End of hope: The total failure of the medical, scientific and legal community

Both sides of these communities have failed humanity

There has always been a dichotomy in the medical, scientific and legal communities with regard to COVID and COVID gene therapies: pro-narrative and anti-narrative. The anti-narrative camp contains a broad spectrum of views that range from questioning of various aspects of the pandemic to various levels of total opposition to one or more issues directly or indirectly related. The scope of this article is limited only to what was scientifically, medically and legally understood about COVID and the forms of treatment of it including gene therapies.

Understanding COVID, its origins and effects

The entire official, global narrative of COVID’s nature, origins and effects have been multiply misrepresented, obfuscated or lied about since it was officially detected, thereby misleading most of the world’s population into believing that it was a deadly threat for a significant proportion of the global population. This was known to be untrue from the start of the publicization of its spread because the simple mathematics of the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) showed that IFRs were in the sub 1% range and only progressed lower. Those calculations inherently depended upon the input of “case” data and therefore demanded that one defined the meaning of “case” and the way in which a case was determined. That basic question immediately exposed the faulty, variable and indefensible “COVID case definitions” and the methods on which they were based. Those methods variously included:

• diagnosis based on symptoms that were synonymous of numerous possible illnesses including flu;

• the mass use of PCR and antigen tests that are all based on faulty assumptions, methodologies and techniques which were identified and questioned early on around the world.

This July 2020 pre print by epidemiologist John Ioannidis based on analysis of international seroprevalence data concludes that at the time of publication and based on data then available, COVID IFR was 0.25% or less. In specific scenarios e.g. nursing home, IFR figures may have been higher than this but, as was understood by some, what was happening in nursing homes and the management of in and out patients was both negligent and also a source of corruption of IFR analysis.

The Infection Fatality Rate Of Covid 19 Inferred From Seroprevalence Data 2020

633KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

That paper has never been effectively contested in peer review among the wider scientific community and it has not been retracted from the pre print server.

Ioannidis’ paper was published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99 (‎1)‎, 19 - 33F with the following date stamps:

Submitted: 13 May 2020 – Revised version received: 13 September 2020 – Accepted: 15 September 2020 – Published online: 14 October 2020

It remains published on the WHO’s website here. The paper concludes:

Most locations probably have an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection fatality rate may be brought even lower.

This single paper and its timing proves that the WHO and any sub body had access to peer reviewed analysis based on global seroprevalence testing showing that COVID IFR was a non-event and similar to normal flu. At the time of publication, true infection spread was not known only inferred by multiple means, largely involving total guesswork based on an assumption of exponentiality and novelty that implied no one had any form of pre-existing immunity or some immune capability that was of use, and later the totally misleading use of flawed PCR and antigen testing which are incapable of providing the fidelity and reliability of data that their proponents claimed they would.

Meanwhile, COVID’s origins were known by insiders and identified by various outsider groups to have been man made in at least the Wuhan lab, and therefore likely to have leaked from the lab. It is now accepted and publicised that illegal Gain of Function work was sponsored by the US DoD, NIH, NIAID structures through Anthony Fauci et al and multiple other scientists, political agents and other people in positions of authority colluded to lie about and suppress what COVID was, where it came from, its true threat level, pathology, and history.

In the above, who failed? Obviously, all of the insider, pro-narrative agents “failed” to protect the interests of the global population and succeeded to further their agendas. But what about Ioannidis? Did he just publish his work, have it peer reviewed and then go quiet? It looks like it because most people have no idea who he is or what he said. Ioannidis did discuss his findings and assessment.

In this clip, Ioannidis states that in Santa Clara county it was estimated that the true number of infections was 50-80x higher than previously thought. Such prevalence served to drive the IFR even lower because the denominator in the IFR calculation increased by 50-80x i.e. if a hell of a lot more people have been infected with something than you think, and they haven’t died and they’ve recovered, the virus is far, far less dangerous than you first thought when you didn’t know about all the other infections.

Six months later, the Washington Post published an article discussing Ioannidis’ treatment at the hands of the pro-narrative group.

A top scientist questioned virus lockdowns on Fox News. The backlash was fierce.

