Bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid samples were collected in sterile cups to which virus transport medium was added. Samples were then centrifuged to remove cellular debris. The supernatant was inoculated on human airway epithelial cells,13 which had been obtained from airway specimens resected from patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer and were confirmed to be special pathogen- free by NGS.
Supernatant from human airway epithelial cell cultures that showed cytopathic effects was collected, inactivated with 2% paraformaldehyde for at least 2 hours, and ultracentrifuged to sediment virus particles. The enriched supernatant was negatively stained on film-coated grids for examination. Human airway epithelial cells showing cytopathic effects were collected and fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde–2.5% glutaraldehyde and were then fixed with 1% osmium tetroxide dehydrated with grade ethanol embedded with PON812 resin. Sections (80 nm) were cut from resin block and stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, separately.
RNA extracted from bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid and culture supernatants was used as a template to clone and sequence the genome. We used a combination of Illumina sequencing and nanopore sequencing to characterize the virus genome. Sequence reads were assembled into contig maps (a set of overlapping DNA segments) with the use of CLC Genomics software, version 4.6.1 (CLC Bio). Specific primers were subsequently designed for PCR, and 5′- or 3′-RACE (rapid amplification of cDNA ends) was used to fill genome gaps from conventional Sanger sequencing. These PCR products were purified from gels and sequenced with a BigDye Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit and a 3130XL Genetic Analyzer, in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions. Multiple-sequence alignment of the 2019- nCoV and reference sequences was performed with the use of Muscle. Phylogenetic analysis of the complete genomes was performed with RAxML (13) with 1000 bootstrap replicates and a general time-reversible model used as the nucleotide substitution model.
He was at great pains to emphasise that not only was he not an “anti-vaxxer”, but that he was actually a great vaccine enthusiast, considering them one of medicine’s crowning glories – it’s just that Covid vaccines, he explained, are so different to traditional vaccines. They use a completely different technology and they’ve been rushed through in a completely different way. That’s why they’re dangerous. But other vaccines are incredibly safe, incredibly effective. Nothing to worry about there.
in order to instigate The Great Reset, the existing society has to be totally destroyed, and that entails irredeemably annihilating all public faith in existing institutions. We must lose all faith in governments, health care systems, the NHS and the WHO and all other trusted guiding and governing bodies, so we feel utterly furious, enraged, betrayed at every conceivable level, and therefore start screaming out for change – which the social engineers will then dutifully deliver
many thousands of people have been doing this since Covid vaccine development began, and most have been smeared, vilified, and ultimately silenced altogether – de-platformed and demonetised – so I speculated that – as revealing the harms of the vaccine has always been part of “the plan” – Dr. Malhotra could be being unwittingly used by hidden hands to manifest the next stage of their agenda.
I went with my friend Martin to a talk given by esteemed cardiologist, and media personality, Dr Aseem Malhotra entitled: Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine?
The hall at Friends House, the central offices of British Quakers in London, was packed with around a thousand people. The air was electric with a tense static.
That may have been the leather trousers I was wearing.
At around 7.15pm, the good doctor took to the stage. He was greeted with warm applause, whoops and cheers. ‘Ooh Jean, look, it’s him off the telly, the handsome one who told us all to take an experimental gene therapy without once asking if it was in any way ethical. Mind you, he looks smaller in real life.’
As he launched into his spiel, I noted a couple of things. He spoke in a very measured, calm way. The way you speak if you’ve had a lot of media training. At the BBC for instance. It hit me at once that if this man had any passion at all, it was very well hidden.
He also showed not an ounce of remorse, or any sign that he, a doctor, had played any part in this ongoing ethical disgrace.
His dispassionate mumblings included a fairly long section about his distrust of the role Big Pharma plays in medicine, and he cited the very high death toll in the US from prescription drugs. Odd then that Dr Malhotra should implicitly trust the very same Big Pharma who were creating the ‘vaccines’ so hurriedly, to be thrust into the arms of the global population.
Like seeing a good friend buy tyres from a garage that blowout and run the car off the road, and then three weeks later buying the tyres from the same garage. And then recommending those same tyres on Good Morning Britain.
He also re-iterated how serious Covid was as a threat. Apparently, we all knew family members and friends who had been seriously ill, or died from it. Did we? Perhaps it was the tin-foil hat keeping me, and them, safe. This included a particularly patronising NHS-style section about how the obese were more at risk, so diet and lifestyle was paramount. That must be why they closed the gyms, and exercise was limited to an hour a day, whilst people sat at home watching Masterchef and stuffing their faces.
Don’t worry you fat fuck, the jabs that took 48 hours to make in a lab will save you.
