Consumer Power

My Experience With Mild COVID and Early Treatments

Organic consumers - Tue, 2021-10-19 17:52
October 19, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationNate DoromalCOVID-19, COVID-19 Treatment, OCA on COVID-19 c3_1200x630.png

Medical Disclaimer: The below does not constitute medical advice. It is presented for informative purposes and to detail my own COVID-19 experience, including what treatments I used. You should discuss COVID-19 treatments with your physician, especially if you have pre-existing conditions.

I got COVID-19, and I recovered. Below are the details of my experience and the COVID treatment protocols I used to get better.

I want to paint an honest picture of what getting COVID-19 was like. There are cases of people who got it but are largely asymptomatic or have symptoms akin to a cold. In contrast, I got decently sick - overall still considered mild COVID but akin to some of the tougher flu cases I have experienced. It took me a full two weeks until I could say I was recovered, which is pretty typical for mild cases.

While getting COVID-19 was no walk in the park, too often, the media paints too fearful a picture of it, emphasizing dying people on ventilators and then long-haul COVID. The truth is that over one hundred million Americans, including myself, have recovered from COVID-19.

With so many people getting COVID -19, the focus of medicine should have been how to treat early COVID effectively at home to minimize the possibility that it will worsen. Here I hope to share knowledge regarding early treatment. 

What is it like for me to get COVID-19?

While getting COVID-19 was no walk in the park, too often, the media paints too fearful a picture of it, emphasizing dying people on ventilators and then long-haul COVID. The truth is that over one hundred million Americans, including myself, have recovered from COVID-19, and you have the ability to do so too.

For two days, I felt like I had a cold coming down. But then, I got full-blown sickness with fever, chills, and body aches. Suspecting COVID, I started parts of the FLCCC Early Outpatient I-Mask+ Protocolthat evening. I took a dose of Ivermectin, vitamin D3, vitamin C, quercetin, and zinc. I was lucky in that I had prepared all of this in advance just in case I came down with COVID.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance is a group of front-line clinicians whose purpose is to research and develop effective treatment protocols for COVID-19. They pioneered a hospital treatment protocol for severe cases and the early treatment protocol, which I used. They have extensively researched the efficacy of Ivermectin. Their early protocol is as follows:

I did not use Fluvoxamine during the time I was sick as I didn’t have it on hand. I did not do the nasal/oral rinse, though, given the mouth problems I later experienced, I wish I had.

I was completely floored during the first three days. I had a moderate fever, chills, and the fatigue was such that I had to lie down in bed all day long. My body ached all over, sufficiently enough that it was difficult sleeping. On top of this, I had a pretty bad headache. Oddly enough, I did not have any cough and sore throat, but I did have some swelling in the salivary glands. I was lucky not to have any shortness of breath during the entire time I was sick.

I drank a lot of fluids (mainly herbal teas with honey). I got a respite from the fever, chills, and body aches by taking hot baths with Epsom salt thrice a day. I had little to no appetite during these first initial days.

A well-meaning friend sent me this COVID case guideline, but the only part I agreed with was the guidance on fluids. There was no way I could have physically consumed 2000 calories and 75-100 grams of protein in my state during those first couple of days. The only things I could eat were soups and bone broth. There is wisdom in the body in suppressing appetite as it only allows the energy used for digestion to be devoted to healing.

My headache picked up on day 2. In response, I added aspirin and added 10 mg of melatonin in the evening and continued using this for the next five days until the headache became tolerable.  This helped me with my sleep. However, I am not in the habit of using painkillers, so I limited my aspirin to just one dose of 325 mg at bedtime.

On day 3, my fever and chills continued, and I remained in bed all day long. I started megadosing vitamin C until bowel tolerance, taking around 10-15 grams orally per day. I continued using vitamin C during the remainder of the time I was sick.

On day 4, I felt strong enough to sit at a desk and use a computer. I had a bad spasming headache that lasted all day. My fever broke, and my chills abated. I noted today that my gums had become swollen and painful.  Looking at the research, I learned that the mouth tissue has ACE2 receptors, making it a target for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. My appetite had come back somewhat, but due to my mouth condition, eating was painful.

On day 5, I felt a lot stronger. I still had a headache, and I was still sick. But it was more like a normal sick instead of a COVID sick. My improvement was substantial enough to feel confident that I was out of the woodsand would not get severe COVID.

On day 6, I felt about the same as the previous day. I was still sick, and I felt like this virus was hanging around. So I started the Brownstein Protocol, which Dr. David Brownstein developed. He used this protocol to treat over 500 COVID patients with zero deaths and a meager hospitalization rate.  The goal of the protocol is to boost the body’s immune system capabilities to fight off the virus.

It consists of the below vitamin oral supplements and the use of a nebulizer with 0.04% hydrogen peroxide with one drop of 5% Lugol’s iodine:

A nebulizer is a medical device that converts liquid medication into a mist so it can be inhaled into the lungs (the one I used is here). While hydrogen peroxide is known as a disinfectant that can kill viruses and bacteria, it is less known that our own white blood cells use hydrogen peroxide as a weapon against infection. At the start of the pandemic, I purchased one after seeing anecdotal reports that it helped against COVID. I used the nebulizer 1-2x times a day.

From days 6-10, I stayed on the Brownstein protocol. I noted that midday, after taking the vitamins, that I felt a boost in my energy. My headache and fatigue were still present, but I saw steady improvement day-to-day. On day 8, I started taking 600 mg of NAC after learning research that suggested it can inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

My mouth was still giving me problems. My gums were still swollen, and it was surprisingly uncomfortable. I started to treat it actively. Overall though, improvement for my mouth was slow.

I started oil pulling twice a day using coconut oil with two drops of clove essential oil. Clove oil is a known natural remedy for helping with swollen gums, and I got some immediate relief from it. I also started taking 4,000 mg of lysine to promote mouth wound healing. I also started using colloidal silver, purported to have anti-bacterial and anti-viral properties. I would take a teaspoon of it and swish it around my mouth before swallowing it five times daily. The use of the nebulizer also helped my mouth.

On days 11-13, I noticed that my energy levels got better each day, but some fatigue and headache persisted. So I pushed down my vitamin intake to 25,000 IUs of Vitamin A, 8,000 IUs of Vitamin D, 50 mg of zinc, and 8 mg of iodine. Mouth started to feel better by day 12 though some minor swelling remained even past day 14.

By day 14, I was feeling good enough that I could say I had recovered. Certainly, it was not yet time to do heavy exercise, but I was back to doing work and chores around the house.

In retrospect, if I had to re-do my treatment protocol, I would have started the FLCCC I-Mask+ protocol and the Brownstein vitamin protocol concurrently. I missed a few days of Ivermectin doses because I did not think I needed it anymore. Had I known the COVID would hang on the entire two weeks, I would not have missed any doses. I also would have started treating my mouth earlier as soon as I had indications it was a problem. I felt like I also got a lot of benefits from nebulizing; I should have started immediately.

I had chosen these particular protocols largely due to familiarity since I had been actively researching them. There are other good protocols, including the Zelenko protocol (which makes use of HCQ) and the Bartlett protocol (which makes use of budesonide). Dr. Peter McCullough has a good guide to COVID early treatment (available free here).

I recommend doing research on all of the discussed protocols and then discussing options with your physician. It is better to have your homework done and have a plan before you need it. For example, you should be familiar with obtaining Ivermectin (see instructions at FLCCC and at America’s Frontline Doctors). Those sites also list front-line doctors who are experienced in treating COVID-19 and are available for telehealth sessions.

What are the risks from COVID-19?

In reality, there is a wide variety of demographic and genetic profiles in society, and not all of us will be equally affected by COVID-19. Often the media likes to make the risk decision for us while neglecting to tell us the actual probability of harm or that these probabilities differ per person.

In its COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios document (last updated March 19, 2021), the CDC calculated its best estimate of infection fatality rates based on the latest epidemiological data. Infection fatality rates (IFR) are defined as the ratio of deaths per number of infections. 

While these IFRs are an aggregate measure of risk (sometimes IFRs can differ depending on local conditions), they provide a rough idea of the odds of death.

To make it easier to interpret, we can present the above information in an odds format to give a rough estimate of the odds of death depending on the age range.

0–17 years old: 

1 in 50,000

18–49 years old: 

1 in 2,000

50–64 years old: 

1 in 167

65+ years old: 

1 in 11

According to the CDC estimates, these statistics mean that death occurs in roughly 1 in 50,000 COVID cases in children, 1 in 2,000 cases in adults ages 18-49, 1 in 167 cases in adults ages 50-64, and 1 in 11 cases for seniors. To put these statistics into perspective, the FBI in 2018 calculated the murder rate to be 1 in 20,000, and the odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash in 2019 were approximately 1 in 8,400.

Still, rough risk estimates can be higher or lesser depending on the characteristics of the person. For example, having one or more pre-existing conditions (also called co-morbidities) affects the risk of severe COVID-19 infection. Some of these conditions include asthma, diabetes, cancer, obesity, having a heart condition, etc. If one did not have these pre-existing conditions, then conceivably, one would have improved recovery odds relative to the CDC estimates.

The 1 in 11 fatality case odds for death for seniors warrants some discussion. COVID affects seniors disproportionately relative to the other age groups. However, the 65+ age range is a wide band. Therefore, one would expect risks to differ substantially depending if one were age 65 versus age 80+. Also, pre-existing conditions widely vary among the elderly, which would lead to a wide variance in fatality case odds among seniors. Still, it would make sense then for seniors to take additional precautions related to COVID.

There are studies to indicate that a nutrient deficiency can serve as a risk factor for severe COVID. For example, this study found that vitamin D or selenium deficiencies may affect the immune system and increase the risk for severe COVID. Another study identified the importance of essential nutrients zinc, ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), vitamin D, and magnesium for both the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Even if one recovers, there is the possibility of long-haul COVID, a condition in which symptoms persist 60 days or more after recovery. According to a University of California study, long-haul COVID occurs in 27% of non-hospitalized patients. There are options to treat long-haul COVID, such as the FLCCC I-Recover protocol.

Given the above facts, I decided that the COVID vaccine was not worth it for me (see my examination of COVID vaccine injury risk). I am 39 years old with no pre-existing conditions and in decent health. I exercise five times a week, and my body weight is in the normal range. I eat a decently good diet with sufficient quantities of organic fruits and vegetables. Based on this, I gauged the mortality assessment for myself to be far less than the 1 in 2000 CDC statistic.

I did not think the short-term risk of COVID was sufficient to justify the potential long-term risks from the COVID vaccines. Despite getting sick, I now have immunity to the virus, and I believe I made the right decision. Of course, you might calculate differently for yourself. I believe it is a person’s right to decide whether or not the COVID vaccine is right for them.

The Case for Effective COVID Early Treatments

I considered myself lucky to have been researching COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. I was familiar with early treatment protocols, and I had the requisite supplements on hand. But what about others? Why isn’t this knowledge more widely known? There is a real need for research into early treatments and guidance for those who get sick,

Sadly, this guidance has been lacking from public health authorities. For example, during the pandemic height in 2020, too often, people who tested positive for COVID-19 were just left with the guidance “go home and, if you get worse, then go to the hospital.”

This lack of guidance did a tremendous disservice to the public, especially since there were front-line doctors, like FLCCC and America’s Frontline Doctors, who were at the forefront of pioneering treatments.

In testimony to the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee, Dr. Peter McCullough, professor of medicine at Texas A&M, calls the blatant disregard for COVID treatments a complete failure on the part of public health and medicine.

Dr. McCullough stated: “You get handed a diagnostic test that says ‘here you're COVD positive - go home.’ Is there any treatment? No. Are there any resources I can call? No. Any referral lines or research hotlines? No. That's the standard of care in the United States. How many of you have ever gotten a single word about what to do when you get handed a diagnosis? No wonder this is a complete and total failure at every level.”

Industry professionals have outrightly attacked early treatments despite evidence that speaks to their efficacy. One such treatment is the drug Ivermectin which has multiple favorable randomized controlled trials. The drug has been used in widespread settings in Mexico, India, and Argentina, with each region reporting significant death reductions. Despite some contrary studies cherry-picked by industry to discredit it, according to the FLCCC, the totality of the evidence speaks for itself.

The following infographic illustrates this evidence:

Could efforts to discredit Ivermectin be related to the pharmaceutical industry’s desire to produce its own patented anti-viral treatments? Since Ivermectin is a generic drug, it would command a substantially smaller profit margin than a patented anti-viral. 

A recent Science article lauded the benefits of Merck’s new anti-viral drug Molnupiravir with descriptions like “game-changer” but ironically ignored crucial evidence and demanded an impossible evidence bar from the generic drug Ivermectin. The double standard is obvious.

Unfortunately, public health authorities have deemphasized, or even sought to attack, possible COVID early treatments. Assumedly, such efforts teach the belief that if no early treatments were possible, then the importance of the vaccine becomes much greater. But, contrary to the goals of public health, such efforts lead to harm.

Still, public ignorance about early treatments helps with that goal but at a tremendous cost - it is hurting, even killing, Americans. So it is clear that medicine has some soul-searching to do.

It is now clear that the vaccine does not stop COVID variants, and there are currently over 100,000 reported “breakthrough” cases of COVID in fully vaccinated individuals. And, according to vaccinologist Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, it is possibly the vaccination campaign during an ongoing pandemic that is driving the variants.

With vaccination unlikely to stop COVID-19, it is time for medicine and public health to place more of its focus on early treatments and the prevention of hospitalizations in the first place.

At this time, the CDC estimates 1 in 3 Americans have already been infected with COVID-19. That means approximately 114 million have already recovered from it. Furthermore, a new study shows that long-term immunity among those that have recovered is robust.

It will not be the vaccine that controls the pandemic but natural herd immunity obtained through COVID-19 recoveries. So let us make sure all doctors and clinicians know about early treatments so we can save lives and make that transition as smooth as possible. 

The Truth About COVID-19: What Now?

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-10-13 23:24
October 13, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationRonnie CumminsCOVID-19, COVID-19 Treatment, COVID-19 Nature and Virulence, OCA on COVID-19 coronavirus_mask_1200x630.jpg

For the past 18 months OCA and our allies have done our best to search out and expose the shocking (and highly-censored) truth about COVID-19: its origins, nature, virulence, prevention, and treatment. You can look at what we’ve discovered in my new best-selling book, The Truth About COVID-19, co-authored with Dr. Joseph Mercola, with a powerful Foreword by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, which was released at the end of April.  Beyond this book, you can read the extensive, daily-updated, archives on COVID-19 compiled by OCA here, here, and here, as well as the archives of our long-time ally U.S. Right to Know.

So what have we accomplished in terms of COVID Truth–Telling?

First of all we, and an international network of independent investigators and scientists, have thoroughly debunked the “official story” (propagated by Communist China, global gene-engineers, military contractors, the U.S. government, Big Pharma, Anthony Fauci, and Bill Gates) that COVID-19 was a natural occurrence, unpredictable and unavoidable, and that critics like us pointing to overwhelming evidence of a lab release are nothing more than tinfoil-hat “conspiracy theorists,” embittered right-wing fanatics, or disinformation specialists.

A poll taken several months ago by Politico and Harvard University indicates that even then (with new evidence coming out daily) 59% of Republican voters and 52% of Democrats believe that SARS CoV-2 came out of an unregulated, accident-prone (dual-use, military and biomedical) virology lab in Wuhan, China. As Yahoo news pointed out: “The survey found that 52 percent of Americans believe coronavirus leaked from a lab, compared with 28 percent who think the pandemic started following human contact with an infected animal. Support for the lab-leak theory is bipartisan, with 52 percent of Democrat and 59 percent of Republican respondents backing the theory.”

More and more people now understand that all risky, gain-of-function experiments that engineer viruses, bacteria, and insects to become more deadly should be banned, not only in the US and China, but worldwide. OCA’s petition to ban gain-of-function experimentation now has over 65,000 signatures. Please, if you haven’t signed our petition already, do so now, and ask everyone you know to do the same.

Second of all, more and more people are becoming aware that the “official story” on the nature and virulence of COVID-19 is based on Big Pharma propaganda, faulty statistics, manipulated research, partisan politicking, and panic-mongering journalism, rather than sound science. The official propaganda narrative is that COVID-19 (and now, its highly transmissible, but less virulent variants) pose a mortal threat to everyone, young and old, healthy and unhealthy alike, those with high Vitamin D levels and strong immune systems, as well as those with weak immune systems, i.e. the elderly and immune-compromised, and those with serious and often multiple co-morbidities such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. All of these notions are now being exposed as propaganda rather than fact, propagated 24/7 by those with economic interests in rushed-to market experimental vaccines, drug advertising, government/military contracts, and expensive (and ineffective) patented drugs such as remdesivir. 

In addition more and more people, including a growing number of doctors and health care providers are starting to understand and point out that the 100 million+ Americans (and several billion across the world) that have already developed strong natural antibodies after recovering from COVID have strong natural immunity, apparently far stronger immunity than the short-lived immunity of those who have been injected voluntarily or under pressure with Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, Astra-Zeneca “vaccines” and boosters. In the words of Children’s Health Defense, the Biden administration (and blue state governors and mayors) denial of natural immunity, and insistyence on mandatory injections is “tearing the nation apart.”

The bottom line is that there is no valid scientific, ethical, or political reason (as opposed to greed, social control, and partisan politics) to be injecting children, students, recovered COVID victims, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and those in good health with experimental drugs, especially experimental drugs, according to official VAERS reports, as of October 1, that have caused 778,000 adverse reactions, 16,000 deaths, and 111,000 serious injuries  with potential long term damage to millions more. No wonder a number of Scandinavian countries are now banning injections of these experimental drugs into youth.

Last but not least, we and our allies are exposing the truth on the prevention and treatment of COVID, unraveling the official story that these Trump/Biden Warp Speed experimental vaccines are completely safe, effective at preventing infection, and long-lasting. Latest research from 68 nations shows that in fact the most highly vaccinated countries are experiencing the most new cases of COVID-19. Even the militantly pro-vaccine, European Journal of Epidemiology Vaccines recently admitted that the “sole reliance” on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences “needs to be re-examined,” and that “Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates…” and moreover that “stigmatizing populations over vaccines can do more harm than good, and non-pharmacological prevention efforts needs to be renewed in order to learn to live with COVID in the same manner we continue to live 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.”

Meanwhile, Children’s Health defense points out that latest reports from several highly vaccinated nations indicate that those infected with COVID after being vaccinated are apparently experiencing more serious symptoms than those previously unvaccinated. 