…he speculated that the coronavirus might be less dangerous than assumed. News media were overhyping the disease. The greater risk lay not in covid-19 but in overzealous lockdowns to prevent its spread.

“We’re falling into a trap of sensationalism,” Ioannidis told the documentary filmmakers interviewing him remotely on March 23 as he sat in a studio at Stanford. “We have gone into a complete panic state.”

The video would be viewed more than a half-million times on YouTube before it disappeared. Six weeks after it was uploaded, the footage of Ioannidis was removed by YouTube, which said the interview with one of the world’s foremost epidemiologists had violated its policies on covid-19 misinformation. Ioannidis — whose talks for TEDx, at Google and in university lecture halls have circulated online for years — said he was stunned. But he was hardly silenced.

If one reads the entire article in hindsight, one will see the toxic, pro-narrative techniques that ultimately serve to play the man using assertions that were known then and known more now to have been untrue, while employing counter-spin quotes from cherry picked sources that fail totally to deal with the content of Ioannidis’ findings. Ioannidis was attacked using a standard method and template of the propaganda and censorship machine.

As for other pieces of information that were known about from pandemic “outbreak” through to December 2020, here’s a short, unexhaustive list:

• Ralph Baric

• GoF

• SARS, MERS

• HCQ as a treatment for SARS & MERS

• Cormen Drosten protocol for PCR, its faulty basis and the published challenges to it

• Pre-existing flu pandemic plans

• UK’s Chris Whitty’s pre-COVID stance on epidemic management that ran counter to COVID policies

• All government’s initial claims that masking and other NPIs were unnecessary and ineffective in “containment”

• All governments’ radical about face and lockstep policy enforcement with literally zero cited medical or scientific evidence, all of which were rapidly enshrined in emergency laws

All of the above was known by this author by December 2020 and most of it before, even if a complete picture of the scale of the COVID fraud had not been compiled using it. All of the above was sufficient to know that what society was being forced into was false. This was reinforced by the mass refusal by all media to ask obvious, fundamental questions of the authorities, combined with the obvious suppression of any marginal voice who was asking those questions.

The effects of COVID became rapidly known and were demonstrated multiply in research. A single proof of adequate knowledge of viral mechanisms is contained in the research describing effective treatment protocols. If the nature of the virus and the resulting infection was not understood, these protocols would not work. Peter McCullough published his treatment protocol in May 2020 and it was in use in the USA and other parts of the globe by then, with success that vitiated the need for COVID gene therapies and still do. The lack of severity and high survivability of the infection combined with the resulting natural immunity also vitiated those products and this was known about and understood on the grounds of general medical principle from the moment someone survived the infection. Medical analysis was capable of proving the presence and efficacy of resultant natural immunity.

The information and discourse that is now percolating in the mainstream, including government reviews of policy etc is not new in any way. The information is also being deliberately cherry picked and limited to shield agents from liability and blame, and ensure the persistence of ongoing policy stances that rebound the legal powers of the state. If you slowly, slowly, admit to little bits of what many knew were true, enough time passes for a lot of people to want to move on, even if they were damaged by the lies they believed and mindlessly repeated.

There is an ignored and irresolvable contradiction that is being deliberately tolerated by pro-narrative agents, that is embodied in the UK government’s ongoing COVID review.

If

• the IFR of SARS-CoV-2 is equivalent to flu using questionable means of ascribing death to COVID; and

• the number of people who died of COVID (as opposed to with or any form of false assignment) is pitifully low; and

• the number of COVID deaths is demonstrably, falsely over-estimated or over-stated; and

• the number of cases has always been falsely stated and over-inflated; and

• the infection is survivable by ~99.85% of people who are genuinely infected; and

• the definition of “pandemic” has nothing to do with the fatality rate of an infection;

Then claiming that what has been done was right or justified and should be done in future, is patently false. Why? Because one’s entire picture of the past, on which those actions and policies were based, was utterly false. Therefore, the above points are still ignored and obfuscated with deliberate deflection and maximal use of the censorship system in all its forms.

This is what the UK government and its opposition is claiming: that more of these policies are required, and to a greater degree, in the event of another “pandemic”. The UK’s Coronavirus Act 2020 remains in force despite the absence of a threat from the virus and a lifting of all the NPIs, and limited public acknowledgement of gene therapy harm coupled with withdrawal of many of them from the UK and other nations. Where did AZ and J&J go? Why are the remaining mRNA products restricted from increasing demographics in some countries?

