Thursday 25th of July 2024

immunological upgrades.....

Four years later, many people are investigating how our lives were completely upended by a pandemic response. Over my time on the case, I’ve heard countless theories. It was Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Finance, the Green New Deal, the CCP, Depopulation, Get Trump, Mail-In Ballots, and so on. 

There is evidence to back them all. 


What Really Happened: Lockdown until Vaccination



The problem with having so many pieces of evidence and so many theories is that people can too easily get thrown off track, going on wild goose chases. It’s too much to follow through consistently, and this allows the perpetrators to hide their deeds. 

For such situations, we can take recourse to Occam’s razor: the best explanation is the simplest one that explains the maximum number of facts. This is what I offer here. 

Those in the know will be shocked by nothing herein. Those not in the know will be amazed at the audaciousness of the entire scheme. If it is true, there are surely documents and people who can confirm this. At least this model of thinking will assist in guiding thinking and research. 

There are three parts to understanding what took place. 

First, in late 2019 and perhaps as early as October, higher-ups in the biodefense industry and perhaps people like Anthony Fauci and Jeremy Farrar of the UK became aware of a lab leak at a US-funded bioweapons lab in Wuhan. This is a place that does gain-of-function research to produce both the pathogen and the antidote, just like in the movies. It’s gone on for decades in possibly hundreds of labs but this leak looked pretty bad, one with a fast-transmitting virus believed to be of high lethality. 

The civilians were not likely the first to know. Military and security higher-ups, the people actually working with clearances in the bioweapons industry, were the first to get the word. They gradually leaked it out to civilian sources. 

By January 2020, the situation had become dire within the bureaucracies. If the background of the lab leak got out, and millions died and the blame fell on the US and its labs around the world, there could be massive repercussions on politics and so much more. This is why, as Farrar admits, they went to burner phones and secure video hangouts, while experiencing weeks of sleepless nights. There was fear in the air among those who knew what had happened. 

That’s when the effort began to shift blame over to the wet markets in Wuhan and scientifically back the idea of natural origins. They had to work very fast, but the result was the famed “proximal origins” article, published in early February, which was backed up by a stream of NIH-funded scientists labeling the claim of lab origin as conspiracy theory. The media backed the claim with censorship of anyone saying otherwise. 

So far so good, but there was still the problem of the virus itself. That’s where the antidote labeled a vaccine came into play. This effort began in January too: the opportunity to deploy mRNA technology. It had been stuck in research for some 20 years but had never gained regulatory approval through conventional means. But with a pandemic declared, and the fix relabelled as a military countermeasure, the entire regulatory apparatus could be bypassed, along with all indemnifications pushed through and even taxpayer funding. 

The people behind the lab disaster would become heroes instead of villains.

Speed was always an issue. How can a vaccine be produced, distributed, and injected into the world’s population before the pandemic has already passed through the population, ending the same way as every other such episode in history, namely through exposure and resulting immunological upgrades? 

If that happened, the vaccine would be superfluous and the pharma would miss their chance to demonstrate the wonders of a technological promise that had consumed them for twenty-plus years. 

That’s where the lockdowns come in. Here is where the plan gets truly insidious. The idea was to come up with some way in which the antidote would gain the credit for having solved the pandemic that supposedly emerged from a wet market. The new technology would get the credit and then obtain generalized approval for a new form of health care that could be applied to myriad maladies in the future. Everyone would get rich. And Big Pharma and Fauci would be the heroes. 

Apart from convincing Donald Trump to authorize the wrecking of his prized economy (which is a story unto itself), the vexing problem with the plan was timing. There was likely no way to get this released to the population for at least 9 months or perhaps more. It could be sooner in the future, perhaps 100 days, but the first time out would require more time. 

It’s not that the planners were in denial of natural immunity. They were simply against depending on it or even tolerating it when they could test out a new product on the population. 

The objective in this little game must be to preserve population-wide immunological naivete for the entire period. Exposure needed to be minimized to keep seroprevalence levels at their lowest possible point, perhaps no more than 10 or 20 percent and certainly below 50 percent. The only possible path here was to insist on as little human-to-human contact as possible. 

Hence: lockdown. Forced human separation. Not just for two weeks. The protocol needed to be maintained for 9-11 months. Nothing like this had ever been attempted in human history, especially not on a global level. But maybe it would work, thanks to online commerce, work-from-home tools, and a properly panicked population that had not been through anything like this in many generations. 

Thus did the plan commence. There were slogans: “flatten the curve,” “slow the spread,” and so on. They all amounted to the same thing: prolong the pain as long as possible to get ready for mass injections.

This is why people were told to stay inside. AA meetings had to be canceled. The gyms were closed. There could be no church services, concerts, weddings, or funerals. There had to be Plexiglas at all merchant locations. Restaurants had to close or be only at half capacity. This was the reason for the masking, a lame ritual but a good symbol of disease avoidance. The travel restrictions were the same. Media messaging would be to demonize all infections and raise constant panic about any exposure. 

