WHO’s New Pandemic Prevention Plan: First Focus – Respiratory Pathogens – The HighWire

WHO’s new global pandemic prevention plan will initially focus on respiratory pathogens and will move on to vector and foodborne pandemics.

WHO’s New Pandemic Prevention Plan: First Focus – Respiratory Pathogens

In a measure that is no doubt devised as a desperate attempt to hold tight to its grasp as the self-proclaimed arbiter of global pandemics, the World Health Organization just launched a new pandemic prevention plan. Released on April 27, 2023, the WHO’s Preparedness and Resilience for Emerging Threats (PRET) Initiative’s first module focuses on respiratory pathogens, including influenza, coronaviruses, and respiratory syncytial virus. According to WHO, given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic “and the possible threat of avian influenza,” this module will enable countries to “critically review, test, and update their respiratory pandemic planning efforts to ensure they have the functional capacities and capabilities in place.”

While the first module focuses on respiratory pathogens as a potential future “COVID-19 scale” pandemic, the WHOboasts that PRET’s “systems, capacities, knowledge, and tools can be leveraged and applied for groups of pathogens based on their mode of transmission.” So never fear; besides a global respiratory catastrophe, the WHO is expecting global pandemics that are both vector-borne and foodborne, to name a few. The WHO reports, “A process is underway to identify the next group of pathogens, such as arboviruses, to be addressed under this initiative.” Ultimately, the PRET initiative will be poised to operationalize the objectives and provisions of the controversial Pandemic Accord, currently being negotiated by WHO Member States.

Yet, it can’t be understated that, despite all the conferences, initiatives, pandemic planning exercises, and so on, the WHO and other global elites funding drills, holding meetings, and scheming around disastrous health emergencies failed miserably to protect the public during COVID-19. Indeed, with the obvious objective driving the COVID-19 pandemic being the introduction of mRNA technology to the world’s population, absolutely missing from any planning before or during the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 was the use of repurposed drugs, an emphasis on proper health or a lifestyle centered around strengthening the immune system. And when untested COVID processes and procedures were obviously failing, like how remdesivir and ventilators flat out killed people, instead of taking the lead and suggesting course change, the reputable experts questioning the methods and sounding the alarms were aggressively silenced by the WHO and others. Yet, these are the very people hoping to guide us through future pandemics.

With that in mind, the motive behind the WHO’s new PRET initiative, which, as previously mentioned, gets underway with its first module concentrated on respiratory viruses of epidemic and pandemic potential, is actually about tracking and compliance. In other words, essentially, it is about the now spoken-out-loud Great Reset. The framework for “resilient surveillance” of these pesky respiratory pathogens, laid out in the WHO’s 96-page “Crafting the Mosaic,” no doubt is tied to the WHO’s health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), one of which is global Universal Health Coverage. And while it is still unclear the extent to which the WHO’s Pandemic Accord will control nations that sign up for its propaganda, it seems inevitable the group intends for its regulations to play a part in the future pandemics it warns of. The Mosaic describes the audience behind its framework as follows:

“Th[is] document is intended to be used at national, regional, and global levels to support national respiratory virus surveillance strengthening through the creation of implementation plans. National governments (often including ministries of health and/or national institutes of public health in close collaboration with ministries of agriculture and the environment for zoonotic diseases) are accountable for implementation of this framework within their own territory and WHO across territories as an organization of Member States who are under IHR obligations, including its associated Joint External Evaluation framework.”

The PRET initiative will serve the alliance established with the WHO’s partnership with the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI), which it revealed in October 2022. While at the World Health Summit in Berlin, WHO and IANPHI signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) outlining their joint efforts to “achieve their common objectives to strengthen public health functions and emergency preparedness.” With the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the group’s 115 members, the partnership is yet another scheme by the WHO to establish a more powerful global presence. Speaking of schemes, as the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the immense corruption between Big Pharma and federal agencies within the United States, the WHO’s often sketchy funding tied to drug makers is reason to halt its power grab immediately.