Who else is making this claim of “more and sooner” based on lies about the immediate past and published science?

The self-appointed and private Lancet Covid Commission, headed by none other than Jeffrey Sachs, has made the same certain claims in its final report. One must ask, “why?” and “cui bono?” It is essential to understand why The Lancet must make the following claims, and to recognise that there is a deliberate purpose behind them. The Lancet’s Key Findings are below (partially abbreviated). Ignore them at your peril.

1. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown… There are two leading hypotheses: zoonotic spillover; or that the virus emerged from a research related incident, or through a laboratory-associated escape. Identification of the origin of the virus will help to prevent future pandemics and strengthen public trust in science and public authorities.

2. WHO acted too cautiously and too slowly on several important matters: to warn about the human transmissibility of the virus, to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, to support international travel protocols designed to slow the spread of the virus, to endorse the public use of face masks as protective gear, and to recognise the airborne transmission of the virus.

3. Most governments around the world were too slow to acknowledge its importance and act with urgency in response. It was mainly the countries in WHO’s Western Pacific region that reacted with urgency to the outbreak, and that generally pursued a suppression strategy that led to low cumulative mortality.

4. Coordination among governments was inadequate on policies to contain the pandemic, including travel protocols to slow the global transmission of the virus, testing strategies, public health and social measures, commodity supply chains, data standards and reporting systems, and advice to the public, despite the very high interdependence among countries.

5. Epidemic control was seriously hindered by substantial public opposition to routine public health and social measures, such as the wearing of properly fitting face masks and getting vaccinated. This opposition reflects a lack of social trust, low confidence in government advice, inconsistency of government advice, low health literacy, lack of sufficient behavioural-change interventions, and extensive misinformation and disinformation campaigns on social media. Public policies have also failed to draw upon the behavioural and social sciences; doing so would have led to more successful implementation of public health interventions and helped to increase social trust, prosociality, equity, and wellbeing. In many cases, policies and decision making have not been informed by robust and continuously updated evidence syntheses.

6. Public policies did not properly address the profoundly unequal effects of the pandemic. Heavily burdened groups include essential workers, who are already disproportionately concentrated in more vulnerable minority and low-income communities; children; women, who face employment, safety, and income losses, exacerbated by the adverse consequences of school closures; people living in congregate settings, such as prisons or care homes, especially for older populations; people living with chronic conditions and disability; Indigenous Peoples; migrants, refugees, and displaced populations; people without access to quality and affordable health care; and people who face the burdens of long COVID.

7. Among high-income countries, those with strong and resilient national health systems—including public health systems that complement clinical health care—have generally fared better at addressing COVID-19 and maintaining non-pandemic-related health services. In low income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where health systems tend to be under-resourced and fragmented, better outcomes were seen when previous experiences with outbreaks and epidemics were built upon, and when community-based resources—notably community health workers—were used to support screening and contact tracing capacity and trust-building within communities.

8. Rapid development of multiple vaccines has been a triumph of the research and development system and the result of long-standing public and private investment and cooperation. However, the lack of a multilateral and coordinated approach by governments to manage intellectual property rights, technology transfer, international financing, the allocation of vaccines from multinational pharmaceutical companies, and the support for vaccine production in LMICs for use in those countries, has come at a great cost in terms of inequitable access to vaccines.

9. Economic recovery depends on sustaining high rates of vaccination coverage and low rates of new, clinically significant COVID-19 infections, and on fiscal and monetary policies to mitigate the socioeconomic effects of the pandemic and prevent a financial crisis. Emergency global financing from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and regional development banks had a salutary role, although much larger financial flows from high-income to low-income regions were warranted.

10. The sustainable development process has been set back by several years, with a deep underfinancing of investments needed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the aims of the Paris Climate Agreement. In most countries, the pandemic diverted resources and policy attention away from longer-term goals, thereby reversing progress towards the SDGs in many countries.

Lancet Covid Commission Report Piis0140673622015859

12.4MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What did the WHO make of the Lancet’s Key Findings?