It is now abundantly clear, according to medical professionals such as the Frontline Doctors for COVID Critical Care that natural immunity and alternative prevention and early treatment with off-patent, inexpensive drugs such as Ivermectin (and a protocol that includes Vitamin D, quercetin, zinc, and melatonin)  are actually much safer and more effective than Big Pharma’s experimental vaccines.

Ronnie Cummins is co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Regeneration International. To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here.

Military Pollution: SARS-CoV-2 and Now 'Forever Chemicals'

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-10-13 18:15
October 13, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationRonnie CumminsEnvironment & Climate pollution_factory_environment_1200x630.jpg

As we’ve pointed out for months, the reckless lab engineering or so-called gain-of-function experiments that gave rise to SARS-CoV-2 at Wuhan were conducted in a dangerously unregulated, accident-prone lab considered “dual-use” by U.S. and Chinese military officials. “Dual-use” refers to the lab engineering of microbes and pathogens, such as coronaviruses, which have both military and medical applications. 

Bioweapon production violates international law, the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, signed by the U.S., China, Russia and most other nations, and is considered a crime against humanity, but if you categorize it as “biodefense” or “biomedical/vaccine” research you can literally get away with mass murder, as the pandemic has shown.  

For decades researchers have been trying to warn us against these biowar experiments, as this 2007 article on the OCA website points out, but unfortunately the GM military madness with Big Pharma/biotech collaboration has continued.

The primary and insidious reason why the Chinese military and the Pentagon fund certain types of “biomedical” research (along with Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and government medical funders such as Fauci’s National Institutes of Health or the Chinese National Academy of Sciences) is because the military understands quite well that genetically engineered, souped-up, essentially weaponized viruses and bacteria (and insects such as ticks) have military uses as well as (supposed) applications in medicine.

 OCA’s Political Director, Alexis Baden-Mayer has been researching and writing about gain-of-function experiments since the beginning of the pandemic. Other journalists including Whitney Webb and Sam Husseini have done the same.

The anthrax attacks in the US in 2001, which created mass panic and paved the way for the Patriot Act and the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, were carried out using weaponized, aerosolized anthrax bacteria, called the “Ames strain,” which was exclusively lab-engineered by the US military and released by a cabal of military/government insiders who obviously had access to these deadly pathogens, and strategically timed their release shortly after 9/11.

 Now there’s another kind of military pollution we have to worry about, PFAS or “Forever Chemicals” leaching from flame retardants, flame-resistant wiring, and other military equipment. These deadly chemicals are polluting millions of Americans’ drinking water, irrigation water, sewage sludge (applied on non-organic farms as fertilizer) and food. PFAS contamination is considered very dangerous even at parts per trillion.

Learn more: DOD releases new data on PFAS contamination of bases

Read more: GOF Hall of Shame

Biden's Approval Rating Plummets

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-10-13 18:03
October 13, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationRonnie CumminsPolitics & Globalization joe_biden_1200x630.jpg

 

Polls indicate that the majority of Americans are losing faith in the Biden Administration. Biden’s net approval rating has fallen by 25 points since January, from +18 to -7. Although the indentured mainstream and “progressive” media are still in COVID-19 cover up mode and denial we need to ask: When will Biden accept the fact that dodging the obvious lab origins of COVID-19 (financed and engineered by U.S. scientists, Big Pharma, and the Pentagon in collaboration with their Chinese military and scientific counterparts) is insanely dangerous and ultimately politically unpopular? 

When will Biden and his medical Czars stop denying the fact that 100 million Americans already have natural immunity to COVID-19, superior to what the experimental vaccines deliver, and that there’s no evidence that masks, outside of hospital settings, reduce infection by this genetically engineered, nanoparticle-sized bioweapon?

When will our new “Great Reset” masters stop denying the now obvious collateral damage of the lockdowns and restrictions on small businesses and schools; the psychological and physical damage of forcing masks and vaccines on children and students who are no more at risk from the Delta variant than the seasonal flu; and stop bragging that they have coerced 30 million Americans into being injected or else be fired from their jobs? 

These authoritarian and unprecedented actions are not that smart politically, especially after yanking unemployment benefits on Labor Day from millions of COVID-impacted workers, and then failing (so far at least) to deliver on popular programs for expanding Medicare and child tax credits, taxing the ultra-rich, forcing Big Pharma to stop price-gouging, community college tuition waivers for students, climate action, paid parental leave, and green jobs, including a Climate Corps. 

Even for those true believers in lockstep with the current administration on their bungled handling of the COVID crisis, Biden & Company’s arrogance and belligerence toward those who disagree, and the administration’s blatant violation of basic constitutional rights will likely “sink the ship” on his economic justice and climate programs, with giant corporations, the fossil fuel lobby, and Big Pharma laughing all the way to the bank.

When will Biden and Washington (including the Republicans) understand that Big Pharma, Silicon Valley, and the military-industrial complex are not our friends, and comprehend that banning reckless gain-of-function engineering of potential pandemic pathogens is not just a minor partisan issue?  

When will those passionate about women’s “right to choose” accept that all Americans have the “right to choose” regarding experimental medical procedures for themselves and their children as well? (And vice-versa.) When will Biden and the Democrats understand that forced vaccinations, and vaccinations of children, youth, and those with natural acquired immunity are far more politically unpopular than they appear?

Regenerative Food and Farming: Survival and Revival

Organic consumers - Tue, 2021-09-28 22:49
September 28, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationRonnie CumminsEnvironment & Climate, Farm Issues regen_1200x630.png

"Regenerative agriculture provides answers to the soil crisis, the food crisis, the climate crisis, and the crisis of democracy.”

— Dr. Vandana Shiva, Co-Founder Regeneration International

Regenerative agriculture and holistic livestock management represent the next, crucial stage of organic food and farming, not only avoiding toxic pesticides, fertilizers, sewage sludge, GMO seeds, and excessive greenhouse gas emissions, but regenerating soil fertility, water retention, carbon sequestration, and rural livelihoods as well.  

Regeneration has now become the hottest topic in the natural and organic food sector. At the same time, climate activists regularly discuss the role of organic and regenerative practices in reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering excess atmospheric carbon dioxide in soils and agricultural landscapes.

Inside Regeneration International, which now includes 400 affiliates in more than 60 countries, our primary focus is  moving beyond the basics of Regeneration to identifying regenerative and organic “best practices” around the globe and figuring out how to utilize farmer innovation, marketplace demand, policy reform, and public and private investing to qualitatively spread and scale these best practices up so that organic and regenerative becomes the norm, rather than just the alternative, for the planet’s now degenerative multi trillion-dollar food, farming and land use system.               

Either we move beyond merely treating the symptoms of our planetary degeneration and build instead a new system based upon regenerative food, farming and land use, coupled with renewable energy practices and global cooperation instead of superpower competition and belligerence, or we will soon pass the point of no return. 



In 2010 Olaf Christen stated, "Regenerative agriculture is an approach in agriculture that rejects pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and is intended to improve the regeneration of the topsoil, biodiversity and the water cycle."

This corresponds almost exactly with the stated principles of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) or Organics International. 

Since 2014, the Rodale Institute, IFOAM, Dr. Bronner's, Dr. Mercola, Patagonia, the Real Organic Project, the Biodynamic Movement, the Organic Consumers Association, Regeneration International, Navdanya and others have also been discussing and implementing organic standards, practices and certification, which incorporate regenerative principles. 

Changing the Conversation: Regenerative Food and Farming 

In September 2014 a group of food, natural health and climate activists, including Vandana Shiva, Andre Leu, Will Allen, Steve Rye, Alexis Baden-Mayer and staff from Dr. Bronner's, Dr. Mercola, Organic Consumers Association and the Rodale Institute, organized a press conference at the massive climate march in New York City to announce the formation of Regeneration International and to set for ourselves a simple, but what seemed like then ambitious, goal. 

We all pledged to change the conversation on the climate crisis in the U.S. and around the world — then narrowly focused on renewable energy and energy conservation — so as to incorporate regenerative and organic food, farming and land use as a major solution to global warming, given its proven ability to draw down and sequester massive amounts of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the soil, trees, and plants. 

Now, seven years later, it appears that our growing Regeneration Movement has achieved this goal. Regeneration is now the hottest topic in the natural and organic food and farming sector, while climate activists including the Sunrise Movement and Extinction Rebellion regularly talk about the role of organic and regenerative practices in reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. 

More and more people now understand that we can achieve, through enhanced photosynthesis and draw down, "Net Zero" emissions by 2030, a figure that will be necessary if we are to avoid runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. 

Identifying Regenerative and Organic 'Best Practices' 

Inside Regeneration International, which now includes 400 affiliates in more than 60 countries, our conversation has shifted from promoting a basic discussion about organic and regenerative food, farming, and land-use to identifying regenerative and organic "best practices" around the globe. 

Our discussions and strategizing are not just an academic exercise. As most of us now realize, our very survival as a civilization and a species is threatened by a systemic crisis that has degraded climate stability, our food and our environment, along with every major aspect of modern life. 

This mega-crisis cannot be resolved by piecemeal reforms or minor adjustments such as slightly cutting our current levels of fossil fuel use, reducing global deforestation, soil degradation and military spending. 

Either we move beyond merely treating the symptoms of our planetary degeneration and build instead a new system based upon regenerative food, farming and land use, coupled with renewable energy practices and global cooperation instead of belligerence, or we will soon (likely within 25 years) pass the point of no return. 

A big challenge is how do we describe the crisis of global warming and severe climate change in such a way that everyday people understand the problem and grasp the solution that we're proposing, i.e., renewable energy and regenerative food, farming and land use? 

Enhanced Photosynthesis Is All-Important

The bottom line is that humans have put too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases (especially methane and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere (from burning fossil fuels and destructive land use), trapping the sun's heat from radiating back into space and heating up the planet. 

And, unfortunately, because of the destructive food, farming and forestry practices that have degraded a major portion of the Earth's landscape, we're not drawing down enough of these CO2 emissions through plant photosynthesis, soil carbon sequestration, and perennial above ground carbon storage in biomass (forest, grass, and plants) to cool things off. 

In a word, there's too much CO2 and greenhouse gas pollution blanketing the sky (and saturating the oceans) and not enough life-giving carbon in the ground and in our living plants, trees, pastures, and rangelands. 

Increasing plant and forest photosynthesis (accomplished via enhanced soil fertility and biological life, as well as an adequate amount of water and minerals) is the only practical way that we can draw down a significant amount of the excess CO2 and greenhouse gases in our atmosphere that are heating up the Earth and disrupting our climate. 

Through photosynthesis, plants and trees utilize solar energy to break down CO2 from the atmosphere, release oxygen, and transform the remaining carbon into plant biomass and liquid carbon. 

Photosynthesis basically enables plants to grow above ground and produce biomass, but also stimulates growth below ground as plants transfer a portion of the liquid carbon they produce through photosynthesis into their root systems to feed the soil microorganisms that in turn feed the plant. 

From the standpoint of drawing down enough CO2 and greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and sequestering them in our soils and biota to reverse global warming, qualitatively enhanced photosynthesis is all-important. 

Agave Power: Greening the Desert 

As RI, OCA, and our Mexico affiliate Via Organica’s contribution to the global expansion of regenerative and organic food and farming practices, we have spent the last several years working with Mexican farmers and ranchers, the Hudson Carbon Project, consumer organizations, elected political officials (mainly at the local and state level), and socially and environmentally-concerned "impact investors." 

Our goal is to develop a native agave agroforestry and livestock management system that we believe can be a game-changer for much of the 40% of the world's pasturelands and rangelands that are arid and semi-arid, areas where it is now nearly impossible to grow food crops without irrigation, and where the land is too overgrazed and degraded for proper livestock grazing. 

We call this Mexico-based agave and agroforestry/livestock management system Agave Power: Greening the Desert, and are happy to report that its ideas and practices are now starting to spread from the high desert plateau of Guanajuato across much of arid and semi-arid Mexico. 

We now are receiving inquiries and requests for information about this agave-based, polyculture/perennial system from desert and semi-desert areas all over the world, including Central America, the Southwestern U.S., Argentina, Chile, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Australia, Lebanon, and Oman. 

You can learn more about this Agave Power system on the websites of Regeneration International and the Organic Consumers Association.

Primary Drivers of Regeneration and Degeneration

What I and others have learned "on the ground" trying to expand and scale-up regenerative and organic best practices is that there are four basic drivers of regenerative (or conversely degenerative) food, farming and land use. 

The first driver is consumer awareness and market demand. Without an army of conscious consumers and widespread market demand, regenerative practices are unlikely to reach critical mass. The second driver is farmer, rancher and land stewardship innovation, including the development of value-added products and ecosystem restoration services. 

The third driver is policy change, starting at the local and regional level. And last, but not least is regenerative finance — large-scale investing on the part of the public and private sector, what is now commonly known as "impact investing." 

In order to qualitatively expand organic and regenerative best practices and achieve critical mass sufficient to transform our currently degenerative systems, we need all four of these drivers to be activated and working in synergy. 

Let's look now at four contemporary drivers of degeneration, degenerative food, farming and land use, in order to understand what the forces or drivers are that are holding us back from moving forward to regeneration. 

1. Degenerated grassroots consciousness and morale  When literally billions of people, a critical mass of the 99%, are hungry, malnourished, and/or stuffed and supersized with ultraprocessed foods and empty calories, revolution is all but impossible. When billions are scared and divided, struggling to survive with justice and dignity… when the majority of the global body politic are threatened and assaulted by a toxic environment and food system; when hundreds of millions are overwhelmed by economic stress due to low wages and the high cost of living; when hundreds of millions are weakened by chronic health problems, or battered by floods, droughts and weather extremes, regenerative change — Big Change — will not come easily. 

Neither will it happen if we continue to allow endless wars and land grabs for water, land and strategic resources to spiral out of control, or fail to organize and resist on a mass scale while indentured politicians, corporations, Big Tech, and the mass media manipulate crises such as COVID-19 to stamp out freedom of expression and participatory democracy in order to force a "Business-as-Usual" or "Great Reset" paradigm down our throats. 

Disempowered, exploited people, overwhelmed by the challenges of everyday survival, usually don't have the luxury of connecting the dots between the issues that are pressing down on them and focusing on the Big Picture. 

It's the job of regenerators to connect the dots between the climate crisis, COVID-19, elite control and people's everyday concerns including food, natural health, jobs, and economic justice, to globalize awareness, political mobilization and, most of all, to globalize hope. 

It's the job of regenerators to make the connections between personal and public health and planetary health, to expose the truth about the origins, nature, prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and chronic disease, and to mobilize the public to reject a so-called Great Reset disguised as fundamental reform, but actually a Trojan Horse for a 21st Century Technocracy that is profoundly antidemocratic and authoritarian. 

Regenerators have to be able to make the connections between different issues and concerns, identify and support best practitioners and policies and build synergy between social forces, effectively lobby governments (starting at the local level), businesses and investors for change, all the while educating and organizing grassroots alliances and campaigns across communities, constituencies and even national borders. 

But of course this long-overdue Regeneration Revolution will not be easy, nor will it take place overnight. Our profoundly destructive, degenerative, climate-destabilizing food and farming system, primarily based upon industrial agriculture inputs and practices, is held together by a multi billion-dollar system of marketing and advertising that has misled or literally brainwashed a global army of consumers into believing that cheap, ultra-processed, artificially flavored, "fast food" is not only acceptable, but "normal" and "natural." 

After decades of consuming sugar, salt, carbohydrate-rich and "bad fat"-laden foods from industrial farms, animal factories and chemical manufacturing plants, many consumers have literally become addicted to the artificial flavors and aromas that make super-processed foods and "food-like substances" so popular. 

Degenerate "conventional" farms, farming and livestock management  

Compounding the lack of nutritional education, choice, poverty, inertia and apathy of a large segment of consumers, other major factors driving our degenerative food and farming system include the routine and deeply institutionalized practices of industrial and chemical-intensive farming and land use (mono-cropping, heavy plowing, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, GMOs, factory farms, deforestation, wetlands destruction) today. 

These soil-, climate-, health- and environmentally-destructive practices are especially prevalent on the world's 50 million large farms, which, in part, are kept in place by global government subsidies totaling $500 billion a year. 

Meanwhile, there are few or no subsidies for organic or regenerative farmers, especially small farmers (80% of the world's farmers are small farmers), nor for farmers and ranchers who seek to make this transition. 

Reinforcing these multi billion-dollar subsidies for bad farming practices are a global network of chemical- and agribusiness-controlled agricultural research and teaching institutions, focused on producing cheap food and beverages (no matter what the cost to the environment, climate and public health) and agro-export agricultural commodities (often pesticide-intensive GMO grains). 

What we need instead are subsidies for organic and regenerative practices, research and technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to produce healthy, organic and regenerative food for local, regional and domestic markets, rewarding farmers with a fair price for producing healthy food and being a steward, rather than a destroyer, of the environment. 

Monopoly Control — Another driver of degeneration, holding back farmer adoption of regenerative practices and determining the type of food and crops that are produced, is the monopoly or near-monopoly control by giant agribusiness corporations over much of the food system, especially in industrialized countries, as well as the monopoly or near-monopoly control by giant retail chains such as Walmart and internet giants like Amazon. 

The out-of-control "Foodopoly" that dominates our food system is designed to maximize short-term profits and exports for the large transnational corporations, preserve patents and monopoly control over seeds, and uphold international trade agreements (NAFTA, WTO) that favor corporate agribusiness and large farms over small farms; factory farms over traditional grazing and animal husbandry; and agro- exports instead of production for local and regional markets. 

Food and farming is the largest industry in the world with consumers spending an estimated $7.5 trillion a year on food. In addition, the largely unacknowledged social, environmental and health costs (i.e., collateral damage) of the industrial food chain amounts to an additional $4.8 trillion a year.

Degenerate public policy and public and private investments  

Agriculture is the largest employer in the world with 570 million farmers and farm laborers supporting 3.5 billion people in rural households and communities. In addition to workers on the farm, food chain workers in processing, distribution and retail make up hundreds of millions of other jobs in the world, with over 20 million food chain workers in the U.S. alone (17.5% of the total workforce). 

This makes public policy relating to food, farming and land use very important. Unfortunately, thousands of laws and regulations are passed every year, in every country and locality, that basically prop up conventional (i.e., industrial, factory farm, export-oriented, GMO) food and farming, while there is very little legislation passed or resources geared toward promoting organic and regenerative food and farming. 

Trillions of dollars have been, and continue to be, invested in the so-called "conventional" food and farming sector, including trillions from the savings and pension funds of many conscious consumers, who would no doubt prefer their savings to be invested in a different manner, if they knew how to do this. 

Unfortunately, only a tiny percentage of public or private investment is currently going toward organic, grass fed, free-range and other healthy foods produced by small and medium-sized farms and ranches for local and regional consumption. 