It seems fitting that as deaths from COVID-19 fall as much as 95 percent, the WHO, which, remember, is an arm of the United Nations, has launched a new initiative to prepare for “another deadly pandemic like COVID-19.” At this point, the story is all too predictable. And, without question, at least one element of the WHO’s latest global initiative should shock no one—the steps to control the cataclysm once again revolve around vaccines. The word “vaccine” is mentioned at least 116 times in the WHO’s 96-page Mosaic for managing a respiratory virus pandemic. That fact brings to mind Bill Gates, a tremendous WHOsupporter who has been planning for pandemics for years and is a vaccine fanatic. Ultimately, it is safe to say that—despite their incessant plotting and planning—neither Bill Gates nor the WHO should have any say in managing future pandemics.
— Read on thehighwire.com/editorial/whos-new-pandemic-prevention-plan-first-focus-respiratory-pathogens/

After COVID-19 Vaccines – “What can people who have health problems linked to the COVID-19 vaccine do to help themselves?”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health

“What can people who have health problems linked to the COVID-19 vaccine do to help themselves?”

• Dr. Ann Corson summarizes reported side effects of COVID vaccines
• How big a role nutrition plays and why
• Best foods to consume and what to avoid, and supplements to take and when
• What lifestyle has to do with immunity

If you believe your COVID-19 vaccination may be responsible for certain conditions that developed afterward, you could be right, and you may need to take measures to recover.

As information and data surrounding the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines have become increasingly available, scientists and doctors continue to express concernsregarding the negative health effects being documented around the world, including in Germany, Israel, Scotland.

Experience the best way to read The Epoch Times online. Try our free app for a limited time.

In May of 2021, Drs. Stephanie Seneff and Greg Nigh published a comprehensive overview of the potential problems associated with the COVID-19 vaccines.

Your Health Matters 

“In this review, we first describe the technology underlying these vaccines in detail. We then review both components of and the intended biological response to these vaccines, including production of the spike protein itself, and their potential relationship to a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases.”

A study published in CELL on Jan. 24, 2022, demonstrated that people who have received COVID-19 vaccines produce higher levels of the spike protein for longer periods of time than those who were unvaccinated and were infected with the natural virus. The researchers also found that synthetic vaccine mRNA persisted in the lymph nodes of the vaccinated for 60 days, the entire length of the study.

Another study published in Frontiers in Immunology found that the S1 segment of spike protein from natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 can persist in the body for 15 months. The spike protein is known to be toxic to the human body. This raises concerns over the potential for cumulative toxicity of the spike protein with vaccine booster doses.

These findings raise significant questions regarding how long the synthetic mRNA and spike protein actually persist in the bodies of the vaccinated. A recent interview with Drs. Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, and Steve Kebe provides a more detailed discussion of the significance of these findings.

On March 1, 2022, a pre-print paper published on medRxiv demonstrated that the synthetic mRNA from the Moderna injection didn’t degrade as rapidly as the company claimed it would. After incubating both mouse and human cell lines with the Moderna vaccine, spike protein began to be produced in approximately 6 hours and continued for 12 to 14 days.

In testimony before the Tennessee State legislature, Dr. Ryan Cole said, “These vaccines do not prevent acquisition of the disease … do not prevent transmission of the disease, do not prevent illness from the disease, and do not prevent death from the disease.”

In a recent podcast, McCullough claimed that the COVID-19 vaccines are not sufficiently safe or effective, and “the mass vaccination program worldwide has failed. In fact, [it] has made things worse.”

A U.S. insurance executive noted that during the second half of 2021, there was an excess mortality rate of 40 percent for employed people aged 18 to 64. Hundreds of professional and amateur athletes have collapsed, with many dying on playing fields, often on live TV. After an analysis of CDC data, former BlackRock executive Edward Dowd recently showed that more millennials aged 25 to 44 (61,000) died in the second half of 2021 than the total number of U.S. soldiers (58,000) who died during the whole of the Vietnam war.

Peer-reviewed medical papers have documented that the COVID-19 injections damage the innate immune system T-cells and Natural Killer cells and suppress our own tumor suppressor genes, which interferes with the body’s natural ability to stop cancer growth. Additionally, a paper in Current Issues in Molecular Biology published Feb. 22, 2022, showed that the Pfizer synthetic mRNA was inserted into the DNA of human liver cells in just six hours.

