Is it possible that COVID "Gene Alteration Therapy" is a Fauci Money-Making Scheme that will make users "Dependent upon Big Pharma Drug Cocktails for the rest of their lives … just like all AIDS Sufferers"?
Anthony Fauci was targeted by NIH AIDS Protesters before...washingtonpost.com
AID$ profiteer : deadlier than the virus. - Digital CollectionsWhen Profiteering Masquerades As Science: The Evil We ...
When Profiteering Masquerades As Science: The Evil We ...
Germany’s most experienced pulmonologist and former member of the Bundestag was responsible for stopping the 2009 Swine flu fake pandemic. Here, in discussion with Whitney Webb who has researched the industry behind epi-genetic medicine, he recalls a change in legislation in Germany which paved the way for today’s use of gene therapy vaccines, a long term goal of the eugenics movement.
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg & Whitney Webb on gene modification therapy [https://agrdailynews.com/2021/07/19/dr-wolfgang-wodarg-whitney-webb-on-gene-modification-therapy-july-2-2021/]
The mRNA Gene Alteration Therapy is VAIDS. It permanently compromises your immune system. Those so inflicted will be dependent upon Big Pharma drug cocktails for the rest of their lives … just like all AIDS sufferers. - Les Femmes commenter Aqua [https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8568419039847692717&postID=4537701221908153106https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8568419039847692717&postID=4537701221908153106]
Is it possible that COVID "Gene Alteration Therapy" is a money-making scheme that will make users "dependent upon Big Pharma drug cocktails for the rest of their lives … just like all AIDS sufferers"?
Is it possible a money making Big Pharma scheme involving Anthony Fauci happened before?
The Center for Golden States Families reported how this is possible in their article "When Profiteering Masquerades As Science: The Evil We Face Now":
An article dated February 23rd, 2021, from the American Institute for Economic Research reveals Dr. Fauci’s duplicitous nature by pointing out the following: “In May 1983, amid the rapidly escalating AIDS crisis, a doctor at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) promoted a stunning theory about the newly encountered disease in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Noting that the same issue of the journal contained an article documenting one of the first cases of the immunodeficiency disease’s appearance in an infant, the author sounded an alarm about “the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family household, can spread the disease.” The article took an increasingly speculative turn in promoting this new theory. “If indeed the latter is true, then AIDS takes on an entirely new dimension,” it continued. “If we add to this possibility that nonsexual, non-blood-borne transmission is possible, the scope of the syndrome may be enormous.” Although the article reiterated the need to “be cautious” in accepting these findings as they awaited more evidence, the discovery “should at least alert us to the possibility that we are truly dealing with AIDS in children,” as transmitted through routine interaction. The author of the article has since attained widespread familiarity. It was Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, a rising star within the NIH bureaucracy.”
In addition, the article states, “On June 26, less than two months after his JAMA article appeared, Fauci publicly contradicted its most irresponsible claim – albeit without ever acknowledging his own central role in promoting that claim, to begin with. As he told the Baltimore Sun, “It is absolutely preposterous to suggest that AIDS can be contracted through normal social contact like being in the same room with someone or sitting on a bus with them. The poor gays have received a very raw deal on this.” In short, Fauci flip-flopped with the political winds and the press barely even noticed. It’s a familiar pattern to anyone who has closely followed the infectious disease bureaucrat’s public commentary since Covid-19 burst into the national news cycle last January. It usually starts with Anthony Fauci fielding a question about a disease from the press, at which point he offers up a highly speculative answer that nonetheless appears to carry the gravity of his own authority.”
Like today the financial spigots were opened to “research and development” to get a handle on the AIDS virus and to determine what sort of treatment there was. We must add that it is quite interesting how Dr. Fauci implicates children as disease spreaders to create a media-induced hysteria. Perhaps this is why our children are still being masked to continue the hype and hysteria leading to the use of an experimental vaccine. What unfolded from the AIDS epidemic is prophetic as to what would occur during our current Covid-19 Pandemic.
From an article dated October 5th, 2015, in Spin Magazine, we read the following: “On a cold January day in 1987, inside one of the brightly-lit meeting rooms of the monstrous FDA building, a panel of 11 top AIDS doctors pondered a very difficult decision. They had been asked by the FDA to consider giving lightning-quick approval to a highly toxic drug about which there was very little information. Clinically called Zidovudine, but nicknamed AZT after its components, the drug was said to have shown a dramatic effect on the survival of AIDS patients. The study that had brought the panel together had set the medical community abuzz. It was the first flicker of hope — people were dying much faster on the placebo than on the drug. But there were tremendous concerns about the new drug. It had actually been developed a quarter of a century earlier as a cancer chemotherapy, but was shelved and forgotten because it was so toxic, very expensive to produce, and totally ineffective against cancer. Powerful but unspecific, the drug was not selective in its cell destruction. Drug companies around the world were sifting through hundreds of compounds in the race to find a cure, or at least a treatment, for AIDS. Burroughs Wellcome, a subsidiary of Wellcome, a British drug company, emerged as the winner. By chance, they sent the failed cancer drug, then known as Compound S, to the National Cancer Institute along with many others to see if it could slay the AIDS dragon, HIV. In the test tube at least, it did. At the meeting, there was a lot of uncertainty and discomfort with AZT. The doctors who had been consulted knew that the study was flawed and that the long-range effects were completely unknown. But the public was almost literally baying at the door. Understandably, there was immense pressure on the FDA to approve AZT, considering the climate of fear and anger all around.”
