Months ago I had planned a post that showed how the Trump administration implemented the final steps needed within the public health departments to set up for genome, genetics, mRNA, informatics and the hiring of additional epidemiologist. Once this post is accomplished it will set forth a clearer picture of how public health departments were purloined beginning during the Bush administration until the final formalities of the Trump administration on the individual health data sets of each specific region, personnel and associated funding, medical coverage implementation, all the way to the examination of the role that social media would play in dissemination of information on infectious diseases.
Bush
To begin to understand where we are at today we have to start at the beginning. Those beginnings have been outlined and shared by Dr David Martin and archived on the internet for anyone to view and share.
Dr. David Martin, PhD, chairman of M-CAM International Innovation Risk Management, world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets in 168 countries and thereby monitors innovation/patents around the world. In January 2021 released “The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier” outlining the crimes against humanity through a paper trail of patents.
Dr Martin has also given testimony before The Investigative Corona Committee Germany chaired by Dr Reiner Fullmich in preparation and evidence gathering for trial in the international court system for crimes against humanity. You can see the testimony of Dr Martin on you tube. You can also view the video here in a less time constrained format highlighting the most pivotal points of his testimony and the times they appear in the video, you can also see written excerpts of those moments and the pertinent patent numbers pertaining to his testimony. It is indisputable evidence that we had been lied to on how the corona virus became a deadly pathogen.
Once one can gain some comprehension of the patent records and Martin's testimony it lends credibility to where this all started. We can proceed to look at other turn of events during the Bush administration that lifted any burden of accountability off the shoulders of the United States. Henceforth that is where John Bolton come in. A man with an American First Agenda, and I'd say there's a fair chance that the American people have by now heard those three words before. Bolton was described as Bush's altar ego but Bush's ego was probably closer to the truth. That was a rather kosher description when it came to American ideology and America First John Bolton cutting through foreign policy like a knife.
What’s so rude about Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton? Iran’s Foreign Ministry has called Bolton “rude” and “undiplomatic.” North Korea has called Bolton “rude,” too—not to mention “human scum,” “an animal running about recklessly,” and “an ugly fellow who cannot be regarded as a human being.” Then there is Terre Cass, a court administrator in Florida, where, during the 2000 Bush-Gore recount, Bolton and his signature Easy Rider mustache became a media icon. Cass said Bolton, who spent his days sandwiched between members of the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board inspecting chads for the Bush team, “was very rude.”
But rudeness—or, as Bolton’s supporters prefer, bluntness—has its uses. Upon his arrival in Florida, Bolton reportedly barked, “I’m with the Bush-Cheney team, and I’m here to stop the count.” When he did exactly that, a grateful Dick Cheney told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that Bolton’s job in the new administration should be “anything he wants.” Indeed, no sooner had Bolton finished accomplishing his aims in Boca Raton than he was rewarded with a high-ranking State position and set about accomplishing his aims on the international scene. Before long, he had engineered America’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, established a harder line against North Korea and Iran, scuttled a draft protocol on enforcing the Biological Weapons Convention, waged a successful campaign to oust the chief of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and set the stage for America’s abandonment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). And that was only year one.
Bolton described his signature upon the removal from the International Criminal Court as the happiest moment of his life.
I recommend everyone read the entire linked article. The Bolton Bush ego will decisively advise you of the type of men we were dealing with, and why crucial reentry of such a man during the Trump tenure was a necessity. It necessitates the dialogue of the characteristic granted Bolton in the articles last paragraph in a scene from a Few Good Men:
Hence, we’re left with Bolton himself, holding up one leg of America’s grand strategy, while the rest collapses around him. It’s not enough. But, as Jack Nicholson’s Colonel Jessep—sounding a lot like John Bolton—put it, “We live in a world that has walls,” and “deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall.” If nowhere else, Bolton belongs on the wall.
Bolton, among similar ilk, allows Bush, Obama and Trump from being on that wall but they were definitely at the parties. Bolton undermined any semblance of accountability that is still pervasively present today. Bush, Obama and Trump were/are the purveyors of the divisions being driven in western cultures we are observing today.
Idealism may be a spur to reason, but, in a world that in recent years has allowed for the assertion of America’s geopolitical weight but that has also greeted its attempt to promote universal ideals as “delusional” (in the words of Egyptian autocrat Hosni Mubarak), Bolton’s preference for an “interests-based foreign policy grounded in a concrete agenda of protecting particular peoples and territories” has proved much simpler to accomplish. Involving a sense of limits, such interests have certainly been more easily achieved than the Bush administration’s avowed aim of a “global democratic revolution.” Rather than the construction of a new world order, after all, a vision like Bolton’s merely requires tearing down the old.
This adequately describes the disparities of the task at hand into developing into global partnerships in the interest of protecting particular peoples and territories. This is why the need to drive division to tear down the old system while establishing global partnerships of mutual agreements. Protecting particular people who are stronger together, the new mantra call of today, the millionaire, billionaire classes operating on the same pages makes them stronger than the populace at large. There is no more will of the people this is governance by sleight of hand. This is state actors aligned with non state actors to force compliance of their demands. Between Bush and Bolton these were early visionaries steps of a new global governance plan. United they stand, divided we fall.
In an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle by Robert James Parsons titled "Bushes Nominee For UN Has Already Irritated The World", there is a eerily similar play out with the covid outbreak as was seen with the original Sars outbreak one year after Bolton withdrew the US from the Biological Weapons Treaty.
In July, the new Bush administration sent a new delegation, headed by Bolton. He declared the United States was withdrawing support for the enforcement protocol.
The United States already had the biggest bio weapons program in history, all in the name of defensive research.
However, this is an area where there is only a fine line between defensive and offensive, and most observers and scientists were convinced that if the United States had not yet crossed that line, it was about to do so.