Among the serious side effects of the COVID-19 shots being reported are the following: myocarditis or inflammation of the heart muscle; blood clotsthroughout the body that can lead to stroke, heart attack, pulmonary emboli, or amputation; vasculitis or inflammation of the lining of the blood vessels; autoimmune diseases, recrudescence of previously controlled infections such as herpes, shingles, and tuberculosis; increase in rapid spread of cancers that had been in remission as well as the development of new cancers; multisystem inflammatory syndrome; and immune system dysfunction comparable to that seen in AIDS.

Despite all this overwhelming and frightening information, there is hope for those who received these injections either voluntarily or under duress. There are ways to rebuild your immune system, fight the emergence of latent infections, reduce the risk of cancer, manage the likelihood of blood clots, and help your body clear any circulating spike proteins.

This Is What I Tell My Patients:

Diet is most important. We literally are what we eat. The body’s only fuel to heal, replace, grow, and renew is the food you eat. You must drink plenty of fresh, clean water. Your diet should consist of organic whole foods, 100 percent grass-fed meat, free-range poultry, wild-caught fish, plenty of green leafy vegetables, nuts, healthy fats such as coconut oil, organic olive oil, grass-fed lard and butter, limited grains, minimal fruit sugars, and a complete avoidance of GMO, pre-processed, or highly refined foods, especially those high in added sugars.

Many respond well to a gluten-free diet, as gluten itself is inflammatory, and many glutinous foods contain high levels of residual agricultural products such as glyphosate. It’s also advisable for some to eliminate dairy from the diet for the same reasons.

Avoid processed vegetable oils and trans fats. Sugar is damaging to the body in many ways and should be avoided altogether, especially sugary drinks and sodas, except for that found in nutrient-packed fruits such as berries. Caffeine intake should be restricted to roughly 100 mg daily and aspartame-containing dietary beverages or foods should be strictly avoided.

It’s also important to avoid all kinds of environmental toxicities, including cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, toxic household cleaners, and non-organic personal care products and makeup.

Immune system support starts with a good organic multivitamin with trace minerals. Support T cells and NK cells with adequate vitamin D3 with K2, zinc with an ionophore such as quercetin to take zinc intracellularly where it’s needed, and vitamin C. Herbs that help support immune system function include andrographis, ashwagandha, cat’s claw, echinacea, Japanese knotweed, garlic, ginseng, morinda or noni, and turmeric. Herbs that help regulate an overactive or dysfunctional immune function include astragalus, berberine (from Coptis chinensis), curcumin, milk thistle, and scutellaria or Chinese skullcap.

Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, artemisinin (from Artemisia annua), isatis (Isatis tinctoria), morinda (Morinda citrifolia), neem (Melia azadirachta), oregano oil, olive leaf extract, star anise (Illicium verum) as well as the amino acid L-lysine can protect against new and recrudescent viral infections.

Reduce the risk of blood clotting and help break up circulating spike proteins by taking omega 3 fatty acids, fibrinolytic enzymes (lumbrokinase and nattokinase), proteolytic enzymes (serrapeptase), lipases, bromelain, and vitamin E, as well as herbs that support the cardiovascular system such as Chrysanthemum morifolium flower petals, danshen (Salvia miltiorrhiza), and scutellaria. Low doses of aspirin may also be needed.

Antioxidant support can include alpha-lipoic acid, beta-carotene, coenzyme Q 10, EGCG (epigallocatechin gallate, the most abundant catechin in tea, which is also a zinc ionophore), glutathione, lycopene, lutein, manganese, NAC (n-acetyl cysteine), quercetin, selenium, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and zeaxanthin. Herbs that have strong anti-oxidant qualities include olive leaf and scutellaria. Spices such as cinnamon, clove, garlic, ginger, oregano, parsley, rosemary, and thyme are also anti-oxidants.

Cancer-fighting foods include berries, carrots, citrus fruits, cruciferous vegetables (bok choy, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, garden cress), the garlic family of vegetables (chive, garlic, leeks, onions, shallots), green tea, and tomatoes. Herbs that help protect against cancer include artemisinin, blackberry leaves, Chrysanthemum morifolium flower petals, danshen, morinda, and scutellaria.

