nothing stopping them.

I want to also show people something. Before we get to a little bit of a larger look at the lot numbers and what’s happening, and how these analysts are so sure that this is not by randomization; this is not by chance. I want to take a look at the parts of a Moderna batch – code.

I mentioned earlier that Moderna got a little more complex and clever. Remember, these companies, we now know, are actually embedding into their lots, a code to tell them which doses, which lots, are toxic, which ones are causing disabilities, and what types of disabilities. I mean, this is absolutely outrageous.

When you look at the parts of the Moderna batch code, you see here this number. It’s 011, the letter L like love, 20A. 20A. As we mentioned before, in the first chart I showed, is the most lethal, that, you know, is the most lethal batch of lot codes in the Moderna program right now. And remember, all of these numbers I’m going to show you, are from the middle of November up until as late as December 16, of just a couple of weeks ago.

So when you look at this numbers, 011L20A, what you’re looking at in the 011, is the temporal batch order. So how it’s being developed over time, and deployed by the company. The L is the concentration – it determines, it tells the company the toxicity and number of adverse reactions. And then the 20A is qualitative. It’s the ingredient. In either 20A, which was the most highly toxic of their batch lots, or 21A came up as well.

So this is their clever scheme to – this is not a matter of, you know, throwing this out. You know. We’re going to try this new technology and we’re getting, with impunity, we’re going to see what the safety issues come- The reason they’re not concerned about safety issues is because this is an a priori design. This is designed ahead of time to send out toxic batches and then to gather their information.

I – so anyway, let’s move on to – there’s just so much information that I learned from these analysts. They told me – “

Stew Peters: “And how did these – how did these analysts know that these are coming from Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson&Johnson?”

Dr. Jane Ruby: “Because, first of all, they, they told me that they were informed by professional hackers, that this is big news – nobody else has broken this. That these professional hackers got into Pfizer, and Moderna systems, and they were able to verify the lots.

Dr. Paardekooper has a list of all the Moderna batches deployed so far. And Moderna also has a web tool – this’ll probably disappear after the Stew Peters Show airs, it has a web tool for checking the expiration dates for batches. And these computer guys hacked Moderna’s website, and got the entire list of Moderna batches with a full list of batch codes. And they did the same for Pfizer.

I just want to make something really clear. This exporting death to the USA and exporting disability to EU, what they found was that the Mo- for example, in the Moderna analysis, there were 10 times the death rate in the United States, than in the EU, and in the Moderna group, there were 10 times more disabilities in the EU group, compared with the USA.

So this, this is – all 3 companies are using their lot numbers to label… they’re looking – and when a researcher does an a priori study, they’re testing concentrations. Remember I told you it was a dose finding study? But this dose finding range is much higher than just testing, you know, a therapeutic group of range to find out what works. This is lethal dose testing at its finest.

And we’re gonna talk about this more, Stew, I know we’re limited on time, but it was really important. It’s what’s most important is that before you let your child get in line for these bioweapon shots, if you don’t believe anything we’ve said, at least ask them for the lot number and if it starts with EW or EN.

Just before we close out, there’s a list I want to show you of batch codes with highlights. These batch codes are in a perfect mathematical series, Stew. And what this tells us is, if it was random, you see these highlighted EN lot numbers? These are all thousands, 2 or 3 thousand deaths and disabilities per these batches, but look at how it drops. It drops immediately down to 37, 25, 23. The subsequent batch numbers.”

Credited to: howbad.info/Stew Peters Show

Dr. Jane Ruby (cont. @12:05): If this was random, it would not just drop off so sharply like that. You’re going to hear more from these analysts, you’re going to hear more and more – But you are empowered now to look up if you’ve had one of these shots, you can look up your lot number… Please don’t take anymore of this. This is not going to stop.

Stew Peters: “Yeah. There’s just absolutely no reason why anybody should have their kid in line to take these bioweapons. But before knowing what we know now, you subjected yourself or your young ones to these injections, and you want to know, now you have these lot numbers, which you can find at stewpeters.tv.

You’re right, I am out of time, I gotta go. Dr. Jane Ruby, thank you so much. Happy New Year. And, I mean, this is unbelievable. [Dr. Jane Ruby: “Thank you. We’ll continue.”] So yeah. This is going to go away though. This search function’s going to go away.

And thanks to these hackers, as well, [Dr. Jane Ruby: “Yes. Bravo.”] and for your time in investigating and being inside of that meeting. Dr. Jane Ruby, thank you so much. God bless you.” [Dr. Jane Ruby: “Thank you Stew.”]

