4 Experts on COVID-19 Being Engineered

July 12, 2021

http://

July 4, 2021

At a hearing on the COVID-19 origins, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) criticized Dr. Anthony Fauci’s actions and statements at the beginning of the pandemic.

Previously, I posted Dr. Stephen Quay’s testimony here.

In the segment featured in this 12:00 minute video we learn:

  • It is very unlikely this “virus” was found in nature.
  • It was likely evolved in a lab.
  • The coronavirus bears a “signature” that’s never been seen in this virus class before and came “completely pre-adapted to humans,” according to Atossa Therapeutics CEO Dr Steven Quay.
  • Dr. Quay states, “gain of opportunity” is where millions of copies of this virus are in the lab where it can infect researchers. The Wuhan Lab has cameras set up to capture any accidents, yet the WHO appears not to have asked to see the security footage in October when there was a black-out, or in Sept. when the virus data base was suddenly pulled off-line.  Source  Wuhan lab researchers were in fact hospitalized with COVID in 2019.
  • If ‘authorities’ would have known the lab engineered issue early on, thousands of lives could have been saved.
  • The ‘virus’ was created to block the interferon response.  If you get a fever and get sick because of your interferon response, it will become more infectious and you will be asymptomatic.
  • According to an email sent by a scientist to Dr. Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020, it was known that,“some of the features look engineered.”  The researcher also stated, “We all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”  
  • Jim Gordon states Fauci manufactured an article to downplay this fact.
  • Fauci’s emails reveal he threatened Indian scientists who discovered COVID is engineered with AIDS like insertions.
  • Another expert corrects Gordon and states the U.S. was on notice as far back as Feb. 2017 when the French were kicked out of the Wuhan lab and told the world that, “this might be the beginning of a WMD program.”  He also states Fauci would have known about this as well.
  • It is clear from public statements that the Wuhan lab was working on “dual research” for the future of “hybrid warfare.”  This is called “dual research of concern” or DURC.  If the COVID “virus” got out of the lab it would be a weapons-like release.  The expert also states, “there shouldn’t be any surprise here.”  He also wonders why no one paid any attention to this.”  
  • Another expert states that the issues of lab creation through gene splicing and through ‘gain of function’ is “compelling and beyond reasonable doubt.”  And that the scientific evidence is very strong.
  • At 9:00 they discussed “export-controls” for biotechnology.  This also covers “information,” specifically regarding genetic information.  The Chinese are doing a lot of gene sequencing of Americans.
  • Often, when Americans get genetic testing done, it is sent to BGI (offices in Denmark & China) where they keep a copy.  This genetic information is critically important, powerful, and can be used to create weaponry that affects people with specific genes – an ethnic weapon if you will.
  • The expert also states the Chinese realize the power of this and he believes have a law protecting Chinese genetic information from ever leaving their country.
  • Most people are oblivious to this very real threat.  Genetic information should be protected as a vital national security secret.
Not mentioned in this video is the tax-payer dollar amount regarding ‘gain of function’ research.

Dr. Martin recently addressed the history of the development of the SARS bioweapon, which was originally funded for AIDS/HIV research in 1999, and he dropped this bombshell:

“Anthony Fauci has spent, listen to this number, 191 BILLION dollars, not 3.7 million, not 30 million, 191 BILLION dollars of audited funds for the bioweaponization of viruses against humanity.

And it is YOUR money that has been spent.”  Source

And lastly, it appears the COVID “vaccine” was invented before COVID.

For more:

Category:

Activism, research

Comments Off on 4 Experts on COVID-19 Being Engineered

Study Finds COVID-19 Reinfection Rate Less Than 1% For Those With Severe Illness

https://medicine.missouri.edu/news/study-finds-covid-19-reinfection-rate-less-1-those-severe-illness

Study Finds COVID-19 Reinfection Rate Less Than 1% for Those with Severe Illness

Two deaths were associated with reinfection, but most cases were mild.

A review of more than 9,000 U.S. patients with severe COVID-19 infection showed less than 1% contracted the illness again, with an average reinfection time of 3.5 months after an initial positive test. Those are the findings from a study conducted by researchers from the University of Missouri School of Medicine and MU Health Care.

The researchers teamed up with the MU Institute for Data Science and Informatics and the Tiger Institute for Health Innovation to review data from 62 U.S. health care facilities. They found 63 of the 9,119 patients (0.7%) with severe COVID-19 infection contracted the virus a second time, with a mean reinfection period of 116 days. Of the 63 who were reinfected, two (3.2%) died. Patients categorized as non-white were at greater risk of reinfection than white patients.