Inflammation in the body will be significantly reduced by following all of the above recommendations. Additionally, extracts of shea nut, turmeric, green tea, black tea, broccoli, stinging nettle leaf, black cumin seed, and grape seed; herbs such as andrographis, holy basil, manjistha (Rubia cordifolia), and scutellaria; and antioxidants such as pterostilbene and resveratrol can all help reduce inflammation.

To be healthy, we must clean up our bodies by eating well, reducing incoming toxins, enhancing outgoing toxins, exercising regularly, sleeping well, spending time in nature, and reducing external stress.

It’s likely no coincidence that many of these habits define the daily lifestyles of people in “blue zones.” These are areas of the world where people live the longest and have an unusually high number of centenarians.

These people also share another common feature—they belong to a spiritual community. In other words, they practice a faith.

This is important for several reasons. It reduces stress, teaches self-restraint, and provides companionship. But perhaps even more importantly, these traditions impart morality and belief in the divine.

In a scientific sense, disease develops when the body is out of balance, perhaps due to environmental factors, vices, the corrosive effects of stress, or because previous disturbances were passed down in our genetic code. Faith in the divine imparts the humility to live in balance with creation. It fosters the prerequisite mental attitude to navigate this world harmoniously.

When you recognize that this world, and you as well, are part of something grand, beautiful, and inherently good, you are inspired toward the kind of thoughts and behaviors that do more than impart health, they heal entire communities.

When confronted with so much negativity and evil in the world, we must choose to be good. When each of us improves our own character, the well-being of society will improve. By embracing truth, by cultivating compassion and service to others, we will not only endure, but transcend the trials we’re currently experiencing and realize physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health.

Epoch Health articles are for informational purposes and are not a substitute for individualized medical advice. Please consult a trusted professional for personal medical advice, diagnoses, and treatment. Have a question? Email us at HealthReporter@epochtimes.nyc

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Changes to Simplify Use of Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines | FDA

Tuesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent mRNA vaccines to simplify the vaccination schedule for most individuals. This action includes authorizing the current bivalent vaccines (original and omicron BA.4/BA.5 strains) to be used for all doses administered to individuals 6 months of age and older, including for an additional dose or doses for certain populations. The monovalent Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines are no longer authorized for use in the United States.

What You Need to Know:

Most individuals, depending on age, previously vaccinated with a monovalent COVID-19 vaccine who have not yet received a dose of a bivalent vaccine may receive a single dose of a bivalent vaccine. 
Most individuals who have already received a single dose of the bivalent vaccine are not currently eligible for another dose. The FDA intends to make decisions about future vaccination after receiving recommendations on the fall strain composition at an FDA advisory committee in June.
Individuals 65 years of age and older who have received a single dose of a bivalent vaccine may receive one additional dose at least four months following their initial bivalent dose. 
Most individuals with certain kinds of immunocompromise who have received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine may receive a single additional dose of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine at least 2 months following a dose of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine, and additional doses may be administered at the discretion of, and at intervals determined by, their healthcare provider. However, for immunocompromised individuals 6 months through 4 years of age, eligibility for additional doses will depend on the vaccine previously received. 
Most unvaccinated individuals may receive a single dose of a bivalent vaccine, rather than multiple doses of the original monovalent mRNA vaccines. 
Children 6 months through 5 years of age who are unvaccinated may receive a two-dose series of the Moderna bivalent vaccine (6 months through 5 years of age) OR a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent vaccine (6 months through 4 years of age). Children who are 5 years of age may receive two doses of the Moderna bivalent vaccine or a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent vaccine. 
Children 6 months through 5 years of age who have received one, two or three doses of a monovalent COVID-19 vaccine may receive a bivalent vaccine, but the number of doses that they receive will depend on the vaccine and their vaccination history.
“At this stage of the pandemic, data support simplifying the use of the authorized mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccines and the agency believes that this approach will help encourage future vaccination,” said Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Evidence is now available that most of the U.S. population 5 years of age and older has antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, either from vaccination or infection that can serve as a foundation for the protection provided by the bivalent vaccines. COVID-19 continues to be a very real risk for many people, and we encourage individuals to consider staying current with vaccination, including with a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. The available data continue to demonstrate that vaccines prevent the most serious outcomes of COVID-19, which are severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”

Available data show that almost all of the U.S. population 5 years of age and older now have antibodies as a result of either vaccination or infection against SARS-CoV-2. The use of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines for all doses administered to individuals 6 months of age and older is supported by the data described below, as well as post-marketing data, including real-world data, with the monovalent and bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which have been administered to millions of people, including young children. A second bivalent dose for individuals 65 years of age and older is supported by data showing the waning of immunity in this population over time and its restoration by an additional dose.  Additionally, based on evidence from studies conducted previously, immunocompromised individuals may require additional doses.

