OffGuardian because facts really should be sacred

Ryan Matters

In 1989, researchers from the Salk Institute in California published a paper detailing how theydeveloped an RNA transfection systemthat could directly introduce RNA into whole tissues and embryos.

The concept of using RNA as a drug is first described in this paper, making it the seminal work that formed the foundation for decades of further research in this area. The Discussion section of the paper states that:

The RNA/lipofectin method can be used to directly introduce RNA into whole tissues and embryos (R.W.M., C. Holt, and I.M.V., unpublished results), raising the possibility that liposome-mediated mRNA transfection might offer yet another option in the growing technology of eukaryotic gene delivery, one based on the concept of using RNA as a drug.

One of the Salk Institute researchers listed on the paper is Dr Robert W. Malone, a scientist who has recentlybeen censoredon social media for warning about the possible dangers of the covid-19 vaccines. It could be argued that theres no expert more qualified to warn us about the dangers of mRNA injections than the man who helped pioneer the technology, nevertheless, Big Tech decided he was expounding misinformation, because, well, they know better apparently.

Malones research, which resulted in a procedure that could be used to efficiently transfect RNA into human cells using a synthetic cationic lipid was supported by grants from the American Cancer Society and the National Institute of Health (who currently have a stake in the Moderna mRNA vaccine, showing their allegiance to the technology. More on this later).

While Malones contributions to the development of mRNA technology are well-known and well-documented, Wikipedia decided to remove all mention of him from their RNA Vaccine entry shortly after the scientist began speaking out about the dangers of the rushed-through covid vaccines. TheJune 14th versionof the article mentioned Malone by name 3 times and cited his work 6 times. The current version of the article mentions him 0 times and cites his work only 3 times.

However, this is unsurprising consideringWikipedias documented biastowards the pharmaceutical industry. Far more interesting is the institution that produced the research in the first place the Salk Institute.

The Salk Institute, named after Jonas Salk, the creator of the Salk polio vaccine, was constructed in 1962thanks to fundingfrom the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, today known as the March of the Dimes.

The March of the Dimes (MOD) was established in 1937 with the mission of eradicating polio and during a time when the Eugenics Establishment was already a prominent, but not yet popular, feature of the American health scene.The theory of Eugenicsis based on the idea that selective procreation can lead to the gradual improvement of the human race and that certain families are fit to lead society by virtue of their superior genes.

At the time, the nations key eugenics organizations included the American Eugenics Society (AES) and the American Society of human Eugenics (ASHE), funded by the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Harriman families, as well as the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. It should be noted that the Rockefellerswere instrumentalin funding and promoting eugenics around the world. The Eugenics movement promoted selective mating, artificial insemination and compulsory sterilization and euthanasia as important means of weeding out so-called inferior human beings.

The first sterilization law in the US was passed in 1907, in the state of Indiana, and by 1931, many more states had followed suit by enacting similar laws.According to the Indiana Historical Bureau:

In 1907, Governor J. Frank Hanly approved first state eugenics law making sterilization mandatory for certain individuals in state custody.

Those sterilized under eugenics lawwere deemed undesirableon account of mental or physical impairments such as epilepsy, blindness and physical disabilities, as well as social inadequacies such as drug addiction or criminality. According to estimates, around 60,000 individuals were sterilized under such laws, deprived of their right to have children and forever branded as feebleminded.

In fact, the prominence of the American eugenics movementresulted in its adoption by the National Socialist Party of Germany, which sterilized more than 350,000 persons by the end of the second world war. After WW2, eugenics notions were dropped from public conversation, but the movement never dissipated, no, instead it was re-branded using more acceptable terminology such as population control and reproductive health, as we shall see later on.

The emergence of the MOD as a major player in the American Eugenics movement can be traced back to the organizations early association with the Rockefeller Institute from where it procured many of its key members and advisers, including professor Anton Julius Carlson, amember of the American Eugenics Society, recruited to serve on the MODs Medical and Research Committees and Professor Clair E. Turner, another AES member who served as assistant to then President, Basil OConnor.

Just before the establishment of the Salk Institute, the MOD announced it would bephasing out its polio programsand focusing its resources on birth defects.

In 1959, the MOD funded courses in medical genetics at the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, a genetics institute founded in 1929 by Clarence Cook Little, who, at one time or another served as the president of the American Eugenics Society, the American Birth Control League and the American Euthanasia Society.

Jackson Laboratorys claimed mission is to discover precise genomic solutions for disease and empower the global biomedical community in its shared quest to improve human health. Noteworthy is that the lab receivedincreased fundingin 2020, largely from the National Institute of Health (NIH), including a grant of $10.6 million to find treatments for rare genetic diseases by using gene-editing technologies. And at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the lab worked to developgenetically modified micefor use in vaccine studies and other research related to Sars-Cov-2.