Healthy soil, healthy plants, healthy animals, healthy people, healthy climate, healthy societies — our physical and economic health, our very survival as a species, are directly connected to the soil, biodiversity and the health and fertility of our food and farming systems. Regenerative organic farming and land use can move us back into balance, back to a stable climate and a life-supporting environment. 

It's time to move beyond degenerate ethics, farming, land use, energy policies, politics and economics. It's time to move beyond "too little, too late" mitigation and sustainability strategies. It's time to inspire and mobilize a mighty global army of Regenerators, before it's too late. 

Ronnie Cummins is co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Regeneration International. To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here.

The Case for Organic Food and Natural Medicine

Organic consumers - Tue, 2021-09-21 13:50
September 21, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationRonnie CumminsCOVID-19, OCA on COVID-19, All About Organics, Genetic Engineering, Health Issues boots_1200x630.png

Don’t panic, eat organic. As OCA, and a growing number of nutritionists, medical practitioners, and healers never tire of pointing out, a major defense, and likely our best defense, against chronic disease (affecting now the majority of U.S. adults and children—four times the rate of 40 years ago), the flu, cancer, heart disease, and even engineered viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, is to cultivate a strong immune system, optimum Vitamin D levels, adequate Omega 6 intake, and a healthy microbiome.

And of course the best way to achieve this desired state is to grow, cook, and consume an organic and regenerative diet of fresh whole foods (everyone) and grass-fed or pastured meat and animal products (if you’re a carnivore). In turn this organic diet needs to be complimented by regular exercise, fresh air, sunshine, adequate sleep, positive thoughts, and natural herbs and dietary supplements.

Of course this organic regimen is easier said than done in an engineered “GloboCap” society based upon labor exploitation, 24/7 internet-programming, consumerism, high rents, student debt, racial and gender discrimination, medical malpractice, and an expanded menu of profit-at-any-cost business practices that pollute our air, water, environment, bodies, and our minds.

Unfortunately, today’s dominant “Big” powers, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Biotech, Big Chemical, coalescing into what is now Big Brother, aided and abetted by indentured scientists, politician, and the media, have convinced, in fact panicked, a significant segment of the body politic. The GloboCap cabal tells us that organic food is too expensive (since the government refuses to stop subsidizing poison food and farming, and working class wages are kept artificially low); that affordable natural health remedies and off-patent generic drugs are a hoax; that clean air and water are a luxury only available to the affluent; and that your best strategy for survival is to stay away from “disinformation” purveyors such as OCA, Mercola.com, Children’s Health Defense, and the Alliance for Natural Health, and instead to rely upon an expanded menu of pharmaceutical drugs, mandatory rushed-to-market vaccines, gene therapy drugs, mandatory masks, and social distancing. But as political commentator and satirist C.J. Hopkins points out, what we are up against is not just inaccurate information and government incompetence and overreach, but an engineered psychological state of censorship, hopelessness, and fear, a Great Reset, or a Covid Death Cult, if you will. As Hopkins writes:

“Seriously, think about where we are currently, 18 months into our new “reality,” then go back and review how GloboCap blatantly rolled out the New Normal in the Spring of 2020… and the majority of the masses didn’t even blink. They seamlessly transitioned to the new “reality” in which a virus, rather than “white supremacists,” or “Russian agents,” or “Islamic terrorists,” had become the new official enemy. They put away the scripts they had been reciting verbatim from for the previous four years, and the scripts they had been reciting from for the previous 15 years before that, and started frantically jabbering Covid cult-speak like they were auditioning for an over-the-top Orwell parody… Which brings us to the problem of the Covidian cult … how to get through to them, which, make no mistake, we have to do, one way or another, or the New Normal will become our permanent “reality.”

“I [call] the New Normals a “Covidian Cult,” not to gratuitously insult or mock them, but because that is what totalitarianism is … a cult writ large, on a societal scale. Anyone who has tried to get through to them can confirm the accuracy of that analogy. You can show them the facts until you’re blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. You think you are having a debate over facts, but you are not. You are threatening their new “reality.” You think you are struggling to get them to think rationally. You are not. What you are is a heretic, an agent of demonic forces, an enemy of all that is “real” and “true.”

Why is it that the United States accepts as “normal” an ever-more deadly epidemic of chronic disease that now affects 145 million people (60% of the population have at least one chronic disease, with 42% suffering from two or more), while spending $3.8 trillion a year on health care, meanwhile chalking up more deaths from medical malpractice and pharma drug side effects, than any other nation in the industrialized world?

Why is it that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been able to trigger hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and premature deaths in the U.S.among the elderly and those in poor health—those suffering from pre-existing, chronic medical comorbidities such as heart disease, cancer, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, lung disease, and liver disease?

If you want to look at our deteriorating public health in more depth, check out the recent OCA-recommended book by Dr. Robert Lustig, Metabolic: The Lure and Lies of Processed Food, Nutrition, and Modern Medicine where Lustig masterfully illustrates that  “Chronic diseases are not ‘druggable’, but they are ‘foodable’; processed food isn’t just toxic, it’s addictive; that the war between vegan and keto is a false war — the combatants are on the same side;” and that “Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big Government are on the other side.”

Or read best-selling author, Dr. Mark Hyman’s book, Food Fix, where he points out that: “Our diet is the number one cause of death, disability, and suffering in the world. Our food has dramatically transformed over the last 100 years, and even more radically over the last 40 years, as we have eaten a diet of increasingly ultraprocessed foods made from a handful of crops (wheat, corn, soy)… Chronic disease is now the single biggest threat to global economic development. Lifestyle-caused diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer now kill nearly 50 million people a year, more than twice as many as die from infectious disease. Two billion people go to bed overweight and 800 million go to bed hungry in the world today. One in two Americans and one in four teenagers have pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes.

Lobbyists’ influence over policy makers has put corporations, not citizens, at the center of every aspect of our food system, from what and how food is grown to what is manufactured, marketed, and sold. When money rules politics, it results in our current uncoordinated and conflicting food policies, which subsidize and protect and facilitate Big Food’s and Big Ag’s domination of our food system to the detriment of our population and our environment…”

Other recommended reading includes Dr. Stephanie Seneff’s recent book, Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate is Destroying Our Health and the Environment and the new eye-opener by Rupa Marya and Raj Patel called: Inflamed: Deep Medicine and the Anatomy of Injustice.

If you’ve been reading Organic Bytes for the last 18 months (or 24 years) you’re no doubt familiar with our promotion of organic foods and natural health, and our critique of the “official story” on the origins, nature, virulence, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19. If not you can read over our back issues here, or if you want to go into depth on COVID-19 and the Great Reset, you can read  my new best-selling book, co-authored by Dr. Joseph Mercola, with a Foreward by Roert F. Kennedy, called The Truth About COVID-19.

Ronnie Cummins is co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Regeneration International. To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here.

Senator Warren Attacks OCA Truth-Telling

Organic consumers - Mon, 2021-09-13 15:37
September 13, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationRonnie CumminsCOVID-19, OCA on COVID-19 warren2_1200x630.png

In an outrageous and basically unconstitutional attempt to suppress free speech, so-called “progressive” Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts has threatened Amazon for allowing The Truth About COVID-19, my new book, co-authored with Dr. Joseph Mercola, with a Foreword by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to become a best-seller. According to Warren: “Conspiracy theories about COVID-19 abound; some insist that the virus is a hoax, others promote false cures to COVID-19, and many have led to untold illnesses and deaths. Despite the fact that vaccination remains our greatest tool to protect. Americans from the virus, myths about COVID-19 vaccines continue to spread, often facilitated by technology companies that refuse to curb misinformation.”

Obviously the OCA and our allies are no friends of Big Tech and monopoly enterprises and surveillance platforms such as Amazon. In fact, Amazon, Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, along with bookstore chains such as Barnes and Noble and the mass media, have (unsuccessfully) done everything they can to suppress publicity and sales of The Truth About COVID-19, which now has indeed become a best-seller, with over 250,000 copies sold.

Please listen closely, Senator Warren: Freedom of Speech is non-negotiable.Neither Democrats nor Republicans have the moral or political authority to suppress Freedom of Speech as outlined in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

We at OCA, along with the overwhelming majority of those rejecting the “official story,” do not believe that COVID is a “hoax.” COVID-19 indeed presents a serious threat to many of the world’s elderly and those suffering from serious health problems. Hundreds of thousands of elderly and chronic disease-ravaged Americans have died with COVID-19 listed as a co-factor on their death certificates since the pandemic began. Approximately 10% of all deaths, according to CDC statistics in 2020 listed COVID as a contributing factor to death, triggering and exacerbating, on the average 2.6 comorbidities among COVID victims, including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, heart and lung disease. Many of these pre-existing comorbidities are caused by poor diets, toxic food, and a polluted environment—conditions that organic consumers, farmers, and our allies have struggled against for decades.

Our point, Senator Warren, is to not to deny that this supercharged, genetically engineered virus, designed to be highly transmissible and capable of attacking multiple vital organs in the human body, is dangerous, although in fact it poses little or no more danger to youth and those with strong Vitamin D levels and immune systems than the seasonal flu. As many American youth (480), for example, died from the flu in 2018-19, and many more youth, since the pandemic began in car accidents, drug overdoses, and suicides than the estimated 500 youth who have died so far with COVID listed on their death certificate.

The preponderance of scientific and forensic evidence now leads OCA and a growing number of investigators across the world to believe that SARS-CoV-2 is, in effect, a US and Chinese-funded and engineered bioweapon, accidentally or deliberately released from a so-called “dual-use” military and biomedical lab in Wuhan, China.

As concerned citizens and critics of the official story and cover up, our determined mission is to stop this type of out-of-control genetic engineering and biological experimentation, disguised as “biodefense” or “medical research.” COVID-19 has inflicted tremendous damage to the global population, body politic, and the global economy (especially workers, low-income and minority communities, small business, family farmers, and youth), facilitating a global power grab by Big Tech, Big Pharma, and big business billionaires, aided and abetted by indentured politicians, scientists, and the military-industrial complex—all of whom have become enthusiastic proponents of lockdowns, forced vaccinations, censorship, and a so-called Great Reset.

As we organize and mobilize to stop so-called “gain-of-function” (actually “gain-of-threat”) experiments, we must bring to a halt the reckless biological arms race and superpower belligerence that gave birth (along with Pharma/corporate greed and scientific hubris) to this monster.  And as we stop the lab engineering and proliferation of deadly pathogens, at the same time we must provide the special protection that the most vulnerable need, based upon real science and real evidence, (including the importance of healthy food, strengthened immune systems, and generic drugs already available) rather than accepting draconian government dictates and dangerous Big Pharma propaganda.

Our job as active citizens of the world and your job, Senator Warren, as an elected US political official is not only to stop this pandemic but also to stop all future accidental and deliberate releases. The only way we can do this is by banning all lab engineering of potential pandemic pathogens, strengthening and enforcing the international Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 (signed by the US, Russia, China and most other nations) and the US Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Act of 1989-90.

We, the truth-tellers of COVID-19, intend to bring this coronavirus epidemic to a halt as quickly as possible, but we feel strongly that we must base our prevention and treatment practices on real evidence and medical observation, provided by truly independent investigators, scientists, medical practitioners, and healers who have no entangling financial interests or risky scientific procedures to hide.

It’s not enough for Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, and Big Pharma to promise that we will someday have a safe, properly tested, effective “vaccine” (i.e. not an experimental gene therapy dug) that actually prevents infection, hospitalization, and death, and confers long-lasting, broad immunity, with no serious side effects. The experimental drugs being aggressively injected into people now are obviously failing, according to reports from Israel, Iceland, Gibraltar, and other highly-vaccinated nations, but “don’t worry,” the vaccine cheerleaders and health czars tell us, just line up for your booster shots and everything will be fine. Unfortunately, everything is not fine. Latest reports from Israel indicate that booster shots are failing as well to stop the spread of the disease and mounting hospitalizations.

We refuse to let our children and our grandchildren become physical and psychological guinea pigs in what the World Economic Forum has called “the largest psychological experiment ever…” We need credible evidence, not Big Pharma/ government-sanctioned propaganda, regarding what works best, and what doesn’t work, right now.

As Children’s Health Defense pointed out this week: “Given the current data on the harms and ineffectiveness of masks, the high-rate of injury and death from the COVID-19 vaccine and the very low rate of serious illness, hospitalization and death from COVID, parents have had enough of politically motivated mandates that ignore the physical health and emotional wellbeing of their children.”

We will no longer tolerate nor obey the dictates of vaccine and drug entrepreneurs who claim that the powerful, naturally acquired antibody and T cells immunity that 40 million plus Americans already possess—those who have come down with COVID-19 symptoms and then recovered—is less effective and safe than the partial, narrow, artificial immunity acquired by those receiving the experimental jabs. We will no longer stand by while medical authoritarians and nanny-state politicians tell us that the natural defenses of healthy young Americans, (including over 100 million young people under 30 years of age) and the natural immunity they acquire after mild or asymptomatic cases, are not sufficient to protect them. We will no longer stand by and watch the insanity of injecting pregnant women and even infants with experimental gene therapy drugs. We demand compliance to the Nuremburg Code of 1947—which mandates freedom of choice and informed consent prior to any medical experiment or procedure.

This is not an abstract debate about vaccine safety. We demand real world evidence, not propaganda, regarding what works best in terms of prevention and treatment. Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson and Johnson’s experimental vaccines must be compared and judged alongside the alternative prevention and early treatment strategies put forth by real practicing doctors who are treating thousands of patients daily in clinics, hospitals, and Intensive care Units, such as the Frontline COVID Critical Care Alliance, who are successfully using Ivermectin, quercetin, zinc, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, and other proven protocols for home prevention, outpatient early treatment, and hospital care. Japan has now become the first major industrialized nation to officially recommend the use of Ivermectin for prevention and early treatment of COVID.

What we are seeing now, despite massive censorship on social media and the legacy mass media, is that the limited short-term “immunity” conferred by Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson and other experimental “vaccines” is quickly wearing off, while “breakthrough cases” among those supposedly vaccinated, infections spread by vaccinated people, and side effects are increasing every week. Latest official CDC vaccine adverse VAERS statistics (likely underestimated, say experts, by a factor of 5) indicate that between Dec. 14, 2020 and Sept. 3, 2021, there were a total of 675,593 adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 88,171 reports of serious injuries and 14,506 deaths. 

Beyond objective evaluations, based upon real science, we must begin now to address the underlying root causes of chronic disease (poison food, environmental pollution, medical malpractice). These underlying factors (which we must and can change) are the cause of the comorbidities that are driving the overwhelming majority (94%) of COVID hospitalizations and deaths among the elderly and those in extremely poor health.  Ivermectin, quercetin, zinc, vitamin D, and other protocols developed by front line doctors in over 30 nations are not “false cures.” The reason why a growing number of informed and courageous U.S. doctors are writing 100,000 prescriptions every week for Ivermectin, the reason why several million Mexican citizens south of the border are buying Ivermectin over the counter every week, is because Ivermectin, as part of a healthy, immune-boosting, anti-inflammatory, microbiome-nurturing protocol works. Sixty trials across the world indicate that Ivermectin is a safe, effective, and inexpensive drug for prevention and early treatment of COVID.

It is criminally dishonest for Big Pharma, politicians, and the mass media to censor and suppress the use of legal drugs and procedures, prescribed by licensed physicians all over the world, that far outperform experimental vaccines and gene therapy drugs in terms of efficacy, costs, and safety.

OCA believes, contrary to Senator Warren, President Biden, Congress, and the FDA that democracy and public health demand that government officials uphold Americans’ right to free speech and a free exchange of information, in this case truthful, comprehensive, and fully documented information about the origins, nature, virulence, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19. Although Warren and her cohorts in the Biden administration obviously don’t care that much about preserving free speech, and obviously have not read and fact-checked our new book, she, and other so-called Progressives, for partisan reasons, may want to pay attention to the fact that Biden and Democratic Party authoritarianism and inept handling of the current COVID/public health crisis will likely soon eliminate the narrow majority that Democrats now enjoy in the House and Senate. All of their programs, many of which (economic, gender, and racial justice; minimum wage; alternative energy; solving the climate crisis; the Green New Deal; supporting food and farm policy reform) we need desperately, will go down in flames as the Democrats lose their credibility among those who have simply had enough.

Eighty million plus Americans, despite 24/7 propaganda and panic-mongering, are not that enthusiastic about being forced to accept injections of rushed-to-market (patented and highly profitable) experimental gene therapy drugs with obvious side-effects and limited effectiveness, especially when these vaccines may indeed make people more infectious and put pressure on COVID-19 strains to mutate. Millions of us (40 million) have already had COVID 19 and subsequently have developed robust immunity (far superior to narrow vaccine immunity), others understand that our children (unless they suffer from serious pre-existing health conditions) are likely to be more at risk from vaccine side effects than from contracting COVID and developing natural immunity.

In conclusion, here’s some advice and a heads up to you, Senator Warren, and your colleagues. A critical mass of Americans have had enough, and are organizing and mobilizing to get back control of our health, our politics, and our destiny. We intend to build a future that is organic, regenerative, and truly healthy, based upon human rights, informed consent, freedom of choice, and participatory democracy. As our neighbors in Mexico say, Basta, we’ve had enough. We shall overcome.

Ronnie Cummins is co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Regeneration International. To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here.

Five Questions Only the U.S. Can Answer: A Response to the Unclassified Summary of the Intelligence Community Assessment on COVID-19 Origins

Organic consumers - Thu, 2021-09-02 17:34
September 2, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationAlexis Baden-MayerCOVID-19, COVID-19 Origins, OCA on COVID-19 assessment_response_1200x630.png

On August 27, 2021, the Intelligence Community (IC) released an unclassified summary of a 90-day Biden administration investigation into the origin of COVID-19.

On whether SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered or if it was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, the report was inconclusive, but stated:

One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.

The summary portrayed the U.S. government as unable “to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19” without China’s cooperation, stating that the Intelligence Community “judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of COVID-19” without “information on the earliest cases that identified a location of interest or occupational exposure.”

This is an entirely unsatisfactory and disingenuous statement that fails to acknowledge fact-finding that can and must be completed by the U.S. government.

A full investigation into U.S.-funded virus hunting, gain-of-function experiments on potential pandemic pathogens, and biological weapons research, is urgently needed.

The U.S. government must engage in a public fact-finding process to gather and declassify information that it alone possesses regarding the origin of COVID-19.

Here are five questions that only the U.S. can answer.

1. Did Ralph Baric hide the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and his infamous lab-created virus SHC014-MA15?

Since the genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was first published on January 10, 2020, scientists have scoured the coronavirus’s genome for clues to the outbreak’s origins.