As long as the United States refused to guarantee its compliance with the treaty, no other country could be expected to guarantee compliance either.
At the opening of the review conference, Bolton proposed that the protocol be, simply, dumped. In its place, he proposed bilateral treaties between the United States and every other country in the world, treaties that the United States would have the power to enforce, including the right to extradite and try in U.S. courts those suspected of engaging in bioweapons research.
In short, nothing would disturb the United States when it crossed the line into research for offensive bio weapons, but the United States was seeking for itself a system answerable to nobody that would empower it to bring its full force (including military, of course) to bear on any country attempting to compete with it in bio arms research.
The academic experts and nongovernmental organizations monitoring the drafting process and bioweapons research throughout the world were horrified and predicted that this would give rise to a frenzied arms race in biological weapons, probably with China in the lead.
A year later, China discovered SARS and tried to hide it. Three months later, terrified of the possibilities of its spreading throughout China and the world, it notified the World Health Organization, which immediately organized an emergency response on a scale unprecedented for any new illness. The WHO, too, was obviously terrified.
SARS was brought under control, but within the WHO, suppressed by pressure from a certain superpower, was an analysis of the SARS virus showing it to be an artificial creation designed to kill fast and furiously.
The conclusion was that it had somehow escaped from a military lab, which explained why, for three months, the Chinese authorities had hoped to counter the threat, ultimately in vain.
In the end, the Chinese were only too happy to have the analysis suppressed, and the superpower in question averted a major worldwide debate on the need for a bioweapons treaty with an enforcement mechanism.
What's spoken there aligns closest to the spoken truth as the patent trails start to unfold from the original corona canine vaccine patent in 1999 to 2019 with 120 different patent applications for Sars and the Sars spike protein.
- Coronavirus/SARS-CoV-2 is not “novel” – more than 120 patented pieces of evidence [mark 4:40] going back to 1999. First vaccine patent (#6372224) for (canine) coronavirus (specifically for S-spike protein) sought by Pfizer on January 28, 2000 [mark 7:00]
– Coronavirus is malleable and can be synthetically modified in the laboratory using gene sequencing technologies to turn computer code into a pathogen (initially funded as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine) [10:30]
– Bioweapon – “We made SARS and we patented it in 2002” [9:50]; NIAID #7279327; Anthrax [11:31]; CDC coronavirus patent #7220852 / 46592703p / 7776521 (virus AND rt-PCR diagnostic test patented) [14:25]
– Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed patent #7151163 for treatment of coronavirus on 28-Apr-2003, only 3 days after CDC filed patent on the virus. Sequoia’s treatment patent was approved before the CDC’s virus patent. Sequoia was later rolled into proprietary holdings of Pfizer, Crucell/Johnson & Johnson. [20:30]
– RICO case: Moderna received SARS-CoV-2 spike protein sequence by phone from NIAID before the definition of the “novel” sub-claim. [23:00]
– Ablynx/Sanofi filed series of patents (#9193780) targeting “novel” features of SARS-CoV-2 on 5-Jun-2008 (after USA’s gain of function moratorium and MERS outbreak) [24:10]
– Similarly, patents filed by Crucell, Rubius Therapeutics, Children’s Medical Corporation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, U of Iowa, U of Hong Kong, Chinese National Genome Center … 73 patents issued between 2008 – 2019 [25:44]
– “There was no outbreak of SARS because we had engineered all of the elements of that and by 2016 the paper that was funded during the gain of function moratorium that said that the SARS coronavirus was ‘poised for human emergence’, written by none other than Ralph Baric, was not only ‘poised for human emergence’ was patented for commercial exploitation … 73 times. ” Dr. David Martin [28:10]
Bolton's proverbial dogma "vision without action is a daydream, action without vision is a nightmare" may be true but there's a whole lot of wiggle room for missing context there. After having witnessed the paper trail of destruction left in the wake of Bolton's last treaty shredding frenzies it should send chills down the spines of the global populace that upon reentry on the global scene Bolton managed to shred apart the INF Treaty with Russia within mere months away from a full on war between Russia and Ukraine.
When mentioning that we live in a world that has walls,” and “deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, of those who are willing to "shoulder a disproportionate burden and the risk that come with it so that others may rest easy", the Bolton's, the Fauci's, the McMaster's, the Baric's, these are just the executioners led by the ultra ego's of other men, men who escape all accountability and relish in ruling emotions by fear. When George W Bush presented upon the world stage to declare that freedom and fear were at war there has thus never been any end. Richard Nixon once said that people react to fear not love. "They don't teach you that in Sunday School", he said, "but it's true." Historically, characteristically though, freedom and fear have never been at war with each other, Bush "Freedom At War With Fear", Obama "Freedom Is More Powerful Than Fear", yet these two headlines of presidential speeches seem to indicate just that. It's like a psychic mind game that by the time we get to Trump we're living in a full out civil war between freedom and fear. Bad people, drugs, crime, gangs, illegal immigrants, radial Islam, Christian executions, sanctuary cities, religious freedoms, be afraid, be very, very afraid because all these things are eroding your freedom. But here's the thing and Obama said it best of all: "Americans have more in common than they don't", and that's that they cherish their freedoms over fear. That is one atavism that they wish to break.
Obama
In a conversation on sharing in the agenda, and I wrote this singular paragraph down because in my mind it plays into the characteristic thought patterns a person develops, I didn't know if I'd ever use it but it plays well here, Obama said: "When you have a professional army that is well armed and sponsored by two large states who have huge stakes in this and they are fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, and engineer who started out as a protester and now suddenly see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict - the notion we could intervene without troops on the ground isn't true." This in assessment of cutting back, spending less, cutting risk and shifting the burden globally but it would not necessarily negate the same assessment being used here. For "we did not come to fear the future, we came to shape it", "change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time". "We are the ones we've been waiting for". "We are the change that we seek". "We" did not come to fear the future, "We" came to shape it. "We" are the ones we've been waiting for. "We" are the change that we seek.
