Bioethics of Experimental COVID Vaccine Deployment under EUA: It’s time we stop and look at what’s going down.

Bioethics of Experimental COVID Vaccine Deployment under EUA It’s time we stop and look at what’s going down.

Robert W Malone, MD, MS1

I provide this brief essay for the TrialSite community because you are involved or at least interested in human subject clinical research. By way of background, please understand that I am a vaccine specialist and advocate, as well as the original inventor of the mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology. But I also have extensive training in bioethics from the University of Maryland, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and Harvard Medical School, and advanced clinical development and regulatory affairs are core competencies for me.  

Before examining the bioethical foundations of current policy and practice which underpin experimental COVID vaccine deployment in many in many western nations, allow me to begin by sharing some “real world” first-hand evidence.  

I was on a call with a Canadian primary care physician last week for a couple of hours. He related the story of the six (in his mind) highly unusual clinical cases of post-vaccination adverse events that he has personally observed in his practice involving vaccination of his patients with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine product. Keep in mind that it was Canadian physicians – acting of their own accord – who filed the FOIA to gain access to the Pfizer vaccine IND (see https://trialsitenews.com/did-pfizer-fail-to-perform-industry-standard-animal-testing-prior-to-initiation-of-mrna-clinical-trials/).


What was most alarming to me was that my clinical primary practice physician colleague told me that each of these cases were reported as per the proper channels in Canada, and each was summarily determined to not be vaccine related by the authorities without significant investigation. Furthermore, he reported to me that any practicing physician in Canada who goes public with concerns about vaccine safety is subjected to a storm of derision from academic physicians and potential termination of employment (state-controlled socialized medicine) and loss of license to practice.

This is one face of censorship in the time of COVID (see https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.202051420).  But what are official public health leaders afraid of? Why is it necessary to suppress discussion and full disclosure of information concerning mRNA reactogenicity and safety risks? Let’s analyze the vaccine-related adverse event data rigorously. Is there information or patterns that can be found, such as the recent finding of the cardiomyopathy signals, or the latent virus reactivation signals?  We should be enlisting the best biostatistics and machine learning experts to examine these data, and the results should- no must- be made available to the public promptly.  Please follow along and take a moment to examine the underlying bioethics of this situation with me.

I believe that adult citizens must be allowed free will, the freedom to choose. This is particularly true in the case of clinical research.  These mRNA and recombinant adenovirus vaccine products remain experimental at this time. Furthermore, we are supposed to be doing rigorous, fact-based science and medicine. If rigorous and transparent evaluation of vaccine reactogenicity and treatment-emergent post-vaccination adverse events is not done, we (the public health, clinical research and vaccine developer communities) play right into the hands of anti-vaxxer memes and validate many of their arguments. The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene therapy technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine enterprise.  It is my opinion that the adult public can handle information and open discussion. Furthermore, we must fully disclose any and all risks associated with these experimental research products.

In this context, the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial.  And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research  – written or otherwise.

The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration. See https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/. There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects. The human subjects – you, me, and the citizens of these countries – must be informed of risks.  As a community, we have already had a discussion and made our decision – we cannot compel prisoners, military recruits, or any other population of humans to participate in a clinical research study.  For example, see the Belmont report, which provided the rationale for US federal law Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A), referred to as “The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” (also known as the “Common Rule”).

Quoting from the Belmont Report: 

“Informed Consent. — Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.

While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”

https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

Information, comprehension, and voluntariness.  To my eyes, it appears that in many regions public health leadership has stepped over the line and is now violating the bedrock principles which form the foundation upon which the ethics of clinical research are built.  I believe that this must stop.  We must have transparent public disclosure of risks – in a broad sense – associated with these experimental vaccines.  It is either that, or the entire modern bioethical structure which supports human subjects research will have to be re-thought.

I really think we need to 

“stop, children, what’s that sound – everybody look what’s going down” 

(For What it’s Worth, Buffalo Springfield)

Furthermore, as these vaccines are not yet market authorized (licensed), coercion of human subjects to participate in medical experimentation is specifically forbidden. Therefore, public health policies which meet generally accepted criteria for coercion to participate in clinical research are forbidden.  