It is rather obvious, even to the obtuse fools running the pandemic response, that all of this was bad for public health. You cannot make the population less sick by driving everyone into depression, unemployment, and substance abuse. That is so apparent that we are wasting breath even pointing that out. 

But improving health was not the point. 

The goal of all of it was to keep natural immunity from ruining the chance for the mRNA shots to save the day. That is also why we could not have off-the-shelf therapeutics. There could be no Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine, not because they didn’t work but precisely because they did. The last thing the pandemic planners wanted was a cure that was not mRNA. 

This is also why the J&J shot was taken off the market very quickly on the grounds that it was generating blood clots. It was not a mRNA shot. And it was in competition with the preferred technology so it had to be knocked out. So too with AstraZeneca, which was also not part of the mRNA platform. 

Keep in mind the perversity here: the goal was not health but sickness as long as possible, to be cured by a new technology. That was always the game plan. 

Once you realize this, everything else falls into place. This is why officials early on stopped talking about the huge risk gradient between young and old. There was a 1,000-fold difference. Young students were at near-zero risk. Why did they have their schools canceled as if getting Covid would be the worst possible disaster? The reason was to keep to the bare minimum all population immunity to prepare the ground for the shots. 

This theory explains the absolute hysterical reaction to Jay Bhattacharya’s seroprevalence study from May 2020 showing that 4 percent of the population already had some immunity. That was very early on. Fauci and the biodefense industry could not stand the idea that the population would already be exposed and recovered by the time the shots arrived. 

It’s also why there was such a hysterical reaction to the Great Barrington Declaration. The problem was not its opposition to lockdowns as such. The problem was this sentence: “all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine.” Further, with full and immediate opening, “society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”

It was not obvious at the time but this plan directly contradicted the scheme hatched from the top to delay herd immunity until the vaccine could be developed. In fact, the World Health Organization was so furious at this claim that it changed its own definition from that which is conferred by exposure to that which is imposed upon the body by a shot. 

Looking back at early statements from the likes of Deborah Birx, the scenario takes on great clarity. It makes sense of her war on cases, as if every verified exposure represented a policy failure. At the time, hardly anyone asked why this should be. After all, exposure represents rising immunity in the population, correct? Isn’t this a good thing and not a bad thing? Well, not if your ambition is to keep seroprevalence levels as low as possible in anticipation of the great inoculation. 

Recall too that every digital platform changed even the definition of what it means to be a “case.” In traditional parlance, a case is meant to be actually sick, needing a doctor or bed rest or going to the hospital. It did not mean merely exposed or merely infected. But suddenly all that was gone and the difference between being exposed and being a case vanished. The FTX-funded outfit OurWorldinData branded every positive PCR test as a case. No one really complained. 

It also explains the wild and essentially futile attempts at tracking and tracing every infection. It got so crazy that the iPhone even released an app that would warn you if you were near someone who at some point tested positive for Covid. Even now, the airlines want to know your every stop when flying in or out of the country in the name of tracking and tracing Covid infections. This whole enterprise was crazy from the get-go: there is simply no way to do this for a fast-moving and fast-mutating respiratory infection. They did it anyway in a futile effort to preserve immunological naivete as long as possible. 

Let’s say you are convinced that I’m correct here, that the whole purpose of lockdowns was to prepare the population for an effective vaccine. There are a few remaining problems with the plan from the point of view of the plotters. 

One is that it was already well-established in the scientific literature that physical interventions to stop such viruses are completely ineffective. That is true. Why would they do them anyway? Maybe they were the best hope they had. Also, maybe they served the purpose of keeping the population panicked enough to create a pent-up demand for the shots. That seemed to work more or less. 

A second problem is that the infection fatality rate (and case fatality rate) was a tiny fraction of what it had been advertised to be at the outset. Plainly put, most everyone got and shook off Covid. As Trump said when he left the hospital, Covid is not to be feared. Such messaging was a disaster from the point of view of those who had embarked on the lockdowns for purpose of forcing the inoculation to be seen as the magic bullet. It goes without saying that this explains the shot mandates: so much had been sacrificed to prepare people for the inoculation that they could not give up until everyone got it. 

A third problem for the plotters is one likely not fully anticipated. The shot did not in fact confer durable immunity and did not stop the spread of the virus. In other words, it failed spectacularly. These days, you hear top industry apologists claim that “millions” of lives were saved but the studies showing that all fall apart on close examination. They are built by models with assumptions baked in to give the right answer or use data that is itself compromised (for example, by tagging people as unvaccinated weeks after getting the shot). 

In summary, if this theory is correct, what you have unfolding here is the biggest and most destructive flop in the history of public health. The entire scheme of lockdown-until-vaccination depended fundamentally on a shot that actually achieved its aim and certainly did not impose more harm than good. The trouble is that most everyone now knows what the pandemic masters tried to keep quiet for a very long time: natural immunity is real, the virus was mainly dangerous for the elderly and infirm, and the experimental shots were not worth the risk. 