WHO welcomes the overarching recommendations of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission’s report, which align with our commitment to stronger global, regional and national pandemic preparedness, prevention, readiness and response.

WHO welcomes the Commission’s endorsement of a pandemic agreement, strengthening the International Health Regulations (IHR), and enhancing financing. These issues are core to the vision of WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, as distilled in the five priorities for his second term. WHO and its Member States are already enacting these recommendations. The World Health Assembly agreed a historic decision in May 2022 to sustainably finance WHO.This year will see two rounds of public hearings for a pandemic accord take place.

If you feel like you are being gaslighted, you’d be right.

Lancet, WHO, government, institutional and corporate gaslighting is an ecosystem

The Lancet is a proxy for any other pro-narrative institution, corporation or interested party. Dr. Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet, is now indelibly on the record since the start baying for all pro-narrative actions without being able to cite any research or evidence justifying it. He made a politicised, fact- and evidence-free demand for specific actions in March 2020 on BBC Question Time.

None of what Horton is saying is evidence based. He was literally saying “lots of medic are pressuring me on the phone so I think that’s how policy on medicine and sciene should be made.” The same man would ridicule evidence-free opinion of unexamined observational data.

What is also telling is that deaths of or from COVID of UK frontline medics should have been off the charts due to the early shortcomings he was claiming, yet they were not. Deaths of those people should also have continued to climb as they were the most repetitively, directly exposed people in the country, yet they have not. No one is claiming that there is a staff shortage in the NHS because staff were killed by a high IFR, novel infectious agent to which there was no effective innate immune response and to which an effective natural immunity could not be developed. It has also been shown that masking simply isn’t effective. Even a N95 mask cannot prevent infection by an airborne viral agent and many NHS staff, clinical or otherwise, did not use such specification of masks and they were not provided to the majority of NHS users.

Richard Horton appears to have two primary objectives. First, he must cover his own arse for the political position he took and the political objectives he pursued in the pandemic. Assembling a legitimate-looking Commission around him whose findings exactly match what he was spouting keeps a lot of idiots at bay. Second, his Commision’’s Key Findings serve the establishment of the UK government and the WHO, both of whom protect each other, as well as the entire corporatocratic ecosystem where profits are made from every aspect of the pandemic. In achieving these two objectives, Horton and The Lancet lends their assumed credibility to all other institutions, corporations and interests who now cite WHO, Government and The Lancet as continuing authoritative sources. Horton cannot and will never break out of this self-imposed, deliberately designed and totally fallacious circle jerk, no matter what the evidence. To do so would further damage his and The Lancet’s nosediving credibility, risk exposure to professional liability, and undermine the UK government’s and the WHO’s stated plan to acquire and apply more power through all of the techniques they employed in the pandemic.

Of all of The Lancet’s Key Findings, there is only one with an open question: the origins of COVID. The Lancet claims that an answer to the question must be found and yet, since it published its Commission’s findings, it has published no research into COVID’s origins, despite massive amounts of pre-existing and continuously emerging data and written evidence proving that it is manmade, was developed via GoF and was worked on in the Wuhan lab. Patient Zero has likely been identified as an employee in the lab and this evidence trail has existed from the beginning, having been identified by ZeroHedge, of all outlets! So, why is The Lancet doing literally nothing to help answer the only question that its Commission keeps open and demands and answer to? Why has The Lancet and Horton ignored Rand Paul’s pursuit of Anthony Fauci and the GoF work he sponsored in creating SARS-CoV-2? What does it have to say about the US withdrawal of funding from the Wuhan lab?

The failures of the opposition

Failure to hold the actions of the regulator to account

Between January 2020 and December 2020, it could be argued that the world was in a knowledge gray zone where conflicting views and lack of definite evidence justified the policies and approaches employed. This is not true but it is a key claim used to form the establishment’s defence. Matt Hancock has employed this technique to evade blame for UK health policy failings in the face of the evidence in his own text messages and Isabel Oakeshott’s psy op attempt to make him and a small cohort of now departed people the fall guys and scape goats in order to contain liability and allow everyone else to escape from the COVID whirlwind.