The establishment of who is we is important. Though Bush believed that the China model was the right model all along he didn't believe in the government as an agent of change. To risky of an endeavor as a politician would be my guess. It plays well in a foreign country and it that regard he set fourth a trajectory in the middle east that forever changed the course of Europe forever. You can't strike fear in the hearts of people comfortable in their atavisms so he drove the changes that they sought. You can't play people up against one another if there's nothing there to stir that pot. You can't get to the China model sitting on your laurels. When they speak of we they mean them because if they meant we as the people than we wouldn't be being propelled to live in fear. Here's the clincher to all that that many people missed and has continued to play out over the next two administrations in depth. You can see that in the continued call of we are stronger together motto. We having been them means that in effect you go on an apology tour to all the countries of color that you've devastated over the decades and promote yourself as agents of change. That you had it wrong all along and they were right. The right way to rule a country is by driving the emotions of fear. This would entail actions over speaking words. Obama would be the subtle start to the changes they sought as you'd need someone entrenched in their own reverse atavisms that it's okay for black America to challenge white America about their own atavisms, he could broach an open and honest discussion even though the intent was to drive racial emotions to stir division because united they stand and divided we fall. Obama on the other hand wouldn't work for the brutal dictators of the world, most of whom rule over people of color. That would have just the opposite effect on black Americans and something they just couldn't come to accept. He'd been seen as a hateful uncle Tom that couldn't be trusted. That's why they left that job to Trump. Under Obama he had to be seen as an agent to change, to undermine people that already lacked trust gaining trust would be a crucial objective. If you could convince an uneasy population to trust that their government had their best interest at heart you could lead that horse to water, or to the successful distribution of a vaccine.
This isn't the only area where atavisms would come into play. In order for a successful distribution of a vaccine you have to have people who are insured or can afford to pay for it themselves. For a large percentage of the populace, more prevalent among people of color, they were uninsured. For a vaccine to be financially acceptable there'd have to be a way to pay for it. It wasn't just the financial feasibility but the vaccines ability to stop kicking the can down the road as Obama framed it, or taking care of a tremendous problem as Trump put it. Five days before taking office on January 15, 2009 Obama said in an interview on the growing expenditures of entitlement programs: "What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further. We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of hard decisions are made under my watch not someone else's." Why not someone else's? Decades of racism that detaches them from the farmers, carpenters and engineers of an elderly populations whose atavisms played more fervently into that. He'd have the least qualms to consciously accept his participation as an agent of change whereas other political leaders had an emotional attachment not just in regard to their own racism(s) but to those same individuals who voted in their successes, maybe could be excesses, or a combination of both. Ever seen the Obama's down on the ranch having dinner with the Bushes and out riding horseback. I think Scott Adam's, the creator of Dilbert cartoon said it best in a recent uproar over his statement that white people should move as far away from black people after a recent Rasmussen poll showed that almost fifty percent of black people surveyed said it wasn't okay to be white and ended up getting canceled by a number of news outlets: "It was a bunch of well off white people who do not live around Black people and they decided to cancel me because I thought that what they're doing is a good strategy. So, I agreed with their strategy and they canceled me because nobody wants to ask them where they live or why... the actual thing that people are mad at me about they all agree with," he said. It's not just inclusive of wealthy white people, wealthy black people don't live in majority black neighborhoods either. Racism on either side is an incurable divide, it's okay for people like Obama to acknowledge that just not the white Scott Adam's of the world. But here's the thing about all this and Obama's penchants for the word atavism, people driven by the emotion of fear, the farmer, the carpenter, the engineer....in social science atavism means the tendency of reversion. For example, people in the modern era reverting to the ways of thinking and acting of a former time. The word atavism is derived from the Latin atavus—a great-great-great-grandfather or, more generally, an ancestor. When push comes to shove people tend to revert back to buried atavisms in their DNA. As long as that gene remains intact in the genome, biologically it can be expressed again. Henceforth this could be the long anticipated reasoning for pushing the vaccine onto children who face a minute threat from the virus itself. It's not to protect them from the virus it's to change the structure of the DNA, environmental changes to DNA is not an unheard of science, it is well studied and established. It's called epigenetic changes caused by altering the way molecules bind to DNA or by changing their structures of proteins that DNA wraps around, they have been studied around changes caused from food, drugs or toxins in the environment. So if you wanted to change the "throw back", another favorite term of Obama's, to buried atavisms changes via a vaccine to structurally change the way molecules bin to DNA could do it. By now there's very few who don't recognize the fact that the spike protein of the vaccines can be found in every cell of the body, they deny the protein can altar DNA but epigentic's claim differently.
Noubar Afeyan, co-founder and chairman of Moderna had this to say about mRNA technology:
Noubar Afeyan explains the promise of messenger RNA by comparing it to the more controversial concept of changing an individuals DNA. He notes changes to the DNA can be essentially permanent, like hardware. By contrast messenger RNA is more like software: it can be used to perform a task and then can be programmed to disappear.
Though Robert Malone repeatedly lays claims to have successfully born forth mRNA technology used in the vaccines and the media helps him push that narrative it was actually a woman and her partner that worked on it for over a decade that successful breakthrough came.
“It is a story that began three decades ago, with a little-known scientist who refused to quit,” writes Damian Garde of STAT. “Before messenger RNA was a multibillion-dollar idea, it was a scientific backwater. And for the Hungarian-born scientist behind a key mRNA discovery, it was a career dead-end. Katalin Karikó spent the 1990s collecting rejections. Her work, attempting to harness the power of mRNA to fight disease, was too far-fetched for government grants, corporate funding and even support from her own colleagues.”