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent

The safety and effectiveness of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent is based on FDA’s previous analyses of clinical trials data of monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine in individuals 6 months of age and older and an investigational bivalent Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (original and omicron BA.1) in individuals 18 years of age and older. 

In addition, effectiveness of a single dose is supported by the FDA’s analysis of immune response data from clinical studies in which 145 individuals 6 years of age and older who had evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and 1,376 individuals 6 years of age and older without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection had received two doses of monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. The immune response after one dose of vaccine among participants with evidence of prior infection was comparable to the immune response after two doses among participants without evidence of prior infection.

The data accrued with the investigational bivalent Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (original and omicron BA.1) and with the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine are relevant to the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent because these vaccines are manufactured using the same process.

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent

The safety and effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent is based on the FDA’s previous analyses of clinical trials data of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for use in individuals 6 months of age and older, an investigational bivalent Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (original and omicron BA.1) in individuals greater than 55 years of age, as well as safety data with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent (original and omicron BA.4/BA.5) in individuals 6 months of age and older and immune response data in individuals 6 months through 4 years of age.  

In addition, effectiveness of a single dose is supported by observational data from England on the effectiveness of one dose of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Among individuals 12 to 17 years of age who had received only one dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, those who had evidence of previous infection with alpha, delta or omicron variants had increased protection against symptomatic omicron infection compared with those with no evidence of previous infection. 

The data accrued with the investigational Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (original and omicron BA.1) and with the monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine are relevant to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent because these vaccines are manufactured using the same process.

With today’s authorizations, the fact sheets have been updated and consolidated for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent. Each vaccine now has one fact sheet for healthcare providers and one fact sheet for recipients and caregivers, rather than different fact sheets for the various authorized age groups. 

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee

Today’s authorizations follow discussions that occurred during a meeting with the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Jan. 26. At that time, by a unanimous vote, the committee recommended harmonizing the strain composition of COVID-19 vaccines used in the U.S. There was also support for simplifying the vaccine dosing schedule. 

In June, the FDA will hold a meeting of its VRBPAC to discuss the strain composition of the COVID-19 vaccines for fall of 2023. Much like the FDA does yearly with the influenza vaccines, the agency will seek input from the committee on which SARS-CoV-2 variants and lineages are most likely to circulate in the upcoming year. Once the specific strains are selected for the COVID-19 vaccines, the FDA expects manufacturers to make updated formulations of the vaccines for availability this fall.

The amendments to the EUAs were issued to ModernaTX Inc. and Pfizer Inc.

Related Information
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccines
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines
COVID-19 Vaccines
Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained
— Read on www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-changes-simplify-use-bivalent-mrna-covid-19-vaccines

House votes to declassify info about origins of COVID-19

House votes to declassify info about origins of COVID-19

By LISA MASCARO

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted unanimously Friday to declassify U.S. intelligence information about the origins of COVID-19, a sweeping show of bipartisan support near the third anniversary of the start of the deadly pandemic.

The 419-0 vote was final congressional approval of the bill, sending it to President Joe Biden’s desk. It’s unclear whether the president will sign the measure into law, and the White House said the matter was under review.
…
If signed into law, the measure would require within 90 days the declassification of “any and all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease.”

That includes information about research and other activities at the lab and whether any researchers grew ill.

https://apnews.com/article/covid-ori…8193933ec10063

Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak

Press ReleasePublished: Mar 8, 2023 COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak

Press ReleasePublished: Mar 8, 2023 COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak

Source: https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/

WASHINGTON—The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held a hearing on “Investigating the Origins of COVID-19” to gather facts about the origination of the virus that has claimed nearly seven million lives globally. At the hearing, several of the witnesses pointed to how the science, facts, and evidence point to a lab leak in Wuhan.