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 hakan german from Pixabay

Don’t Vaccinate Kids: Urgent Message from Doctors’ Summit

Speakers at the Summit included Doctors: Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Paul Alexander, Tara Gesling, Pierre Kory, Ryan Cole and more.

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Original article written by Mary Beth Pfeiffer / TrialSiteNews (November 8, 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.

***

Leading experts on flawed U.S. COVID policy issued an urgent warning at a summit Saturday: Young children will be harmed in an ill-advised rush to vaccinate a population with very little chance of severe infection from the virus.

“The real risk for healthy kids is about zero — it does appear to be lower than the flu,” said Dr. Robert Maloneinventor of the mRNA technology on which the vaccine is based. Inoculating 28 million children 5 to 11 years old, Malone told attendees of the Florida Summit on Covid, could lead to “a thousand or more excess deaths.”

“That’s a thousand kids,” he told the audience of 800 doctors, nurses and advocates. “It’s a thousand kids too many.”

In addition to other pressing COVID issues, the summit addressed three central questions about childhood vaccination. Do young children need vaccination against COVID? Are the vaccinations safe? Are unvaccinated children a threat to adults? On each, they found the government’s near-universal vaccination policy wanton and unsupported.

“Children don’t get severely ill. Children don’t die from this infection,” said Paul Alexander, a clinical epidemiologist and former senior advisor on pandemic policy in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “We’ve been fed a lot of misleading information.”

Though harshly criticized for keeping schools open, “Sweden had not a single death of a child from COVID,” said Dr. Richard Urso, a Texas ophthalmologist citing published data.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control counts 576 U.S. children under 18 who succumbed to COVID from Jan. 1, 2020 to Nov. 3, 2021, among 60,811 who died in that period. But the CDC figures offer no perspective on whether another illness or COVID caused the deaths. In a study of 48,000 COVID-infected children under 18, no deaths were reported among those without comorbidities like leukemia or obesity. In other words, healthy kids did not die, suggesting vaccines are not needed for them.

‘Willful blindness’

With the risk of serious illness low, panelists said the potential toll of vaccinating was unacceptably high, pointing to thousands of officially downplayed but real side effects and deaths. The risks to children include – but aren’t limited to – serious inflammation of the heart called myocarditis, which has been reported at three to six times the expected rate in vaccinated adolescents. A CDC study reported 14 vaccine-related deaths and 849 serious reactions in children 12 to 17 years old.

“There will be children lost with the vax — far more than ever happened with COVID,” said Dr. Peter McCullough, a widely published cardiologist and leading voice on a rational pandemic response. Doctors are guilty of “willful blindness” to vaccine hazards, he said, having “bought into this…dream that this vax if both safe and effective. It is shattering their dreams that it is not sufficiently safe.”

The summit met just after the Pfizer vaccine was recommended by the CDC and as rollout began in pharmacies and clinics.

In Florida, where debate on vaccine mandates is vigorous, summit organizers see child vaccination as a line not to be crossed in a state that could set an example for the nation. They hope to stop the expanded vaccine program with an executive order by Gov. Ron DeSantis or legislation in an upcoming emergency session called to address vaccine mandates.

“We need to pull out all the stops,” Dr. John Littell, an Ocala physician who spearheaded the summit, told me. “We’ve only begun to fight for our children.”

With virtually universal media support, pressure is intense to vaccinate the pint-sized.  On Twitter, the Muppet character Big Bird told of doing his duty for the public good. “I got the COVID-19 vaccine today!” he tweeted on the day of the summit. “My wing is feeling a little sore, but it’ll give my body an extra protective boost that keeps me and others healthy.”

Pfizer video, meantime, widely shared on social media, showed “superhero” boys and girls, in capes, masks and wings, celebrating vaccination. Mouthing words written by a pharmaceutical giant, they praised other kids who took the needle for their “courage,” willingness to “try new things” and “helping the whole entire world.” Another video, of 13-year-old Madeline De Garay injured after vaccination during a trial, tells quite a different story but, sponsors say, was rejected for airing as a television ad.

‘One and done’

The six-hour summit included a premier lineup of COVID doctors who, based on treatment experience and available science, also raised two other urgent concerns:

The effective suppression of physician freedom to treat early COVID with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, fluvoxamine and other drugs that could keep patients out of hospitals and save lives.

The protective value of having had COVID, which offers immune benefits that panelists said exceed – and forego the need for — vaccination.