Today the pandemic planners find themselves in an awkward spot. Their scheme failed. The truth about the lab leak has been revealed anyway. And now they face a population worldwide that has lost trust in all authority, from government to industry to technology. That’s a serious problem. 

None of this is to say that there weren’t other actors involved who benefitted. Big Tech and Big Media loved having people home to stream movies. Online commerce enjoyed the big bump. The censorship industry enjoyed having a new class of topics to ban. Government always loves power. And the Green New Dealers seized the moment to embark on their Great Reset. The CCP bragged about having shown the world how to lock down. 

All that is true: the entire episode became history’s biggest grift. 

Still, none of that should distract from the core plot: lock down until vaccination. It’s a model they hope to replay again and again in the future. 

It’s customary in academic literature to admit problems with a hypothesis. Here are some. 

First, the lockdowns were nearly universal at the same time, not just in the US and UK. How would the motivations described above apply to nearly every country in the world? 

Second, it was known very early in the vaccine trials that the shots did not confer immunity or stop the spread, so why would authorities depend on them to upgrade immune systems if they knew they could and would not? 

Third, if keeping seroprevalence levels as low as possible was really the goal, why did the same authorities who demanded lockdowns celebrate protests and mass gatherings in the summer of 2020 in the name of stopping racially motivated police brutality?

These are serious problems with the hypothesis, to be sure, but perhaps each has a believable answer. 

I’ll end on a personal note, in April of 2020, I got a call from Rajeev Venkayya. He credits himself with coming up with the whole idea of lockdowns back in 2006 while working for the biodefense desk as part of the George W. Bush administration. He then moved on to the Gates Foundation, then started a vaccine company. 

He told me on the phone to stop writing about lockdowns, which I found to be a ridiculous request. I asked him what the end game of these lockdowns was. He said plainly to me: there will be a vaccine. I was astounded that anyone could believe such a thing. No vaccine could be safely distributed to the population in time to keep society from falling apart. Moreover, there had never been an effective vaccine for a fast-mutating coronavirus. 

I assumed that he had no idea what he was talking about. I figured that this guy was long out of the game and was just engaged in some kind of fantasy talk. 

Looking back, I now see that he was telling me the actual gameplan. Which is to say, in the recesses of my mind, I’ve known this all along but it’s only now emerging as a clear picture in the midst of the massive fog of war.

from Brownstone Institute.


toxic aluminium....

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science's understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.











by Xavier Bazin


Dear friend of Health,

It’s a book that reads like a detective novel… and which reveals the astonishing political-medical corruption intended to hide the “adverse effects” of certain vaccines from you.

Its author, Professor Romain Gherardi, is not just anyone.

Professor of medicine at 38, he is the head of a prestigious French hospital center for neuromuscular diseases. He has published over 300 research articles in leading medical journals (LancetNew England Journal of MedicineBrain, etc.).

A doctor full of humanity and a demanding researcher, he is not at all provocative. He never misses an opportunity to remind people that vaccines have saved millions of lives.

But he refuses to prevent the general public from knowing certain avoidable adverse effects of vaccines containing aluminum.

He does not accept that we are trying to stifle scientific research of public utility, which could prevent thousands of serious illnesses… and perhaps even relieve millions of patients suffering from the terrible “chronic fatigue syndrome”.

All he wants is the truth, even if it is disturbing. And he paid a high price for it.

In a few years, he went from the status of "the envied star of medicine", officially consulted by the World Health Organization (WHO), to that of a man who is avoided, whose research is refused. research.

His only crime: having brought to light a truth very embarrassing for the vaccine industry.

A globally acclaimed discovery, until…

When in 1997 he discovered a new disease, which he named “macrophage myofasciitis”, Professor Gherardi was acclaimed throughout the world.

The “signature” of this disease is disturbing: “large sheets of blue cells", called "macrophages", appear in the deltoid muscle of the arm... in a place where this type of lesion has never been observed before!

The suffering of patients also baffles doctors: disabling muscle and joint pain, permanent exhaustion, worrying cognitive disorders... These are very strange symptoms!

In France and around the world, there is an uproar. The Health Monitoring Institute (InVS) takes the matter very seriously and is launching an in-depth field study.

In 1998, the most prestigious medical journal in the world, The Lancet, publishes the article by Professor Gherardi and his colleagues detailing their discovery1. Immediately, he was invited to speak in the biggest media, including the with the BBC England.

Everything was going well... until he discovered the cause of these mysterious blue macrophages.

In October 1998, the first thunderclap: Professor Gherardi learned that these blue cells contained… aluminum!

And he doesn't have to look far to understand how this metal got there.

Aluminum, this toxic metal used in vaccines

Because living organisms do not normally contain the slightest atom of aluminum. Iron, yes, in quantity. But aluminum, never, it is a metal that is too toxic for our cells.

Unfortunately, since the industry began extracting this metal from the earth's crust, we find it almost everywhere around us. Even in our deodorants, toothpastes, sunscreens and food additives!

And it is also found in… most vaccines.