Key Hearing Takeaways

Knowing the origin of COVID-19 is fundamental to helping predict and prevent future pandemics.

Select Subcommittee Chairman Brad Wenstrup opened the hearing by emphasizing how knowing the origin of the virus is essential to helping predict and prevent future pandemics, protecting health and national security, and preparing the United States for the future. He pledged that the Select Subcommittee will thoroughly, responsibly, and honestly investigate the origin of COVID-19.

Dr. Jamie Metzl, Ph.D., senior fellow at the Atlantic Council said in an opening statement, “If we do not get to the bottom of what went wrong with the COVID-19 pandemic, if we fail in our efforts to fearlessly understand all shortcomings and shore up the vulnerabilities this crisis has so clearly exposed, the victims of the next pandemic, our children and grandchildren, will ask us why we failed to protect when we knew what was at stake and had the chance.”

Mounting evidence continues to show that COVID-19 may have originated from a lab in Wuhan, China.

Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), testified how science indicates COVID-19 infections were likely the result of an accidental lab leak in Wuhan. His conclusion is based on the biology of the virus itself and unusual actions in and around Wuhan in 2019, including gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Nicholas Wade—the former science and health editor at the New York Times, and former editor of Science and Nature—testified how Drs. Fauci and Collins used unverified data to dismiss the lab leak theory in favor of natural transmission.

Jamie Metzl testified how China’s government destroyed samples, hid records, imprisoned Chinese journalists, prevented Chinese scientists from saying or writing anything on pandemic origins without prior government approval, actively spread misinformation, and prevented an evidence-based investigation.

The mainstream media downplayed—and even denied—the scientific theory that COVID-19 emerged from the WIV.

Nicholas Wade testified about the campaign to discredit the lab leak theory. He pointed out that scientists kept in line with the natural origin camp led by Drs. Fauci and Collins because of their dependence on government grants and that the media failed to challenge the forced narrative.

All witnesses agreed that the possibility of COVID-19 originating from a lab is not a conspiracy theory.

Member Highlights

Subcommittee Chairman Dr. Wenstrup (R-Ohio.) asked witnesses whether it is critical to investigate the origin of COVID-19. All witnesses answered yes. Chairman Wenstrup also raised concern about gain-of-function research, which Dr. Redfield defined during the hearing as altering a pathogen to increase either transmissibility or pathogenicity.

Subcommittee Chairman Wenstrup: “In your expert opinion was the Wuhan Institute conducting gain-of-function research on a batch of coronaviruses?”

Dr. Redfield: “Absolutely.”

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) noted that after raising concerns to experts and the World Health Organization that COVID-19 may have originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, and urging Dr. Fauci to investigate the origins of the pandemic, Dr. Redfield was excluded from calls related to the origins of the pandemic.

Rep. Malliotakis: “Why do you think you were excluded from those calls?”

Dr. Redfield: “It was told to me that they wanted a single narrative and that I obviously had a different point of view.”

Dr. Redfield added: “If you really want to be truthful, it’s antithetical to science. Science has debate, and they squashed any debate.”

Scientists, including Dr. Fauci, then drafted a paper arguing COVID-19’s proximal origins to animals at a wet market.

Rep. Malliotakis: “Do you think that this paper does hide the truth?”

Dr. Redfield: “I think it’s an inaccurate paper that basically was part of a narrative that they were creating.”

Rep. Malliotakis also warned that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) may have been funding gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV.

Rep. Malliotakis: “Is it likely that American tax dollars funded the gain-of-function research that created this virus?”

Dr. Redfield: I think it did, not only from NIH, but from the State Department, USAID and DOD.”

Rep. Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), who has expertise publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, asked why the scientific community dangerously suppressed evidence that COVID-19 may have originated from a lab.

“There is, as you said Dr. Metzl, extraordinary circumstantial evidence that this came from a lab. 

“I don’t know why the authors didn’t want to state this, they did not want to have the scientific conversation and dialogue, why they wanted to obfuscate and suppress the truth, or even have a debate about the origins of COVID-19.