“Natural immunity is robust; it’s complete; it’s durable,” Dr. McCullough told the group. “If it was possible to get it again, it would’ve happened hundreds of millions of times. It’s one and done.” Just 100 or so cases have been reported in the literature, he said, but there is confusion over whether they were actually second infections.

“With COVID, you develop immunity to 50 or so proteins” that spur production of antibodies, Malone said in his talk. “With the vaccine, you develop immunity to one structural protein,” namely the spike protein. “It’s a huge difference.”

“Don’t let them tell you that recovered-from-COVID does not lead to long-lasting immunity,” Dr. Ryan Cole, an Idaho pathologist, told the group, pitting a report on 106 science articles in favor of infection-acquired immunity against a single CDC “pretend paper” saying vaccines offer more protection.

The implications of natural immunity are enormous. The CDC estimates that 120 million Americans – a third of the population — have had COVID. If their immunity was recognized, that would dramatically reduce the lucrative market for vaccines and boosters – what many panelists believe motivates the rush to jab. More than 200 million Americans will have been infected after the Delta wave, McCullough estimates, broadening that population greatly.

Physicians at the summit left room for some to be vaccinated, including people whose compromised health puts them at risk for severe illness. Malone supports vaccination for high-risk groups, though he told me, “That may change as additional data become available.”

As it stands, however, the vast majority of Americans would be vaccinated under government recommendations that, if mandated by workplaces, schools and municipal governments, leave few exceptions.

‘Unmitigated corruption’

While the urgency of vaccinations took center stage, the failure to treat people at the first sign of COVID – and its immense consequences — was cited as the product of a corrupt, Pharma-controlled system and government.

In a stirring talk, Pierre Kory, president of Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance and a voice for early treatment, pointed to a litany of methods that science journals, media and government have used to effectively deny care with inexpensive “repurposed” drugs like ivermectin.

Among them: Refusal to publish pro-treatment scientific papers and retraction, under pressure, of others. Insistence on pricey randomized control trials while not funding them. A double standard that has Merck’s expensive molnupiravir poised to become a prime outpatient drug, based on one pharma-sponsored trial, while tossing aside dozens of studies favoring ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and other potential treatments. Rejection of the clinical experience of hundreds of doctors who have seen early treatment drugs keep people out of hospitals and coffins.

Having had “a front-row seat on the war on ivermectin,” Kory described in two words the reason for the monumental failure to treat COVID: “Regulatory capture.” In short, the alphabet agencies – NIH, CDC, FDA – aren’t making the decisions.

“It’s well described that all of those agencies are literally run by Pharma,” he said. “If you want to keep your job, you let the leaders do what they do.” This has led, he said, to unmitigated and repeated acts of corruption, which are hurting public health.”

‘Get sicker’

While Kory has strongly supported ivermectin – and several doctors in the audience said they had great success with it – he and others said there are other perhaps two dozen compounds that could help early. Nonetheless, public health leaders are silent on recommending any. Among them: aspirin, budesonide, colchicine, curcumin, melatonin, nitazoxanide, quercetin, zinc and vitamins C and D. Even a highly favorable trial on fluvoxamine has failed to earn the government’s endorsement.

“They tell you to go home and get sicker and come back and see us when you’re really sick and your body’s damaged,” Malone said. “Ask yourself, ‘does this make sense?’”

At the same time, speakers dismissed the unsupported contention that unvaccinated children are a threat to adults — who even when vaccinated can themselves get and spread COVID. “Children are not superspreaders,” said Urso. Further, said Malone, “It’s not the kids responsibility to protect the elders.”

It is, however, the responsibility of public health agencies to live up to protecting the public. Instead, said Dr. Bruce Boros, owner of three urgent care centers in the Florida Keys, they thwart doctors at every turn.

“We’re getting the shit kicked out of us, there’s nowhere to go,” he told me.

“The CEOs and administrators of hospitals are threatening us. You’re going to be fired. You must walk in lockstep with our standard of care.”

After recounting harrowing experiences in New York City ICUs early in the pandemic, a critical care physician, Dr. Mollie James, concluded with this: “Doctors must not be blocked from prescribing life-saving medicine in the hospital. Doctors must not be blocked from giving life-saving treatment outpatient.”

*

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.

Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative journalist and author of two books; she has written more than 20 articles on early treatment of COVID since March of 2020. Follow her on Twitter: @marybethpf

Featured image is from TrialSiteNews

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