The section on the Covid vaccines was so quick, I’d barely done half an eye-roll and it was over. Surely this was the money shot? The moment when he wept, dropped to his knees and said: ‘I abandoned my sacred oath. I caused harm. Please forgive me.’
About twenty five minutes in, a restless member of the audience mumbled something about Matt Hancock, and Malhotra chuckled and said: ‘We’ll talk about Matt Hancock in a minute.’ The red mist descended and I shouted: ‘He should be in prison, and so should you…’ I realised I had to leave for my own sanity, and as I gathered my things and walked out, I turned around and exclaimed: ‘You’re whitewashing your reputation, you’re a lying cunt.’
As I hurried out, a burly security guard opened the door to the street. He asked if I was ok, so I told him what I’d said: ‘Good for you’, he said, ‘I agree’.
Like many others, I once sympathised with Dr Malhotra to some extent, because his own father died from vaccine-induced complications, but over time I’ve come to realise that this is actually a PR exercise in whitewashing the medical profession, without the accountability, contrition or justice.
What I had in fact witnessed was a doctor whose aim was not to humbly beg forgiveness, and say mea culpa for going on TV to praise and promote these jabs, but rather to swerve any culpability at all by seemingly saying ‘it wasn’t my fault, the evidence has changed’.
I realise that what made me angrier than anything was the clapping and swooning from Marjorie and Joan in row C. Majorie and Joan’s beloved grandchildren may have life-changing cardiac issues for life, but let’s give the nice doctor a wink and a smile cos he’s said he didn’t know the risks, but recommended the injections anyway. And he’s got lovely hands.
We’re not talking about prescribing an extra paracetamol by mistake, this is the greatest global, ethical crime committed on BILLIONS of people, including children and babies. Yet he and other medics are not on their hands and knees begging for forgiveness. Yesterday, Malhotra tweeted praise to *checks notes* Piers Morgan, who, without question, would happily have squeezed into his SS-Covid uniform, and shoved the unvaccinated into camps with the butt of a rifle, if things had progressed the way they were going. And they did go in that direction in many countries.
He’s now tweeting about going on Joe Rogan. Mark my words, there’ll be a book next.
At what point will he, and others, say they have failed in their duty as a doctor, and mean it? There’s no contrition, anger, humility, or passion in his demeanour. At one point he even talked about the importance of the relationship between the doctor and the patient. Some bile rose in my gullet.
Hello Mr Irony, I’ve been expecting you.
If doctors like Malhotra are seen to be ‘let off the hook’ then all those who pushed needles containing an experimental gene therapy in arms, and vilified those who refused to have it, will be able to say the ‘evidence has changed’, so let’s just move on.
a) If you didn’t know what was in the serum, why did you push the jabs?
b) If you did know what was in the serum, why did you push the jabs?
c) Whatever the answers are to a & b there should have been NO JAB ROLL OUT.
There must be accountability and justice for what’s been done, or it’ll happen all over again, and much worse. That goes for politicians and the media too.
Late last night, as I sat having a warming shot of Jack Daniels, I got a message on Telegram saying my tirade was unwise (if you can’t call a doctor a cunt for recommending an experimental gene therapy that could kill you, then what have we come to?) and one saying I was just trying to ‘boost my online profile’. Well, I’ve been permanently banned three times from twitter, so that’s working out well.
What I shouted in that room has nothing to do with boosting anything, except perhaps deserved righteous fury at the medical profession, and the media for not acknowledging the gravity of what they’ve done. To be honest, if I gave a shit about my online profile, I’d be cosying up to people like Malhotra, and not calling him a lying cunt in front of a thousand people. I was, and am, furious on behalf of all those whose heart wrenching stories I have been sent, many of which I have read on my podcast. Many are so harrowing I have to pause frequently to compose myself.
My only regret is my choice of cunt-bomb-tirade attire. It’s not easy storming out in squeaky leather trousers.
But by fuck was it worth it.
Comment by Dr Mike Yeadon
As a semi retired lifelong professional R&D scientist & biologist, I knew the whole thing was a fraud from very early on.
Lockdown is a prison expression, never used in public health nor in any pandemic preparedness plan. Yet simultaneously around the world, it was imposed, using the same curve flattening script.
This proved a supranational plot. So it proved.
Literally EVERYTHING the authorities told us was lies, including the need for a vaccine.
Dr Mike Yeadon
Ps: I’ve deliberately made or received not a penny campaigning. So to allegations of grifting, screw you. I’m not an embittered ex employee. I left 11 years ago & had s successful 5y collaboration with them after that. So scratch that lie, too. No, the reason I’ve persisted is that what I’ve said is true. This is long planned & totally fraudulent. Accept it or not. It’s your life.
