The COVID Origins Payoff

This story has still not had proper exposure in the corporate press. Perhaps it never will. The following post is by Camus. It summarizes a conversation between Megyn Kelly and RFK, Jr:

Of all the COVID cover-ups, the February 1, 2020, teleconference may be the most damning.

As revealed by Megyn Kelly and RFK Jr., when the world’s top virologists first saw the virus, their overwhelming consensus was that it was man-made. The notes from that call are clear.

Yet, just days later, that scientific consensus performed a miraculous 180. The lab-leak theory was suddenly denounced not just as wrong, but as racist.

Why the reversal? RFK Jr. connects the dots: Virtually every scientist on that call had a massive financial conflict of interest.

They were either:

• Directly doing work at the Wuhan Lab.

• Receiving tens of millions in grants from Tony Fauci’s NIH.

• Funded by the Wellcome Trust, an arm of Big Pharma.

Their reward for killing the lab-leak theory? Larger grants than ever before—some as high as $60 million.

They were paid to create a “scientific” orthodoxy that silenced all dissent, smearing questions as conspiracy theories.

The truth was suppressed not by science, but by a lucrative financial cartel. Follow the money.

Continue ReadingThe COVID Origins Payoff

Stays in the Deltoid?

Remember when the CDC assured us that the the mRNA would "stay in the deltoid"? New ACIP board member Robert Malone asked how Pfizer determined that. I'll translate part of Pfizer's answer: We used the least sensitive test and we worked in close consultation with the corrupt people at the FDA. The CDC quietly removed this "will stay in the deltoid" phrasing from its site around 2022–2023 without explanation. A short highly disturbing video. I'm so very glad we have Robert Malone sitting on the ACIP board to ask real questions.

And it's incredible how many things non-curious financially incentivized companies don't know.

Continue ReadingStays in the Deltoid?

“Safe and Effective” Drugs

At least 100 drugs once considered "safe and effective" for their intended uses (based on clinical trial data submitted by manufacturers) have been taken off the market due to how dangerous they were. Well-known examples include Thalidomide, Vioxx and Bextra, which have caused tens of thousands of deaths and injuries.

The presenter in this video is Simone Gisondi, host of the podcast "The Health Confidential with Simone Gisondi."

Based on FDA and global regulatory data, here are 20 recently withdrawn drugs (sorted most recent first, with year and reason):

1. Oxbryta (2024) - Increased deaths/complications in sickle cell patients.

2. Makena (2023) - Lack of effectiveness.

3. Ranitidine (Zantac, 2020) - Carcinogen contamination.

4. Lorcaserin (Belviq, 2020) - Cancer risk.

5. Ingenol mebutate (2020) - Skin cancer risk.

6. Flupirtine (2018) - Liver toxicity.

7. Tetrazepam (2013) - Skin reactions.

8. Drotrecogin alfa (2011) - No efficacy.

9. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (2010) - Death risk.

10. Propoxyphene (2010) - Heart risks.

11. Rosiglitazone (2010) - Heart attacks.

12. Sibutramine (2010) - Heart attack/stroke.

13. Sitaxentan (2010) - Liver damage.

14. Lumiracoxib (2008) - Liver damage.

15. Rimonabant (2008) - Depression/suicide.

16. Aprotinin (2008) - Death risk.

17. Pergolide (2007) - Heart valve damage.

18. Tegaserod (2007) - Heart attack/stroke.

19. Clobutinol (2007) - Arrhythmias.

20. Alatrofloxacin (2006) - Liver toxicity.

Continue Reading“Safe and Effective” Drugs

Aaron Siri Introduces his New Book, Vaccines, Amen.

New post on X by Aaron Siri:

An excerpt from the intro to Vaccines, Amen:

Ever hear someone say, “I believe in cars” or “I believe in tools”? I cannot recall ever hearing anyone say they believe in a certain product. But I hear people say, “I believe in vaccines” all the time, especially in response to evidence regarding vaccines.

The expression “I believe in vaccines” carries a truism. The properties often attributed to vaccines require faith. Belief. This is because most claims about vaccines are not grounded in evidence. They are beliefs. It is why challenging claims about vaccines—meaning challenging beliefs—often results in an emotional, not logical, reaction.

This is also why wading into this topic is not for the faint of heart. Nor is it for anyone seeking to avoid controversy. Just the word “vaccines” evokes emotions for many.

Falling Into Vaccine Law

For this reason, among many others, I likely would have laughed if someone had told me eighteen years ago that I would be managing a law firm, with over 100 professionals, working on vaccine injury, exemptions, and policy. Back then, I was working on high-stakes, multi-billion-dollar lawsuits at one of the country’s premier law firms. Even after starting my own law firm over a decade ago, I continued to handle mostly high-stakes business litigation matters.

Then, one fateful day, I learned something I could not unlearn: of all the corporations I was defending, I would likely never have to defend a pharmaceutical company against claims that children were seriously injured or killed by a vaccine. Why? Because in 1986, Congress granted these companies financial immunity for injuries caused by childhood vaccines in a law titled the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (the 1986 Act).

I learned that, because of the 1986 Act, parents of seriously injured or deceased children must sue the federal government’s health department, instead of the company that profited from the product that harmed their children. From that one data point, my journey regarding vaccines began. What I have uncovered along the way has frequently been unbelievable.

This journey, spanning over a decade of litigating vaccine lawsuits of all stripes across the country, has been unique. This is partly because, unlike doctors, who can appeal to their credentials, I do not get to just say, “trust me.” I need to prove claims I assert with real data. Real proof. Something that will hold up in court. Non-authoritative science will not do. Unreliable data will not do. This means my vaccine litigation work requires me to study the primary sources and carefully review and scrutinize the studies and data that support each claim. v In the course of that legal work, I have worked with well over a hundred immunologists, infectious disease doctors, pediatricians, and other medical professionals. I have deposed these specialists as well, including the world’s leading vaccinologists. This work requires an understanding of vaccinology, immunology, infectious disease, and pediatrics, among other disciplines, with regard to these products. Want to talk about any other drug, medical procedure, etc.? I am not your man. But vaccines, those I know.

Incredibly, most of the information needed to understand vaccine safety is freely available on federal government websites and public databases. Most doctors and parents never bother to look or don’t know it exists. Those who do know and look often learn things they cannot unlearn.

Continue ReadingAaron Siri Introduces his New Book, Vaccines, Amen.