The first thing that everyone wanted to know was how similar the new virus was to known viruses.

What would have been truly damning, destroying any possibility of the pandemic having a natural origin, is if SARS-CoV-2 had been most similar to SHC014-MA15, the SARS-like coronavirus engineered by Ralph Baric in his infamous gain-of-function experiments published in the 2015 paper, “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.” 

SHC014-MA15 was “a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.” The House Foreign Affairs Committee Minority Staff, under the leadership of Ranking Member Michael McCaul, summarized the experiment in their August 2021 report, “The Origins of COVID-19: An Investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology”:

In other words, they removed the spike protein from SHC014 and inserted it into a SARS coronavirus that was genetically manipulated to better infect mice. This work was done under BSL-3 conditions. The newly created virus was then shown to bind to ACE2 in humans, replicate “efficiently” in primary human airways cells, and withstand antibodies and vaccines. Researchers concluded that the work “suggests a potential risk of SARS- CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.”

We have to take Baric’s word for it that SARS-CoV-2 isn’t strikingly similar to SHC014-MA15, because he didn’t deposit the sequence of SHC014-MA15 in GenBank until May 22, 2020! (And, when he did, he misnamed it SHC015-MA15.)

How reliable is Baric’s claim that the closest known virus to SARS-CoV-2 isn’t SHC014-MA15?

Is there any way to check his work? Are there physical samples of SHC014-MA15 that can be reexamined? Are there lab notes contemporaneous with its creation? Did Baric share the virus or its sequence with other scientists prior to May 22, 2020?

The Baric Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has the answers to these questions; China’s cooperation is unnecessary.

So far, the world has accepted at face value the claim of Wuhan Institute of Virology scientist Shi Zhengli that RaTG13 is the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2. 

Shi announced this in "Discovery of a novel coronavirus associated with the recent pneumonia outbreak in humans and its potential bat origin,” on January 23, 2020.

However, like Baric, Shi has a credibility problem in that her virus didn’t exist prior to 2020 outside of a short sequence published as RaBtCoV/4991 in 2016’s “Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft.” Shi says that there is no remaining physical sample of the virus available, so no one can check her work.

An anonymous scientist who blogs at Nerd Has Power says Shi faked RaTG13. He has published pseudonymously as Shu Kang with Li-Meng Yan, a Hong Kong scientist associated with Steven Bannon and Guo Wengui who believes that SARS-CoV-2 is a Chinese bioweapon.

RaTG13 has also been given the side-eye by establishment scientists. An analysis by Eddie Holmes and George Gao, “Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding,” published on January 29, 2020, didn’t even mention RaTG13. 

When asked why on Twitter on January 30, 2020, Holmes said, “Technically, as it was discovered second, the question should be whether RaTG13 is the same species as 2019-nCoV.”

Another thing that has complicated the search for the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 is that back on September 12, 2019, without explanation, the Wuhan Institute of Virology pulled its virus database offline in the middle of the night, so researchers no longer have access to what was believed to be the largest collection of SARS-like coronaviruses.

However, it is the U.S. military that has the largest collection of viruses in the world. Considering that the U.S. was collaborating with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and funding their virus hunting in China, it is very likely that we have duplicate records.  

The Biden Administration should conduct its own comparison of the SARS-CoV-2 genome to the coronaviruses in U.S. databases, both natural and lab-made.

2. Why did U.S. government officials collude to hide evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered?

Evidence of genetic engineering is written all over SARS-CoV-2.

In January 2020, when scientists examined the genome of SARS-CoV-2 it was immediately clear that the unique feature that made it “100 to 1,000 times” more infectious than the first SARS was something that couldn’t have been achieved through natural recombination. In fact, the virus’s genetic code bore a tell-tale sign that it had been engineered in the lab. This was obvious to every scientist who looked at the virus, even those who later published articles claiming the virus wasn’t engineered.

It should be a top Biden Administration priority to investigate and hold accountable U.S. government officials, including Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, and Robert Kadlec, who coordinated with Jeremy Farrar, director of the £29bn Wellcome Trust, to suppress evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered.

There is no question that they coordinated a cover-up. What we need to learn is why.

Emails obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests by Buzzfeed News and The Washington Post, revealed that on January 31, 2020, Kristian Andersen shared with Fauci the first impressions he and fellow scientists Eddie Holmes, Bob Garry and Mike Worobey had of SARS-CoV-2. They thought that “some of the features (potentially) look engineered” and found “the genome inconsistent with expectation from evolutionary theory.”

In a conference call led by Farrar the next day, they were persuaded to change their opinion. Publications establishing the natural origin theory of COVID-19 followed. 

On March 17, 2020, Kristian Andersen, Eddie Holmes and Bob Garry were among the scientists who published “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” in which they stated that their “analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposely manipulated virus.”

On July 7, 2021 Kristian Andersen, Eddie Holmes, Bob Garry and Mike Worobey were among the authors of “The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review”, where they stated that “SARS- CoV-2 carries no evidence of genetic markers one might expect from laboratory experiments,” citing their first paper, “Proximal origin” as their reference for the assertion and acknowledged Farrar’s Wellcome Trust, Collins’ National Institutes of Health and Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases among their funding sources.

The emails reporting on the February 1, 2020, call were heavily redacted, so it isn’t clear what changed the scientists’ minds. Emails prior to the last days of January have not been made available, so we don’t have a full record of what led up to the February 1 call. It is incumbent on the Biden Administration to complete the record and make it available to the public.

Even with a truncated and redacted record, it is obvious that the organizers of the call controlled the financial resources the scientists relied on for their livelihoods. 

In May 2021, Kristian G. Andersen received a new Center for Research in Emerging Infectious Disease (CREID) funded by Fauci’s National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease.

Were quid pro quos involved? The Biden Administration must investigate. 

A lesser-known aspect of this U.S. government-coordinated cover-up that hasn’t garnered the attention it deserves is a January 2020 analysis conducted for the Director of National Intelligence by the Broad Institute, the organization founded and directed by Biden’s Science Secretary Eric Lander.

Broad Institute scientists working on an Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) program known as FELIX (Finding Engineering-Linked Indicators) claim to have compared SARS-CoV-2 to 58 million virus sequences and, after only 10 minutes of analysis, determined that "all regions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome match naturally-occurring coronaviruses better than they match any other organisms, including any other viruses. This analysis indicates that no sequences from foreign species have been engineered into SARS-CoV-2."

This statement is demonstrably false.

The three bat coronaviruses identified by the FELIX team, BtRs-BetaCoV/YN2018C, BtRl-BetaCoV/SC2018 and SARSr-Rf-BatCoV YNLF_31C, do not provide matches for “all regions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome.”

Why would they publish a transparently bogus analysis?

Much of what IARPA does is classified and funded from a classified budget, so it may be that there is more to the FELIX project than has been revealed to the public.

The ostensible goal of FELIX was to be able to tell the difference between a naturally occurring pathogen and one that was engineered in a lab, but the true purpose of FELIX could be to help scientists get better at what Ralph Baric calls the “no-see-um” technique that keeps detectable fingerprints off lab creations.

“If you know how to detect bioengineering, you theoretically understand how to hide your own,” observed one commentator.

Was FELIX meant to hide bioengineering rather than reveal it?

Or, did it just have a “junk-in, junk-out” problem like the January 2021 Forbes article, “IARPA’s Bioweapon Detection Tools Have Difficulty Finding What They’re Not Looking For,” concluded?

The FELIX scientists couldn’t figure out how to pin SARS-CoV-2 on the phylogenetic tree. 

They weren’t alone, as phylogeneticist John Wenzel complained on the pages of Cladistics. (He had particularly harsh words for the “Proximal origin” scientists.)

What is the reason for these poorly done papers? Were the scientists careless and sloppy? 

Or were they trying to do the impossible, wedging a lab-engineered chimera into a phylogenetic tree of naturally occurring viruses?

This cover-up, intended to bury evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered, happened in the U.S. and only a U.S. investigation can get to the bottom of this.

3. How did U.S. funding contribute to the origin of COVID-19?

The Biden Administration must conduct a complete audit of all U.S. funding, including from military and classified programs, for coronavirus surveillance, collection, gain-of-function experimentation, countermeasures development and pandemic preparedness.

Congressman Michael McCaul’s August 2021 report, “The Origins of COVID-19: An Investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” lists U.S. government grants that supported the virus hunting and gain-of-function experiments necessary to produce SARS-CoV-2.

One of these is the United States Agency for International Development’s Emerging Pandemic Threats PREDICT program that provided funding for the identification and collection of viruses that had the potential to spillover into human populations.

It was on PREDICT virus hunts in Yunnan, China, that Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance and Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology found RsSHC014, the virus they gave to Ralph Baric for his infamous gain-of-function experiment. Shi and Daszak announced their discovery of RsSHC014 in their 2013 paper, “Isolation and Characterization of a Bat SARS-Like Coronavirus that Uses the ACE2 Receptor,” and stated that it was found during “a 12-month longitudinal survey (April 2011–September 2012) of SL-CoVs in a colony of Rhinolophus sinicus at a single location in Kunming, Yunnan Province, China.”

Not long after (August and September 2012 and April and July 2013), Shi and Daszak discovered the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2, now known as RaTG13. They published a short sequence of it as RaBtCoV/4991 in 2016’s “Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft.” 

It was also during this virus hunt that six men exposed to bat guano ended up in a Kunming hospital with severe pneumonia of an unknown cause. They were admitted to the hospital in April, 2012. Three died. The longest hospitalization lasted into September 2012.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology collected samples from the men in the hospital. Curiously, according to the Genome Sequence Archive, RaTG13 was “was extracted from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid,” which suggests that the virus was taken from a sick person, but elsewhere RaTG13 is identified as an RNA sequence taken from a bat fecal swab.

Strangely, none of the PREDICT scientists published anything related to the deadly outbreak, even though spillover events like this were their raison d'etre.

What is the significance of the 2012 Kunming SARS-like outbreak and its relationship to the origins of SARS-CoV-2?

Is it a comedy of errors where scientists, who tell funders they can predict the next pandemic, are so inept that they accidentally cause it, making prophets of the lab safety advocates?

Or, has the origin of COVID-19 been grafted on to this spillover event to give an intentionally released genetically engineered virus the semblance of a natural origin?

Complicating things even more is that the viruses collected in Yunnan didn’t stay in Yunnan. As we know, most ended up in Wuhan, 1500 km away where the COVID-19 pandemic began. At least one went to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Did any of the viruses end up with Metabiota?

Metabiota, was on the PREDICT virus hunt with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance. The three organizations published “Evidence for Retrovirus and Paramyxovirus Infection of Multiple Bat Species in China” (2014), an analysis of bat viruses collected in Yunnan, south of Kunming, between November 2011 and March 2012. 

Metabiota is a for-profit company funded by Google Ventures that is a notorious Pentagon biological weapons contractor.

Is this why Google’s Eric Schmidt is so interested in suppressing the origin of COVID-19?

Eric Schmidt’s foundation is funding the Philip Zelikow-led COVID Commission Planning Group. Jeffrey Skoll’s foundation is chipping in on the official cover-up; like Google, it also funded Metabiota. The Rockefeller Foundation is underwriting the Zelikow snow job, too; it’s directed by Rajiv Shah, who was USAID director at the time of the PREDICT virus hunts.

A little-known fact is that Eric Schmidt launched Predict and Prevent at Google.org in 2008 with donations from Google and Skoll to the Global Viral Forecasting Initiative, a non-profit precursor to Metabiota. Then, he found a home—and hundreds of millions of dollars—for Metabiota at USAID in 2009. That’s how USAID’s PREDICT program got started.

Metabiota is a sketchy defense contractor that’s taken $59.8 million from the federal treasury, but EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Baric Lab also have ties to the U.S. military.

Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance has an unexpected advisor for a public health non-profit: David R. Franz, former commander of Fort Detrick, the largest domestic U.S. military biological weapons research laboratory.

Upon retiring from the military in 1998, Franz received contracts from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to produce microencapsulated anthrax. David Franz worked on the project with Ken Alibek and Charles Bailey, a former Russian biological weapons scientist and a fellow former Fort Detrick commander. Alibek and Bailey’s firm Advanced Biosystems was the prime contractor for the DARPA project, while Franz’s Southern Research Institute was a subcontractor. Bailey and Alibek filed a patent on the silicon microencapsulation technology in 2001.

In their 2012 article in the peer-reviewed Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense, “Evidence for the Source of the 2001 Attack Anthrax,” Martin E. Hugh-Jones, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Stuart Jacobsen linked the forensic evidence from the 2001 attack anthrax to the silicon coated anthrax developed by Franz, Alibek and Bailey.

It is likely David Franz who helped EcoHealth Alliance become such a successful military contractor, with just under $39 million in Pentagon funding from 2013 to 2020. In 2020, Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance received more money from the Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) for Scientific Research Combatting Weapons of Mass Destruction than any other military contractor—$15 million (25.575 percent) of the $60.2 million dispersed.

Shi Zhengli and her colleagues at the Wuhan Institute of Virology have collaborated directly with U.S. military scientists and participated in Pentagon funded research.

Ralph Baric has also worked very closely with U.S. military scientists, including Kristopher M. Curtis of the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick. In fact, as Dr. David E. Martin revealed, Curtis and Baric filed two patents together, “Methods for producing recombinant coronavirus,” in 2001―prior to SARS―and “Compositions of coronaviruses with a recombination-resistant genome,” in 2003.

Baric has published many articles with USAMRIID scientists, including: 

• Peter Jahrling who oversaw the BSL-4 labs at Fort Detrick as director of the Integrated Research Facility. Jahrling and Baric’s partnership was profiled in the 2015 article, “Inside the $105 million lab that wants to wipe out MERS and Ebola.” Jahrling is now listed as an IRF Special Volunteer.

• Lisa Hensley who is now the Associate Director of Science at the Fort Detrick Integrated Research Facility.

Beginning in 2012, Baric received funding from the Pentagon through the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to develop a “Lung-on-a-Chip” to simulate human lung function in the lab.

It would be nice to think that Baric was ignorant of the biological weapons potential of his gain-of-function research, but he’s written extensively on the subject, in what can only be described as a how-to-manual for bioweapons enthusiasts.

4. What can U.S. doctors, scientists, military personnel and citizens who were in Wuhan in the second half 2019 tell us about the first cases?

China should share its data on the index cases of SARS-CoV-2 to identify Wuhan’s patient zero and determine how they got infected, but the U.S. has data on early cases, too. 

There were prominent U.S. doctors and scientists who received early alerts on the 2019 outbreak in Wuhan, including Michael Callahan and Ian Lipkin. 

Callahan is reported to have been in Wuhan when the outbreak began and treated early cases. Callahan said he and Chinese doctors analyzed the medical records of more than 6,000 hospitalized patients, 1,100 of whom had severe COVID-19 disease―prior to January 4, 2020. 

Lipkin was in Beijing not Wuhan, but his joint U.S-Chinese research team was able to “access nationwide blood bank samples taken from pneumonia patients so the group could study whether coronavirus had been present in the population before it was detected in Wuhan.”

Callahan and Lipkin’s communications, records and testimony should be mined for information on the earliest cases in China. 

There may also be additional early SARS-CoV-2 sequences available in U.S. databases, as Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center evolutionary biologist Dr. Jesse Bloom has shown. 

All U.S. citizens in Wuhan in the last half of 2019, including participants in the World Military Games, should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and there should be an attempt to identify the earliest cases and their routes of exposure.

There are notable failures regarding the testing of quarantined U.S. citizens returning from abroad in early 2020. These should be reviewed.

Finally, there is data available in blood samples collected through NIH’s “All of Us” survey and nasal swabs from the Pentagon’s Respiratory Surveillance Program. So far, analysis of samples from early 2020 show that SARS-CoV-2 may have circulated in the U.S. as early as December 2019.

5. Can the U.S. rebut Chinese accusations that SARS-CoV-2 came from Fort Detrick?

Chinese accusations that SARS-CoV-2 originated in the U.S. biological weapons labs at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, are disingenuous.

If China wanted to prove that SARS-CoV-2 had been brought to Wuhan by U.S. participants in the World Military Games, they could produce evidence on the earliest cases that demonstrated a connection between the Games and patient zero. Instead, they’ve actually hidden data on cases prior to the December 2019 cluster that they unsuccessfully tied to the seafood market.

Nevertheless, it is important to examine the real evidence that something was amiss at Fort Detrick in 2019. 

Given that both the U.S. and China are playing a blame game that isn’t getting us any closer to the truth, we can’t rule out the possibility that conspirators in both countries colluded in an intentional release that would look like a lab accident. Knowing what happened with the anthrax attacks in 2001—the official story said a Fort Detrick scientist was the culprit—anything’s possible.

Documents on the 2019 Fort Detrick shutdown obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests have been redacted to remove information on the pathogens involved in breaches of containment. Were SARS-like viruses involved?

Why did the Defense Department withhold $104 million from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense in 2019?

A full investigation of the 2019 Fort Detrick shutdown could provide clues to the origin COVID-19, but full transparency is required regardless.

Each of these five questions is necessary to understanding the origin of COVID-19 and can only be answered by the U.S. 

As a first step, the U.S. government should declassify and submit to Congress all of the information reviewed during the 90-day Intelligence Community investigation.

TAKE ACTION: Sign the petition to ban gain-of-function research!

Ultimately, what we learn about the origins of COVID-19 is less important than what we do about it.

Congressman Michael McCaul’s August 2021 report, “The Origins of COVID-19: An Investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology” correctly states:

[T]here is legislation Congress can pass that would not only hold those responsible accountable but also help to prevent a future pandemic, including but not limited to:

Institute a ban on conducting and funding any work that includes gain-of-function research until an international and legally binding standard is set, and only where that standard is verifiably being followed.

Americans agree. More than 50,000 people have signed this petition to ban gain-of-function research.

Anthrax 2001 to COVID-19: Take Action for Truth

Organic consumers - Thu, 2021-09-02 16:50
September 2, 2021 anthrax_1200x630.png

On the 20th anniversary of 9/11, Organic Consumers Association is gathering with allies, including COVIDorigins.org, 911Evidence.org, DC911Truth.org and members of the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker, to explore parallels between the 2001 anthrax attacks and the COVID-19 pandemic.

You can join us in person in Washington, D.C., or watch online from anywhere in the world.

On Friday, September 10, 2021, at 7:30 pm, we’ll be screening a recorded lecture by Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Bush And Cheney: How They Ruined America And The World, 9/11 Unmasked, at the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House, 503 Rock Creek Church Rd., NW, Washington, DC, 20010. RSVP: Kathy 202-882-9649.