Adnan I. Qureshi, MD
Adnan I. Qureshi, MD

“Our analysis also found asthma and nicotine dependence were associated with reinfection,” said lead researcher Adnan I. Qureshi, MD, a professor of clinical neurology at the MU School of Medicine. “However, there was a significantly lower rate of pneumonia, heart failure and acute kidney injury observed with reinfection compared with primary infection.”

Qureshi defined reinfection by two positive tests separated by an interval greater than 90 days after the initial infection resolved, as confirmed by two or more consecutive negative tests. He analyzed data from patients who received serial tests between December 2019 and November 2020.

“This is one of the largest studies of its kind in the U.S., and the important message here is that COVID-19 reinfection after an initial case is possible, and the duration of immunity that an initial infection provides is not completely clear,” Qureshi said.

In addition to Qureshi, the study authors include fellow MU School of Medicine collaborators Iryna Lobanova, MD, research specialist in the Department of Neurology; S. Hasan Naqvi, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine; William Baskett, graduate student; Wei Huang, graduate student; and Chi-Ren Shyu, PhD, Director, MU Institute for Data Science and professor of Informatics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

Their study, “Re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 in Patients Undergoing Serial Laboratory Testing,” was recently published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Support for this study was provided by the National Institutes of Health. The authors of the study declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to this study and the content does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

____________________

For more:

“The entire world simply claimed that there was no immunity…..that wasn’t science, but pure speculation based on a gut feeling that was then parroted by everyone.” Beda Stadler

Lastly, don’t forget there are effective treatments for COVID that are being censored by MSM and our corrupt public health ‘authorities’ who are pushing dangerous COVID injections at all costs – even your life.

Category:

Viruses

Comments Off on Study Finds COVID-19 Reinfection Rate Less Than 1% For Those With Severe Illness

Awaited Ivermectin Review is Out

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93485?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2021-07-

Awaited Ivermectin Review Is Out

— Findings are positive, but critics still want a randomized controlled trial

by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting, MedPage Today July 8, 2021

Boxes and blister pack of Ivermectin Tablets USP Boxes and blister pack of Ivermectin Tablets USP and a prescription bottle.a

Proponents of ivermectin for COVID-19 have long been talking about an expected review and meta-analysis led by Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool.

These results were finally published this week in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, and they’re positive — but they haven’t escaped criticism, and most researchers still want results from a randomized controlled trial.  (See link for article)

___________________

**Comment**

The following was found from the review:

  • There was a 56% reduction in mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.77, P=0.004), with 3% of patients on ivermectin dying compared with 9% of controls
  • A 70% improvement in survival (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.15-0.58, P=0.0004)
  • A reduction in time to recovery of 1.58 days compared with controls (95% CI -2.8 to -0.35, P=0.01) 
  • A shorter duration of hospitalization (-4.27 days, 95% CI -8.6 to -0.06, P=0.05).
But this still wasn’t good enough for critics.

And there’s been 32 randomized controlled trials done to date, but that still isn’t good enough for critics.

The key for this is found in the following quote:

“Of course, rolling out vaccination as quickly and widespread as possible would negate the need to use ivermectin as a treatment,” he added. “So big picture, vaccines are the better solution.”

This is completely backwards.

Rolling out effective treatments as quickly and widespread as possible negates the need for a vaccine!  But history is being rewritten to state natural immunity will only be achieved through vaccines – the magic bullet for mankind.

Despite what mainstream news and medical rag journals like Medscape state, current research shows:

isummarySource: Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies – www.c19ivermectin.com – (constantly updated)

For the backstory on how Remdesivir obtained EUA status despite lack of effectiveness, while Ivermectin languished on shelves see this article for the sordid history.

In what can only be described as “shennanigans,” researchers changed the primary outcome measures in the study for Remdesivir to make it appear more successful.  Go here for more info.

For more on Ivermectin:

“We now have four large randomized control trials totaling over 1,500 patients each trial showing that as a prophylaxis agent [against COVID-19] it is immensely effective,” Kory said. “You will not get sick. You will be protected from getting ill if you take it in early outpatient treatment.”

Please see FLCCC’s COVID-19 treatment protocols for every stage of illness: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/  as well as the research on it:   https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

Lastly, the following was written about the Medscape piece:

I have years of experience with Ivermectin in the Brazilian Amazon. The drug in general, has acceptable safety profile. Ivermectin has few established mechanisms of action; chief among them are its immunomodulatory and antiinflammatory properties. Recently, Australian scientists conducted an in vitro study of the MOA of Ivermectin with respect to SARS-CoV-2 replication. The Australian study showed it interferes with a specific protein product which is essential in the viral replication cycle. Considering the benefit of this drug outweighs the risk, Ivermectin is a reliable and practical solution in resource-limited countries where access to COVID-19 meds is scarce. It is commonly understood that in the western countries, the Big Pharma resists prescription of Ivermectin for COVID19 cases.  – Prof. Dr. Nassiri, July 9, 2021

BINGO!