It could therefore be said that pro-narrative voices were operating in this gray zone and even they couldn’t be expected to get everything right. They did their best at the time with the information they had and only now, with primary evidence from Pfizer and now Moderna’s clinical trials, can we see that we were lied to by them. Sure. You have to be dead at the wheel to believe this. If you repeat it, you’re actively lying to yourself and others within earshot. Such a claim is wrong. Believe this at your peril.

The proof of widespread failings in amongst the opposition lies in medical regulator documentation. The assessment documents for COVID gene therapies show things that are now confirmed by Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial data. It’s just that insufficient numbers of anti-narrative medical and scientific personnel bothered to read, understand and question those documents when they became available.

The UK’s MHRA stated in December 2020:

The manufacturer [Pfizer BioNTech] has performed a comparability assessment of batches used in the clinical trial programme and batches representative of manufacturing changes occurring during product development, such as introduction of new manufacturing sites, process changes and increase in batch scale. In addition to release testing, the manufacturer also investigated several extended characterisation test parameters. These data will be supplemented as further experience with the manufacturing process accumulates. The recommendation for the batch which is the subject of this assessment was based on a direct comparison of the batch release results with the results for the clinically qualified batches.

This paragraph clearly implies that the batches used in clinical trials were not the same as others, for a variety of reasons. The implications of differences are superficially contained here by the assumption that mass manufacture would adequately conform to the clinical trial batch. This paragraph clearly states that Pfizer was to provide ongoing supplemental batch information to the MHRA that would demonstrate quality, conformance and consistency in those batches. The scale of the changes to the production of a clinical trial batch compared to a mass market batch suggested in this paragraph are huge, given the nature and scale of a global product roll out. Imagine just what changes when you scale a genetic manufacturing process up from a boutique product for 44,000 doses to billions of doses to be sold and deployed at warp speed. Remember, mass production had already begun in volume before authorisation was granted, meaning there must have been huge numbers of doses and many batches in existence separate to the clinical trial batch and batch EJ0553.

The MHRA knew and demanded of Pfizer some forms of ongoing data regarding batches and also expected evidence of ongoing conformance with standards and practises in order for batches to be continuously approved (excerpts) based on the approval of one initial, model batch EJ0553:

The supply of batch EJ0553 is authorised providing that:

Pfizer/BioNTech ensure that Good Laboratory Practice studies are performed to standards in UK national regulations, relevant guidelines and the OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice.

Pfizer/BioNTech ensure that clinical trials are performed to national regulations and relevant guidelines including ICH GCP E6R2

Pfizer/BioNtech submit to MHRA GCP inspections to assess the compliance any of the clinical trials and applicable data attached to the authorisation by virtue of regulation 174A. The powers of inspection will be the same as those outlined in regulations 325, 326 and 327

Pfizer/BioNtech ensure that all drug substance and drug product manufacture outside the UK is in accordance with EU GMP and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended) in facilities with current EU GMP certificates or other acceptable and suitable authorisation to MHRA.

Any importation or manufacturing facilities located within the UK must be authorised by the MHRA to handle Regulation 174 products. All drug substance and drug product manufacture must be in accordance with EU GMP and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended) in facilities with current EU GMP certificates or other acceptable and suitable authorisation to MHRA.

QP certification declares: (i) compliance with all stages of EU GMP (where non-compliant, a gap analysis must be performed, and captured on the QP checksheet), and (ii) that the batch has been manufactured as per the dossier supplied (currently Emergency Use Authorisation).

Further batches are authorised for supply, subject to batch specific approval by MHRA and providing that the full product lifecycle is in compliance with the conditions specified above in relation to batch EJ0553;

Pfizer/BioNTech must provide relevant additional characterization data regarding drug product manufacturing process and product quality reasonably requested by MHRA, and will provide relevant additional characterization data regarding drug product manufacturing process and product quality, whether or not requested by MHRA, as soon as they become available.

Any changes to or deviation from the manufacture of the product must be notified to MHRA for approval on allocation of the batch to UK use.

The above begs multiple questions:

• How was the MHRA independently and constantly checking that Pfizer conformed to every manufacturing standard it specified, throughout the entire manufacturing process?

• Where is the evidence of the MHRA’s actions in this regard?