“Was it for personal financial gain? Was it to hide U.S. financial interest into the Wuhan Institute of Virology indirectly? Was it to suppress the revelation that there was perhaps gain-of-function research that had been prohibited in the United States? Or were they concerned that a conspiracy would develop that it was bioterrorism?

“I would state that their suppression and obfuscation has led to the exact mistrust and conspiracy theories that they may have tried to avoid.”

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Colo.) and Dr. Redfield discussed unusual actions at the WIV in September 2019.

Rep. Lesko: “Do you believe we can have certainty that the virus did not come from the Wuhan lab and that U.S. funding was not used for coronavirus research?”

Dr. Redfield: “Absolutely we cannot do that. It’s now declassified now, but in September 2019, three things happened in that lab. One, they deleted the sequences. That is highly irregular—researchers don’t usually like to do that. Second, they commanded the command and control of the lab from civilian control to military control. Highly unusual. And the third thing they did, which I think is really telling, is they let a contractor re-do the ventilation system in that laboratory. There is strong evidence there was a significant event in that laboratory in September 2019.”

Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) warned that the media downplayed, discredited, and silenced voices of experts sounding the alarm that COVID-19 may have originated from a lab in Wuhan, China.

Chairman Comer: “Would you agree that the scientific establishment used the media to downplay the lab leak theory?”

Mr. Wade: “I think the media was used in this particular campaign to establish the natural origin theory.”

“The scientific community is very afraid to speak up on political issues. I think the reason is that government grants are handed out through the system of peer-reviewed committees. You don’t want any single scientist on your peer-review committee to vote against, because you won’t get your grant – it’s so competitive. Therefore, scientists are very reluctant to say anything that’s politically divisive or turn other scientists off against them. This means that they cannot be relied upon in the way that we would like them to be independent and forthright and call it as they see it.”

Comer: “Was there science available to make such an unequivocal statement against the possibility of a lab leak that early on in February of 2020?”

Witnesses Dr. Metzl, Mr. Wade, and Dr. Redfield all answered,“No.”

Comer: “Is the possibility COVID-19 leaked from a lab a conspiracy theory?”

Witnesses answered, “No.”

Source: https://oversight.house.gov/release/…leak%EF%BF%BC/

Dr. Fauci maintains COVID outbreak caused by ‘natural occurrence’

Dr. Fauci maintains COVID outbreak caused by ‘natural occurrence’

By Jesse O’Neill
March 12, 2023 3:34pm
…
The 82-year-old now said he was still keeping a “completely open mind” to the origin of the virus, while explaining how a lab leak still could be considered a “natural occurrence.”

“A lab leak could be that someone was out in the wild, maybe looking for different types of viruses in bats, got infected, went into a lab and was being studied in the lab and then came out of the lab,” Fauci told anchor Jim Acosta.

“But if that’s the definition of a lab leak Jim, then that’s still a natural occurrence.”

Fauci said it could also be possible that a lab leak occurred after someone took a virus from the environment and manipulated it before accidentally infecting another person, kickstarting the outbreak, which has killed nearly seven million people worldwide.

He also made a point of noting that no investigative agency tasked with investigating the origins of the virus by President Biden in 2021 found evidence of nefarious activity at the lab.

“All of the intelligence agencies agree unanimously that this was not engineered. Namely, they didn’t deliberately do this to make a bioweapon,” Fauci said.
…
https://nypost.com/2023/03/12/dr-ant…al-occurrence/

America’s COVID Response Was Based on Lies

On 3/6/23 at 6:00 AM EST

Almost all of America’s leaders have gradually pulled back their COVID mandates, requirements, and closures—even in states like California, which had imposed the most stringent and longest-lasting restrictions on the public. At the same time, the media has been gradually acknowledging the ongoing release of studies that totally refute the purported reasons behind those restrictions. This overt reversal is falsely portrayed as “learned” or “new evidence.” Little acknowledgement of error is to be found. We have seen no public apology for promulgating false information, or for the vilification and delegitimization of policy experts and medical scientists like myself who spoke out correctly about data, standard knowledge about viral infections and pandemics, and fundamental biology.

