Here is a sampling of the truth coming out. Covid was a power and money play. The only winners were the unvaxxed.
It’s Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives
I can’t believe this came from Newsweek, a liberal propaganda rag, but yet here is an excerpt:
As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.
I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.
I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.
But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths…..
The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State
“As ethics program director and ethics community chair, I was involved in basically all of the pandemic policy drafting, right up until the vaccine mandate,” Kheriaty says.
“Our committee at the Office of the President had done the ventilator triage policy, the vaccine allocation policy. But when it came to the vaccine mandate, it came down from on high and there was no discussion debate. Our committee was not involved in drafting the policy.
I was very concerned about the lack of open discussion and debate. Because of all the sensitive policies that we had developed during the pandemic, this one I thought was going to be the most ethically controversial, problematic and the most publicly fraught.
So, I was puzzled by the fact that we didn’t really have a conversation about it. I published a piece in The Wall Street Journal last year, arguing that vaccine mandates are unethical based on the principle of informed consent, which I teach to all the medical students every year.
This is the principle that an adult of sound mind has the right to decide: what medications or interventions to accept or decline, and they have the right to make this decision on behalf of their children who are not yet old enough to give consent.
I was very concerned that vaccine mandates were just tossing this principle overboard under the guise of, ‘We’re in emergency and so the regular rules don’t apply.’ I think it’s precisely in wartime and crises that it’s all the more important to stand fast and hold onto our ethical principles, because those are the times where we’re most tempted to abandon them. And when you do that, you can often invite disaster.”Discern Report excerpt above
The Hidden Covid Vaccine Injured
“At 14.5 my daughter received the Pfizer vaccine for Corona. It was important for us to give her the vaccine due to low lung capacity due to scoliosis (spinal curvature) that developed from a young age (because of an oncological disease from which she suffered up to two years old). Ten days before the vaccination she underwent surgery that was supposed to improve her leg rest and her posture. It is important to understand that immediately after the same surgery she went and everything was fine. A week after the vaccine she suddenly couldn’t stand or walk and the doctors who tested her said it was a neurological phenomenon related to the vaccine and it would pass. And yet, she worked and restored great within two months. On October 12th  she came back from school, I was shopping with her and she went to sleep. At 4am I walked into her room, she couldn’t fall asleep so I covered her in a blanket and stayed with her until she fell asleep. At 8:30 am I walked into her room and she was no longer alive. Only then did I remember that a few days ago she complained about strong heartbeats and I thought she was probably stressed because of school. I didn’t think for a moment that there was a problem with her heart. There never was.
EcoHealth Alliance Whistleblower Dr. Andrew Huff Spills the Beans About DARPA, Bioweapons and Their Ties to Wuhan
EcoHealth also had a program called “Predict” that on paper was all about preventing “the next pandemic,” but in actuality was a farce. Lots of money was spent on collecting coronavirus samples, but it was not producing results because it was based on pseudoscience – and Huff confronted Daszak about it.
“Everyone believes that Fauci was responsible for the gain of function work, but the truth of the matter is that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, wink, wink CIA-lite,” Huff explains.
“USAID has a very humanitarian mission set, but it’s also been used by the CIA for 60 years to infiltrate other countries.”
It was USAID money, Huff says, that was used to link U.S.-based scientists working on gain of function research with their counterparts in communist China. This all started in 2012 and ultimately led to the release of covid in 2019.
The rabbit hole is deep with Huff’s revelations, which he unpacks even more during the rest of the interview and also in his book. Huff and Adams also discuss other pertinent matters such as the ongoing supply chain woes, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, the European energy crisis, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and so much more – be sure to watch the full episode at Brighteon.com.
You can also find the latest news about the covid scandal by visiting Plague.info.
How the unvaccinated got it right
“Winners” was perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek: he seemingly means that the “unvaccinated” do not have to worry about the long-term consequences of having the “vaccine” in their bodies since enough data concerning the lack of safety of the “vaccines” have now appeared to demonstrate that, on the balance of risks, the choice not to be “vaccinated” has been vindicated for individuals without comorbidities.
The much more important point was that the “vaccine” was rolled out without long-term testing. Therefore one of two conditions applied. Either no claim could be made with confidence about the long-term safety of the “vaccine” or there was some amazing scientific argument for a once-in-a-lifetime theoretical certainty concerning the long-term safety of this “vaccine.” The latter would be so extraordinary that it might (for all I know) even be a first in the history of medicine. If that were the case, it would have been all that was being talked about by the scientists; it was not. Therefore, the more obvious, first state of affairs, obtained: nothing could be claimed with confidence about the long-term safety of the “vaccine.”
Given, then, that the long-term safety of the “vaccine” was a theoretical crapshoot, the unquantifiable long-term risk of taking it could only be justified by an extremely high certain risk of not taking it. Accordingly, a moral and scientific argument could only be made for its use by those at high risk of severe illness if exposed to COVID. Even the very earliest data immediately showed that I (and the overwhelming majority of the population) was not in the group.
The continued insistence on rolling out the “vaccine” to the entire population when the data revealed that those with no comorbidities were at low risk of severe illness or death from COVID was therefore immoral and ascientific on its face. The argument that reduced transmission from the non-vulnerable to the vulnerable as a result of mass “vaccination” could only stand if the long-term safety of the “vaccine” had been established, which it had not. Given the lack of proof of long-term safety, the mass-“vaccination” policy was clearly putting at risk young or healthy lives to save old and unhealthy ones. The policy makers did not even acknowledge this, express any concern about the grave responsibility they were taking on for knowingly putting people at risk, or indicate how they had weighed the risks before reaching their policy positions. Altogether, this was a very strong reason not to trust the policy or the people setting it.
Merck’s Covid Pill Linked to New Creation of New Covid Mutations
Merck & Co.’s Covid-19 pill is giving rise to new mutations of the virus in some patients, according to a study that underscores the risk of trying to intentionally alter the pathogen’s genetic code.
Some researchers worry the drug may create more contagious or health-threatening variations of Covid, which has killed more than 6.8 million people globally over the past three years.
Mutations linked to the use of Merck’s pill, Lagevrio, have been identified in viral samples taken from dozens of patients, according to a preprint study from researchers in the US and at the Francis Crick Institute, Imperial College London and other UK institutions.
The drug-linked mutations of the virus haven’t been shown to be more immune-evasive or lethal yet, according to the study published Friday without peer review on the medRxiv website. But their very existence highlights what some scientists say are potential risks in wider use of the drug, which was recently cleared in China.
Lagevrio works by creating mutations in the Covid genome that prevent the virus from replicating in the body, reducing the chances it will cause severe illness.
Some scientists had warned before it was authorized in late 2021 that by virtue of how it works, the drug could give rise to mutations that could turn out to be problematic.