If you’re not in D.C., you can watch Dr. David Ray Griffin’s talk here. 

On Saturday, September 11, 2021, from 11 am to 1 pm, OCA International Director Ronnie Cummins, co-author of best seller The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing The Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal, will speak in person at the Rally for Truth: Shining a Light on 9/11, COVID’s Origin, and the Case of Jullian Assange at St. Stephen and the Incarnation Episcopal Church, 1525 Newton Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20010.

If you’re not in D.C., you can RSVP to attend the Zoom broadcast of the Rally for Truth here.

On Saturday, September 11, 2021, from 5 pm to 7 pm, we’ll be screening a live lecture by Ray McGinnis, author of Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored, at Busboys and Poets, 235 Carroll St NW, Washington, DC, 20012.

If you’re not in D.C., you can RSVP to attend the Zoom broadcast of Ray McGinnis’s talk here.

We will have Truth About COVID-19 books for sale at all in-person DC events. Please bring cash.

On Saturday, September 11, 2021, from 1 pm to 9 pm Eastern, the 9/11 Lawyers’ Committee is broadcasting an online event, From 9/11-Anthrax to the Pandemic: Life & Liberty in the Balance. The entire event will be archived for 7 days afterwards so you can arrive late or watch it later or again. Speakers include Gary Null, Ed Asner, Kevin Ryan, Graeme MacQueen, Mick Harrison, Francis Boyle, Meryl Nass, William Jacoby, Richard Gage, Whitney Webb, Barbara Honegger, Reiner Fuellmich, James Corbett, Christopher Gioia, Cynthia McKinney, David R. Meiswinkle and Fred Whitehurst.

Why Cover-Ups Matter

Organic consumers - Tue, 2021-08-31 16:56
August 31, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationRonnie CumminsCOVID-19, OCA on COVID-19, Politics & Globalization corona1200x630.jpg

Whether we’re talking about toxic pesticides (such as Monsanto/Bayer’s Roundup), GMOs, highly processed foods, pharmaceutical drug side effects, environmental pollution, greenwashing, or special interest control over domestic and foreign affairs, OCA’s mission, since our founding in the early 1990s, has been to expose cover ups, corporate crime, and dangerous practices--offering up positive solutions. We have never been a single-issue organization, nor have we shied away from controversies such as 9/11, the Anthrax attacks (2001), the Iraq War (2003), stolen elections (in 2000 and 2004), the degradation of organic standards (1998-2021), and the need for a revolutionary transformation of U.S. food and farming as outlined by Bernie Sanders in his proposed Green New Deal (2019-2020).

OCA has never pretended that organic and regenerative food, farming, and public health are “issues” divorced from politics, legislative policy, and economic control. There can be no healthy, organic food and farming and vibrant public health on a burnt and poisoned planet, nor organic justice and Fair Trade for all under a dictatorship of out-of-control corporations, surveillance capitalists, mad scientists, and politicians. OCA has always been politically independent. We attack Democrats and Republicans when they are wrong, and give them credit when credit is due.

Although the majority of Americans (59% Republicans and 52% of Democrats in a recent poll) now believe what OCA, Mercola.com, and Children’s Health Defense have been saying all along, that the overwhelming evidence is that COVID-19 emerged from a lab release in Wuhan, China (whether deliberate or accidental) rather than a “natural” jump from animals into humans, there are still a significant number of people misinformed, confused, anxious, and even panicked by the 24/7 Establishment narrative.

Millions, at home and abroad, unfortunately still believe: (1) the coronavirus pandemic arose naturally (zoonotically) and was unavoidable; (2) there is no safe, proven, effective prevention and treatment for COVID-19 (including healthy organic food, sunshine and regular exercise, maintaining strong immune systems and microbiomes, pre-existing off-patent generic drugs such as Ivermectin, and nutritional supplements) except for Big Pharma’s “Warp Speed” experimental gene therapy drugs now being injected into hundreds of millions of people; (3) COVID-19 poses a mortal threat to everyone, young and old, healthy and unhealthy alike, even those who have already become infected, fought off the disease, and developed robust antibody defenses against COVID variants; (4) future pandemics like COVID-19 are inevitable and unavoidable, and therefore the body politic must blindly obey authority, roll up our sleeves, sacrifice freedom of speech, constitutional rights, and medical choice in exchange for what the elite claim is our personal safety and the common good.

There is no doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is a dangerous biological trigger for those advanced in age and/or afflicted by serious pre-existing medical conditions or comorbidities, such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, and heart disease. A primary reason why SARS-CoV-2 is so dangerous is because it has been genetically engineered in a laboratory, essentially weaponized to attack multiple organs, not just the lungs, in vulnerable people. One in every five hundred Americans (mostly those 75 or older) died in 2020 with COVID-19 listed as a factor on their death certificate.

Those at high risk need to be protected by protocols developed by frontline doctors and practitioners such as the FLCCC.net group. Prevention and early treatment are absolutely necessary.

COVID must be a wakeup call to implement Food as Medicine and natural health programs in nursing homes, hospitals, and schools, as well as among Food Stamp, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients. Organic food and access to natural health information, supplements, and practices must be seen as a right, not a privilege for all Americans, especially those struggling with chronic disease and poor health, those living in low-income communities, women of childbearing age, students, and youth.

Censorship and cover ups stifling free and open discussion between doctors, health practitioners, scientists, and the general public must be eliminated immediately along with the manipulation of health statistics, data on vaccine safety and efficacy, along with all medical observation and research. Those guilty of the crime of censoring and deliberately manipulating information regarding the true origins, nature, virulence, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19 need to be exposed and brought to justice.

At the same time so-called “gain-of-function” (actually gain-of-threat) engineering of viruses, bacteria, insects, and microorganisms—making these pathogens or insects more transmissible of virulent, must be completely banned, in the US and across the world.

Ronnie Cummins is co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Regeneration International. To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here.

So You Have COVID-19... Now What?

Organic consumers - Tue, 2021-08-24 15:16
August 24, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationNate DoromalCOVID-19, COVID-19 Treatment, OCA on COVID-19 sick_1200x630.png

Medical Disclaimer: The below does not constitute medical advice. It is presented for informative purposes and to detail my own COVID-19 experience, including what treatments I used. You should discuss COVID-19 treatments with your physician, especially if you have pre-existing conditions.

I got COVID-19, and I recovered. Below are the details of my experience and the COVID treatment protocols I used to get better.

I want to paint an honest picture of what getting COVID-19 was like. There are cases of people who got it but are largely asymptomatic or have symptoms akin to a cold. In contrast, I got decently sick - overall still considered mild COVID but akin to some of the tougher flu cases I have experienced. It took me a full two weeks until I could say I was recovered, which is pretty typical for mild cases.

While getting COVID-19 was no walk in the park, too often, the media paints too fearful a picture of it, emphasizing dying people on ventilators and then long-haul COVID. The truth is that over one hundred million Americans, including myself, have recovered from COVID-19, and you have the ability to do so too.

With so many people getting COVID -19, the focus of medicine should have been how to treat early COVID effectively at home to minimize the possibility that it will worsen. Here I hope to share knowledge regarding early treatment.

What is it like to get COVID-19?

I believe in the resiliency of the immune system. For a lot of the pandemic, I traveled around the country just fine without getting sick. I took care to do social distancing but generally avoided wearing a mask when I could (the medical rationale for widespread masking is weak). But, after a particularly stressful month of work, I suppose the stress had depressed my immune system enough, such that I got infected by COVID-19.

For two days, I felt like I had a cold coming down. But then, I got full-blown sickness with fever, chills, and body aches. Suspecting COVID, I started parts of the FLCCC Early Outpatient I-Mask+ Protocol that evening. I took a dose of ivermectin, vitamin D3, vitamin C, quercetin, and zinc. I was lucky in that I had prepared all of this in advance just in case I came down with COVID.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance is a group of front-line clinicians whose purpose is to research and develop effective treatment protocols for COVID-19. They pioneered a hospital treatment protocol for severe cases and the early treatment protocol, which I used. They have extensively researched the efficacy of Ivermectin. Their early protocol is as follows:



I did not use Fluvoxamine during the time I was sick as I didn’t have it on hand. I did not do the nasal/oral rinse, though, given the mouth problems I later experienced, I wish I had.

I was completely floored during the first three days. I had a moderate fever, chills, and the fatigue was such that I had to lie down in bed all day long. My body ached all over, sufficiently enough that it was difficult sleeping. On top of this, I had a pretty bad headache. Oddly enough, I did not have any cough and sore throat, but I did have some swelling in the salivary glands. I was lucky not to have any shortness of breath during the entire time I was sick.

I drank a lot of fluids (mainly herbal teas with honey). I got a respite from the fever, chills, and body aches by taking hot baths with Epsom salt thrice a day. I had little to no appetite during these first initial days.

A well-meaning friend sent me this COVID case guideline, but the only part I agreed with was the guidance on fluids. There was no way I could have physically consumed 2000 calories and 75-100 grams of protein in my state during those first couple of days. The only things I could eat were soups and bone broth. There is wisdom in the body in suppressing appetite as it only allows the energy that would be used for digestion to be devoted to healing.

My headache picked up on day 2, and in response, I added aspirin and added 10 mg of melatonin in the evening and continued using this for the next five days until the headache got to be tolerable. This helped me with my sleep. However, I am not in the habit of using painkillers, so I limited my aspirin to just one dose of 325 mg at bedtime.

On day 3, my fever and chills continued, and I remained in bed all day long. I started megadosing vitamin C until bowel tolerance, taking around 10-15 grams orally per day. I continued using vitamin C during the remainder of the time I was sick.

On day 4, I felt strong enough to sit at a desk and use a computer. I had a bad spasming headache that lasted all day. My fever broke, and my chills abated. I noted today that my gums had become swollen and painful.  Looking at the research, I learned that the mouth tissue has ACE2 receptors, making it a target for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. My appetite had come back somewhat, but due to my mouth condition, eating was painful.

On day 5, I felt a lot stronger. I still had a headache, and I was still sick. But it was more like a normal sick instead of a COVID sick. My improvement was substantial enough to feel confident that I was out of the woods and that I would not get severe COVID.

On day 6, I felt about the same as the previous day. I was still sick, and I felt like this virus was hanging around. So I started the Brownstein Protocol, which Dr. David Brownstein developed. He used this protocol to treat over 500 COVID patients with zero deaths and a very low hospitalization rate.  The goal of the protocol is to boost the body’s immune system capabilities to fight off the virus.

It consists of the below vitamin oral supplements and the use of a nebulizer with 0.04% hydrogen peroxide with one drop of 5% Lugol’s iodine:



A nebulizer is a medical device that converts liquid medication into a mist so it can be inhaled into the lungs (the one I used is here). While hydrogen peroxide is known as a disinfectant that can kill viruses and bacteria, it is less known that our own white blood cells use hydrogen peroxide as a weapon against infection. At the start of the pandemic, I purchased one after seeing anecdotal reports that it helped against COVID. I used the nebulizer 1-2x times a day.

From days 6-10, I stayed on the Brownstein protocol. I noted that midday, after taking the vitamins, that I felt a boost in my energy. My headache and fatigue were still present, but I saw steady improvement day-to-day. On day 8, I started taking 600 mg of NAC after learning research that suggested it can inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

My mouth was still giving me problems. My gums were still swollen, and it was surprisingly uncomfortable. I started to treat it actively. Overall though, improvement for my mouth was slow.

I started oil pulling twice a day using coconut oil with two drops of clove essential oil. Clove oil is a known natural remedy for helping with swollen gums, and I got some immediate relief from it. I also started taking 4,000 mg of lysine to promote mouth wound healing. I also started using colloidal silver, purported to have anti-bacterial and anti-viral properties. I would take a teaspoon of it and swish it around my mouth before swallowing it five times per day. The use of the nebulizer also helped my mouth.

On days 11-13, I noticed that my energy levels got better each day, but some fatigue and headache persisted. I pushed down my vitamin intake to 25,000 IUs of Vitamin A, 8,000 IUs of Vitamin D, 50 mg of zinc, and 8 mg of iodine. Mouth started to feel better by day 12 though some minor swelling remained even past day 14.

By day 14, I was feeling good enough that I could say I had recovered. Certainly, it was not yet time to do heavy exercise, but I was back to doing work and chores around the house.

In retrospect, if I had to re-do my treatment protocol, I would have started the FLCCC I-Mask+ protocol and the Brownstein vitamin protocol concurrently. I missed a few days of ivermectin doses because I did not think I needed it anymore. Had I known the COVID would hang on the full two weeks, I would not have missed any doses. I also would have started treating my mouth earlier as soon as I had indications it was a problem. I felt like I also got a lot of benefits from nebulizing so that I would have started immediately.

I had chosen these particular protocols largely due to familiarity since I had been actively researching them. There are other good protocols, including the Zelenko protocol (which makes use of HCQ) and the Bartlett protocol (which makes use of budesonide). Dr. Peter McCullough has a good guide to COVID early treatment (available free here).

I recommend doing research on all of the discussed protocols and then discussing options with your physician. It is better to have your homework done and have a plan before you need it. For example, you should be familiar with obtaining ivermectin (see instructions at FLCCC and at America’s Frontline Doctors). Those sites also list front-line doctors who are experienced in treating COVID-19 and are available for telehealth sessions.

What are the risks from COVID-19?

In reality, there is a wide variety of demographic and genetic profiles in society, and not all of us will be equally affected by COVID-19. Often the media likes to make the risk decision for us while neglecting  to tell us the actual probability of harm or that these probabilities differ per person.

An examination of the CDC document “COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios” (last updated March 19, 2021), the odds of death are as follows:

0–17 years old: 20

1 in 50,000

18–49 years old: 500

1 in 2,000

50–64 years old: 6,000

1 in 167

65+ years old: 90,000

1 in 11

To put these statistics into perspective, the FBI in 2018 calculated the murder rate to be 1 in 20,000. The odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash in 2019 were approximately 1 in 8,400.

Additionally, having one or more pre-existing conditions (also called co-morbidities) affects the risk of severe COVID-19 infection. Some of these conditions include asthma, diabetes, cancer, obesity, having a heart condition, etc.

There are studies to indicate that a nutrient deficiency can serve as a risk factor for severe COVID. For example, this study found that deficiencies in vitamin D or selenium may affect the immune system and increase the risk for severe COVID. Another study identified the importance of essential nutrients zinc, ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), vitamin D, and magnesium for both the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.


Even if one recovers, there is the possibility of long-haul COVID, a condition in which symptoms persist 60 days or more after recovery. According to a University of California study, long-haul COVID occurs in a minority of non-hospitalized patients, roughly 27%. It should be noted that there are options to treat long-haul COVID, such as the FLCCC I-Recover protocol.

Given the above facts, I made the decision that the COVID vaccine was not worth it for me (see my examination of COVID vaccine injury risk). I am 39 years old with no pre-existing conditions and in decent health. I exercise five times a week, and my body weight is in the normal range. I eat a decently good diet with sufficient quantities of organic fruits and vegetables. Based on this, I gauged the mortality assessment for myself to be far less than the 1 in 2000 CDC statistic.

I did not think the short-term risk of COVID was sufficient to justify the potential long-term risks from the COVID vaccines. Despite getting sick, I now have immunity to the virus, and I believe I made the right decision for myself. Of course, you might calculate differently for yourself. I believe it is a person’s right to decide whether or not the COVID vaccine is right for them.

The Case for Effective COVID Early Treatments

Having gone through COVID-19, I can say that I have more sympathy for others that have gone through it, especially for those who ended up with severe COVID and subsequently had to be transferred to the hospital.

I considered myself lucky to have been researching COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. I was familiar with early treatment protocols, and I had the requisite supplements on hand. But what about others? Why isn’t this knowledge more widely known? There is a real need for research into early treatments and guidance for those who get sick.

Sadly, this guidance has been lacking from public health authorities. For example, during the pandemic height in 2020, too often, people who tested positive for COVID-19 were just left with the guidance “go home and, if you get worse, then go to the hospital.”

This lack of guidance did a tremendous disservice to the public, especially since there were front-line doctors, like FLCCC and America’s Frontline Doctors, who were at the forefront of pioneering treatments.

In testimony to the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee, Dr. Peter McCullough, professor of medicine at Texas A&M, calls the blatant disregard for COVID treatments a complete failure on the part of public health and medicine.

Dr. McCullough stated: “You get handed a diagnostic test that says ‘here you're COVD positive - go home.’ Is there any treatment? No. Are there any resources I can call? No. Any referral lines or research hotlines? No. That's the standard of care in the United States. How many of you have ever gotten a single word about what to do when you get handed a diagnosis? No wonder this is a complete and total failure at every level.”

It is unfortunate that public health authorities have deemphasized COVID early treatments in order to push the COVID vaccines. Public ignorance about early treatments helps with that goal but at a tremendous cost - it is hurting, even killing, Americans. So it is clear that medicine has some soul-searching to do.

It is now clear that the vaccine does not stop COVID variants, and there are currently over 100,000 reported “breakthrough” cases of COVID in fully vaccinated individuals. And, according to vaccinologist Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, it is possibly the vaccination campaign during an ongoing pandemic that is driving the variants.

With vaccination unlikely to stop COVID-19, it is time for medicine and public health to place more of its focus on early treatments and the prevention of hospitalizations in the first place.

At this time, the CDC estimates 1 in 3 Americans have already been infected with COVID-19. That means approximately 114 million have already recovered from it. Furthermore, a new study shows that long-term immunity among those that have recovered is robust.

It will not be the vaccine that controls the pandemic but natural herd immunity obtained through COVID-19 recoveries. So let us make sure all doctors and clinicians know about early treatments so we can save lives and make that transition as smooth as possible.

Nate Doromal is an activist and writer within the Vaccine Awareness and Vaccine Safety movement. He is a veteran software engineer, formerly with Google, who now works in finance. He holds an MS and an MBA in Computer Science from the University of Chicago. He holds an Executive MBA from the Smartly Institute. He was originally trained on vaccines and vaccine activism by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny in her Mastering Vaccine Info Bootcamp. He has also studied immunological science extensively with Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych through her Building Bridges Course.

Eric Lander: How Biden's Science Secretary Aided the COVID Origins Cover-Up... and Why

Organic consumers - Tue, 2021-08-24 14:23
August 24, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationAlexis Baden-MayerCOVID-19, COVID-19 Origins, OCA on COVID-19 lableak5_1200x630.png

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the eleventh article in our ‘Gain-of-Function Hall of Shame’ series profiling key players in gain-of-function research.

There is “ample proof that the virus could have been genetically manipulated.”

That was the conclusion of an August 2021 report, “The Origins of COVID-19: An Investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” authored by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Minority Staff under the leadership of Congressman Michael McCaul.