After a decade of research at two U.S. universities, including with Drew Weissman, her “longtime collaborator at Penn,” Karikó solved the problem plaguing mRNA, namely that the body fought the new chemical after an injection. “Karikó and Weissman [created] . . . a hybrid mRNA that could sneak its way into cells without alerting the body’s defenses,” writes Garde. “And even though the studies by Karikó and Weissman went unnoticed by some, they caught the attention of two key scientists – one in the United States, another abroad – who would later help found Moderna [Rossi] and Pfizer’s future partner, BioNTech.”
The owner of BioNTech, along with his wife fronted the monies needed to develop the vaccine in partnership with Pfizer chief executive Albert Bourla.
Dr. Ugur Sahin founded BioNTech with his wife, Dr. Özlem Türeci. Dr. Sahin immigrated to Germany from Turkey as a child, and Dr. Türeci is the child of Turkish parents who became immigrants in Germany. BioNTech teamed up with a much larger company, Pfizer, based in New York, whose chief executive Albert Bourla immigrated to America from Greece. Bourla decided to front “BioNTech’s development costs and manage the clinical trials, manufacturing and distribution.”
“The pair said in recent interviews that they had bonded over their shared backgrounds as scientists and immigrants,” reported the New York Times. “We realized that he is from Greece, and that I’m from Turkey,” said Dr. Sahin. “It was very personal from the very beginning.”
Throw in a mix of hard core immigration feelings against anti immigrant status quo, and I am not saying they had nefarious intent but the objectivity shows that people involved came from backgrounds of their own atavisms rooted somewhere deep into their own DNA subjectively shields them of conscious of their own biases. These are the types of characteristic's needed to subject a global population to an experimental vaccine. The realities of what the global population has to endure and overcome would be no harsher than the realities once set upon them. When there's a greater than not potential for inflicting harm upon a populace mindset and motives of the individuals involve is a considerable factor. Like holding a foot on someone's back with them proclaiming if you let me up I'll make you the best dinner you ever had, add in a bit of "personal" and the ability of the poison that's going to kill you to "disappear" all of a sudden it doesn't sound like a good proposition. In reality that's the reverse atavisms one could see happening here.
A German member of Parliament, Johannes Vogel, wrote on Twitter “there would be no #BioNTech of Germany with Özlem Türeci & Ugur Sahin at the top” if the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party had its policies in place. “If it were up to critics of capitalism and globalization,” he tweeted, “there would be no cooperation with Pfizer. But that makes us strong: immigration country, market economy & open society!”
Getting back to one of our hidden atavism players, Obama, which we all know those hidden atavisms are labeled grievances, can't acknowledge any reverse biases without being racist of course, Obama had a canny ability to predict the future. In September of 2010, six months after the ACA passed he said that he though that health care over time is going to be more popular. I guess he was right because during a pandemic who would want to be caught without health care. Not only was it more popular but it came with a huge financial gain to United States revenues. In 2021 there was a record making amount of revenues at a historic first of breaking the four trillion dollar mark. Four point five trillion in 2021, four point ninety trillion in 2022 and an estimated 2023 four point seventy one trillion, place that up against the stagnant rates of growth over the five year prior, 3.42 in 2020, 3.46 in 2019, 3.33 in 2018, 3.32 in 2017, 3.27 in 2016 and 3.25 in 2015 and you can see how good the pandemic was to the government. Those recent historical figures wouldn't have been so historical without another historical moment in history, the passing of universal health care plan, something that had always been a non sequitur for the legislatures but somewhere deep down in those places you don't talk about at parties all of a sudden universal health care found it place upon that wall. Without it the pandemic would have bankrupted the medical industry and it would have lacked the means for the US government to heavily profit off the pandemic. This was also why it was crucial to pass a medicare drug plan. It didn't matter that the provision set forth in the medicare drug plan wasn't the same as in medicaid provision where the US government is essentially the pharmacy benefit manager because ultimately the defense department takeover of medical during a national emergency had the government controlling all drugs under that declared emergency making them in essence the pharmacy benefit managers to those drugs.
A pharmacy benefit manager is the go between insurers, pharmacies, medical institutions and their manufactures. This allows for what in the real world would be called kick backs and illegal but the US government is shielded from the Anti Kickback Statue. They don't call them kickbacks, in this instance they are called rebates.
Generally manufacturers will offer lower prices (higher rebates) for purchasers who not only have competitive options available but are also willing (or able) to induce patients to switch among the available options. The rebate provision in the pharmaceutical industry that move the most money are typically those designed to reward achievement of volume, consistency, or breath of purchase by the buyer. These provisions go beyond simple price reductions as the buyer "earns" these rebates by meeting certain obligations. These incentives can lead to contract structures that align the interest of the manufacturer and the purchaser.
It is worth noting, however, that the rebate arrangements described here would typically run a foul of the Anti Kickback Statue (AKS) if applied to government reimbursement programs. Never the less formulary rebates are an important component of Medicare part D drugs pricing because a specific AKS safe harbor has been created for these arrangements within medicare D and certain other government programs.
This is why people on medicaid and medicare can't get pharmacy rebates offered. This would be considered an illegal kickback to entice you to use that drug or that pharmacy but the government is exempt from such a notion. Also the government doesn't want to share in their share of the kickbacks. They want to steer a drug for use or gain a competitive price/pricing but if part of that enticement came with a reduction to the consumer attached it lowers the amount of the kickback to the government.