Beginning in the 1960s, the MODfinancedseveral Birth Defects Prevention Centerslocated at medical institutions across the US. These new centers offered prenatal testing via amniocentesis to determine whether a baby would be born with defects and then gave the couple the opportunity to abort the affected child.

The MOD has alsomade direct donationsto Planned Parenthood, a clear contradiction of theirclaimed mission, which is to fight for the health of all moms and babies. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health care in the US and abroad.

From 2019-2020 the organizationcommitted over 350,000 abortionsand has been criticized as steering resources away from womens health and toward abortion. Unsurprisingly, a look into the organizations history reveals that Planned Parenthood has its roots in Eugenics ideals.

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, who, far from a birth control activist, as the mainstream would have you believe, was a racist eugenicist who sought to rid the world of unfit human stock. In her essay, A Plan for Peace, she describes the main objects of her proposed Population Congress which includes

a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

She also mentions the need to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

As mentioned earlier, these Eugenics ideals inspired the Nazis who took many of Sangers ideas and ran with them, so to speak. In his book, The War Against the Weak, Edwin Black details how the Nazi sterilization law of 1933 as well as subsequent euthanasia laws were based on blueprints drawn up by Sanger and other American activists. In fact, associates of Sangerknew about these Nazi euthanasia programsand praised them.

Coming back to the Salk Institute, it should be noted that the mainstream account of the 20th-century polio outbreak, namely the notion that the disease is caused by a virus and that Dr Salks miracle vaccine was single-handedly responsible for ending the epidemic, is dubious and likely altogether false.

Paralytic polio appeared suddenly in the US in the early 1900s with continual, dramatic fluctuations in cases a pattern that continued until the end of the 1950s. The introduction of the Salk vaccine in 1954 seemed to coincide with the almost instantaneous decline in cases, which continued for more than two decades.

But prior to being called polio, conditions involving infirmity of the limbs were known by various other names including apoplexy, palsy and paralysis. Many historical writings refer to paralysis resulting from exposure to toxic substances and many of these accounts were documented by Dr Ralph Scobeyin his 1952 statementto the Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products titledThe Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis and Obstructions to its Investigation.

Scobeys paper includes references to several investigations that seemed to indicate a link between polio outbreaks in the 20th century and the consumption of fresh fruit, providing a link between Polio and toxic pesticide exposure.

One crop pesticide in widespread use at the time was DDT, ahighly toxicorganochlorine that waswidely publicized as being good for you, but eventually banned in 1972. In 1953, Dr Morton Biskindpublished a paperin the American Journal of Digestive Diseases pointing out that:

McCormick (78), Scobey (100-101), and Goddard (57), in detailed studies, have all pointed out that factors other than infective agents are certainly involved in the etiology of polio, varying from nutritional defects to a variety of poisons which affect the nervous system.

The danger of toxic pesticides, including DDT, and their disastrous effects on the environment were illustrated by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, Silent Spring.

In more recent times, researchers, Dan Olmstead, co-founder of the Age of Autism, and Mark Blaxil conducted twobrilliant investigations into the polio epidemics of the 20th century, reaching a similar conclusion to Scobey and Biskind, namely that the disease was caused by the widespread use of neurotoxic pesticides such as arsenite of soda and DDT.

Although Salks vaccine was hailed as a success, the vaccine itselfcaused many casesof injury and paralysis. And though there does appear to be a convincing correlation between the timing of the vaccine and the reduction in polio cases, as all good scientists know, causation doesnt equal correlation, especially considering the fact that DDT was phased out, at least in the US, over the same period.

Interestingly, Dr Salks polio researchwas fundedby the mother of Cordelia Scaife May, an heiress to the Mellon family banking fortune who idealized Margaret Sanger and later joined the board of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation.

Mays views on immigration were radical, to say the least, and according to some, she favoured compulsory sterilization as a means to limit birth rates in developing countries. May later joined the board of thePopulation Council, an organization founded by John D. Rockefeller III focused on population reduction.

In 1995, the Population Council collaborated with the WHO to createfertility regulating vaccines.

It would be a mistake to think that the polio epidemic was not related to the current age of vaccination we find ourselves in. On the contrary, claiming that polio was eradicated in the United States due to vaccination alone is a lie that garnered public favour for childhood vaccinations and helped to set the groundwork for the widespread belief in the safety and efficacy of all vaccines.

Diseases such as polio and smallpox (another lie that is beyond the scope of this article), and the subsequent pro-vaccine propaganda, primed much of the population to accept, without question, an experimental jab based on poorly understood technology.

In 1997, 8 years after the Salk Institute paper, the FDAapproved the first-ever trialof transfected RNA to develop immunity in cancer patients. The Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee of the National Institute of Health then voted to continue approval some months later, leading to the first-ever mRNA-based vaccine administered to humans.