Vaccines that are injected into the deltoid muscle of the arm, the same one where we observed the large blue sheets. There is no possible doubt: the aluminum in macrophage myofasciitis comes from vaccines!

Professor Gherardi quickly confirmed that 100% of his patients had received an injection of vaccines containing aluminum in the two or three years preceding the onset of their illness.

Professor Gherardi even injected the hepatitis B vaccine into the muscle of a rat... and he observed a few weeks later, under a microscope, all the characteristics of the disease!

A riddle still remained: why did this disease appear in the mid-1990s, when aluminum adjuvants in vaccines had been used for a longer time?

The answer is luminously simple: because it was decided worldwide, at the beginning of the 1990s, to vaccinate in the muscle and no longer under the skin!

And as France decided to launch a massive hepatitis B vaccination campaign between 1994 and 1997, it is not surprising that this is the country where hundreds of cases suddenly emerged!

Professor Gherardi demonstrated all this relentlessly before the World Health Organization in 1999. The greatest experts came from all over the world to listen to him. In the process, he published a luminous summary article in a major medical journal.2

Of course, there are still some elements to be clarified, but the evidence is then more than sufficient to act without delay.

The urgency is all the greater as thousands of patients are vaccinated every day with vaccines containing aluminum! Of course, macrophage myofasciitis is very rare, fortunately, but it ruins the existence of the unfortunate people who are affected.

Common sense would therefore dictate that we launch large-scale additional scientific studies as quickly as possible... and that we force laboratories to replace the aluminum in vaccines with less toxic adjuvants (and there are some!).

But to Professor Gherardi's great surprise, this is not what happened. Quite the contrary.

We prevent him from seeking the truth!!!

From the moment he had the misfortune of questioning adjuvants in vaccines, everything was done to prevent him from revealing the truth.

It is impossible to retrace here the countless low blows and pitfalls suffered by Professor Gherardi since 1999 – and I really advise you to read his fascinating book, “Toxic Story: two or three embarrassing truths about vaccine adjuvants».

He recounts, for example, what a great Professor of Medicine, Professor MF Kahn, dared to say to him, eye to eye:

«Dear friend, I believe you are right… But I will always say that you are wrong!»

For what ? Not because this doctor was “sold” to the laboratories. But, says Professor Gherardi, because macrophage myofasciitis has the misfortune of being what we call an “iatrogenic” disease. That is to say caused by a medical procedure… and therefore by doctors!

It is never easy to question your own profession and it is even contrary to the ethics of doctors3. And it's even worse when we touch on vaccination, THE great taboo of modern medicine!4

Quickly, Professor Gherardi was “dropped” by most of his colleagues:

«While in 1998 everyone was fighting to appear in the family photo of macrophage myofasciitis, as soon as the fateful word «vaccin» was pronounced, everyone withdrew on tiptoe, fleeing a debate where there were only blows to be taken».

And Professor Gherardi will not fail to receive blows.

The mysterious Gulf War syndrome

What happens in 2001 is worthy of the great spy films. The event occurred at a time when Professor Gherardi was preparing to verify whether or not “Gulf War Syndrome” was caused by vaccines.

Small reminder: many British and American soldiers sent to Iraq in 1991 suffered from unexplained symptoms: muscle and joint pain, persistent fatigue, memory problems, etc.

It's a real medical mystery. All hypotheses have been considered… except the most probable5, namely the intensive vaccination program undergone by soldiers just before operations, particularly against hepatitis A and B.

In 2001, an association of British veterans wanted to find out for sure. She therefore contacted Professor Gherardi to ask him to examine 12 soldiers suffering from this famous “Gulf War syndrome”, and to check whether the muscle of their forearm did not contain the famous blue macrophages.

Professor Gherardi immediately accepts, only too happy to verify this hypothesis. Everything is planned, and its service is on a war footing to welcome these sick veterans with dignity.

But believe it or not, the day before these veterans arrive, a mysterious correspondent calls Professor Gherardi to inform him that the arrival of the British soldiers is “cancelled”.

Like that, overnight, without the slightest explanation!

But the worst is yet to come.

The French Health Security Agency is trying to eliminate it (socially)

In 2004, the French Medicines Agency (then named Afssaps) officially recommended STOP all research on the link between aluminum and macrophage myofasciitis.

This “health” authority therefore decides to bury the file, despite the overwhelming evidence already gathered!

Result: overnight, Professor Gherardi loses all hope of seeing his research funded by the state. Which condemns him and his team to marginality!

Needless to say, the “experts” who made this dramatic decision all had powerful ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But the Mediator scandal had not yet broken out, and the conflicts of interest were not as suspicious as they are today.

Let’s listen to Professor Gherardi:

«The Afssaps, I will come to understand over the years, is a machine whose primary objective is to prevent a health scandal from breaking out. To do this, it strives to slow down the procedures to understand the exact dimension of the problem. (…) It is neither an impartial judge nor a scientific collective (…). 80% financed by the industry, it is primarily a tool at its service».

In this sad month of May 2004, the industrialists therefore had the skin of Professor Gherardi. Well, that's what they believed.