Evidence of genetic engineering is written all over the SARS-CoV-2’s genome.

Still, that doesn’t tell us whodunnit.

While Americans have pointed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese have leveled accusations against Ft. Detrick. Neither country seems interested in identifying Patient Zero to figure out how that person was infected and, consequently, how the virus was released.

Is this a joint “Chimerica” plot to cover-up the origins of a chimeric virus?

Eric Lander’s participation, through his Broad Institute, in the U.S. government’s COVID origins cover-up, and his business relationships, including with Chinese gene giant BGI, are clues that can help explain why we’re seeing this collusion.

In January 2020, when scientists examined the genome of SARS-CoV-2 it was immediately clear that the unique feature that made it “100 to 1,000 times” more infectious than the first SARS was something that couldn’t have been achieved through natural recombination. In fact, the virus’s genetic code bore a tell-tale sign that it had been engineered in the lab. This was obvious to every scientist who looked at the virus, even those who later published articles claiming the virus wasn’t engineered.

The U.S. government engaged in a coordinated cover-up that has been revealed in emails obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, but one aspect of the cover-up hasn’t been explored before now: A January 2020 analysis conducted by Eric Lander’s Broad Institute for the Director of National Intelligence that falsely claimed that the virus wasn’t genetically engineered.

This article begins with Eric Lander’s background, including his role in a scientific movement promoting a new, market-based eugenics, and his related business interests. Then, it explores the role of his Broad Institute in the U.S. government’s COVID origins cover-up, and why, as Biden’s Science Secretary, Lander is unlikely to take action to ban gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens. Finally, it connects Eric Lander to fellow Hall of Shamer Eric Schmidt, who had a role in the origin of COVID-19 and who, as Lander’s funder, business partner and colleague, is using his relationship with Lander to push an agenda that independent journalist Whitney Webb calls a digital dictatorship.

This article touches on the role of Alina Chan, a postdoc at Eric Lander’s Broad Institute, in what appears to be a “controlled opposition” that advocates for the “lab leak hypothesis,” but works against a ban on gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens. She is a scientist whose Broad Institute work involves Pentagon-funded human genetic engineering. She is one of a surprising number of advocates for human genetic engineering, eugenics and transhumanism involved in investigating the origins of COVID-19.

This controlled opposition consistently points to the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the source of the virus, an idea first floated by U.S. propaganda outlet Radio Free Asia, but never considers the possibility, first raised by independent journalist Sam Husseini, that the WIV is being framed. The U.S. is one of the few nations whose biological weapons laboratories have been implicated in an intentional release of a lab-created pathogen. The U.S. used false claims about the origins of the 2001 anthrax attacks as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Something similar may be happening here, or it may be that the U.S. is colluding with China to promote a shared agenda.

One shared agenda, evidenced by Eric Lander’s advisory role at BGI, is market-based eugenics. As more and more genetic data is collected from people around the world, genomics researchers are attempting to link traits, outcomes and ethnicity to genetics. BGI, along with its U.S. subsidiary Complete Genomics, is the world leader in human genome sequencing, doing it cheaper and faster than anyone in the world.

China has already been accused of using these technologies to target Uighurs. Advances in genomics has led to the genetic screening of embryos, something already available for in vitro fertilization, and could soon be used in the genetic engineering of human embryos. Adult cells can also be engineered using vectors like mRNA, raising biological weapons concerns.

The following profile of Eric Lander owes credit to and piggie-backs on Whitney Webb’s must-read exposé, “Biden’s Nominee for New Cabinet-Level Science Position Is Epstein-Linked Geneticist.”

Eric Lander and “market-based eugenics”

Eric Lander is a scientist and biotech entrepreneur who currently serves in President Biden’s Cabinet as his Science Advisor and the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Lander is the founding director of the Broad Institute, a genetic engineering and synthetic biology outfit launched by the late Eli Broad, a billionaire philanthrocapitalist who seeded a modern-day eugenics movement based on genetic distinctions and determinism. (Marcy Darnovsky, director of the Center for Genetics and Society, calls this new movement “market-based eugenics.”)

Eli Broad’s desire to sort people by their DNA was made even more ominous by his interest in depopulation.

The Broad Institute’s genomics work has been hugely controversial, especially its efforts to discover genetic causes of same-sex attraction, mental illness and depression (the focus of the Broad Institute’s Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research), and even post-traumatic stress disorder and the psychological resilience of U.S. Army soldiers (research funded by the Pentagon).

One of Eric Lander’s many business interests, in addition to leading the Broad Institute, is advising its Chinese counterpart BGI (formerly the Beijing Genomics Institute), a company that has been accused of aiding China’s “abusive DNA collection and analysis schemes to repress its citizens,” including its Uyghur Muslim population in Xinjiang.

BGI feeds genetic data from millions into supercomputers. Using artificial intelligence, the machines will eventually be able to learn everything about a person, including what they look like, from a sample of their DNA.

BGI is also interested in creating artificial life, from transgenics and gene editing to industrial scale gene synthesis.

BGI has been working on these things with the full cooperation of the US government. BGI is a US government partner on the 1000 Genomes Project, the Global Virome Project (partners include the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance) and the Earth BioGenome Project (partners include the Global Virome Project). The Earth BioGenome Project is billed as “a moonshot for biology” ”to sequence the DNA of all life on Earth in 10 years.”

In 2012, BGI bought the US company Complete Genomics. BGI is a partner of Eric Lander’s Broad Institute, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Intel, Amazon and Google.

BGI, which has labs in Wuhan, also conducts gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. BGI partnered with the WIV’s Shi Zhengli, as well as U.S. military scientists from the Naval Medical Research Center and Henry M. Jackson Foundation at Fort Detrick, on a 2013 paper, “Comparative Analysis of Bat Genomes Provides Insight into the Evolution of Flight and Immunity,” funded by the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

As Jennifer Zeng reported in “Bio War? Gene War? Speeches by CCP Figures & Mass Data Harvesting Say It All,” BGI’s CEO Wang Jian gave a chilling speech in 2017 where he stated that his company had synthesized yeast and in 5 to 10 years would be able to synthesize any life form. He said progress in creating artificial life would move even faster than progress in creating artificial intelligence.

“We can make a brand-new bacteria in two days,” Wang said. “We can make beneficial bacteria and we also can make terrible bacteria.”

He warned that this would usher in a new era of biological war.

Eric Lander, pandemic profiteer

Eric Lander’s Broad Institute has received $2 billion from the federal government since 2009.

Personally, Lander is one of the richest members of Biden’s cabinet, worth at least $45.5 million.

He took the top science post in Biden’s administration in the midst of a pandemic vaccination campaign, but he’s been unable to weigh in on COVID-19 because of conflicts of interest, namely investments in―and even ownership of―companies manufacturing COVID-19 vaccines.

Lander owns stock in BioNTech worth between $500,000 and $1 million.

Fellow Hall-of-Shamer Bill Gates is also invested in BioNTech, which partnered with Pfizer on the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine that has since been linked to heart attacks.

Lander founded Codiak Biosciences and disclosed equity in the company worth between $5 million and $25 million. Codiak has also sought to develop a COVID vaccine. A major Codiak investor, venture capital firm Flagship Pioneering, is run by the founder and chairman of Moderna, Noubar Afeyan.

Conflicted out of work on the COVID-19 pandemic because of his vaccine and pharmaceutical company investments, Eric Lander took up an even more important Biden Administration priority, a project journalist Whitney Webb dubbed a “Digital Dictatorship.”

Lander is lobbying Congress for $6.5 billion to fund an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, variously known as HARPA, ARPA-H and #ARPAH.

The House of Representatives has already appropriated $3 billion. We have to stop this in the Senate! Take action now! For more details, read Stop ARPA-H! Don’t Let Congress Fund Digital Surveillance & Human Gene Hacking!

Eric Lander’s role in the COVID origins cover-up

In January 2020, the Eric Lander’s Broad Institute was asked by the Director of National Intelligence’s Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) to counter rumors that the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of genetic engineering. The Broad Institute scientists worked under an IARPA project known as Finding Engineering-Linked Indicators or FELIX.

Who started these rumors?

The U.S. government.

Specifically, Radio Free Asia.

As Whitney Webb reported January 30, 2020, in her must-read hot-take, “Bats, Gene Editing and Bioweapons: Recent DARPA Experiments Raise Concerns Amid Coronavirus Outbreak,” Radio Free Asia is a “U.S.-government funded media outlet targeting Asian audiences that used to be run covertly by the CIA and [was] named by the New York Times as a key part in the agency’s 'worldwide propaganda network.'"

Radio Free Asia’s January 9, 2020, report, “Experts Cast Doubts on Chinese Official Claims Around 'New' Wuhan Coronavirus,” quoted Ren Ruihong, former head of the medical assistance department at the Chinese Red Cross:

"It's a new type of mutant coronavirus," Ren said. "They haven't made public the genetic sequence, because it is highly contagious. From what I can tell, the patients caught it from other people. I have thought that all along.”

She said the lack of fatalities didn't indicate that the virus was less deadly than SARS, just that antiviral medications have improved in the past 10 years or so.

Ren said she also regarded the relatively high number of infections in Hong Kong with suspicion, given that there had been no reports of cases anywhere in between the two cities, in the southern province of Guangdong, for example.

"Genetic engineering technology has gotten to such a point now, and Wuhan is home to a viral research center that is under the aegis of the China Academy of Sciences, which is the highest level of research facility in China," she said.

Repeated calls to various numbers listed for the Wuhan Institute of Virology under the Chinese Academy of Sciences rang unanswered.

However, an employee who identified herself as a senior engineer said she knew nothing about the virus.

"Sorry, I ... I don't know about this," the employee said.


The first U.S. news article to cover the possibility of a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2, “Virus-hit Wuhan has two laboratories linked to Chinese bio-warfare program,” was published January 24, 2020 in the Washington Times by Bill Gertz and then amplified by Steve Bannon the next day in a special episode of his War Room podcast.

As Whitney Webb reported, Gertz’s source was former Israeli military intelligence biowarfare specialist Dany Shoham who played a key role in:

promoting false claims that the 2001 Anthrax attacks was the work of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Shoham’s assertions about Iraq’s government and weaponized Anthrax, which were used to bolster the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, have since been proven completely false, as Iraq was found to have neither the chemical or biological “weapons of mass destruction” that “experts” like Shoham had claimed.


The Washington Times’ source may have been a known liar, but one thing Bill Gertz wrote on January 24, 2020, rang true:

After researchers sequence the genome of the new coronavirus it might be possible to determine or suggest its origin or source.


Indeed, most scientists who looked at SARS-CoV-2 genome in January 2020 thought it engineered, especially its furin cleavage site.

“When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus.” That’s what David Baltimore, a virologist and former president of CalTech, told Nicholas Wade who later reported these first-impressions in his May 2021 article, “The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?

Similarly, Kristian G. Andersen told Anthony Fauci in a January 31, 2020, email:

On a phylogenic tree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggest that bats serve as the reservoir. The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.


Neither Baltimore nor Andersen said these things publicly in January 2020. While Baltimore maintained his skepticism and later shared his thoughts publicly, Fauci managed to convince Andersen to change his mind (more on that below).

U.S. Right to Know has released a trove of emails obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests where scientists who were publicly dispelling “rumors” that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered, privately said what they really thought.

In "Scientists who authored article denying lab engineering of SARS-CoV-2 privately acknowledged possible lab origin, emails show," Shannon Murray reported that Susan Weiss and Shan-Lu Liu, authors of “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2,” (published February 26, 2020), shared the following (excerpted) exchange via email beginning February 16:

Weiss wrote to Liu: “I find it hard to imagine how that sequence got into the spike of a lineage b betacoronavirus- not seen in SARS or any of the bat viruses.”

Liu wrote back: “I completely agree with you, but rumor says that furin site may be engineered…”

Weiss wrote in her reply: “...frightening to think it may have been engineered.”

In January 2020, as details of the novel coronavirus’s genome were published on preprint servers, scientists discussed these concerns publicly over social media. This Twitter conversation on a thread begun January 27, 2020, by Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding is one example. Dr. Feigl-Ding posted figures from “Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding,” writing:

For the most part, the new #coronavirus shares 87-88% overlap with bat coronavirus. But there are parts of it like the “S” gene  region where I drops to ~70%, and even 68% in lowest point. But other gene regions share consensus as high as 95%.


“Is this proof of unnatural genetic manipulation?” asked anonymous Twitter user @Damian8310. Dr. Feigl-Ding said he didn’t think so.

“In the US they have the 'FELIX program' from IARPA, they could know in a snap of a finger if this virus is engineered. #wuhan #coronavirus #ncov. My guess is that they already know,” replied @Damian8310.

Dr. Feigl-Ding also reacted to the findings of “Full-genome evolutionary analysis of the novel corona virus (2019-nCoV) rejects the hypothesis of emergence as a result of a recent recombination event,” a January 27, 2020, preprint where Greek scientists reported that:

A BLAST search of 2019-nCoV middle fragment revealed no considerable similarity with any of the previously characterized corona viruses. Our study suggests that the new coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is not a mosaic and it is most closely related with the BatCoV RaTG13 detected in bats from Yunnan Province. … Notably, the new coronavirus provides a new lineage for almost half of its genome, with no close genetic relationships to other viruses within the subgenus of sarbecovirus. This genomic part comprises also half of the spike region encoding a multifunctional protein responsible also for virus entry into host cells. Our study rejects the hypothesis of emergence as a result of a recent recombination event.


“Seafood market not the source,” concluded Dr. Feigl-Ding, hastily adding, “I am absolutely not saying it’s bioengineering.”

On January 31, 2020, a paper was published that offered an explanation for that mysterious “spike region encoding a multifunctional protein responsible also for virus entry into host cells": Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag."

The authors of “Uncanny similarity” noticed an HIV gag protein motif in the 2019-nCoV spike glycoprotein at its binding domain and they described how it may have ended up there:

Gag protein of HIV is involved in host membrane binding, packaging of the virus and for the formation of virus-like particles. Gp120 plays a crucial role in recognizing the host cell by binding to the primary receptor CD4.

*    *    *

Our results highlight an astonishing relation between the gp120 and Gag protein of HIV, with 2019-nCoV spike glycoprotein. These proteins are critical for the viruses to identify and latch on to their host cells and for viral assembly. Since surface proteins are responsible for host tropism, changes in these proteins imply a change in host specificity of the virus. According to reports from China, there has been a gain of host specificity in case 2019-nCoV as the virus was originally known to infect animals and not humans but after the mutations, it has gained tropism to humans as well.

*    *    *

Due to the presence of gp120 motifs in 2019-nCoV spike glycoprotein at its binding domain, we propose that these motif insertions could have provided an enhanced affinity towards host cell receptors. Further, this structural change might have also increased the range of host cells that 2019-nCoV can infect.


The authors of “Uncanny similarity” withdrew their paper just two days later. However, their finding, that fragments of HIV were in SARS-CoV-2, was later confirmed by one of the scientists who discovered HIV, Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier, as well as other scientists around the world, including French scientist Etienne Decroly at Aix-Marseille University, who published “The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade,” February 10, 2020, and Ruan Jishou of Nankai University who published “The S protein of Wuhan 2019 coronavirus may have a Furin protease cleavage site,” February 14, 2020.

Stephen Chen described Jishou’s findings for the South China Morning Post in, “Coronavirus far more likely than Sars to bond to human cells due to HIV-like mutation, scientists say”:

The new coronavirus has an HIV-like mutation that means its ability to bind with human cells could be up to 1,000 times as strong as the Sars virus, according to new research by scientists in China and Europe.

The discovery could help to explain not only how the infection has spread but also where it came from and how best to fight it.

*    *    *

Other highly contagious viruses, including HIV and Ebola, target an enzyme called furin, which works as a protein activator in the human body. Many proteins are inactive or dormant when they are produced and have to be “cut” at specific points to activate their various functions.

When looking at the genome sequence of the new coronavirus, Professor Ruan Jishou and his team at Nankai University in Tianjin found a section of mutated genes that did not exist in Sars, but were similar to those found in HIV and Ebola.

“This finding suggests that 2019-nCoV [the new coronavirus] may be significantly different from the Sars coronavirus in the infection pathway,” the scientists said in a paper published this month on Chinaxiv.org, a platform used by the Chinese Academy of Sciences to release scientific research papers before they have been peer-reviewed.

“This virus may use the packing mechanisms of other viruses such as HIV.”

According to the study, the mutation can generate a structure known as a cleavage site in the new coronavirus’ spike protein.

The virus uses the outreaching spike protein to hook on to the host cell, but normally this protein is inactive. The cleavage site structure’s job is to trick the human furin protein, so it will cut and activate the spike protein and cause a “direct fusion” of the viral and cellular membranes.

Compared to the Sars’ way of entry, this binding method is “100 to 1,000 times” as efficient, according to the study.

*    *    *

The mutation, which Ruan’s team described as an “unexpected insertion”, could come from many possible sources such as a coronavirus found in rats or even a species of avian flu.


In their Wall Street Journal op-ed, “The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak: The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus,” June 6, 2021, Drs. Steven Quay and Richard Muller point out that every analyses of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, including Shi Zhengli’s, identified a unique genetic sequence in spike protein known as “double CGG.” They note that, “in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally,” but it is the preferred sequence of genetic engineers splicing together viruses in the laboratory.

It is the controversy around the genetic sequence of the unique furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 that the Broad Institute scientists covered up with their finding that the novel coronavirus had not been genetically engineered.

They claim to have compared SARS-CoV-2 to 58 million virus sequences and, after only 10 minutes of analysis, determined that "all regions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome match naturally-occurring coronaviruses better than they match any other organisms, including any other viruses. This analysis indicates that no sequences from foreign species have been engineered into SARS-CoV-2."

This statement is demonstrably false.

Their analysis is presumably the basis for the April 2020 Intelligence Community Statement on the Origins of COVID-19 that it had not yet determined “whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan,” but it “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified.”

That brings us back to Kristian Andersen, the scientist who initially told Anthony Fauci that the novel coronavirus looked engineered. He ended up being listed as the corresponding author on “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” (March 17, 2020), which claimed that “SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus.” “Proximal origin” didn’t mention the IARPA analysis.

What changed Andersen’s mind?

It wasn't science, but a quid pro quo. Fauci gave him a lavish gift, a new Center for Research in Emerging Infectious Disease (CREID) funded by Fauci’s National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease.

When this “CREID pro quo,” as Richard Ebright called it, came to light in May 2021, Andersen needed a reason besides the money to explain his attitude adjustment.