The historical record is critical. We have seen a macabre Orwellian attempt to rewrite history and to blame the failure of widespread lockdowns on the lockdowns’ critics, alongside absurd denials of officials’ own incessant demands for them. In the Trump administration, Dr. Deborah Birx was formally in charge of the medical side of the White House’s coronavirus task force during the pandemic’s first year. In that capacity, she authored all written federal policy recommendations to governors and states and personally advised each state’s public health officials during official visits, often with Vice President Mike Pence, who oversaw the entire task force. Upon the inauguration of President Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci became chief medical advisor and ran the Biden pandemic response.

We must acknowledge the abject failure of the Birx-Fauci policies. They were enacted, but they failed to stop the dying, failed to stop the infection from spreading, and inflicted massive damage and destruction particularly on lower-income families and on America’s children.

More than 1 million American deaths have been attributed to that virus. Even after draconian measures, including school closures, stoppage of non-COVID medical care, business shutdowns, personal restrictions, and then the continuation of many restrictions and mandates in the presence of a vaccine, there was an undeniable failure—over two presidential administrations—to stop cases from rapidly escalating.

Numerous experts—including John Ioannidis, David Katz, and myself—called for targeted protection, a safer alternative to widespread lockdowns, in national media beginning in March of 2020. That proposal was rejected. History’s biggest public health policy failure came at the hands of those who recommended the lockdowns and those who implemented them, not those who advised otherwise.

WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 09: White House coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx speaks as (L-R) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia listen during the daily coronavirus briefing in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on April 09, 2020 in Washington, DC. U.S. unemployment claims have approached 17 million over the past three weeks amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Alex Wong/Getty Images

The tragic failure of reckless, unprecedented lockdowns that were contrary to established pandemic science, and the added massive harms of those policies on children, the elderly, and lower-income families, are indisputable and well-documented in numerous studies. This was the biggest, the most tragic, and the most unethical breakdown of public health leadership in modern history.

In a democracy, indeed in any ethical and free society, the truth is essential. The American people need to hear the truth—the facts, free from the political distortions, misrepresentations, and censorship. The first step is to clearly state the harsh truth in the starkest possible terms. Lies were told. Those lies harmed the public. Those lies were directly contrary to the evidence, to decades of knowledge on viral pandemics, and to long-established fundamental biology.

Here are the 10 biggest falsehoods—known for years to be false, not recently learned or proven to be so—promoted by America’s public health leaders, elected and unelected officials, and now-discredited academics:

1. SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has a far higher fatality rate than the flu by several orders of magnitude.

2. Everyone is at significant risk to die from this virus.

3. No one has any immunological protection, because this virus is completely new.

4. Asymptomatic people are major drivers of the spread.

5. Locking down—closing schools and businesses, confining people to their homes, stopping non-COVID medical care, and eliminating travel—will stop or eliminate the virus.

6. Masks will protect everyone and stop the spread.

7. The virus is known to be naturally occurring, and claiming it originated in a lab is a conspiracy theory.

8. Teachers are at especially high risk.

9. COVID vaccines stop the spread of the infection.

10. Immune protection only comes from a vaccine.

None of us are so naïve as to expect a direct apology from critics at my employer, Stanford University, or in government, academic public health, and the media. But to ensure that this never happens again, government leaders, power-driven officials, and influential academics and advisors often harboring conflicts of interest must be held accountable. Personally, I remain highly skeptical that any government investigation or commission can avoid politicization. Regardless of their intention, all such government-run inquiries will at least be perceived as politically motivated and their conclusions will be rejected outright by many. Those investigations must proceed, though, if only to seek the truth, to teach our children that truth matters, and to remember G.K. Chesterton’s critical lesson that “Right is right, even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong about it.”

Scott W. Atlas, MD is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in health policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Co-Director of the Global Liberty Institute, Founding Fellow of Hillsdale’s Academy for Science & Freedom, and author of A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America (Bombardier Press, 2022).

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/america-covid-response-was-based-lies-opinion-1785177

THE COVID CRIMINALS

THE COVID CRIMINALS: The Pandemic was created and orchestrated fraudulently by a Global Criminal Organization led by Bill Gates, Fauci, Tedros, Drosten, Klaus Schwab, Rothschilds, Pfizer, BlackRock, …
— Read on

odysee.com/@spartajustice:a/TBR—HD-720p:b