Category:

research, Treatment, Viruses

Comments Off on Awaited Ivermectin Review is Out

Lyme & Sudden Hearing Loss

https://danielcameronmd.com/lyme-disease-triggers-hearing-loss/

LYME DISEASE AND SUDDEN ONSET HEARING LOSS

lyme-disease-sudden-onset-hearing-loss

An article by Sowula and colleagues, published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, describes nine patients with Lyme disease who had sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), also referred to as sudden deafness.[1]

By 

The study aimed to assess the prevalence of this type of sudden onset hearing loss, particularly among Lyme disease patients. The authors explain, “Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is defined as sensorineural hearing loss of 30 dB or more over at least three adjacent audiometric frequencies occurring within a 72-h period of time.”

This type of sudden onset hearing loss can be caused by a viral infection, vascular insufficiency, autoimmune disorder, neoplasm, stroke and irradiation. 

Treatment is directed towards the cause with standard therapy typically involving corticosteroid, vasodilators, and ionotropic agents, the authors write. Unfortunately, the cause is unknown in 90% of the cases.

The study looked at 86 patients who were hospitalized, between 2017 and 2018, due to sudden sensorineural hearing loss. As part of their evaluation for sudden onset hearing loss, patients were tested for Lyme disease.

Out of 86 patients, 9 tested positive for Lyme disease. Other studies, however, indicate that up to 21% of patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss test positive for Lyme disease, the authors write.

Hearing loss patients with Lyme disease

On average, the 9 patients were around 47 years old, with an age range between 30 and 70. None of the Lyme disease patients responded to intravenous corticosteroids, microcirculatory drugs, or ionotropic drugs.

Seven of the nine patients with sudden onset sensorineural hearing loss were treated with oral doxycycline or intravenous ceftriaxone.  

Four patients were treated with doxycycline. Hearing improved by 10dB for one of the patients.

Complete hearing recovery with IV ceftriaxone

The remaining 3 patients, who were treated with intravenous ceftriaxone, had complete improvement in their hearing loss.  

“Those three patients reported a complete recovery of hearing (PTA shows respectively 15.20 dB HL for low frequency and 28.35 dB HL for high frequency),” the authors write.

“Infections caused by Borrelia burgdorferi may contribute to the development of inflammatory and angiopathic lesions, which are a possible cause of [sudden sensorineural hearing loss].”

Unfortunately, 2 patients were left with high-frequency tinnitus. “In these patients, tinnitus was present from the beginning of the disease,” the authors write.

The group of 9 Lyme disease patients “was treated with antibiotics and experienced partial or complete regression of their deafness,” the authors conclude. “This may suggest a relationship between [sudden sensorineural hearing loss] and Lyme disease.”

“The longer the duration of the infection, the greater the likelihood of permanent and irreversible changes in the vessels of the cochlea or auditory nerve,” the authors caution.

Related Article:

Lyme disease patient with permanent tinnitus and hearing loss

References:
  1. Sowula K, Szaleniec J, Stolcman K, Ceranowicz P, Kocon S, Tomik J. Association between Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss and Lyme Disease. J Clin Med. Mar 8 2021;10(5)doi:10.3390/jcm10051130

___________________

For more:

Category:

Hearing Loss, Lyme, research

Comments Off on Lyme & Sudden Hearing Loss

2 Minute Explanation on Why You Shouldn’t Get the 2nd Shot or Any COVID Injections

July 9, 2021

https://twitter.com/wakeupfromcovid/status/1413296314960515072?s=20  2 Minute Video Here

“Don’t take the 2nd shot.” — Professor Sucharit Bhakdi

For the whole video (16 Min) go here.

Links to papers summarized in the video:

For more:

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/07/07/what-is-in-the-pcr-tests/  Excerpt:

The masks being used and currently marketed contain graphene oxide. Not only the ones that were withdrawn at the time, as indicated by the media, the swabs used in both PCR and antigen tests also contain graphene oxide nanoparticles.

The COVID vaccines in all their variants, AstraZeca, Pfizer, Moderna, Sinovac, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, etc., also contain a considerable dose of graphene oxide nanoparticles. This has been the result of their analysis by electron microscopy and spectroscopy, among other techniques used by various public universities in our country.  Source

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Comments Off on 2 Minute Explanation on Why You Shouldn’t Get the 2nd Shot or Any COVID Injections