A high steering plan imposes more control over treatment, while low steering plans place fewer controls. These decision can have implications for the rebates they can negotiate with manufacturers. Formularies with closed access and tight formulary restrictions can generate significant rebates due to their greater ability to steer patients. Many other features may appear in these contracts, such as rewards for achieving volume or share targets or meeting goals for purchase across a portfolio of products on offer.
You can see where the government having full control over all emergency authorized drugs greatly aligned the interest of the purchaser and manufacturer because the US government was the only purchaser allowed from the manufacture. As such they could set forth criteria to the manufacturer that if we take your product and promote it's distribution we want twenty five percent, or fifty percent cut in the profits. Meaning, for example, on a fifty/fifty stake if a manufacturer said they made a fifteen billion profit the government got the same amount in rebates. This also allowed for the government to control the distribution and sales to hospitals, insurers, pharmacies, etc., offering them rebates to use emergency authorized drugs. You can now also see why it was crucial to put the provision in the Cares Act that any unauthorized drugs, meaning those drugs not authorized under emergency use for covid, would not be reimbursed from the government or the government fund reimbursement program for the uninsured and they gave insurers the same rights of refusal. It wasn't just the kickbacks the government was getting they made bank off of, the profits and taxes paid on those profits grew the tax revenue the government was taking in substantially also. This was a win win for the government.
I was quite surprised off all of this. Just the scope of it. I never knew the back channels involved, I didn't even know the government was making kickbacks for decades off medicaid drugs, the way they make it sound is like the taxpayers foot the entire bill for medicaid and there is no other revenue stream involved. Those programs are problematic in themselves but when you say the government spends so many billions a year of taxpayer monies on these programs without mentioning the offsets people literally believe they are carrying the burden of the entire cost. Obama's involvement doesn't stop with the medical as the continuation of the takeover of our public health departments continued on his watch also, along with monies given to Eco Health Alliance which I will explain as I scope out how Trump put the finishing touches on those planes further on.
Trump:
As far as Trump was concerned he was a rather busy beaver in all this and I had over the last several months dug up a lot of stuff that he did. I've long felt that his call out of covfefe meant something and until I mentioned it to a friend how I had been trying to find something to connect it to after hearing that very few people even knew what covfefe even meant. He mentioned that the fe system was how iron was distributed in and out of cells. After looking into it there was a set of ferritin cells that basically the cells didn't have any apparent function to delivering the iron, those cells are known as apoferritin cells. I surmised in that op there was a good chance they hijacked those cells. That's exactly what they did. Covid 19 vaccines have been produced that display the spike protein receptor binding domain on the surface of ferritin nanoparticles of a class of proteins, Apolipoprotein. Covfefe technically means Co = Corona, V = Virus, fe2 = antigen into the cell, Fe3 = antibodies out of the cells. Of course that wasn't good enough for ardent Trump supporters so I went digging for more. I dug for hours but always came up empty handed. Finally I decided to go back over the information provided in Dr David Martins patents on covid and ended up striking gold. That's where I ran across the name of Giuseppe Ciaramella, head of infectious disease at Moderna 2014 through 2018. It wasn't just what Ciaramella had to say, because the reality of this whole thing with mRNA had three stages of difficulty it had to overcome. It took decades to overcome those obstacles. One was the process of purifying proteins, another was to gain entry into the cells without destruction of the cells and the last was keeping a inflammatory response from happening with the innate immune system. I am not going to lead people down a path of some heavy burdensome reading, I'll leave the links if you so desire, the intended purpose here is to show as these steps proceeded into success (or as half the worlds population was told) how it correlates to Trump signaling his covfefe call.
Like I did with my deep dive I have to go forward before going backwards because I got the connection as to why Sanofi bought out Ablynx according to the patents in 2018, a company that had considerable Sars holdings but that didn't end up correlating to Trumps first call out on May 31, 2017 that lead to Sanofi buying out Protein Science Corp that also had considerable Sars patent holdings. The confusion was that one didn't have anything to do with the other and that was due mostly in part that thinking Katalin Kariko, the person that they attribute to the success of the covid vaccine had made the discover in 2020 not 2017 or 2018 but she had actually achieved a way to trick the immune system into non inflammatory response in 2005. She, along with Drew Wissman would be the villains responsible for the vaccine's switching up people's immune systems as seen in a recent study put out by the Cleveland Clinic published in Science Immunology.
The stumbling block, as Karikó’s many grant rejections pointed out, was that injecting synthetic mRNA typically led to that vexing immune response; the body sensed a chemical intruder, and went to war. The solution, Karikó and Weissman discovered, was the biological equivalent of swapping out a tire.
Every strand of mRNA is made up of four molecular building blocks called nucleosides. But in its altered, synthetic form, one of those building blocks, like a misaligned wheel on a car, was throwing everything off by signaling the immune system. So Karikó and Weissman simply subbed it out for a slightly tweaked version, creating a hybrid mRNA that could sneak its way into cells without alerting the body’s defenses.
“That was a key discovery,” said Norbert Pardi, an assistant professor of medicine at Penn and frequent collaborator. “Karikó and Weissman figured out that if you incorporate modified nucleosides into mRNA, you can kill two birds with one stone.”
That discovery, described in a series of scientific papers starting in 2005, largely flew under the radar at first, said Weissman, but it offered absolution to the mRNA researchers who had kept the faith during the technology’s lean years. And it was the starter pistol for the vaccine sprint to come.
The reality to mRNA technology is if it wasn't destruction of the cells it caused a severe immune response, which to her was rather taxing but when you put a chemical invader into the body that's what your body is normally suppose to do.
The adjuvant effect of stimulating innate immunity may be advantageous for purified protein vaccines, but indiscriminate immune activation can inhibit mRNA translation, reducing antigen expression and subsequent immunogenicity.