For example, if I were to propose a clinical trial involving children and entice participation by giving out ice cream to those willing to participate, any institutional human subjects safety board (IRB) in the United States would reject that protocol. If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study, once again, that protocol would be rejected by any US IRB based on coercion of subject participation. No coercion to participate in the study is allowed. In human subject clinical research, in most countries of the world this is considered a bright line that cannot be crossed. So, now we are told to waive that requirement without even so much as open public discussion being allowed?  

In conclusion, I hope that you will join me; stop to take a moment and consider for yourself what is going on. The logic seems clear to me. 1) An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development. 2) EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent. 3) The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion. Has that bright line been crossed? If so, what actions are to be taken? I look forward to learning from your thoughts and conclusions.

Responses

  1. CANADA injects ‘experimental COVID-19 vaccine’ into children, under the age of 12

    It is evident; the Governments of CANADA have already injected more than ten thousand children, 0 to 11 years of age (not yet 12 years old), with ‘experimental COVID-19 vaccines.’

    There was never an Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] granted for any of the ‘experimental COVID-19 vaccines’ to be injected into children below the age of 12.

    On this Government of Canada website [Date modified: 2021-07-09], the following is written: “The 0 to 11-year-old age group, generally contains 11 year olds vaccinated, because they are turning 12 years old this calendar year.”
    https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-coverage/

    But on this Government of Canada website, preceding [Date modified: 2021-05-05 ] the one above, and to which contains the original statement referencing the approval, of one (1) only, ‘experimental COVID-19 vaccine’ ever given EUA, for use on children, clearly states: 12 to 15 years of age.
    It does not mention anything about 11 year olds, turning 12 years old in a calendar year.
    https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2021/05/health-canada-authorizes-use-of-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-in-children-12-to-15-years-of-age.html

    The official (real) criteria regarding injecting children with any ‘experimental COVID-19 vaccine’ however, is clearly defined on this Niagara Region, official website:

    “Youth must be 12 on the day of their vaccine, not turning 12 later this year, or even the day after the clinic.”

    “To be on the [Vaccination standby] list, you must be 12 years of age (born in 2009 or earlier), or older and able to get to a vaccine clinic within 15 minutes.”
    https://www.niagararegion.ca/health/covid-19/vaccination/youth.aspx

    There clearly needs to be an immediate investigation into the ignorant and dangerously reckless action by the Governments of CANADA in this serious circumstance.

  2. This has been my experience in Canada this week. My elderly mother had a very clear, and serious adverse reaction to the Pfizer vaccine beginning at 6 days post second dose. We went to the ER (RCH in BC) 3 times in one week. Each time when triaged and when her history was taken, the mention of recent Pfizer vaccine and the question fo this being a reaction posed created outright hostility from all medical professionals. We where told it was absolutely impossible because 1. It had been past 10 days (although symptoms began at 6), and 2. The symptoms we described where similar to adverse reactions seen in AZ, not the mRNA vaccines. And 3. There are no side effects to the mRNA vaccines. This by nurses, and the Dr.’s. Each time. Initially she was diagnosed with mild pneumonia, then double pneumonia (neither of which where absolutely certain diagnosis). This was an odd diagnosis as it was a very sudden onset for all of her symptoms. She also had quite swollen knees with a rash all over them, and on her arms, massive headache that hurt when she moved or spoke, a fever of 39.8 for many days which would not come down. Pulsox of 78. Extremely elevated liver enzymes (perplexing according to the discharge summary), extremely elevated inflammatory markers, high glucose (unusual for her). And then at my insistence of having her very sore and swollen leg ultrasound, a DVT. The Dr. Dismissed this issue as common phlebitis and hardly worth having my mom spend additional time at medical appointments risking covid exposures. But indeed it came back as a DVT. My question to her was ‘could this actually be pulmonary embolism and not pneumonia given the DVT?’ Which I would think is a reasonable question considering the DVT, shortness of breath and very high fevers. We where told this was unlikely. Further testing for PE was declined and we were told that wether it’s pneumonia or PE it doesn’t matter because the treatment of the DVT will take care of it. No sputum cultures where ever taken to establish if this was a viral or bacterial pneumonia. No D-dimer test done for her swollen legs or chest issues. Any notion of filing a formal vaccine report was dismissed. After one week my mom finally was able to see her primary care physician who examined her, reviewed all blood work to date (all taken multiple times) and she concluded that this ‘really seems like an adverse reaction to the vaccine. It seems like the shot has given her a form of covid infection with the spike proteins’. My mom has tested negative three times during this period for covid. It is also highly unlikely that she’s been expose to a virus as she does not leave her house except fo the day she got her vaccine, and her ER visits. Her primary care physician will be filing a formal report, however I don’t feel confident that this will even be considered or fairly reviewed. Unfortunately her primary care said ‘on the bright side, this means she’s extra resistant to covid’. Um excuse me? Isn’t double pneumonia a worst case situation for covid? And somehow she may have developed double pneumonia from this vaccine? Despite regular pneumonia vaccinations and yearly flu shots? I’ve really lost a lot of faith and respect with our local medical community and the paternalistic way a patient who has fully bought into responsibly vaccinating has been treated. This is not ok and we will never forget this.