In a public statement dated June 3, 2021, Andersen still didn’t mention the IARPA analysis. Instead, he pointed to “related viruses from pangolins carrying a near-identical receptor binding domain." He claimed this was proof that “all the features of SARS-CoV-2 exist in nature.” He didn’t mention that a U.S. Right to Know Freedom of Information Act inquiry, published November 9, 2020, had revealed Nature’s editor had “concerns” about the pangolin data and that, even before that, the scientific consensus was that it was time to exonerate the pangolin.

Why didn’t “Proximal origin,” or any other published study on the origins of COVID-19 for that matter, mention the IARPA analysis?

It was shabby and presented without evidence, but there is an even more disturbing conclusion to be drawn, given much of what IARPA does is classified and funded from a classified budget.

The ostensible goal of FELIX was to be able to tell the difference between a naturally occurring pathogen and one that was engineered in a lab.

It could also be used to help scientists get better at what Ralph Baric calls the “no-see-um” technique that keeps detectable fingerprints off lab creations.

“If you know how to detect bioengineering, you theoretically understand how to hide your own,” observed one commentator.

Was the true purpose of Eric Landers’ Broad Institute’s FELIX work to hide bioengineering rather than reveal it?

If so, the shabbiness would be a feature not a bug.

It’s difficult to check the Broad Institute’s work, as they posted only one short paragraph about their SARS-CoV-2 FELIX analysis online:

IARPA’s FELIX Program Investigates Rumors that COVID-19 Pandemic is the Result of Genetic Engineering

January 2020: The MIT-Broad Foundry, a performer team on the FELIX program, analyzed the publicly available SARS-CoV-2 genome using their FELIX bioinformatics pipeline in order to test the veracity of online stories claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a laboratory. They compared the SARS-CoV-2 genome against 58 million sequences, including genomes from closely and distantly related viruses. After only 10 minutes of analysis, the FELIX tool determined that all regions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome match naturally-occurring coronaviruses better than they match any other organisms, including any other viruses. This analysis indicates that no sequences from foreign species have been engineered into SARS-CoV-2.

Accompanying the statement was a graphic image captioned, “Figure 1: Comparison of the SARS-CoV-2 genome to a comprehensive sequence database shows that the closest genetic matches are to other coronaviruses. Image used with permission of Broad."



The graphic listed human immunodeficiency viruses 1-3 and marked those with a red X, indicating that they had no genomic similarity to SARS-CoV-2. Then, it listed three bat betacoronaviruses and linked those with an arrow to the graphic of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, indicating that they were a short genomic distance from it.

The three bat coronaviruses appear to have been chosen by the FELIX team at random.

BtRs-BetaCoV/YN2018C and BtRl-BetaCoV/SC2018 were published in the 2019 paper “Identification of Diverse Bat Alphacoronaviruses and Betacoronaviruses in China Provides New Insights Into the Evolution and Origin of Coronavirus-Related Diseases” by scientists with the Chinese government and EcoHealth Alliance. They were among the viruses found in a survey that involved 831 bats of 15 species collected from Yunnan, Guangxi, and Sichuan between August 2016 and May 2017. SARSr-Rf-BatCoV YNLF_31C was identified from R. ferrumequinum collected in Yunnan, China, in 2013, and published in the 2015 paper “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus ORF8 Protein Is Acquired from SARS-Related Coronavirus from Greater Horseshoe Bats through Recombination.”

The FELIX scientists did not include RaTG13, the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2, even though the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Shi Zhengli had posted "Discovery of a novel coronavirus associated with the recent pneumonia outbreak in humans and its potential bat origin,” online on January 23, and the “Full-genome evolutionary analysis” scientists had confirmed RaTG13’s relationship to SARS-CoV-2 on January 27.

The FELIX scientists couldn’t have “missed” RaTG13. In January 2020, no scientist in the world would have been unaware of Shi Zhengli’s discovery. Even if they had done their analysis prior to RaTG13’s publication, they should have been able to find it. Part of its sequence was available, having been published as RaBtCoV/4991 in 2016’s “Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft.”

Neither did the FELIX scientists turn up the same bat viruses as Edward C. Holmes and George F. Gao who published their analysis, “Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding,” on January 29, 2020. (Interestingly, Holmes and Gao also skipped RaTG13. When asked why on Twitter, Holmes said, “One of the tricky - but understandable - things is that papers are being published or preprinted so quickly that what is written is often rapidly out-of-date. Technically, as it was discovered second, the question should be whether RatG13 is the same species as 2019-nCoV.”)

Later, FELIX was portrayed as having a “junk-in, junk-out” problem in a January 2021 article in Forbes, “IARPA’s Bioweapon Detection Tools Have Difficulty Finding What They’re Not Looking For.”

But, it couldn't have been a failure. It was falsified.

Ignoring RaTG13 and missing bat viruses identified by others is one clue, but the most revealing aspect of the FELIX analysis is its ham-handed dismissal of the “Uncanny similarity” and “The S protein” finding that SARS-CoV-2 contained HIV motifs.

The HIV motifs in the receptor binding domain of the spike protein with its unique furin cleavage site are the equivalent of Ralph Baric’s fingerprints on SARS-CoV-2.

In Baric’s infamous gain-of-function paper, “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,” he describes his methods for genetically engineering and synthesizing novel viruses, including his use of HIV:

Pseudotyping experiments were similar to those using an HIV-based pseudovirus, prepared as previously described, and examined on HeLa cells that expressed ACE2 orthologs.


What is pseudotyping and how would Ralph Baric use it to engineer a coronavirus?

According to Kathryn Nixdorff, a professor in the Department of Microbiology and Genetics at Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany, “pseudotyping … involves exchanging the surface proteins of particular strains of viruses during packaging of the virus's genetic material into its outer covering (a final step in the synthesis of the virus) before it is released from the invaded cell.”

This is exactly the process described in “Uncanny similarity” and “The S protein of Wuhan 2019 coronavirus,” mentioned above.

HIV or none, no one doubts that Ralph Baric could have created SARS-CoV-2 in the lab.

What would have been truly damning is if the virus he had engineered for “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,” had been the virus most similar to SARS-CoV-2.

We have to take his word for it that it isn’t, because he didn’t deposit the sequence of his SHC015-MA15 virus in GenBank until May 22, 2020!

Eric Lander and gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens

Eric Lander doesn’t seem to have much to do with gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens or any connection to the controversies involving it. Nothing that I’m aware of links him to the origins of COVID-19. It seems he has never even weighed in on the ethics of gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens.

In fact, beyond being clean of any gain-of-function controversy, Eric Lander is actually associated with critics of gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens. Marc Lipsitch gave a 2014 talk at the Broad Institute on its risks.

As the director of the Biden’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, Eric Lander has been asked by House Republicans to answer several questions about gain-of-function research and the origins of COVID-19.

Will he answer these questions honestly and guide policy changes necessary to prevent the next pandemic?

Early in 2021, it looked like Lander to might take a stand for the truth about COVID-19 and support a ban on gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens—or at least be convinced to do so—because of the inspiring work of a young Broad Institute postdoc Alina Chan who was investigating the origins of the pandemic.

This hope evaporated rapidly when Alina Chan joined the “weigh the risks and benefits” and “do it responsibly” camps and came out against banning gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens.

The failure of the “weigh the risks and benefits” and “do it responsibly” approach is what got us into this mess. Anthony Fauci funded Ralph Baric’s infamous gain-of-function experiments on SARS-like bat coronaviruses during an Obama-era moratorium and he continued to do so after the moratorium was lifted without checking with the Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight Committee that had been established to weigh risks and benefits and make sure scientists were doing gain-of-function research responsibly.

A ban is necessary because more measured approaches have failed, but you won’t hear that from Lander’s young protegé Alina Chan.

Why won’t scientists like Alina Chan consider a ban?

They fear that, if the public can come together to ban one unnecessarily dangerous practice of scientists, they might ban any number of unnecessarily dangerous or destructive things that scientists do.

Alina Chan lives in a particularly fragile glass house. She hacks human cells for a project that could result in the wholesale genetic engineering of human beings.

Her work at Eric Lander’s Broad Institute involves creating human artificial chromosomes for the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency (DARPA) under a $32 million grant. Human artificial chromosomes or HACs are the first step in creating a genetically engineered synthetic human genome.

Chan’s research was conducted for GP-write (originally called "Human Genome Project-write"). By Chan's own account, she was interested in human artificial chromosomes for "genome writing" and "mammalian cell engineering" and wanted to create synthetic DNA and "deliver them into human cells." She developed a method for fusing yeast to human cells to create "Frankenstein cells." With this technique, she successfully inserted ebola into human cells in order to make human cells produce the infectious virus.

Chan currently works at the Broad Institute’s Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, which focuses on finding genetic markers for mental illness.

We know all of this thanks to the detective work of anonymous Twitter user @gumby4christ. While researching the origins of COVID-19, “Gumby” looked into Alina Chan’s research and found some very disturbing things, which he laid out in two must-read Twitter threads May 28-June and June 1.

Alina Chan will soon publish “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19” with journalist Matt Ridley. Ridley is the author of several books on genetics. He believes, as he wrote in, “The New Eugenics: Better than the Old”:

The history of eugenics teaches us that nobody should be forced to engineer her children’s genes, but, by implication, neither should anyone be forced not to.


Eric Schmidt & Eric Lander

Upon Eli Broad’s passing, Eric Lander found himself a new billionaire patron, Eric Schmidt, the subject of our last entry in the Gain of Function Hall of Shame series, “Google's Eric Schmidt: Funding the Wuhan Lab & the COVID Origins Cover-Up.”

Schmidt is Eric Lander’s board chair at the Broad Institute, funder of the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center at the Broad Institute, and business partner in Terra, a joint project of the Broad Institute, Microsoft and Google (Alphabet)’s Verily. The two share a transhumanist life-extension project in Google (Alphabet)’s Calico partnership with the Broad Institute.

Lander and Schmidt go way back. They served together on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Advisory Board (a tech-focused spin-off of the Defense Business Board), which spawned the Defense Innovation Unit to help tech enterprises like Google get defense contracts. Currently, they’re on the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Innovation and National Security, formed in 2019.

While serving together on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Eric Schmidt and Eric Lander crafted a pandemic planning document for the 2009 H1N1 epidemic that now reads like a blueprint for the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, complete with “several forms of social distancing such as school closures, cancellation of sporting events, etc.”

Together on the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Advisory Board, Schmidt and Lander made recommendations on government spending to prepare for biological threats and the utility of artificial intelligence to the U.S. military, including using AI to manage the Pentagon’s disease collection (the world’s largest).

Eric Schmidt shaped the pandemic industrial complex by launching Predict and Prevent at Google.org in 2008 and finding a home—and hundreds of millions of dollars—for it at USAID in 2009. Natalie Winters of the National Post was the first journalist to break the story in “REVEALED: Google & USAID Funded Wuhan Collaborator Peter Daszak’s Virus Experiments For Over A Decade.”

Eric Schmidt is connected to the origins of COVID-19 through Google’s investments in and business relationships with Metabiota, which was at the scene of the crime in 2012, in Yunnan, China, hunting for bat viruses with its fellow USAID PREDICT Consortium members, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance, when six men exposed to bat guano ended up in a Kunming hospital with a SARS-like illness that killed three of them.

All of the most famous bat viruses, including the viruses used in Ralph Baric’s infamous gain-of-function experiments, the first bat virus known to target the human ACE2 receptor, and the bat virus that is the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, were found during the 2012 USAID PREDICT expeditions.

But, none of the USAID Predict scientists mentioned the 2012 Kunming outbreak when they published their discoveries of these extraordinary viruses, even though documenting this type of “spillover” event was the main justification for their research. They didn’t even report the cases to the World Health Organization.

Did the scientists have something to hide? Were those bat viruses collected from a hospital rather than a bat cave? Were the six men who got sick cleaning bat guano from an abandoned mine working for the USAID PREDICT virus hunters?

What is the significance of the 2012 Kunming SARS-like outbreak and its relationship to the origins of SARS-CoV-2?

Is it a comedy of errors where scientists, who tell funders they're predicting the next pandemic, are so inept that they accidentally cause it, making prophets of all the lab safety advocates who warned about the dangers of gain-of-function research?

Or, has the origin of COVID-19 been grafted on to this spillover event to give an intentionally released genetically engineered virus the semblance of a natural origin?

After all, Anthony Fauci said, if scientists found the virus outside the lab, brought it back, and then it escaped, “that means it was in the wild to begin with.”

To answer these questions, we need an impartial investigation, but Eric Schmidt’s foundation is funding a COVID-origins cover-up and Google is censoring evidence of a lab release of SARS-CoV-2.

Rockefeller Foundation director Rajiv Shah is helping Eric Schmidt fund the COVID origins cover-up. Shah also helped him fund the Wuhan lab. Fresh from the Gates Foundation, Shah was USAID director during the PREDICT virus hunts, the 2012 Kunming SARS-like outbreak and the discovery of RaTG13.

To stop the next pandemic, we need a ban on virus hunting and gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens, but Eric Schmidt and Eric Lander are trying to make sure even more government money is spent on even more frightening technologies and experiments.

Eric Schmidt and Eric Lander have big plans for digital surveillance and human genetic engineering, projects that have been central to Google’s business model and investments and the Broad Institute’s research.

(If you’re not familiar with Google’s history of surveillance, read Yasha Levine’s Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet. And, if you don’t know about its investments in human genetic engineering, check out Google’s transhumanist life-extension company Calico.)

Now that Eric Lander is Biden’s science advisor, cabinet secretary, and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Schmidt-Lander duo has never been more powerful.

Read more & take action: Stop ARPA-H! Don’t Let Congress Fund Digital Surveillance & Human Gene Hacking!

Alexis Baden-Mayer is political director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here.

Read more from our Gain of Function Hall of Shame.

 

Stop ARPA-H! Don’t Let Congress Fund Digital Surveillance & Human Gene Hacking!

Organic consumers - Mon, 2021-08-02 17:01
August 2, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationAlexis Baden-MayerPolitics & Globalization arpa-h_1200x630.jpg

Vaccine passports are draconian, but they look like library cards compared to the wearable tech that companies like Google, which now owns Fitbit, want the criminal justice system, military and private companies to require for the purpose of monitoring medical treatments, diseases, moods and behavior.

Unlabeled genetically engineered foods turned us into unwitting lab rats, but that experiment looks ethical compared with the brave new world of human gene hacking.

What do you get when you combine digital surveillance and human gene hacking with super computers that can comb through all the data with artificial intelligence? 

The power to hack the human race.

This is the course the National Institutes of Health will be charting if President Biden can get Congress to fund his proposed ARPA-H, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Congress to stop ARPA-H!

As Unlimited Hangout’s Whitney Webb reported in May (This Biden Proposal Could Make the US a “Digital Dictatorship”), the Biden Administration has requested $6.5 billion from Congress for the new agency modeled on the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

On July 13, 2021, the House Appropriations Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee approved its 2022 spending plan, with $49.4 billion for the National Institutes of Health, a $6.5 billion increase from its current level. Of the new money, $3 billion was earmarked for ARPA-H.

Biden has already picked an ARPA-H director: Tara Schwetz, currently Associate Deputy Director at Francis Collins’ NIH and previously Chief of the Strategic Planning and Evaluation Branch in the office of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci.

Four themes emerge from the White House’s ARPA-H draft concept paper, prepared by Dr. Eric Lander, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health: 1) digital surveillance, 2) human genetic engineering, 3) mRNA vaccines (more human genetic engineering) and 4) corporate control.

Digital surveillance

Expanding government and corporate access to biometric data is a top priority of Biden’s ARPA-H. Among the new sensors and artificial-intelligence-assisted medical decision making tools that Lander and Collins propose ARPA-H invest in are:

• Small, highly accurate, inexpensive, non-intrusive, wearable 24/7 monitors (e.g., smart watches).

• Brain imaging and blood biomarkers capable of measuring synaptic loss, neuronal death, and glial inflammatory pathways.

• Regular virtual house calls.

• Smart devices for “improving” how medication is taken.

As Yasha Levine’s comprehensive history Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet reveals, the concept and creation of the internet was closely controlled by the Pentagon, starting in the Vietnam War era, as a counter-insurgency tool for use at home, as well as abroad. 

Data-mining, processing and synthesis was always key. In recent years, as Tim Hinchliffe reports in “DARPA to ‘exploit social media, messaging & blog data’ to track geopolitical influence campaigns,” DARPA has been fairly straight-forward about its counter-insurgency aims in programs like Social Media in Strategic Communication (2011) and ​​Influence Campaign Awareness and Sensemaking (2020). Some of DARPA’s methods have even been privatized, according to the Washington Post article, “Technology once used to combat ISIS propaganda is enlisted by Democratic group to counter Trump’s coronavirus messaging.”

The incorporation of biological data into this project is at least two decades in the making. In 2003, DARPA published a request for proposals for LifeLog. (If you’ve never heard of this project and how it was shuttered just as Facebook was launched, check out James Corbett’s report, “The Weird DARPA/Facebook “Coincidence” You Never Heard About.") From the DARPA's 2003 LifeLog RFP:

LifeLog is interested in three major data categories: physical data, transactional data, and context or media data. “Anywhere/anytime” capture of physical data might be provided by hardware worn by the LifeLog user. Visual, aural, and possibly even haptic sensors capture what the user sees, hears, and feels. GPS, digital compass, and inertial sensors capture the user’s orientation and movements. Biomedical sensors capture the user’s physical state. 

* * *

LifeLog can also serve as a subsystem to support a wide variety of other applications, including personal, medical, financial, and other types of assistants, and various teaching and training tools. As increasing numbers of people acquire LifeLogs, collaborative tasks could be facilitated by the interaction of LifeLogs, and properly anonymized access to LifeLog data might support medical research and the early detection of an emerging epidemic.

The wearable monitors described here can function like lie detector tests, able to detect our deepest feelings through our biometric data, even as they track our every move.

As Yuval Noah Harari explained to the World Economic Forum in 2020, in his talk on the coming Digital Dictatorship, once biological knowledge, artificial intelligence, computing power and data are combined, those who control it will have the ability to hack humans, to create algorithms that understand us better than we understand ourselves and therefore can manipulate or replace our decision-making.

When Landers and Collins mention wearable monitors, they are clear that they’re talking about “non-intrusive” technologies, but when they talk about smart devices to improve how medication is taken, they don’t use that modifier.

In a fascinating news report from a decade ago, MIT scientist Robert Langer explained how implanted microchips could be used for remote-control drug delivery via cell-phone. (More on Langer in the section on mRNA below. He just happens to be a co-founder and member of the board of directors of Moderna, now worth $1.6 billion.)