It wasn't just when it came to the vaccines this also occurred when they'd try to enter a cell to try and rid it of cancer, it would destroy the cell. That's where Giuseppe Ciaramella enters the picture, in 2018 they finally got approval for a LNP for a rare genetic disease, transthyretin amyloidosis, (I know, I know, I did a op on that myself on the similarities between people suffering from that disease and the stringy spongey stuff they were pulling out of people's veins. When I seen that I couldn't help but wonder why Moderna would be working on something so unprofitable. It's rare it's not like a lot of people get it but I guess any excuse is better than no excuse if you get my drift).
The success of these COVID-19 vaccines is remarkable and was far from guaranteed. mRNA is incredibly delicate. Enzymes in the environment and in our bodies are quick to chop mRNA into pieces, making lab experiments difficult and the delivery of mRNA to our cells daunting. On top of that, mRNA strands are large and negatively charged and can’t simply waltz across the protective lipid membranes of cells. Many scientists thought the technology would never work.
“There were many, many skeptics,” says Frank DeRosa, who began working with mRNA in 2008 and is now chief technology officer at Translate Bio, a firm developing mRNA vaccines with Sanofi. “People used to say that if you looked at it wrong it would fall apart.”
Luckily, scientists found a solution. To protect the fragile molecule as it sneaks into cells, they turned to a delivery technology with origins older than the idea of mRNA therapy itself: tiny balls of fat called lipid nanoparticles, or LNPs.
Okay, so that didn't have anything to do with the first call out and why Sanofi bought Protein Science Corp in 2017, so I googled looking around for what Moderna studied or patented in 2017. Bingo there it was. It had nothing to do with covid per se and everything to do with a successful study going on for a mRNA flu shot. Why Protein Science Corp was so important was they were using what they called a late interfering RNA (siRNA) which, as mentioned above, and if you click on the reference link in the article relates to being used for transthyretin amyloidosis but they were also using it in these mRNA flu shots. Claimed successfully in the second phase of trials. Protein Science Corp figured out how to produce a protein that took care of the negative/positive charge stuff, Kariko had already solved how to stop the inflammatory response and Ciaramella team figured how to make it all work. As far as a mRNA seasonal flu shot went it was a real covfefe moment. Though covfefe wasn't here yet, that was yet to come. I will explain in a moment. First let's examine why Trump would want to see Sanofi do these acquisitions and what the second acquisition was all about.
When Trump came into office his stock portfolio looked like, and was stated as such, invested in American stocks, one being J&J, which if you were planning to revolutionize vaccines could be seen as a conflict of interest. Jason Miller, a Trump spokesperson said that Trump had sold all those stocks.
These are stocks that President Trump held in his portfolio according to the filing in May 2016. He won’t be required to submit another financial disclosure until May 2018. However, in December 2016, President Trump’s spokesman, Jason Miller, said that the President has sold all of his stocks. The sale could address potential conflicts of interest in his portfolio. (Source: “Donald Trump Sold All His Stockholdings in June, Transition Spokesman Says,” The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 2016.) Outside of J&J Trump's investments weren't aligned alongside of the medical investments, between those listed here as his top ten and those listed on another site he was mostly into hedge funds, real estate, junk bonds, more risky investments. . After Trump left office, at least we can assume he waited until after he left office, he took his investments off shore, starting running with the big boy investors with holdings in Sanofi, AstraZeneca, etc., which I share that information on in a op I did here: The fact that he called out covfefe after the first successful phases of a mRNA vaccine trial on May 31, 2017, and Sanofi swoops in and buys Protein Science Corp, signed, sealed and delivered to Sanofi by August 2017 is suspicious in itself since upon leaving office he invest heavily with Sanofi for the first flu/covid combo vaccine Sanofi was working on. But that's not all, the second time he calls out covfefe, now remember the Protein Science Corp was delivery of a successful LNP for the influenza, as hard as that was to do because there's complicated technologies involved when it comes to producing a successful LNP but imagine if you could not only produce a successful LNP but also their genetic sequences that would be a real bonus and that's exactly what happened with the second call out. Ablynx found and patented a way to do exactly that. Again in the month of May, 2018 he calls out covfefe and again by August of that year it's signed, sealed and delivered.
It's not just these cutting edge companies you see being acquisitioned or merging with the giants of the pharmaceutical industry. Over the last three years there's been close to a dozen of them. The president and CEO of Protein Science Corp said you have to have deep pockets, we would of if we could have developed a vaccine but you have to have deep pockets to create pull in the market.
"To succeed you have to have someone with deep pockets and a lot of money to create pull in the market", Manon Cox, President and CEO of Protein Sciences told Convergente RI. It is a very expensive business to be in. After two seasons of big losses, she continued, "We recognized that we couldn't go it alone. If we could have done that we would have done it." <newsletter.convergenceri.com/stories/sanofi-acquires-protein-science-in-750-million-deal.3358">
As time goes on, the value of that opportunity could increase, according to DeGroot. "Think of it this way: the protein science produced and Epi Vax designed H7N9 vaccines is cheap to acquire when the clinical trial outcome is unknown (which is the problem with have now) than when we have an optimized vaccine that gives a clear picture signal in a clinical trial (which could happen in the future), DeGroot explains. "We may soon be sitting the cat birds seat so to speak".
What recombinant flu vaccines don't have are all the other proteins that usually 'ride long with' the key antigen (HA), she said. "Egg-derived vaccines contain other influenza proteins that may boost the immune response. So Sanofi Pasteur may continue to produce a "split vaccine' - which is egg derived for seasonal influenza. (for which it already has large production facilities)"
I don't want to lose anybody on why what she said about cost involved is important as I will get to that further on. Her open admission that the product is in-superior to egg-rived vaccines, those other influenza proteins she speaks of come as a result of lgY found in egg yoke of chickens that is most compatible to human lgG, it's actually superior to lgG in humans and that's why it's been historically used to produce antigens for vaccines. This is where I originally came into all this by researching recent studies that, what we were originally told that a corona virus vaccine couldn't be made in the traditional fashion, didn't appear to be true.