Further, into the article, we read the following: “The news that AZT will soon be prescribed to asymptomatic people has left many leading AIDS doctors dumbfounded and furious. Every doctor and scientist I asked felt that it was highly unprofessional and reckless to announce a study with no data to look at, making recommendations with such drastic public health implications. “This simply does not happen,” says Bialy. “The government is reporting scientific facts before they’ve been reviewed? It’s unheard of.” In addition, we also read the following as it pertains to the AIDS epidemic and subsequent treatment: “If AIDS were not the popular disease that it is — the money-making and career-making machine — these people could not get away with this kind of shoddy science,” says Bialy. [https://www.gardenstatefamilies.org/post/when-profiteering-masquerades-as-science-the-evil-we-face-now]
In August, constitutional lawyer Robert Barnes tweeted that there may have been a "rushed... vaccine" before after which came a forcing of "children to take it" that "may have been the origin of AIDS":
9:30 AM · Aug 5, 2021Twitter for Android [https://twitter.com/barnes_law/status/1423320470976409600]
Barnes is apparently referring to a "vaccine virus [that] was grown in tissue cultures taken from macaque monkeys before being administered to about a million people in Burundi, Rwanda, and what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo":
In the late 1950s, several different groups of researchers were developing vaccines against polio, which at the time was still epidemic worldwide. One of these vaccines, developed by Hilary Koprowski, MD (1916-2013), was used in trials in Africa, after first being tested in the United States. The vaccine virus was grown in tissue cultures taken from macaque monkeys before being administered to about a million people in Burundi, Rwanda, and what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In 1992, Rolling Stone magazine published a story that discussed Koprowski’s oral polio vaccine (OPV) as a possible source of HIV and, in turn, the AIDS epidemic. Koprowski sued Rolling Stone and the writer of the article, and the magazine issued a clarification statement in December 1993, saying (in part)
The editors of Rolling Stone wish to clarify that they never intended to suggest in the article that there is any scientific proof, nor do they know of any scientific proof, that Dr. Koprowski, an illustrious scientist, was in fact responsible for introducing AIDS to the human population or that he is the father of AIDS…. Dr. Koprowski's pioneering work in developing polio vaccines has helped spare suffering and death to hundreds of thousands of potential victims of paralytic poliomyelitis and is perhaps one of his greatest contributions in a lifetime of high and widely recognized achievements.
Rolling Stone’s clarification notwithstanding, journalist Edward Hooper wrote a book called The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS in 1999, based on the conjecture about an OPV/HIV link. Hooper argued that the animal cells used to culture the vaccine virus were kidney cells from chimpanzees local to where the vaccine was used, and that those chimpanzees had been infected with Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. According to Hooper, a vaccine made in such a cell culture would lead to human infection with HIV. [https://ftp.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles/debunked-polio-vaccine-and-hiv-link]
Last year, journalist Hooper quoted S. Lochlann Jain, who is a Canadian Professor of Anthropology based at Stanford University, as stating about his book that it “offers one of the very few expositions of the massive global infrastructure of post-WW2 vaccinology... closure on the OPV-HIV debate was achieved not based on the evidence (which was inconclusive) but because of the insistence of the scientists involved in the trials”:
Earlier this year Lochlann wrote an article on this subject which has recently been published on line in “Medical Anthropology Quarterly” [2020, June 12; DOI: 10,1111/maq.12587]. There is a link to the article at the end of this introduction.
In my opinion, the article represents a very welcome contribution to the “Origins of AIDS” literature, offering a fresh perspective in its analysis, even if it sometimes includes sociological jargon that makes is less accessible to the non-specialist reader. Like Brian Martin, Lochlann makes it clear that the OPV/AIDS hypothesis (which proposes that an experimental oral polio vaccine, or OPV, that was given to large numbers of people in central Africa in the late 1950s might be linked to the origins of the AIDS pandemic) was not fairly treated at the RS meeting. Let me identify some of the highlights.
Lochlann states that my book, The River, “offers one of the very few expositions of the massive global infrastructure of post-WW2 vaccinology” and that the closing down of the debate after the RS meeting curtailed critical analysis and “precluded discussion, fact-finding and update of the key, and very much needed, contributions of Hooper’s research. This elision has crucial scientific and policy implications. Certainly it matters for the history of the HIV epidemic.” [Page 2]
Moreover, she concludes that “closure on the OPV-HIV debate was achieved not based on the evidence (which was inconclusive) but because of the insistence of the scientists involved in the trials.” [Page 7] She adds: “a closing of the ranks after the meeting resulted in a situation whereby a small group of scientists controlled how, when and what information was relayed to a broader public, with supporters of the OPV theory blocked from publishing in the scientific press.” [Page 15]
On page 9 she writes powerfully about Hilary Koprowski, the Polish-American virologist who organised the African OPV trials of 1957-1960, involving nearly a million Africans in the Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi. She states that “the entire edifice of the conference depended on the believability and characterisation of Koprowski as a disinterested bystander, genuinely wanting to engage in a debate over whether or not he caused an HIV pandemic that has killed tens of millions of people through his poorly run trial (with no control group and no plan for follow-up) on medically underserved colonial people”.
In a footnote on page 18, Lochlann mentions that during her interview with Robin Weiss in 2017, he said “I would not have trusted Koprowski more than I could throw him”. An interesting comment, given that it was made four years after Koprowski’s death in 2013. But while Koprowski was still alive, Weiss had presided over an effective exoneration of his African vaccine trials.
Lochlann also points out the ambiguities of the concluding paper by Weiss, stating that it “offers a problematic summation, one that neither provides the evidence nor the logic to adequately conclude the debate, despite its presentation as such.” [Page 8]. [http://www.aidsorigins.com/an-introduction-to-lochlann-jains-article-about-the-opv-aids-hypothesis-and-its-treatment-at-the-royal-society-meeting-on-the-origins-of-hiv-and-the-aids-epidemic/#more-1932]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.