    1. God. I’m so sorry. None of what is going down is ok. Maybe it’s time we stopped being so trusting. Look up Regulatory Capture. Only now, it’s a monster, thanks to the bloated mega corporations with their annual profits greater than theGDP of entire countries, and their obscene wealth, power, and influence concentrated in a few private hands. Pfizer was found guilty in 2009 of misinformation about their vaccines, and covering up serious adverse events “ in order to sell more of their product “. And these mega corporations have infiltrated all aspects of societies, governments, and our institutions, media, and authorities. Regulatory Capture on hyper speed. Look that up. That’s what’s going down. The corruption is deep, and we’re the host for the parasites. Courage friend. No more compliance.

  3. Well said, but the problem isn’t confined to bioethics, but to ethics in general. It’s unethical to silence political views by censorship or selective prosecution, unethical to argue from authority, unethical to pervert evidence in the service of rhetoric. Regaining an ethical platform for speaking any of these issues would be most welcome.

  4. It seems to me that citing a 600k death toll, most of whom died with Covid and a positive PCR using an arbitrarily high CT value (meaning they died with a false positive), while summarily dismissing the VAERS data (notoriously underreported) because of coordinated and undocumented tampering by so called anti-vaxer groups is disingenuous and the height of conspiracy theory propaganda. If your data base suggests the vaccines have problems, just dismiss the database. Issue solved. Really? In the words of that great thinker Patrick Starfish, “I may be stupid, but I’m not dumb.”

  5. One other point that should always be made regarding the EUA for the COVID therapies is that, at least since last summer or early fall there has not been a true emergency but rather only declared ones that have a shifting definition. So not only should we not have a vaccine developed due to there being multiple therapeutics available, but also because there is no emergency. And if authorities decide to approve these drugs without an EUA, it opens the door to total abandonment of safety protocols for all pharmaceuticals. Is that what medical professionals really want?

  6. It apoears that no one has addressed your questions directly.

    In my view, the balance between experimenting on human subjects vis-a-vis protecting them from harm requires a rational understanding of the risk occasioned by not moving ahead quickly towards a sterilizing vaccine or therapy.
    SARS-COV-2 is constantly mutating and there is little selective pressure on the virus to become less transmissible and virulent. If this trend continues we could find ourselves facing an extinction-level event. Assuming this trajectory, there is no point in placing the safety of trial participants above the need for an effective cure, except to ensure that patients who survive are mentally and physically sound and capable of reproducing.

    Put simply, the species continuum is all that matters.

    If this is too harsh a conclusion for some, I understand and respect your position. Unfortunately, our adversary doesn’t care about our ethics, law, politics, safety or survival. The virus mindlessly invades, multiplies and destroys – and if we don’t find a way to stop it, we may go the way of our evolutionary competitors of old – onto the ash heap of history.

    1. Were you for or against population immunity? I struggle to see any difference between the 2 scenarios except where some may have evaded the virus, the vaccine is being aimed at everyone…

      1. @lorrainelogie If you imply that I suggest the only options are “to vaccinate or not to vaccinate” (apologies to the Bard), then you are imputing a conclusion to which I do not subscribe.

        My position is that the vaccine has slowed the virus’ onslaught, but the virus appears to be catching up, and we need a better solution before it’s too late.

        Those who place blame and complain that the current solutions are suboptimal and therefore should be dispensed with, are in my view, no better than those who claim that the current solutions are sufficient.

        We all live in the same “fishbowl” – thus it may be short satisfaction if the last words of the ritcheous who die of suffocation are, “See, I told you so!”

    2. Well, according to GeertVandenBossche.org the vaccination campaign may itself drive the emergence of variants which are both more dangerous and vaccine resistant – with those who were vaccinated less able to fight them off then those who were not. Let’s hope he is wrong.