Pps: this often really annoys people but my job isn’t pleasing the audience. The evidence is overwhelming that there never was a novel virus. They lied about that too.
“To sell chemotherapy as a ‘therapy’ is most likely the biggest deceit in the history of medicine. Whoever masterminded this chemo-torture deserves a monument in hell.”—-Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer
Alternatives
Gerson Therapy
Urine Therapy
Laetrile AKA Amygdalin AKA Vitamin B17
Intravenous High Dose Vitamin C
Hyperthermia
Hydrotherapy
Enzyme Therapy
Lymph Therapy
New German Medicine
Oxygen Therapy
Naturopathic Herbalism
Hoxsey Formula
Essiac
Bio-Electric Therapy
Black Salve
Selenium Therapy
Metabolic Therapy
Immuno-Augmentative Therapy
Krebiozen
Antineoplaston Therapy
Orthomolecular Treatment
Cannabis Oil
Ultraviolet blood irradiation
A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to subject themselves to chemotherapy.
To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: “Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was “appalling” because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can “extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers.” Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life.
He describes chemotherapy as “a scientific wasteland” and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to the “emperor’s new clothes” – neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works!” – The Lancet (the most respected medical journal in the world)
CHEMOTHERAPY and their consequent side effects (as listed in the drugs package inserts for physicians), which include: destruction of the immune system, leukopenia, hemorrhage, gonadal suppression, bone marrow depression, phlebosclerosis (hardening of the veins), severe cellulites, vesication(blistering), tissue necrosis(death), fever, chills, nausea, prolonged vomiting, partial or total hair loss, lethargy, disorientation, ataxis(inability to coordinate muscle movements), dysarthria( impaired speech), anorexia, entertitis, stomatitis, erythema, (morbid redness of the skin), anemia, liver failure, kidney failure, cancer, and death.
For decades there has been a great deal of controversy within the medical community over what kind of medical treatment is most efficacious in treating cancer.
Latest findings reveal all conventional medical treatment for cancer is not helpful. The late Dr. Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at Berkeley, California, made a study lasting 25 years of the lifespan of cancer patients, and concluded that untreated patients do not die sooner than patients receiving orthodox treatment, (surgery, radiation and chemotherapy), and in many cases they lived longer. After almost 40 years as a cancer researcher, Dr. Jones found for example that survival in breast cancer is four times longer without conventional treatment. He stated, “People who refused treatment lived for an average of 12 and a half years.
Those who accepted other kinds of treatment lived on an average of only 3 years.” It is important to note that no refutations of Dr. Jones work have appeared, while on the other hand, his studies have been supported by other researchers, as a search of the Science Citation Index reveals.
Even the Journal of the American Medical Association took note of the phenomenon when, in its diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer by Dr. Maurice Fox, a biologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. On the basis of studies carried out at the Harvard School of Public health, Dr. Fox found, among other things, that: Those who refused medical procedures had a lower mortality rate than those who submitted.
Five men rule the world. None of them holds public office, but they choose who shall hold office in the nations. These five men comprise the apex of the pyramid of power, the World Order. We may ask, Why should there be a World Order ? Is it not sufficient to hold absolute power in a single nation, or in a group of nations ? The answer is No, because of the nature of international travel, international trade, and international finance.
International travel requires that a person may travel in peace from one nation to another, without being molested. Excepting cases of anarchy, revolution or war, this requirement can usually be met. International trade requires that traders of one nation can go to another nation, transact their business, and return with their goods or their profits. This requirement too is usually met. If not, the offended nation can exercise military force, as Great Britain did in its Opium Wars.
It is the third requirement, international finance, which called into being the World Order. In earlier days, when international trade consisted of barter, payment in gold or silver or piracy, the seizure of goods by force, there was no need for a world arbiter to determine the value of instruments of trade. The development of paper money, stocks, bonds, acceptances and other negotiable instruments necessitated a power, able to exercise influence anywhere in the world, to declare that a piece of paper represented one billion dollars in real wealth, or even one dollar in real wealth.
An entry on a computer, flashed from London to New York, states that someone owes five billion dollars to someone else. Without genuine power backing, no such sum could ever be collected, regardless of the factuality or morality of the debt. As anyone in the Mafia can tell you, you don’t collect unless you are willing to break legs. The World Order is always prepared to break legs, and break them they do, by the millions.
What would have happened to the earliest settlers in America if they had gone to the Indians and said, “Give us your goods and the deeds to your homes and lands. In return, we will give you this beautifully printed piece of paper.” The Indians would, and did, attack them. If the settlers arrived with an army led by a Pizaro or a Cortez, they took the lands without a piece of paper.