Because it was without counting on his exceptional intelligence and determination.

Alone against everyone, he provides definitive proof

The last piece of the puzzle, the one that is still missing, is the demonstration physiological of the cause and effect link between vaccination and the disease.

Statistically, there is no doubt that the terrible symptoms these patients suffer from are indeed linked to aluminum vaccines.

But biologically, how does this happen? How could a tiny dose of aluminum injected into a muscle cause such damage?

This is the very last key to the mystery... and it will take many years for Professor Gherardi, deprived of national and international funding, to reveal it to the light of day.

But he finally succeeded, in 2013, in an article published in BMC Medicine.6

Until then, everyone believed (or wanted to believe) that the aluminum in vaccines dissolved in the blood. If this were the case, it could not cause the slightest disease: the aluminum would then be quickly filtered by the kidneys and expelled in the urine.

But experiments carried out on mice prove that this does not happen like that. In reality, 50% of the aluminum particles in vaccines migrate to the lymph nodes, the spleen... then accumulate in the brain!

Even more surprising: we find more aluminum in the brains of mice as the doses of aluminum injected are weakly concentrated! For what ? Quite simply because doses that are too high cannot be “swallowed” by the macrophages – and are therefore not taken to the brain!

Which resoundingly refutes the argument of the labs, who repeatedly repeat that the dose of aluminum injected is too low to be dangerous!

A disease that does not strike randomly

And as if that were not enough, Professor Gherardi and his team even managed to show Why the disease affects only a small fraction of those who are vaccinated.

As always with heavy metals, it's a matter of genetic lottery.

For example, some people are unable to properly eliminate the iron they ingest in their diet – this is hemochromatosis, a genetic disease that affects 1 in 200 people.

Others don't detoxify well from mercury7 : in their case, eating too much fish or have several amalgams Mercury (“fillings”) in the mouth can cause serious cognitive impairment.

Regarding aluminum, Professor Gherardi admirably showed that those who suffer from macrophage myofasciitis have rare and specific genetic variations within the 34 genes that determine the detoxification of this metal.

This is why you don't risk much by getting vaccinated... unless you have the misfortune of being one of the "vulnerable" people!

This is true for macrophage myofasciitis but also for other serious health problems.

Some examples of serious side effects of vaccines

Here are some examples of the most glaring tragedies caused by certain vaccines:

  • The rotavirus vaccine (injected into infants for gastroenteritis) can cause death in infants. We know this thanks to the French pharmacovigilance system, which recorded 2 deaths and 201 serious adverse effects in vaccinated babies.8 ;
  • The H1N1 Pandermix flu vaccine caused thousands of cases of narcolepsy in children, a serious and incurable illness. This is a study published in the highly respected British Medical Journal in 2013 which revealed it9 ;
  • The hepatitis B vaccine has been incriminated in several robust studies for triggering many cases of multiple sclerosis10,11,12 ;
  • Gardasil, a vaccine against the papillomavirus, has caused several dozen cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, a serious neurological disease, in France. It was the Medicines Agency itself which recognized this in 2015.13

And of course, all vaccines can cause serious allergic reactions.

Telling the whole truth about vaccines

Overall, it is clear that certain vaccines and some of their adjuvants (aluminum, squalene) pose serious health problems to a small minority of us.

It is important to recognize this publicly, rather than making vaccination a taboo (“vaccination cannot be discussed», Dared the Minister of Health to say in 2015!).

It is not a question of being “anti-vaccine” in principle… but it is not a question of being blindly “pro-vaccine” either.

We must simply recognize that, like any medical procedure, it can have serious consequences. And we must therefore examine on a case-by-case basis whether its benefits outweigh its dangers.

It all depends on the disease we are trying to prevent, the nature of the vaccines, their adjuvants... and the personal vulnerability of each of us!

It must therefore be a medical and individual decision, and not administrative and collective, as the labs demand, to secure their profits!

Caution regarding vaccines is all the more legitimate as scientific research is manipulated by powerful interests.

It's even worse for vaccines than for other drugs!

For what ? Because we refuse to do for vaccines what we do for all drugs: double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. That is to say take a group of patients, separate it into two groups, vaccinate one group but not the other (without anyone knowing who has been vaccinated and who has not), then observe the results, after a few years.

Result: the science of vaccines is anything but solid… and the pharmaceutical industry is having a field day trying to make it say what suits them.

With the complicity, unfortunately, of certain sincere doctors, whose absolute priority is to prevent public opinion from losing confidence in vaccination.

For them, the population is a “small child, whose inconsiderate reactions must be feared, even if it means keeping silent about the dangers that threaten him so as not to risk frightening him».14

As if you and I were not capable of hearing the truth and making reasoned choices for our future and that of our children!

What to do ?

I leave the last word to Professor Gherardi:

«I therefore appeal to political figures of all stripes.

For the vaccine to endure and live (…), we must not only recognize intolerance to adjuvants and finance research into this pathology.