Human genetic engineering

DNA is not destiny. Look at the differences between identical twins. Environment and behavior, including exposure to toxins, nutrition, stress levels, exercise routines, relationships, and spiritual practices, are stronger determinants of health and wellness.

Managing health by addressing these factors is effective, but it doesn't make the pharmaceutical companies any money, so it isn’t included in the Biden Administration’s plans for ARPA-H. 

Human genetic engineering, including gene transfer and gene editing, on the other hand, has an enormous potential for profit, so it takes center stage. The global market for DNA sequencing alone is expected to grow to $35.7 billion by 2028.

“Genetic studies,” Lander and Collins write, “have discovered the genes responsible for more than six thousand rare genetic diseases, opening prospects for gene transfer or gene editing therapies.”

They propose using mRNA vaccines to prevent cancer by correcting 50 common genetic mutations that drive cancers.

Apparently, ARPA-H will not be addressing the 95 percent of cancers that aren’t genetic.

mRNA vaccines (more human genetic engineering)

In addition to mRNA vaccines to prevent cancer by correcting genetic mutations, Lander and Collins say that ARPA-H will fund projects to achieve:

• The ability to design, test, and approve a vaccine against any newly emerging human virus in 100 days.

• The ability to administer vaccines through a skin patch or oral spray, to allow rapid, massive vaccination campaigns.

By “vaccines," Lander and Collins mean mRNA, "the injection into the body of synthetically created genetic instructions, telling cells to make viral proteins that prime the immune system.”

This isn’t your father’s vaccine. Until this year, the dictionary definition of a vaccine was, “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.” Lander and Collins are talking about something very different.

Moderna executives call it “hacking the software of life.”

In “Yes, some COVID vaccines use genetic engineering. Get over it.” Mark Lynas explains the mRNA vaccine this way: 

“It won’t reprogram your brain. But it does reprogram some of your cells, in a manner of speaking. And that’s not a defect — it’s intentional.”

As Whitney Webb reports in “Coronavirus Gives A Dangerous Boost To DARPA’s Darkest Agenda,” this mRNA “reprogramming” of human cells with “synthetically created genetic instructions” has been and is funded by the Pentagon.

Why would the Pentagon want to hack the software of life by reprogramming human cells with synthetically created genetic instructions?

Vaccines are not the endgame for this technology or the Department of Defense. 

They’re working on human gene editing. One way to deliver gene editing tools like CRISPR into the human body is through mRNA. 

One sign that this technology has progressed further than anyone will acknowledge publicly is that DARPA isn’t just working on using CRISPR for human gene editing. In its Safe Genes program, it has Nobel Prize winner Jennifer Doudna figuring out how to use anti-CRISPR proteins to defend people against “unwanted gene editing activity.”

Gene editing as a bioweapon? How would that even be possible?

DARPA has a word for it: a Horizontal Environmental Genetic Alteration Agent or HEGAA, any artificially developed agent that is engineered to edit the genome of a species they infect when intentionally dispersed into the environment. 

Tiny unmanned aerial vehicles, which operate like flying micro-syringes, are one way to deliver genetic weapons, as the Center for Strategy and Technology of the Air Force’s Air War College described in an unclassified report back in 2005. That model has advanced considerably in the intervening decades with DARPA’s Insect Allies program, where live insects are used as genetic alteration agents, and DARPA has also merged the two concepts with remote-controlled cyborg insects.

This technology must be stopped before it goes too far. Michel Maharbiz, one of the scientists who figured out how to control the flight of live insects through electrical stimulation, quickly moved on to similar experiments with non-human primates under a DARPA grant with the stated aim “to uncover the mechanisms underlying neural computation and reorganization to improve modeling of the brain and our ability to interface with it.” Maharbiz is also famous for being the inventor of DARPA’s “neural dust” for the “precise wireless recording of nerve activity.”

These technologies stir concerns that DARPA will use these technologies for the remote control of human beings. A successful lawsuit revealed that the CIA implanted electrodes in brains of unsuspecting soldiers in the 1960s.

But, if gene editing were to be used as a bioweapon, wouldn’t mRNA make an even better genetic alteration agent? Especially if it were able to be delivered in an inhalable form? This is what Robert Langer, mentioned above, has been working on.

Corporate Control

The National Institutes of Health already spends billions of dollars on medical research and the discovery of health treatments each year. Why is the Biden Administration so set on a DARPA-style program?

As a DARPA-style program, it would circumvent the National Institutes of Health’s peer-reviewed grant making process, as well as its civil service hiring system and pay-scale.

DARPA is held up as the model for cutting red tape, streamlining the bureaucracy and unleashing innovation that offers great returns on investment, but in reality, people like Lander and Collins like the DARPA model because it gives corporations control over government spending, creating opportunities for graft and self-dealing.

Unsurprisingly, DARPA has been a hotbed of corruption. Former director Regina Dugan was under investigation for ​​$1.75 million in DARPA contracts to her company RedXDefense when she left DARPA in 2012 to create a DARPA-esque program for Google. In 2014, the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General released a report highlighting her ethics violations.

Eric Lander and Francis Collins want ARPA-H so that they can give corporate executives control over $6.5 billion in funding for human genetic engineering, digital surveillance and vaccines. 

What could go wrong?

If Lander and Collins’ plans for digital surveillance, human genetic engineering and corporate control isn’t concerning enough, there’s reason to speculate on what else they might do if Congress were to give them billions of dollars to start an ARPA-H.

One suggestion is to explore pre-crime sensors that can detect when people are about to turn violent. That idea, and the push for ARPA-H or HARPA, as it has been called by advocates, comes from the Susan Wright Foundation.

Another idea is to feed genetic data from millions into supercomputers. Using artificial intelligence, the machines will eventually be able to learn everything about a person, including what they look like, from a sample of their DNA. 

ARPA-H could also speed progress in creating artificial life, from transgenics and gene editing to industrial scale gene synthesis.

These are the things Chinese gene giant BGI has been working on—with the full cooperation of the US government. BGI is a US government partner on the 1000 Genomes Project, the Global Virome Project (partners include the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance) and the Earth BioGenome Project (partners include the Global Virome Project). The Earth BioGenome Project is billed as “a moonshot for biology” ”to sequence the DNA of all life on Earth in 10 years.”

In 2012, BGI bought the US company Complete Genomics. BGI is a partner of Eric Lander’s Broad Institute, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Intel, Amazon and Google.

BGI, which has labs in Wuhan, also conducts gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. BGI partnered with the WIV’s Shi Zhengli, as well as U.S. military scientists from the Naval Medical Research Center and Henry M. Jackson Foundation at Fort Detrick, on a 2013 paper, “Comparative Analysis of Bat Genomes Provides Insight into the Evolution of Flight and Immunity,” funded by the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

As Jennifer Zeng reported in “Bio War? Gene War? Speeches by CCP Figures & Mass Data Harvesting Say It All,” BGI’s CEO Wang Jian gave a chilling speech in 2017 where he stated that his company had synthesized yeast and in 5 to 10 years would be able to synthesize any life form. He said progress in creating artificial life would move even faster than progress in creating artificial intelligence. 

“We can make a brand-new bacteria in two days,” Wang said. “We can make beneficial bacteria and we also can make terrible bacteria.”

He warned that this would usher in a new era of biological war.

This is not the time to be pouring $6.5 billion—or any money—into an ARPA-H. We shouldn’t be funding collaborations with companies like BGI and we shouldn’t be funding companies that hope to compete with China’s gene giant.

We should ban the mass collection of genetic data from the public, whether that’s through genetic screening tests like BGI’s NIFTY tests for pregnant women or ancestry tests like 23andMe. 

No entity, whether public or private, commercial or non-profit, should be allowed to hold stores of human genetic data beyond the limited single use for which the individual has shared it.

If you agree, tell Congress to stop ARPA-H!

Congress has consistently prevented federal funding from being used for research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification.

If Congress is serious about that, it must dismantle the science, technology and infrastructure that are making human genetic modification inevitable.

It must stop ARPA-H.

SIGN THE PETITION: Stop the Genetic Engineering of Viruses! Shut Down All 'Biodefense' Labs Immediately!

Organic consumers - Mon, 2021-07-19 19:24
Belong to campaign: COVID-19Category: COVID-19, COVID-19 Actions, Health IssuesArea: USA

Most people associate the words “genetic engineering” with GMO corn and soy crops, Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller and the anti-GMO movement’s hard-fought (but ultimately lost) campaign for GMO labeling laws.

As dangerous and unnecessary as genetic engineering is when used to modify food, the technology has an even more potentially deadly use: biowarfare.

It’s time to stop allowing—and funding—the dangerous and illegal activity of genetically engineering viruses, under the guise of “biodefense,” in the U.S. and worldwide.

SIGN THE PETITION: Stop the Genetic Engineering of Viruses! Shut Down All Biowarfare Labs Immediately!Read more

Take Action: 

Google's Eric Schmidt: Funding the Wuhan Lab & the COVID Origins Cover-Up

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-07-07 23:30
July 7, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationAlexis Baden-MayerCOVID-19, COVID-19 Origins, OCA on COVID-19 coronavirus_black_red_google_logo_1200x630.jpg

If you’ve read anything about the possible lab origins of COVID-19, you’re likely familiar with the roles of Anthony Fauci, David Chistian “Chris” Hassell, Peter Daszak, Shi Zenghli, and Ralph Baric.

Their names were mentioned frequently on June 29 at an expert forum held by House Republicans entitled “Led By Science: The COVID-19 Origin Story.” Anthony Fauci and David Hassell were even invited to speak, along with NIH director Francis Collins. All three refused.

Each of the people I’ve profiled in my Gain-of-Function Hall of Shame series is complicit in the hunting and manipulation of bat coronaviruses that likely resulted in an industrial accident (or worse) causing SARS-CoV-2 to emerge in the vicinity of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in late 2019.

However, recent sleuthing suggests that, while they are indeed the likely suspects, they may also be a carefully chosen group of spokespersons and poster-scientists whose job it is to take the flak for this deadly mistake threatening the multi-billion-dollar emerging infectious disease industry and its gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens.

Peter Daszak made news this week with an addendum to his infamous February 2020 Lancet letter. In the addendum, he finally listed his many conflicts of interests that compromised his roles as Wuhan Institute of Virology funder and collaborator, spokesperson for the anti-lab-leak-hypothesis camp, and COVID origins investigator. What he failed to mention is his long-standing and ongoing relationship with Google.

Natalie Winters’ revealed in the National Pulse that Eric Schmidt’s Google had funded Wuhan collaborator Peter Daszak’s virus experiments for over a decade. The news was explosive for a number of reasons, most notably that:

1. Google has censored the lab origin hypothesis.

2. Eric Schmidt’s foundation is funding the Covid Commission Planning Group.

Winters didn’t link Google to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but I reveal here that Google has funded the Global Viral Forecasting Initiative/Metabiota and HealthMap’s work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology for several years. 

Metabiota, HealthMap, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance were partners in USAID’s PREDICT program from 2009 to 2020.

USAID’s PREDICT and PREVENT programs, launched in 2009, actually began at Google.org in 2008 as the non-profit foundation’s Predict and Prevent program.

In 2018, the same team launched the Global Virome Project, billed as a 10-year plan to map more than a million unknown viruses at the cost of $1.2 billion.

Then, in 2020, the Global Virome Project was rolled into the Trinity Challenge, led by Google, Microsoft, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Facebook, GSK, the Clinton Health Access Foundation, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Vaccine Confidence Project and several other corporations and corporate non-profits.

In 2021, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard launched the new, $300 million Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center, collaboration of biopharmaceutical companies, including Genentech (a member of the Roche Group), AstraZeneca, and Novartis and technology and research companies, including DeepMind, Google Research, and Microsoft.

The new government home and funding source for these efforts is HARPA, the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency. President Biden has formally proposed $6.5 billion in the FY 2021-2022 budget for the agency and Congress is currently reviewing this proposal. Whitney Webb, writing in Unlimited Hangout, warned, “This Biden Proposal Could Make the US a ‘Digital Dictatorship.’”

Google is not merely a participant in the pandemic industrial complex, but a major driver of the emerging infectious disease industry, a force that may be more powerful and influential than any other in this sphere, including Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation’s Scott Dowell.

At best, despite the billions of dollars devoted to these efforts since 2008, Google has failed to predict or prevent a single outbreak or epidemic. At worst, it may have had a hand in causing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Google, Metabiota, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origins of COVID-19

Through Metabiota, a government-funded for-profit organization that Google Ventures is invested in and partners with, Google has funded and collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology for several years. 

Metabiota, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, along with EcoHealth Alliance, were members of the PREDICT and PREDICT-2 Consortiums which dispersed $211.8 million in USAID PREDICT grants between 2009 and 2020.

The three organizations received PREDICT funding for work they published together in May 2014, “Evidence for Retrovirus and Paramyxovirus Infection of Multiple Bat Species in China,” an analysis of bat viruses collected in Yunnan near Pu’er City, south of Kunming, between November 2011 and March 2012. 

That places Google at a scene of a very significant moment in the COVID-19 origin story.

It was in Kunming, just after Metabiota, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance had finished their virus hunt that six men exposed to bat guano were hospitalized with severe pneumonia of an unknown cause. They were admitted to the hospital in April. Three died. The longest hospitalization lasted into September.

It was during and after that outbreak, (August and September 2012 and April and July 2013) that Shi Zhengli, working under a grant from Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, discovered the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 in the same cave where the six men had been working.

In February 2020, Shi published the same virus as RaTG13, calling attention to its similarities to SARS-CoV-2 without mentioning the virus’s relationship to the hospitalized men or the fact that it had been published as RaBtCoV/4991 in 2016’s “Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft.” 

The omission tells us there’s something about the hospitalized men Shi Zhengli doesn’t want us to know.

Did the men get sick while “cleaning the bats’ feces inside the cave” for one of the PREDICT research teams?

Was RaTG13 taken from the hospitalized men rather than a bat colony, as Drs. Jonathan Latham and Alison Wilson have suggested?

Is that where Peter Daszak and Shi Zhengli got the virus they gave to Ralph Baric for his infamous gain-of-function experiments published in “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence”? It was around this time (between April 2011 and September 2012) that WIV’s Shi Zhengli and EcoHealth’s Peter Daszak, working with the USAID PREDICT Consortium, discovered the first bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor “at a single location in Kunming.”

Now that we know that Metabiota was virus hunting with the Wuhan Institute of Virology right before the outbreak, could this explain why Google is so interested in suppressing the origins of COVID-19?

Strangely, none of the PREDICT scientists published anything related to the deadly outbreak, even though spillover events like this were their raison d'etre, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology participated in attempts to diagnose the illness.

The first news of the 2012 outbreak was in March 2014, when Science Magazine ran a story, “A New Killer Virus in China?” about the publication of “Novel Henipa-like Virus, Mojiang Paramyxovirus, in Rats, China, 2012.” According to the authors, an all-Chinese team led by Qi Jin:

We report on a novel henipa-like virus, Mojiang paramyxovirus (MojV), in rats (Rattus flavipectus) in China.

In June 2012, in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County, Yunnan Province, China, severe pneumonia without a known cause was diagnosed in 3 persons who had been working in an abandoned mine; all 3 patients died. Half a year later, we investigated the presence of novel zoonotic pathogens in natural hosts in this cave.

Did they go looking for paramyxoviruses because that was what the Metabiota team had been looking for when men cleaning an abandoned mine for them had gotten sick?

Google’s Pandemic Profiteering

In 2008, Google.org committed $30 million to virus hunting and gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens through a project it called Predict and Prevent. At least $5.5 million of that went to Dr. Nathan Wolfe’s non-profit Global Viral Forecasting Initiative, which was soon to become the for-profit Metabiota. Other GVFI funders at the time included the Skoll Foundation, which also gave $5.5 million, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck Research Laboratories and the US Department of Defense.

When the GVFI became the for-profit Metabiota, Google Ventures continued to invest. In addition, it created a business partnership with Metabiota, “offering its big-data expertise to help the company serve its customers–insurers, government agencies and other organizations–by offering them forecasting and risk-management tools.” In other words, they sell pandemic insurance! 

Google’s Predict and Prevent was a profitable investment. The company parlayed the $30 million it bundled through its non-profit Google.org, into hundreds of millions in government grants for its partners in the pandemic industrial complex, including $94 million for its for-profit partner Metabiota since 2008.

In its first funding cycle, 2009-2014, $74.7 million was dispersed to these partners from USAID through Dr. Jonna Mazet’s One Health Institute at the University of California, Davis. I have not been able to find a record of sub-awards on that grant. In its second funding cycle, 2014-2020, $137.1 million was dispersed, again through Mazet at UC-Davis. The record of sub awards show that EcoHealth Alliance and Metabiota were the primary recipients of round-2 funding, together receiving more than $74 million, often dispersed in matching grants. For instance, they each got $9.1 million in 2016 and $12.7 million in 2015.

But, Google’s “Predict and Prevent” concept wasn’t just a business or money-making opportunity. It was a means of shaping our understanding of disease threats.

Google as Mythmaker  

By embellishing the fiction that most diseases were contracted by humans from wild animals, Google helped to distract from the many health and safety concerns related to the factory farm production of animal protein, bio-weapons research and gain-of-function laboratory experiments on potential pandemic pathogens.

When Google launched Predict and Prevent in 2008, it was intended to settle controversies around the role of modern science in the emergence of HIV/AIDS and Ebola (something I discussed in my profile of Anthony Fauci). 

Google justified Predict and Prevent with an exaggeration of the dubious findings of a 2008 article by Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, that “Three-quarters of new diseases are zoonoses, meaning they've jumped from animals to humans.”

That assertion was just as controversial in 2008 as the claim that humans got SARS-CoV-2 directly from bats is today. 

It was drawn from a paper by Peter Daszak that doesn’t mention Marburg, the first filovirus ever detected, which was undeniably the result of laboratory workers being exposed to monkey kidney cell cultures during the production of polio vaccines. Daszak designated Lyme disease, Ebola, HIV/AIDS and SARS as natural zoonoses without commenting on the research of independent scientists journalists and researchers, working without institutional funding, who uncovered evidence to the contrary. 

In sum, Google was—and is—in it for myth-making as much as money.

To the corporations and government agencies it invests in, partners with, has licensing agreements with, and sells ads to, there’s no difference between myth-making and money-making. It’s Google’s biggest asset.

The product Google sells is its supreme and unrivaled power to shape perceptions through its monopoly control of information accessed through internet searches.

Right now, they manage our perceptions. Ultimately, they aim to manage us.

How this could play out in the health-monitoring space is the very definition of dystopian. If you have not yet read Whitney Webb’s “This Biden Proposal Could Make the US a ‘Digital Dictatorship,’” please take the time now.