• When and how did the MHRA itself ever check the vial content of any Pfizer batch for conformance to ingredients, contamination and standards specifications?

• Which batches were checked, when, how and what was found in them?

• How was the clinical trial batch known to be the same as any other batch and what evidence was that based on? What evidence was provided to the MHRA and how did the MHRA know that the evidence was valid? Was the MHRA involved in independently verifying that evidence?

• Was the clinical trial batch a different batch to batch EJ0553? What comparison was done between those two batches by MHRA?

• Where is all the supplemental Pfizer data that the MHRA required to judge ongoing conformance with authorisation requirements?

These questions arise only from December 2020 MHRA documentation. The following questions arise as a result of the forced release of Pfizer clinical trial documentation and independent analysis of vial contents:

• If quality control and verification is an ongoing process, why are batches being identified as being contaminated with hitherto undeclared and unknown materials including genetic material orders of magnitude out of specification?

• If contamination exists in vials, how can Pfizer be known to conform to GLP & GMP standards specified by the MHRA?

• If the MHRA has not continuously and independently inspected the end-to-end supply process and the final product, how can the MHRA be sure that the products are suitable for use? If it does not look for contamination, how does it know there is no contamination? If contamination is present and identified by non-MHRA actors, how can the MHRA claim to have fulfilled its regulatory obligations?

The MHRA stated in December 2020:

The authorisation is for an identified batch of the vaccine (provided certain conditions are met), together with future batches, which will each be approved by MHRA on a batch specific basis. These conditions are published on the MHRA website.

The MHRA has been assured that acceptable standards of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) are in place for this product at all sites responsible for the manufacture, assembly and batch release of this product.

This batch, and any future batches, of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 are subject to Qualified Person (QP) certification and batch evaluation by an independent control laboratory before the vaccine is released into the UK.

Vaccine BNT162b2 remains under review as MHRA continues to receive data from the company as it becomes available. This will include, for example, long-term follow-up efficacy and safety data.

The specifications controlling the quality of the DNA template are satisfactory. Batch data for the DNA template have been supplied for several batches for which an acceptable level of batch to batch consistency is observed.

The in vitro enzymatic RNA transcription process has been adequately described. The 5’cap and poly(A) tail are co-transcribed with the S1S2 spike protein codon. It is noted that the operating parameters for this process span a wide range however this does not raise any immediate concerns for the batch under review.

More questions arise from the above:

• Where are the batch-by-batch approvals? What work was undertaken and by whom to approve each batch and what were the results?

• Who was the QP involved in the certifications of all UK batches? Which independent lab conducted batch evaluations? What was its methodology and findings? Which batches were subject to independent lab evaluations?

• What data does the MHRA possess re long-term safety and efficacy data?

• What DNA template data has been collected and assessed by the MHRA on an ongoing basis since the initial approval of batch EJ0553 and how can the MHRA prove that the final products in use since Dec 2020 consistently conform to the EJ0553 approval?

• What concerns could/did the wide range of RNA transcription operating parameters present for batches other than the one under review? How are those parameters potentially affected by any change between the clinical trial batch, the batch approved and any other batch? How did the MHRA manage and eradicate any of those concerns?

Hopefully, the above should clearly demonstrate a thought process that stems simply from reading documentation from the MHRA itself before mass roll out began. VST is unaware of anyone medically, scientifically or legally qualified who has publicly asked the above questions of the MHRA or any other regulator, at any time since December 2020.

Some of the opposition have raised suspicions about batches based on certain kinds of limited analysis of VAERS data that suggested a concentration of adverse events in about 5% of batches. McKernan et al have recently actually looked at the vial content and found serious, unknown, undeclared and potentially dangerous contamination, but his work took three years to materialise (no fault of McKernan’s).

Failure to use proper language for political reasons

VST has covered time and again since November 2021 that COVID gene therapies are gene therapies, regardless of whether they have also been classified as vaccines.

From December 2020 onwards, Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna described their own products as gene therapy and stated that the FDA classified it as such, for which no regulatory pathway existed.

In June 2021, Nature published correspondence from Abed that repeatedly described COVID gene therapies as just that in Gene therapy avenues and COVID-19 vaccines:

Although viral vectors are considered relatively safe, there are still some precautions and concerns around them, especially after 1999 when a 20-year-old man died due to an allergic reaction to the vehicle (inactive carrier) during a gene therapy clinical study in Pennsylvania.