We must also force manufacturers to put aluminum-free vaccines back on the market which have long been safe to vaccinate – such as DTP; to work on new non-toxic adjuvants – such as calcium phosphate. (…)

Above all, we urgently need to put in place a system of expertise and regulation that is truly independent of the major pharmaceutical manufacturers.».

Count on me, dear readers, to fight in this direction, in my small way.



sent by Themistocles






the lab link....

Jesse Watters : OMG, This is really INSANE !




COVID-19 eliminated a decade of progress in global level of life expectancyWorld Health Statistics 2024 report urges countries to redouble efforts towards health-related SDGs by 2030


The latest edition of the  World Health Statistics released today by the World Health Organization (WHO) reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic reversed the trend of steady gain in life expectancy at birth and healthy life expectancy at birth (HALE). 

The pandemic wiped out nearly a decade of progress in improving life expectancy within just two years. Between 2019 and 2021, global life expectancy dropped by 1.8 years to 71.4 years (back to the level of 2012). Similarly, global healthy life expectancy dropped by 1.5 years to 61.9 years in 2021 (back to the level of 2012).

The 2024 report also highlights how the effects have been felt unequally across the world. The WHO regions for the Americas and South-East Asia were hit hardest, with life expectancy dropping by approximately 3 years and healthy life expectancy by 2.5 years between 2019 and 2021. In contrast, the Western Pacific Region was minimally affected during the first two years of the pandemic, with losses of less than 0.1 years in life expectancy and 0.2 years in healthy life expectancy. 

“There continues to be major progress in global health, with billions of people who are enjoying better health, better access to services, and better protection from health emergencies,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “But we must remember how fragile progress can be. In just two years, the COVID-19 pandemic erased a decade of gains in life expectancy. That's why the new Pandemic Agreement is so important: not only to strengthen global health security, but to protect long-term investments in health and promote equity within and between countries.”

Noncommunicable diseases remain the top killer

COVID-19 rapidly emerged as a leading cause of death, ranking as the third highest cause of mortality globally in 2020 and the second in 2021. Nearly 13 million lives were lost during this period. The latest estimates reveal that except in the African and Western Pacific regions, COVID-19 was among the top five causes of deaths, notably becoming the leading cause of death in the Americas for both years. 

The WHO report also highlights that noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as ischemic heart disease and stroke, cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, and diabetes were the biggest killers before the pandemic, responsible for 74% of all deaths in 2019. Even during the pandemic, NCDs continued to account for 78% of non-COVID deaths. 

Increasing obesity and malnutrition

The world faces a massive and complex problem of a double burden of malnutrition, where undernutrition coexists with overweight and obesity. In 2022, over one billion people aged five years and older were living with obesity, while more than half a billion were underweight. Malnutrition in children was also striking, with 148 million children under five years old affected by stunting (too short for age), 45 million suffering from wasting (too thin for height), and 37 million overweight. 

The report further highlights the significant health challenges faced by persons with disabilities, refugees and migrants. In 2021, about 1.3 billion people, or 16% of the global population, had disability. This group is disproportionately affected by health inequities resulting from avoidable, unjust and unfair conditions. 

Access to healthcare for refugees and migrants remains limited, with only half of the 84 countries surveyed between 2018 and 2021 providing government-funded health services to these groups at levels comparable to their citizens. This highlights the urgent need for health systems to adapt and address the persisting inequities and changing demographic needs of global populations.

Progress towards the Triple Billion targets and SDGs

Despite setbacks caused by the pandemic, the world has made some progress towards achieving the Triple Billion targets and health-related indicators of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

Since 2018, an additional 1.5 billion people achieved better health and well-being. Despite gains, rising obesity, high tobacco use and persistent air pollution hinder progress. 

Universal Health Coverage expanded to 585 million more people, falling short of the goal for one billion. Additionally, only 777 million more people are likely to be adequately protected during health emergencies by 2025, falling short of the one billion target set in WHO’s 13th General Programme of Work. This protection is increasingly important as the effects of climate change and other global crises increasingly threaten health security.

“While we have made progress towards the Triple Billion targets since 2018, a lot still needs to be done. Data is WHO’s superpower. We need to use it better to deliver more impact in countries,” said Dr Samira Asma, WHO Assistant Director-General for Data, Analytics and Delivery for Impact. “Without accelerating progress, it is unlikely that any of the health SDGs will be met by 2030.”

Editors’ note:

The World Health Statistics report is WHO’s annual compilation of the most recent available data on health and health-related indicators. For inquiries, contact







no agreement....

Negotiations on an ‘International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response’ began in late 2021, with proponents of a global pact arguing that Covid-19 had exposed major deficiencies in individual governments’ response to health emergencies. Critics have expressed concerns that a binding treaty may impact national sovereignty.

Opponents of the proposed international pandemic treaty could breathe a sigh of relief this week after the World Health Organization-coordinated push for the pact failed to reach the required consensus among WHO member states ahead of Monday’s World Health Assembly in Geneva.



“We are not where we hoped we would be when we started this process,” WHO negotiating board co-chair Roland Driece said on Friday.