      In any case, it seems that having decided mass vaccination is the best way forward, our public health officials are intentionally avoiding – if not overtly suppressing, in collusion with media, social media, pharmaceutical and medical firms and organizations – public discussion of the VAERS data and the many safety issues which many scientists and doctors have been raising. And one has to wonder how readily they will change their position if, after they have exhorted so many to get vaccinated, the evidence starts to show that Dr. Vanden Bossche or other critics have been right. And they are similarly avoiding discussion of the alternative treatment possibilities discussed on this website – while we the public have no right to go to a doctor and say, “I demand a prescription for ivermectin” or whatever medicine we think will be useful.

      It’s been said that rights are not granted but claimed, and that the people get the government they deserve. If we don’t demand that our health agencies be transparent with the facts and publicly address the multiple serious concerns being raised by people like Drs. Malone and Kory, we’re making a mistake imo.

      1. @Jon_Schultz I have doubts about the accuracy of the VAERS database. Because practically anyone can enter a report, the database may have numerous entries biased to advance a particular viewpoint — thus rendering the information too suspect to rely upon for scientific research or litigation purposes.

        It would be preferable, IMHO, for VAERS to require proof positive identification and some level of professional credential for each reporter before permitting that reporter to enter information into the database.

        Note: Re people getting the government they deserve — I think it’s more the reverse: people deserve the government they get.

        My 2 cents — your mileage may vary.

    3. Over 30 people per day die in the USA from the COVID vaccines/mRNA treatment according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is part of Health and Human Services HHS.

      Over 6,500 people have died in the USA after receiving the COVID vaccines/mRNA. (This number might be much higher because they only count deaths and complications that happen within one hour of receiving the vaccine). That is more than all of the deaths combined from all other vaccines in the USA over the past 15 years. Over 300,000 people have had complications from the COVID vaccines.

      Over 92% of the people who have died with COVID are over the age of 80 with underlying health conditions (cancer, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc.). The CDC updated their information and noted that over 99% of the COVID deaths are with COVID not from COVID. Less than 1% of the COVID deaths are from COVID, so that means approximately 6,000 people in the USA died from COVID. This is a lot less than many other conditions, diseases, and viruses like the flu, pneumonia, and meningitis, accidents, etc.

      We need to acknowledge and adjust our policies and reactions to COVID/strains/variants since they are less deadly than the flu for those under age 70, and have a 99.9% plus survival rate.

      We do not turn our whole society upside down for heart attacks, car accidents, the flu, etc., so why did we turn our whole way of life upside down for a virus less deadly than the flu for those under age 70? Why can’t we return our society right side up now that we know COVID is less deadly than the flu for those under age 70, and has a 99.9% plus survival rate?

      Why not use (if necessary) proven and inexpensive medications like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin?

      Instead of vaccines, masks, and lockdowns we should discuss prevention especially for those over the age of 70, by drinking tonic water with quinine and taking vitamin D3, vitamin C, and zinc as well as eating right, exercising, and keeping your weight in check. If someone over the age of 70 with underlying health conditions is diagnosed with COVID, then treat them with hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and/or budesonide.

      Why can’t we stop this madness and end the panic about COVID now that most people should know the truth that COVID is less deadly than the flu for those under age 70, and has a 99.9% plus survival rate?

      Our continual overreaction to COVID indicates that we are becoming a very silly people.

      1. Amen! Why do so many know this and yet the ‘authorities’ pretend not to. The authorities need to stop banning treatments that work, and are already approved by the FDA, and finally, are safe, like ivermectin. Now, social media has started, what appears to be an aggressive campaign, to take down more posts that talk positively about ivermectin. This is simply crazy. Also, I feel so sorry for those that had bad adverse reactions and are being silenced, this is terrible, scary and an insult to these poor people. This is bad for vaccines; imagine considering the jab and thinking if something went wrong; you’d be all alone, terrified and no where to turn for help. Unthinkable.

    4. _All_ viruses are constantly mutating and I see no reason to think that SARS-COV-2 represents any greater threat than any other virus. Tunnel vision.

      We need a better approach than vaccines. Respiratory viruses are seasonal and strategies that emphasize adequate levels of vitamin D (55+ ng/ml calcefediol) are likely to be better for humanity. Sun and supplementation should be emphasized, with details about solar exposure time and dietary uptake from supplements studied and provided.

