Lid off: Experts accuse US of imposing Covid vaccines use to protect bioweapons industry

Lid off: Experts accuse US of imposing Covid vaccines use to protect bioweapons industry


Government officials covered up the origins of Covid-19 and “forced” the vaccination of millions of people worldwide to “protect the integrity of the bioweapons industry,” according to a senior research scientist in epidemiology who specialises in chronic diseases at the Yale University School of Public Health.

Harvey Risch, who also is a professor emeritus at Yale, provided on Monday compelling testimony on what he believes accounts for the “crushingly obsessive push to Covid-vaccinate every living person on the planet.”

Risch was among the medical experts, scientists, lawyers, elected officials, journalists, vaccine safety advocates and whistleblowers who participated in Monday’s Senate roundtable discussion on “Federal Health Agencies and the Covid Cartel: What are they hiding?”

The roundtable, hosted by Senator Ron Johnson, focused on vaccine safety, corruption of public health agencies and world governments, and censorship by the media and Big Tech. Risch highlighted circumstantial evidence that Covid-19 “leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology” (WIV) in China in fall 2019.

He told the panel Risch there is evidence the virus contains a unique genetic sequence “that also exists in Moderna patents from 2017,” while intelligence has “overwhelmingly” indicated the WIV as the source of the virus.

According to Risch, “This work and the WIV leak was what I consider to be the fruit of our bioweapons industry that has been performing secretive and nefarious biological weapons development for the last 70 years.”

Risch said that much of this research was banned in 1975, with the enactment of the United Nations Biological Weapons Convention, which prohibited the development of offensive bioweapons. However, a carve-out in the treaty allows “small quantities of offensive bioweapons … to be developed in order to do research on vaccine countermeasures.”

“This was the premise and motivation of the various virology grant applications like [Project] DEFUSE” that supported controversial gain-of-function research at labs such as WIV, funded by the US Department of Defence, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Risch said.

This “loophole,” as Risch calls it, created “a permitted rationale for the development of offensive bioweapons, in that it would lead to work on vaccine countermeasures.”

Risch questioned the value of such research in terms of fulfilling its stated purpose.

“Fast forward to 2019: Many billions of dollars spent on the bioweapons industry over the past decades for all of this work on offensive bioweapons. Where are the successful commercial vaccines to show for it?”

For Risch, the lack of any successful commercial vaccines to arise out of bioweapons research served as the impetus for the development of the Covid-19 vaccines, subsequent vaccine mandates and the “virus origin cover-up” that followed.

He said: “The Covid vaccines themselves supplied the defence against the charge that the bioweapons industry was not actually dual use, but offensive only, violating the 1975 treaty. So, the vaccines had to be dramatically pushed out to be the universal solution to show that the bioweapons industry was actually working for the public good.

“Once the general public understood the reckless and cavalier behaviour of this industry that had operated under a false and misrepresented pretence of vaccine development that has never been successfully commercially realized, it would then clamour to shut down the industry.”

This led to concerted efforts to suppress alternative treatments for Covid-19 such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, according to Risch.

Risch said: “During the time of the suppression of early treatment hydroxychloroquine and later ivermectin, I thought it was to protect the marketplace for the vaccines, other medications or the vaccines that would eventually come out.

“But now, given what I’ve said, I think the suppression was that if those medications solved the pandemic, then the vaccines wouldn’t have been needed and then the bioweapons treaty would come back in force and there would be no rationale that the vaccines were the end product of the offensive weapons research. So, they had to be suppressed for the same reason.”

Responding to Risch’s testimony, Johnson cited data from The Wuhan Cover-Up: And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race, authored by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, chairman on leave of Children’s Health Defence (CHD).

Johnson said: “There’s a very interesting chart in … The Wuhan Cover-Up … I’ve talked about the [Dr Anthony] Fauci emails, where he funded Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance to the tune of about $15-$16 million.

“What I did not realise is the Department of Defence funded EcoHealth Alliance to the tune of $42 million, and USAID, which [Kennedy] says is pretty much the CIA cutout – I don’t dispute that – [was] funded to the tune of $53.6 million.”

Dr Robert Malone used his time during the roundtable discussion to criticise the Covid-19 vaccines.