“The world still needs a pandemic treaty. Many of the challenges that caused the serious impact during COVID-19 still exist,” WHO chief Tedros Ghebreyesus said Friday, insisted that the setback was “not a failure.”



“We will try everything – believing that anything is possible –and make this happen because the world still needs a pandemic treaty,” he said.


WHO officials didn’t elaborate on why a consensus couldn’t be reached ahead of the deadline. However, observers believe it may be related to disagreements between governments regarding the sharing of information about emerging pathogens, the means to defeat them, and whether the agreement should be binding or non-binding.

The draft treaty saw divisions emerge among WHO members regarding the extent of powers to be given to the global health authority to fight emerging global health emergencies, with European countries calling for “legally binding” measures meting out penalties for members who do not comply.

Other countries, including India, Brazil and Russia, as well as the United States, expressed opposition to a legally binding treaty, with Republican governors in the US lobbying strongly against it, saying they didn’t want to give the WHO overarching powers if another pandemic hit.
“If adopted, these agreements would seek to elevate the WHO from an advisory body to a global authority in public health,” a letter sent to President Biden this week by two dozen governors from Republican states said. “Under the proposed amendments and treaty, the WHO’s Director-General would supposedly gain unilateral power to declare a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ in member nations, extending beyond pandemics to include a range of perceived emergencies.”










Did a US funded biotechnology experiment ignite the worst pandemic of modern times?    By Julian Cribb


In a momentous development, the US Government has suspended funding from the biotech company increasingly linked to the origins of the Covid pandemic that slew seven million people.

The decision by the Biden Administration to blacklist the EcoHealth Alliance is a major step towards sheeting home the responsibility for a biotechnology experiment that appears to have gone horribly wrong.

In what increasingly looks like one of the worst disasters in scientific history, the EcoHealth Alliance has been linked by US Congressional inquiries, as well as by the FBI and CIA, with experiments carried out at Wuhan, China, into wild bat viruses genetically engineered to be more deadly to humans.

Somehow, by means still not clearly elucidated, it now appears possible that one of these viruses escaped from an inadequately-secure lab to become the Covid pandemic. This infected 775 million people worldwide, killing at least 7m of them by the time most countries began to suppress the statistics.

Inquiry into the origins of Covid were long frustrated by what now looks like a deliberate coverup by a small number of prominent virologists, designed to prevent governments and the public from learning the origins of the plague and banning the deadly experiments which may have led to it. The secrecy surrounding it has been aggravated by the fears of both the US and Chinese governments that they could be held responsible, hence their disinclination to co-operate fully with inquiry into the virus’s origins.

Now however the US Government, following a Congressional probe, appears to have acknowledged where the weight of evidence is trending – and taken belated action by banning the company involved from obtaining further US public research funding, at least for a time.

That researchers – deliberately or inadvertently – may have ignited the worst pandemic of modern times highlights the extreme risks of certain contemporary scientific research, experiments which – as things stand – there is no organised attempt to prevent.

Pandemic disease is one of the ten interacting ‘megathreats’ that imperil the future of human civilisation and our species. Humans are already at enough risk from natural pathogens like ‘flu, unleashed by our own behaviour and practices, without synthesising even deadlier strains. Yet a part of modern virology is bent on such a task.

What appears to have happened is that scientists from the EcoHealth Alliance obtained US research funding to make chimeric (ie genetically engineered) viruses from natural bat viruses found in China that were more deadly and infectious to humans and test them in mice engineered with human lung tissue. To save money, the work was carried out in the Wuhan Institute of Virology under conditions too insecure to contain such dangerous viruses.

The nature of the work was foreshadowed in a paper published back in 2015, where the scientists “generated and characterised a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone”. They tested it and found it confirmed “the ability of viruses with the SHC014 spike to infect human airway cells”. The presence of an anomalous spike protein in a bat coronavirus is one of the pieces of evidence that Covid-19 is a human artefact, not a natural evolution. They have subsequently revealed they made at least two such synthetic viruses and Chinese researchers may have made more.

Why, one may fairly ask, would the US and Chinese scientists do anything so completely crazy?

Part of the answer may lie in simple scientific arrogance: “we did it to prove we could”. But another motive may have been money. By creating the next major pandemic bug, some scientists were hoping to snatch a lead over rivals in the race to develop the hugely profitable patents, diagnostics, vaccines and antivirals that such a discovery would call for.

In a nutshell, seven million humans may have died so someone could get rich quick.

How – and if – the virus escaped from the lab remains unclear – and without the full co-operation of Chinese and US authorities, is liable to remain so. Given the murky involvement of both Chinese and US bioweapons researchers in the project, both countries have reason to remain stumm. Deliberate release is the least likely of the various possible routes. Accidental escape is highly probable given the low security employed. Fingers have been pointed at WIV researcherswho allegedly became infected.

Since 2000 there have been 38 cases of deadly pathogens escaping from so-called secure laboratories round the world, and many hundreds of lesser biosecurity breaches. So, escape is not only commonplace, but inevitable. Despite this, virology continues to forge ahead in the fabrication of ever-deadlier organisms.