There is no vaccine yet for the virus; and because it’s different than the influenza virus, traditional methods like using eggs won’t work. As scientists race to find a cure, the huge US stockpile of eggs won’t be of any help.
It still may not be true because no one's developed one. There's a reason for that I will get to. What is true though is that chicken egg yoke do produced antigens that have been successfully used in intranasal sprays that would have stopped the main transmission route the virus took to enter the body. It's also true that a mere six months or less down the road the world could have been in mass production of these intranasal sprays halting the major spread of the disease in half the time it took to get the mRNA vaccines out there. It's also true, that unlike the vaccine and another lie we were told, the spike protein never entered the body's blood stream or organs using these intranasal sprays. These studies are numerous that are out there that all seem to indicate they could have had enough to, at the least, be saving the lives of the elderly population by that big beautiful labor day. Why couldn't any of these people make any headway in the matter? That goes back to Trump also. Because in March of 2017 Trump double the fees charged by the FDA to process and approve applications. These fees ranged in the millions of dollars for clinical and non clinical data studies to hundreds of thousands for other drugs, mainly generics. Trump actually wanted the entire FDA budget covered by fees collected from pharmaceutical companies and made demands to speed up the approval of drugs. That came with pushback it would give the pharmaceutical companies paying the fees to much power and influence over the regulatory oversite, a debate that is still raging on today as the government is still pushing for faster drug approvals. Trump was just as insistent in March of 2017 that drugs would no longer take fifteen years to approve than he was getting the covid vaccines approved.
Trump claimed that covid 19 vaccines would have taken five years to develope if he weren't president in an interview wit Fox News Brian Kilmeade that aired in December 2020. I pushed the FDA and companies and everybody else involved like nobodies ever been pushed before and now you have it rolling out, he said, claiming frankly they could have done it last week.
But Trump has also come under fire for attempting to exert undue political pressure on the vaccine approval process. Hours before the FDA's decision a high ranking white house official threatened to fire FDA commissioner Stephan Hahn if the agency didn't green light the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine by Saturday.
The chief of staff told Hahn's job was in jeopardy if the emergency use authorization was not issued before Saturday.
Fridays threat marked the latest attempt by the Trump administration to override government scientist working to combat the virus. Even with an FDA decision expected within hours, Trump and his deputies proved unwilling to let regulators work through their careful review which includes drafting safety warning labels and instruction for physicians.
Trump tweeted on Friday: Get the damn vaccine out NOW Dr Hahn. Stop playing games and start saving lives.
So now you know why those sheets listing all the safety warnings were blank and why it has become to costly to do business as a small pharmaceutical company as you watch them all fold under the financial pressures of the cost of the approval process. But it didn't stop there. The final straw that seen the elimination of egg based vaccines was an executive order issued by Trump in September 2019 just three months prior to the pandemic.
The executive order, titled "Modernizing Influenza Vaccines in the United States to Promote National Security and Public Health," promotes new vaccine manufacturing technologies to support more robust vaccines and advances the development of vaccines that provide longer lasting coverage against a broad range of flu viruses.
**
"Unfortunately, many of the vaccines we use today are produced overseas, using time-consuming, egg-based technology, which limits their effectiveness and makes production too slow to effectively combat a potential deadly influenza pandemic," the White House said in a statement.
Before I move on from that, that for the most part is a lie. You can either speculate that this is probably why a businessman with no political experience should be president or what we are witnessing or having been witnessing is what is known as acts of creative destruction but the US spends forty two million dollars a year just on eggs alone that are raised and held in top secret locations under security.
The eggs don’t come cheap: the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) spent $42 million on a three-year contract with one company to ensure a year-round supply of high-quality eggs, according to a 2017 report from the US Government Accountability Office (GOA).
That’s just one company from one time period; the HHS began contracting a handful of manufacturers and egg farms in 2005, meaning there are likely many more contracts worth tens of millions of dollars.
And these eggs are precious: if the supply chain is compromised, it could mean a nationwide shortage of crucial flu vaccines.
So, obviously, the eggs have bodyguards.
Part of that $42 million contract required that the vaccine manufacturer had “both a physical security program and a biosecurity program to provide protection against man-made and natural threats,” according to the GOA report.
That might seem like a lot of money to spend on eggs, but each year the flu costs the US about $10.4 billion in hospitalizations and treatments, according to the CDC.
And the eggs aren’t only useful for flu vaccines – they could potentially be used to develop vaccines for other illnesses, said Leo Poon, head of public health laboratory sciences at Hong Kong University (HKU). It just depends on the illness, as some virus strains can’t incubate inside eggs.
There's that lie again that corona virus can't incubate inside eggs. Here's something else that is rather shocking.
The entire process, from the arrival of the egg to the publicly available vaccine, takes at least six months, according to the CDC.
**
As the coronavirus pandemic spreads, scientists and governments around the world are racing to develop a vaccine – but eggs won’t be the answer, said John Nicholls, a Hong Kong University clinical professor of pathology.
Due to having different receptors and other characteristics, the novel coronavirus isn’t able to replicate inside eggs the way flu viruses can, Nicholls said.
Even beyond the immediate problem of the coronavirus, US officials have been pushing for non-egg alternatives in recent years.
US President Donald Trump signed an executive order last September requiring health agencies to expand the use of alternative production methods.
One reason officials are looking elsewhere is the six-month production time can be too slow. Not only could an illness spread globally during that time, but the virus injected into the egg could mutate and make the vaccine less effective, said Poon.