    5. This is a bogus argument for the following reason. If the vaccine was the only way to control this disease, maybe that would carry some water. But there are many, I repeat, many repurposed drugs and treatment protocols that are very successful in prophylaxis, early, advanced and post Covid-19 treatments. So pushing an experimental gene therapy without proper animal and human testing onto humanity while denying it any alternatives smacks of something else than said humanity’s best interest.

  7. I hope I’m not kicked off of TrialSite for sharing this link. I read Malone stating vigorous clinical studies needed to be done. ( I guess he forgot about Professor Deloris Cahill?)My link is an interview from McMillan Research hosted by Dr Philip McMillan with Professor Deloris Cahill. Exploring Autoimmune responses in COVID-19. Posted Saturday 12th June 2021. It’s very stark. Professor Dolores Cahill explains why the mRNA vaccine was not approved due to her Meta-analysis. This is a long interview and rightfully so, with all things considered.
    https://vimeo.com/562255963/6a4a29c24b

    1. Gary. Can you post this on Odysee or another platform. I wasn’t able to access the Vimeo link. I wanted to watch this interview but I think YouTube took it down. Thanks.

  8. The same is occurring in the USA with VAERS reports. They are either not being recorded when reported or deaths via the COVID shots have been either eliminated or changed to show only harm done. What a travesty. One of my aunts received two COVID shots. After the second one, she developed DVT the day after followed by a stroke. Her death was sudden. These shots are dangerous and for what? None have more than a supposed efficacy rate of 60% to 94% for an illness that is difficult to contract and is easily overcome at a rate of 99.9%. I myself at age 72 have, in the past year+, been physical contact with 5 family members in my own household who contracted or exhibited COVID symptoms and I never suffered a sniffle. I will always opt for natural immunity over questionable poison. That is why these inoculations are EUA because they are unsafe and have undergone minimal trials before release. No phase 1 or 2 trials were done on those 60 and above, before they were released on seniors in December of 2020.

  9. One hopefully simple question.. for any/all here with informed opinion:
    Under what specific metrics does WHO determine Pandemic Status continues or concludes?

  10. Great article! Would like to pass on but wondering if you could correct a misspelling first (wave should be waive) “So, now we are told to wave that requirement without even so much as open”

  11. Nearly 600K dead in the US. Before the vaccine, the death toll rose to over 3K per day. Now you say:

    “If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study”

    What exactly would you expect in a pandemic? 3 years’ worth of clinical trials to convince all of the ethicists that it’s a good idea to vaccinate? To be realistic about it, people were showing signs of lockdown fatigue. Either we had to vaccinate or risk uncontrolled breakout Seems to me that taking calculated risks is what epidemiology is all about. The government rolled the dice and I think they did the right thing.

    I’m thankful that vaccines came as quickly as they did. I agree that pushing it to adolescents is perhaps a bit too quick, but t the decision on EUA yielded positive results.

    If you want to discuss ethics, let’s talk about China’s behavior during the early breakout. Ethical? I think not.

    1. In a pandemic I would expect the rapid rollout of safe, cheap, available, efficacious repurposed drugs, rather than their suppression in favor of rushed-through vaccines. And referring to China’s behavior is blatant whataboutism.

      1. Therapeutic drugs (repurposed or not) are necessary (although insufficient) and I absolutely support aggressive evaluation and approval. The game is to save lives in some sustainable way, limit the rate of infection so we can get back to living.

        I believe that the decision to EUA to the vaccines will prove to be a good one. I think everyone knows that that the decision carries some downside risk. From what has been reported, the vaccines have worked to reduce the spread of COVID. The risk introduced with EUA of any drug will never be zero but it was likely that it is low enough to move forward and save lives.

        At present, I don’t think stopping the vaccinations is in the best interests of the country (although vaccinating grade-schoolers should be put on hold while more data is in).

        “blatant whataboutism” = valid observation but it was unintentional. II was simply suggesting that we think about proportionality as we introduce bioethics into the equation. China’s behavior should be scrutinized as a breach of generally accepted bioethical norms. The world was placed in the unenviable position of trading liberty in return for lowering risk by bad behavior. Let’s not lose sight while we find a way out of this crisis.

        1. A day or two of analysis would have provided a very simple solution:
          1. Short lockdown while existing treatments like Ivermectin are analyzed and authorized. If they can rush a vaccine, why not rush the testing of existing therapeutics?
          2. Lockdown ends. Treatment regimen is rolled out.
          3. Vaccine development gets underway.