Concerned they might be blamed, a group of senior virologists, under the urging of US NIH boss Anthony Fauci, rushed out a ‘scientific paper’ stating unambiguously “SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”. This ‘proximal origins’ paper threw a smokescreen in the path of objective scientific inquiry into the source of the pandemic and split the virology profession in two. Several of its authors, it later transpired, had doubts about their own conclusions.

However the paper had one clear message: by distancing science from the mishap it was placing the prestige of virology above the lives and safety of millions.

Where all this began is lost in the history of science, but a watershed moment occurred during the 1980s, in the light of the exploding global AIDS pandemic. The eminent US biologist and Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederburg, concerned at the limited funding available to study potential new risks, convened a meeting of senior virologists to explore the dangers of emerging pathogens with pandemic potential (PPP). This meeting flagged several frightening new possibilities. More importantly, it triggered a flood of media reports, popular science books, and fictional movies that galvanised public opinion and policy action – and virology, which had been starving in the dark, was transformed into a gold rush. Commercialism, rather than public safety, became a key driver of research.

This laid the ground not only for a string of virological triumphs as various plague organisms were successfully identified and then suppressed – but also for a string of increasingly dangerous experiments, as scientists probed the darker side of nature. And then, unsatisfied, began tinkering to make it deadlier still. The lethal experiments went under the Orwellian title ‘gain of function’ (GoF), scientific doublespeak for ‘more deadly to people’.

A few examples will suffice:

  • In 2001, researchers reported creating a deadlier strain of mousepox virus that overcame genetic resistance.
  • In 2011, a team from the University of Wisconsin engineered easier-to-spread strains of a deadly bird flu, H5N1.
  • In 2013 a Chinese team injected two different strains of bird flu into the same human cells to see if they could create a super-strain.
  • In 2013 a Dutch team from Erasmus University proposed engineering the H7N9 bird flu strain, to make it more infectious.
  • In 2014 the US Obama Government paused no fewer than 18 different experiments to make the emerging pandemic virus MERS more deadly.
  • In 2019 – the year Covid broke out – the US Government lifted the temporary pause on GoF research and called for more proposals.
  • In 2023, the US Government banned all US research funding involving the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Some virologists argue that GoF research is vital to understand the likely behaviour of ‘new’ strains of pandemic viruses – and that is its overt justification. Others, however, have branded it dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible. Authorities have swayed between banning it and giving it the full go-ahead.

The big ethical question is whether any piece of research is worth trading for 7 million human lives. Unlike medical doctors, ethics rarely form part of the training of virologists. The ethics of a given piece of research are usually supervised by members of the same profession or by their institution and are seldom transparent to the public or government. Nobody seems to be asking the question: could this experiment kill millions? The assumption is usually that it is safe.

All this would be of less account, were it not for a chilling historical parallel. When the late Oxford Prof William Hamilton sought to establish an objective scientific inquiry into the origins of HIV/AIDS, his attempt was smothered by a similar scientific smokescreen as accompanied the Covid origin diversion. Interestingly, several of the same virologists were involved in both cases.

HIV/AIDS has so far killed 34 million people – but how humans got it remains undetermined. The weight of circumstantial evidence points to a possible mishap involving an experimental poliovaccine given to a million Africans in the 1950s. (It is an uncontested fact that, in the 1960s tens of millions of people worldwide received a poliovaccine contaminated by a then-unknown monkey virus, SV40).However, the ‘official’ scientific view insists that AIDS is the fault of African hunting culture, not a gigantic mis-cue by western science. Calls for objective scientific inquiry have been dismissed for almost half a century.

Regardless of the origins of HIV and Covid-19, tinkering with viruses is an extremely dangerous activity, with potential for many millions of casualties. Experience indicates it cannot be contained, even in high security labs. Pandemic disease is one of the ten great threats to the human future, comparable to nuclear weapons, climate change, ecocide and global poisoning.

Australia’s Prof Colin Butler, a founder of Biosafety Now!, says “Despite the major risks to the public, dangerous “gain-of-function” research that enhances potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP research) is subject to almost no national or international oversight. Moreover, to date, the public largely has been unaware of, and excluded from, discussion of this threat.” His organisation is calling for legally-binding, national- and international oversight to foresee, regulate and minimise the risks.

The problem is that many virologists persistently appear to underrate the dangers and belittle those who raise them. This was glaringly illustrated in plans by researchers at Colorado State University and EcoHealth to open a giant new ‘bat-lab’ sourcing bats and their viruses from all over Asia – a terrifying potential source of future pandemics.

The real lesson from the Covid experience may be that virology cannot be left to administer its own ‘ethics’. Without public supervision, individuals and money-driven corporates will continue to take immense, unjustifiable risks.

Killing 7 or 34 million people, even by honest mistake, is no trivial error – and, if it has happened, the world needs to know how and why.

Experiments (and labs) that risk it should be outlawed.