More than three decades of research effort on developing gene therapy solutions for many diseases could not convey many healthcare policymakers, pharmaceutical companies, funding agencies, medicine agencies, and drug administrations to adopt gene therapy avenues as highly potential approaches to transfer the therapeutic strategies into a new era. However, these mRNA vaccines, which have been developed and approved within a few months, signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy, which has battled to achieve ordinary acknowledgement due to a large number of sceptical and conservative scientists and other claimed safety and translational concerns. Although these two vaccines are not the first approved drugs utilising genetic materials as active ingredients, they are believed to be a milestone in modern medical history that may forever change pharmaceutical approaches.

In June 2023, the International Journal of Molecular Sciences published a paper by Banoun, mRNA: Vaccine or Gene Therapy? The Safety Regulatory Issues, which stated:

The regulation of medicines and vaccines is a little-known but very important subject. Indeed, health products must undergo very strict controls, as a principle, in order to control their efficacy and safety profile.

The anti-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are the first mRNA vaccines marketed. mRNA vaccines, which represent a new class of vaccine, should be subject to more controls than conventional vaccines because they are based on several new technologies [1]. Although incompletely defined, the mode of action of mRNA vaccines [2] should classify them as gene therapy products (GTP) [3]. But mRNAs as vaccines against an infectious disease have been excluded from GTP regulation by US and EU regulations [4]. No specific regulations existed before the year 2020 for mRNA vaccines. “The current guidelines either do not apply, do not mention RNA therapeutics, or do not have widely accepted definition” [5]. Regulatory agencies therefore had to adopt an emergency procedure to monitor the testing of these products, the rolling review. In rolling reviews, data are submitted and reviewed as they become available before the full data package is available and specific controls for this new platform have been requested [6].

Although incompletely defined, the mode of action of mRNA vaccines should classify them as gene therapy products (GTP) [2]; they are nucleic acids intended to make the cells of the vaccinee produce an antigen, inducing the production of antibodies. This mode of action corresponds exactly to the regulatory agencies’ definition of a GTP.

According to the EMA CHMP report (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) [11]: “The active substance consists of mRNA that is translated into the spike protein antigen of SARS-CoV-2; the LNP protects the RNA and enable transfection of hosts cells after IM delivery; the S protein induces an adaptive immune response”.

According to the FDA [12], gene therapy is a medical intervention based on the modification of the genetic material of living cells. Cells may be altered in vivo by gene therapy given directly to the subject.

From a public health point of view, and knowing that anti-COVID-19 mRNAs considered as vaccines have not undergone all the strict controls required for GTPs (see below), one could object that a product intended for the majority of the world’s healthy population should be subject to more stringent regulation than a GTP intended for a few rare people suffering from a rare disease or cancer (this time concerning millions of people).

VST communicated with some big names in the opposition field and one superb UK group who have been solid throughout COVID. They were all specifically asked to change their language from vaccine to gene therapy and shown the proof underpinning the request. None of them agreed to and none of them provided an evidence-based reason why. The worst response provided was based around the respondent’s guess that the term wouldn’t go down well with the public and would be used to attack them, even though the evidence came from manufacturers’ and regulators’ own documentation. The will to reference truth and evidence was beaten down by political concern for the self, despite already being the complete outsider and wholly side-lined. These people already had nothing left to lose but wouldn’t risk to gain by publicising the internal view of what these products actually were.

Ask yourself why anyone in opposition who is medically, scientifically or legally competent would continue using the vaccine label for COVID gene therapy products? Why would anyone who can read and has been shown the bare minimum of a SEC filing - let alone any of the articles and research published by NIH, Nature and other journals, or heard Bayer’s CEO speak - keep saying “vaccine”?

If it doesn’t vaccinate, and it doesn’t work like any other vaccine, and it demonstrably was classified as a gene therapy and its mechanism of action and primary ingredients are that of a gene therapy, why call a spade a hot egg?