The World Order rules with its pieces of paper, but behind every paper is a force which can be employed anywhere in the world. The force may be disguised by various subterfuges as international agreements, associations or other camouflage, but its base is always force.
“That the aggressor, who puts himself into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades another man’s right, can, by such an unjust war, never come to have a right over the conquered, will be easily agreed by all men, who will think that robbers and pirates have a right of empire over whomsoever they have force enough to master, or that men are bound by promises which unlawful force extorts from them.
Should a robber break into my house, and, with a dagger at my throat, make me seal deeds to convey my estate to him, would this give him any title?
Just such a title by his sword has an unjust conqueror who forces me into submission.
The injury and the crime is equal whether committed by the wearer of a crown or some petty villains. The title of the offender and the number of his followers make no difference in the offence, unless it be to aggravate it. The only difference is, great robbers punish little ones to keep their obedience, but the great ones are rewarded with laurels and triumphs because they are too big for the weak hands of justice in this world, and have the power in their possession which should punish offenders.”
John Locke, English philosopher whose works lie at the foundation of modern philosophical empiricism and political liberalism.
It may sometimes be appropriate to give tyrants outward obedience for pragmatic reasons. But no one needs to give a tyrant their heart.
First of all you have to understand that religion in its real spiritual form cannot be created by man. Religion is the natural spiritual principle, divine in character, which operates along with the principle of “cosmosity” in which the original creativity is manifested. It is the spiritual aspect the Supreme Power which is all God. Therefore, it is perpetually existing without interruption. Consequently, it cannot be man made. The rishis did not make any religion, but explained different aspects of religion which are always in existence. Neither did any “incarnation” found any individual religion, but expounded and strengthened religion which is eternally existing.
I said: But what about Buddhism, Christianity or Islam? Were they not founded by men?
Long time after Krishna left our earth, Gautama Buddha came to this world. He can be considered as the first spiritual leader in India whose name has been associated with the introduction of Buddhism. Buddha revived yoga by his own example – yoga which had become corrupted and abused by that time. In his life, he showed how to reach the final stage of spiritual yoga. He showed how, by making our consciousness void – free from all mundaneness – we could realise directly the ultimate reality where everything is non-being.
I said: What about Jesus Christ? What about Mohammad?
Jesus Christ was a great spiritual leader in Western Asia at that time and is regarded as an incarnation. He manifested his spirituality in that high degree, where his consciousness, raised above all worldliness, and in a state of concentratedness which contained God alone, became godly, and finally the divine consciousness was reabsorbed in God. It was possible for his intimate disciples, who realised God in Christ and in themselves, to develop Christianity, through which, being spiritually inspired, they wanted to give the essence of spiritual truth to man for his salvation. Mohammad also realised God within, in concentration, and wished to communicate the spiritual truth to man.
I said: If such great spiritual persons as Buddha, Christ and Mohammad are the founders of the great religions, why are they not effective?
So long as the spiritual currents flow in a religion or in one of its forms or doctrines by the tremendous spiritual impetus of a great religious leader, religion remains alive and consequently becomes fruitful. But as soon as spirituality ebbs, religion becomes mere words without life. When the spiritual force imparted by Buddha in his doctrine began to be diminished as time passed, distortion and corruption came, and spirituality was replaced by the dead words of theory. At a certain time, Shankara, who realised Brahman in samadhi, was able to destroy the Buddhist doctrine of lifeless words as then preached by followers of the Buddha, and to establish the Upanishada One and All Brahman doctrine. This was possible because of his great spiritual combined with the extraordinary brilliance of his intellect. But when Shankara’s spirituality began to ebb in his followers in later times, the Brahman doctrine likewise assumed wordiness without spiritual life. In this condition it was unable to stand against the bhakti doctrine of the great bhakti-yoga Chaitanya, who was immersed in the deepest love of God, both in concentration and in daily life.
Shankara: an influential Indian philosopher and religious teacher who established the Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy
samadhi: is the eighth and final step on the path of yoga, as defined by Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. Direct translations vary, and interpretations range from “bliss” to “liberation” and even “enlightenment.”
Brahman: beyond human understanding
bhakti: a movement emphasizing the mutual intense emotional attachment and love of a devotee toward a personal god and of the god for the devotee.
bhakti-yoga: is a practice of selfless devotion and recognition of the Divine in everything. Bhakti yoga is one of the most common paths of spiritual development, particularly in India where the practice originated.
Upanishads: one of the most important religious and philosophical texts of the Hindus.
Krishna: is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Chaitanya: Hindu mystic whose mode of worshipping the god Krishna with ecstatic song and dance had a profound effect on Vishnuism in Bengal.
Vishnuism: one of the major forms of modern Hinduism, characterized by devotion to the god Vishnu and his incarnations (avatars).