Go read the studies, there was no mutations inside of incubating eggs. It was all total complete lies. Another fact stated by WHO that a delay in vaccine development one year because the strain planned wasn't the one prevalent strain they had planned on would take two to four weeks to switch over, way faster than the stated changeover for a corona virus mutation of three months.
For example, earlier this year, World Health Organization (WHO) vaccine advisors delayed their recommendation for the H3N2 vaccine strain by a month, due to rising numbers of genetically and antigenically diverse viruses. In doing so, it warned that the move could delay flu vaccine production by 2 to 4 weeks.
But the lies don't stop there...
Another issue is that the supply is vulnerable to deadly avian flus. “If there’s a pandemic of H5N1 (avian influenza), it can kill chickens substantially and there will be a huge drop in egg supply, and you will have a problem getting enough eggs to make the vaccines,” Poon said.
Never mind that they just said that the government contracts for egg laying operations is required to be done in biosecurity environment, guarded by security, built to withstand threats by both man and nature.
The GOA report warned that it takes about 12 to 18 months to establish an egg supply large enough for either seasonal or pandemic influenza. But in the case of a fast-spreading pandemic like this, authorities simply can’t wait that long – and there aren’t that many chickens and eggs immediately available.
You see the red herring in all that. They had available to them a 12 to 18 month supply of eggs, enough to cover millions of people, especially those most vulnerable yet they chose to go with an unproven technology that cost a lot of those people their lives, not to mention the lives already lost they could have been well in advance of saving just by using a intranasal spray. Many could even question the coincidence in timing to the outbreak of influenzas among birds. Not that it contributed to a shortage of eggs according to an op I did on it. There are three hundred and seventy two million egg laying hen in this country, of course not all held in top secret locations heavily guarded by security, but there's enough for a daily egg by every man, woman and child with forty six million left over. In a national emergency I think we could have handled it considering each egg, depending upon the type, could have produced eight to thirty doses of antigen each. The high cost of eggs and the sudden doubling of fees to the FDA was just another tactics to discourage smaller pharmaceutical operations from getting any independent bright ideas and moved against the Trump issued executive order. But they'd had to have had very deep pockets to even try and could have been denied because it didn't meet the governments new priorities:
The White House said President Trump is establishing a task force to identify priorities and monitor progress.
It was four months before the pandemic hit Trump decides to issue an executive order for new technology on vaccines. Entitled "Modernizing Influenza Vaccines in the United States to Promote National Security and Public Health, it mandated new vaccine manufacturing technologies promoted to finding a universal flu vaccine. This wasn't the only major changes Trump made prior to the pandemic. In 2018 he moved control of the emergency stockpile from the CDC to the control of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) at the Department of Health and Human Services. Under this move it made the Trump administration responsible for what was in the stockpile and not Obama as Trump tried to argue. The move completed by June of 2019 mandated that the stockpile be reviewed no later than three years after June of 2019 and every five years thereafter. . Trump also either let lapse funding for global pandemic or axed such funding including in crucial countries such as China. Much of which was guided and accomplished under the Bush henchman John Bolton, Trumps than National Security advisor.
Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer abruptly departed from his post leading the global health security team on the National Security Council in May 2018 amid a reorganization of the council by then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Ziemer's team was disbanded. Tom Bossert, whom the Washington Post reported "had called for a comprehensive biodefense strategy against pandemics and biological attacks," had been fired one month prior.
It's thus true that the Trump administration axed the executive branch team responsible for coordinating a response to a pandemic and did not replace it, eliminating Ziemer's position and reassigning others, although Bolton was the executive at the top of the National Security Council chain of command at the time.
The monies, later replaced by congress when the pandemic came ashore in emergency fund relief came with heavy criticism as every program was eliminated including The Complex Crisis Fund, a thirty million dollar fund at the disposal of the secretary of state to deploy disease experts and others in the event of a crisis.
The Trump administration recently requested $2.5 billion in emergency funds to prepare the U.S. for a possible widespread outbreak of coronavirus. Critics, though, are pointing out that money might not be necessary if the administration hadn’t spent the past two years largely dismantling government units that were designed to protect against pandemics.
Also cut was the Complex Crises Fund, a $30 million emergency response pool that was at the secretary of state’s disposal to deploy disease experts and others in the event of a crisis.
We are starting to get a pretty clear cut pictures that once that "I hear covfefe" (Co = corona, V = Virus, Fe = antigen into the cell (Apolipoprotein), Fe = antibodies out of the cells) rolled off Trumps lips that actions were being put into place to thwart every action for early detection to putting stop blocks into place for anything other than a new technology for vaccines. But it doesn't end there, unfortunately.
Though this section focuses on Trump's participation one can't lose sight that this whole plan was developed over a twenty year period. Everything from revamping the CDC, to taking control of public health departments to how infectious disease disseminates across social media took place during that twenty year period. In one study, "NIH-led effort examines use of big data for infectious disease surveillance" it talks about how epidemiology, computer science and modeling collaborate to collect information, "medical encounter files, such as records from healthcare facilities and insurance claim forms; crowdsourced data collected from volunteers who self-report symptoms in near real time; and data generated by the use of social media, the internet and mobile phones, which may include self-reporting of health, behavior and travel information to help elucidate disease transmission." So basically all those things you thought they were doing they were. They are worried China is spying on Americans but it appears people should be worried about what their own government is up to. The gold standard the article goes on to state came from public health department themselves. "Traditional infectious disease surveillance — typically based on laboratory tests and other data collected by public health institutions — is the gold standard." Meaning as long a people are using government funded public health facilities they have every right to disseminate the information collected on Americans for whatever end goal deemed necessary.
Part Two will continue with the takeover of public health departments and the rapid acceleration under Trump.