          Ivermectin, HCQ, and Budesonide would have allowed us the time to properly test the vaccine. Even with a EUA, it would have been safer if properly tested. People would have the option to take the vaccine with informed consent or risk COVID knowing simple at-home treatments are available.

    2. What one would expect would be for the safe, effective and reliable treatments already available worldwide to be used immediately to save as many people as possible from the lab-created pathogen that Drs. Ralph Baric, Shi Zengli and Peter Daszak of UNC Chapel Hill, Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance respectively (funded by American taxpayers thru Anthony Fauci) created in their Gain of Function research foisted (either accidentally or intentionally) upon the world.
      What’s that you say??…Lord Fauci testified *under oath* that “NIAID & NIH categorically has not funded research to be conducted at WIV?” Also Fauci, “we did not fund GoF research to be conducted in the WIV.”
      And yet, here’s the title of the international patent that Ralph Baric got for GoF research on the Spike protein that is paid for by NIH entitled “Making Chimeric (that would be Gain of Function) Corona Virus Spike Proteins.”
      Additionally, there are multiple papers highlighting the research that Fauci says doesn’t exist from the NIH Library of Medicine (Shi Zengli author), The Scientist (Nov 2015) referencing Baric’s team and their “creation of a chimeric SARS-like virus” and the risks of gain-of-function research.” Additionally, November 2015, Nature piece “SARS-like cluster of circulating bat Corona viruses shows potential for human emergence…Shi Zengli and Ralph Baric…..so much research and writing (not to mention millions in funding) to these same players Baric, Zengli, Daszak and Fauci and yet Fauci says “trust me, there’s nothing to see here and NIH/NIAID didn’t fund nuthin!”
      He’s been dead wrong and contradictory on everything related to the virus when all that needed to be done was to “follow the science” and help the frail elderly and otherwise compromised with what we already had on hand and what was working for REAL DOCTORS treating REAL PATIENTS.
      He should be in jail as we speak awaiting trial for crimes against humanity.

    3. Starting on ‘premise’ of 600K deaths; setting ‘new improved’ CDC scheme of *PIC* accounting aside — sure the data geeks can easily arrive at reasonable annual avg. for the *Pneumonia and *Influenza portion of bucket — is final *CV19 segment even remotely based on factual cause of death, hint: on the certificate? Use England for example; the standard public refrain is ±100K deaths, by using all those who tested positive and died (for any reason) within 30-days. However, their ONS official data reports just ±5K certified by death certificate. Using massively inflated mortality (etc) numbers, despite clear evidence to contrary, to justify various extreme NPI measures, with highly questionable effective results, in order to coerce EUA mixture, not even tested on monkeys, for mass inoculation.. on largely unaware public with clearly complicit media.. is far more difficult to believe than this highly condensed rant was to write. Winter’s coming.. what’s after Delta?

    4. You assume that the reported number of 600K is accurate. By the CDC’s own accounting, only 5% of the alleged Covid deaths have Covid as cause of death on the death certificate. The rest are Hypertension, Dementia(huh?), Cardiac failure…in other words, deaths from other causes who happened to test positive with a high count PCR that produces positives with any dead genetic material found and amplified. Hospitals and physicians also had strong financial incentives in the beginning to list any illnesses as Covid since the gov’t was paying more for such diagnoses.
      If the issue were just that they rushed an untested product to market and they had informed the citizens that it might pose dangers to your well-being(permanently) and it is completely up to you if you care to submit to such an experiement, well then, fine. But employers demand you take the jab, airlines require it to fly, states such as NY have rolled out digital tracking of vaccinated individuals to prevent access to public spaces of those not tagged. They say it’s voluntary, but for many, it’s not. And as Landbeyond has stated, there were cheap solutions already available but the pope of vaccines, Fauci, had too much invested in Moderna and Pfizer.

    5. not sure why this user delete itself or if it was deleted. The vaccines came fast and the article isn’t against the vaccine. It is just advocating for
      1. transparency of data so that people can make an informed consent for adults and for their children.
      2. Do not employ promotions such as lottery, ice cream to distort the public’s decision making that involves their health and even life/death.

      Comparison of China is hardly necessary again as Americans have not voted for communism so what the Chinese do or not do is hardly any justification of what the world should or shouldn’t do. We have our internal standards known as human rights.