A pioneer and expert in mRNA and DNA vaccines and therapies – and co-organizer of last week’s International Crisis Summit – Malone testified about what he called “inconvenient facts” about the vaccines and efforts by government and Big Pharma “to obscure and deny” these facts.

“Clinical research experience has revealed a number of problems with the genetic vaccine,” he said. One of those, he said, is that the vaccines are gene therapies and should be regulated as such.

He also said he believes the vaccines exacerbated the pandemic instead of ending it.

The vaccines “did not prevent infection replication and spread of SARS-CoV-2, and indiscriminate mass administration of these products contributed to the evolution of more antibody-resistant viral strains,” he said.

Malone said that contrary to official US Department of Health and Human Services communications, the vaccines “distribute throughout the body after injection and are not localised to the injection site … This wide distribution contributes to product toxicity and risk.”

He added: “The viral spike protein which these products cause patients’ bodies to manufacture, is a genetically engineered toxin. The lipid nanoparticle formulation used to deliver the modified mRNA has intrinsic toxicity in humans.

“These products do not deliver natural messenger RNA, but rather a synthetic chemically modified form with extended stability, which causes the body to produce frameshift unnatural unintended proteins in addition to the spike protein.”

Malone also addressed revelations that the Covid-19 vaccines are contaminated with previously undisclosed plasmid DNA fragments, “which are also delivered into tissues and cells of patients and which may damage patients’ genomes,” he said.

According to Malone, the vaccines were widely rolled out even though the issues he addressed were not investigated by public health agencies and regulators.

He said: “A number of things should have been investigated under normal FDA [US Food and Drug Administration] protocols and procedures, not the least of which is the characterisation of the contamination or adulteration of the short DNA fragments, which are intrinsic to the manufacturing process and which in prior FDA regulations have always been considered to be a risk for a form of genome toxicity called insertional mutagenesis.”

Kevin McKernan, chief scientific officer and founder of Medicinal Genomics – and one of the key scientists who discovered the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine contamination – echoed Malone’s concerns.

“We have preliminary evidence, although this requires replication in other labs, that this DNA can integrate into the genome.”

He added: “Since these vaccines were expected to only contain mRNA, they were never assessed for genotoxicity studies. These studies were therefore being conducted on guinea pig US citizens.”

As a result, he said, “We witnessed an unprecedented rise in cancer drug sales since the vaccines rolled out.”

David Gortler, a doctor of pharmacy and a scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Centre in Washington, DC, focusing on FDA oversight and drug safety, said the lipid nanoparticles used in Covid-19 vaccines are “quite new” and as such, lack evidence of their safety.

“We … don’t have evidence … talking about the standalone safety of lipid nanoparticles,” he said. “Even very minor deviations in any molecular structure can mean the difference between a drug and a poison.”

According to Gortler, this has been compounded by a government cover-up.

“Unfortunately, around 70 per cent of the 127-page document that explains the methodology to perform quality control on mRNA injections are redacted,” he said.

Immunologist and biochemist Jessica Rose said during Monday’s roundtable that the Covid-19 vaccines’ lack of safety is evident when examining the data.

Referring to a measure known as the “proportional reporting ratio” (PRR), which she said is used “to assess whether or not a particular adverse event is more commonly reported in the context of a particular drug,” Rose said any PRR greater than one indicates a causal effect between a drug and adverse events.

“The PRR calculation for death from VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] in the context of the Covid-19 shots using current VAERS data is 3.6,” she said. “This was sufficient as a signal not only to prompt an investigation but to shut down the rollout of the Covid-19 shots.”

“The Covid-19 injectable products are associated with a 26- and a 100-fold increase in total adverse events and deaths, respectively, when compared per million doses with influenza vaccines in the same timeframe,” Rose added.

Participants in Monday’s roundtable said that they received no response when they contacted government public health agencies with such data and their concerns.

“Just like former NIH director Francis Collins told me when I asked about all the deaths being reported on VAERS: ‘Senator, people die,’” Johnson said.

“I actually attempted to communicate to the FDA and Peter Marks [director of the FDA’s Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research] about my concerns and about the meaning of the data and the apparent use of a least sensitive method to analyse the distribution and I was casually dismissed,” Malone said.

  • The Defender report / By Michael Nevradakis, senior The Defender reporter
About author

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *