Tom's Blog on Life

An investigative report by Vanity Fair contributor Katherine Eban, based on more than 100,000 EcoHealth Alliance documents, shows a disturbing reality of “murky grant agreements, flimsy NIH oversight and pursuit of government grants by pitching increasingly risky global research”.

In 2014, EcoHealth received a $3.7 million NIAID grant to study the risk of bat coronavirus emergence and the potential for outbreaks in human populations. Nearly $600,000 of that went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was a key collaborator.

The 2014 grant highlights the truth of what critics of gain-of-function (GOF) research have been saying for years, which is that this kind of research never achieves its aims. They say it needs to be done to prevent and/or get ahead of pandemics, but not a single pandemic has ever been averted and, instead, GOF research may actually be the cause of them.

EcoHealth president Peter Daszak’s behavior has added fuel to suspicions of a lab leak — potentially of a virus that he himself helped create. In 2015, he warned a global pandemic might occur from a laboratory incident, especially the sort of virus manipulation research being done in Wuhan. Despite this history, in February 2020, Daszak wrote a “scientific consensus statement” published in The Lancet that condemned the lab leak theory as a wild conspiracy theory.

It appears those who insist SARS-CoV-2 is of natural origin, despite all the evidence to the contrary, are doing so because they don’t want risky virological research to be blamed for the COVID pandemic.

https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/geopolitics/over-100-000-released-documents-expose-covid-origin-fraud/

Dr. Ryan Cole was recently interviewed by Maria Zeee where he stated that he is getting reports all across the world from doctors observing that cancer rates are “taking off like wild fire” following COVID-19 vaccinations. A recently published study in the Journal “Food and Chemical Toxicology,” also linked mRNA vaccines to an increase in cancers. I spent some time today searching through the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) for data on cancer following vaccines. Cancer is not a common side effect associated with vaccine injuries, perhaps due to the time it takes for cancer cells to proliferate and be exposed through cancer screening, as by then most people would probably not even associate a diagnosis of cancer with a previous vaccine. Therefore, even though previous analyses on COVID-19 vaccine injuries have shown that the unreported factor is about 41x, it could be significantly higher for cases of cancer. To find trends of increased cancer rates following COVID-19 vaccines, we need to compare these rates with previous FDA approved vaccines in VAERS. Searching for various forms of cancer in VAERS, I found 739 cases resulting in 84 deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations for the past 16 months. Using the exact same search for all FDA-approved vaccines for the previous 30 years before the COVID-19 shots were issued emergency use authorizations, I found 220 cases resulting in 16 deaths over 360 months. That’s an average of .6 cases per month for the previous 30 years compared to an average of 46 cases of cancer per month following COVID-19 vaccines, an increase of 7,567%. The CDC and FDA have not issued any warnings regarding increased cancer rates following COVID-19 vaccines.

https://healthimpactnews.com/2022/7500-increase-in-recorded-cases-of-cancer-following-covid-19-vaccines/

If a medical degree can explain the theatrics we’re seeing, then it’s not a degree worth trusting. Ordinary people are beginning to see that.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/21/the-spell-is-broken-how-the-white-houses-mask-play-finally-exposed-covids-true-culprits/

For this treaty to have teeth, the organisation that governs it needs to have the power – either political or legal – to enforce compliance. In its current form, the WHO does not possess such powers. In order to enforce compliance, some commentators have recommended concluding the treaty at the United Nations level. However, we fear that it has been already decided with the INB (mandated by WHASS) that a treaty will be developed under the roof of WHO.

To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically. If international pandemic response is enhanced, compliance is enhanced. In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak. High-income settings may not be motivated by financial resources in the same way as their low-income counterparts. An adaptable incentive regime is therefore needed, with sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2022/03/30/a-new-pandemic-treaty-what-the-world-health-organization-needs-to-do-next/