There is no excuse or reason, because language is fundamental to understanding and classification, and to actions that follow from it, including legal action. It is a fundamentally important nuance to show people that the products are one thing that’s been classified as another so that they understand what is going on. But it never happened until it was too late, and it largely still hasn’t happened.

Steve Kirsch, outspoken opponent to the gene therapies, has used the word vaccine 16 times in one of his latest articles about rising disability in the US and UK that he relates to COVID gene therapies. Use substack’s search on his whole output and you’ll get zero results.

Can anyone explain the alarming rise in disability in both the US and UK?

Steve, could it be that some of the reason why people were and are still ignoring or rejecting your message is that they don’t believe vaccines in general are harmful because they’ve all taken loads of other (different) vaccines before and, because they see these gene therapies as vaccines, you’ll never get through to them? But what if they came to understand that the reason why these things are dangerous, ineffective and inadequately controlled and regulated is because they are gene therapies deliberately misclassified? Maybe Steve doesn’t know. Steve knows. Steve chooses to use an inappropriate label. Why?

Failure to organise and co-ordinate on language and pressure

Opposition groups are the only reason why there has been any backpressure on COVID policy and gene therapies. The above doesn’t take away from that. If one looks at the Ron Johnson roundtables, one can see degrees of co-ordination in that forum and there is contact and degrees of co-ordination behind the scenes. But it’s not enough.

Why is it that the platforms of Robert Malone, Peter McCullough and all the other opposition you care to mention and might follow are not acting in effective concert across their audiences? Why is it that they are not uniformly creating unified national or global campaigns and giving their audiences simple instructions to follow and products to use with key medical, scientific, political, media and legal targets to bring the full weight of the true opposition to bear? Why is all this stuff still piecemeal on an interest group, opposition leader, state or national level? The core issues of classification, safety and resultant harm are global and shared by every human on the planet.

Why does the information flow of any given outlet stop at publishing the article instead of continue into simple template letters that people can take and send to targets and share across their platforms?

There is a difference between awareness and action, and it’s critical.

There are no more anti-COVID or anti-pandemic protests, but the effects of the policies are still in play in the worst ways because they are here to stay. They may change form or appearance, but they are persistent. The UK has adopted a raft of laws all borne out of COVID and variously justified by aspects of it, for the express purpose of limiting people’s ability to resist more of the same into the future.

The damage done is irreversible

We’re not talking about death due to gene therapies. We’re talking about the very nature of these gene therapies. Injection with them is literally irreversible and it always has been. Trying to neck tons of curcumin, NAC or nattokinase in the hope of limiting unquantifiably large, self-produced amounts of spike protein is just closing the barn doors after the horse has bolted.

The nature of COVID policies has transformed society, people’s mentalities and their futures. That clock can’t be turned back. These effects over those timeframes are irreversible. The best one can hope for is for their cessation to change the future. The past is another country.

This irreversibility is why certain failures of the opposition matter and will keep mattering. They help to persist the status quo.

How much of a problem does the opposition have if it can’t spot and attack a Trojan horse that it invited into its own living room?

Head of The Lancet’s COVID Commission went on an alt-press junket immediately following the publication of his report. His trick was to say that he believed the virus came from a lab leak, yet his report said “maybe, not sure, need more info” and then stopped looking for info. Sachs was not taken to task by anyone for also saying that every COVID policy was justified, good and should have happened sooner and harder. Why not? Now, that remains the persistent government and WHO line. Even the Grayzone dropped the ball on this. Why? Didn’t they read Sach’s report? The Key Findings are on a single page.

This stuff still matters because it concerns the behaviour of those who either should know better or actually do know better, and how some of them lead or fail to lead the masses effectively, after having chosen to take leadership positions.

Everything that is happening now is too late. That is the ultimate failure of the opposition. It was beaten and kept in a box by its enemy. Think about what that means for the future that is already with us.

Everything in the pipeline is a “vaccine” when really it’s all gene therapy. This is the medical pathway for all of us, for everything. It’s not just about one virus. It’s about the approach to irreversibly affect all humans in ways none of them understand. Why is an issue that big not being screamed about in the correct terms?

Ask your favourite opposition leaders why they aren’t banging the anti-gene therapy drum and why three years have passed since the evidence was given to us by the very people they oppose?

July 2022: A stab at a unifying theory.