Though mRNA is propagandized in the media as the next revolution in health, those with keen perception may be alarmed when reading excerpts such as this one, taken froman article on the history of mRNA, written by Damian Garde, a Biotech reporter for STATS:

The concept: By making precise tweaks to synthetic mRNA and injecting people with it, any cell in the body could be transformed into an on-demand drug factory.

Talk of cells being turned into on-demand drug factories is exactly the sort of meaningless techno-rhetoric meant to impress and entice an uninformed public. mRNA vaccines are based on the following concept: a piece of synthetic mRNA is shuttled into your cells, where it is used as a template to create the viral spike protein. Once this protein leaves the cell, the body producesantibodiesand learns how to fight future Sars-Cov-2 infections.

mRNA-based vaccines are often touted as a safer alternative to DNA-based vaccines, which,according to expertsmay trigger permanent and dangerous changes in the genetic information of treated people. However, do we know for sure that mRNA vaccines dont permanently change the genetic makeup of our cells?A 2001 papertitledRNA as a tumor vaccine: a review of the literaturestates that (emphasis added):

unlike DNA-based vaccines, there islittledanger of incorporation of RNA sequences into the host genome.

The use of the word little would seem to indicate that there may be at least some danger of genome integration, or more likely, researchers simply dont know.

In the 2004 expert opinion paper by Pascolo cited above, he outlines the link between mRNA vaccines and gene therapies, something which is continually denied and dismissed by the mainstream:

Although located in the cytosol and not in the nucleus, mature mRNAs belong to the biochemical family of nucleic acids. mRNA, similarly to DNA, may be considered a gene and, consequently, its use as a vaccine may be viewed as gene therapy.

Interestingly, it is purely due to a technicality of regulatory law that covid-19 gene therapies are allowed to be called vaccines.This is explainedin a paper titledThe European Regulatory Environment of RNA-Based Vaccines,which states that:

The definition of a gene therapy medicinal product as outlined in Annex 1 to Directive 2001/83/EC is as follows:

Gene therapy medicinal product means a biological medicinal product which has the following characteristics:

Gene therapy medicinal products shall not include vaccines against infectious diseases.

As is evident, the mere act of calling a gene therapy a vaccine against infectious disease negates its classification as a gene therapy, the approval process for which, at least in Europe, involvesgoing through the CATwhich is the EMAs (European Medicines Agency) Committee for Advanced Therapies.

Evidently, this play on language would seem to constitute a loophole of sorts, allowing easier approval for mRNA-based gene therapies planned for human use.

Approval is certainly a contentious topic when talked about in the context of the current covid-19 vaccines, none of which have been fully FDA approved, only authorized under emergency use (EUA), and labeled as investigational products, a fact that many people are unaware of. However, early in the year vaccine manufacturers already set their sights on full regulatory approval, after only 6 months of trial data.

On the 7th of May, Pfizer formally initiated their application to the FDA, with the aim of having the first-ever fully approved covid-19 vaccine. But with millions of vaccines already administered under EUA, whats the rush?

Furthermore, for the six first in disease vaccines approved by the FDA over the last 15 years, the median trial durationwas just shy of two years. A vaccine approved after 6 months of data would constitute one of the fastest ever.

Thephase three clinical trialsfor Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen are two years in duration, but the FDA has not clearly stated their position with regards to minimum follow-up prior to consideration for approval.

Longer, placebo-controlled trials are paramount to assessing vaccine safety. It is extremely alarming then that vaccine manufacturers, within weeks of receiving EUA, began tounblind trialsby offering those in the placebo group the chance to get vaccinated.

Moderna announcedthat as of April 13, all placebo participants have been offered the Moderna covid-19 vaccine and 98% of those have received the vaccine, meaning that their placebo group no longer exists and as such, they have no way to accurately measure long-term safety.

In anarticle for the British Medical Journal, Peter Doshi quotes the FDA, on several occasions, saying that the maintenance of a placebo group would be critical to assessing both the safety and efficacy of covid-19 vaccines, which is obvious to anyone who understands the consequences of failing to adhere to scientific rigor when testing a new medical therapy.

In reality, there could be many reasons for manufacturers wanting FDA approval for their vaccines, but likely top of the list is the stamp of approval that comes with full licensure and the ability to use this as a way to convince those who remain skeptical regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Moreover, full FDA approval would pave the way for easier vaccine mandates, putting immense pressure on those of the awakened class who represent a thorn in the side of the Great Reset/Great Convergence agenda pushers.

More disturbing inconsistencies can be found in the FDAs process for assessing and approving these experimental vaccines. For example, the FDA recently cautioned against the use of antibody tests for evaluating immunity or protection from covid-19, especially after a person has received a vaccination, despite their EUA being originally granted, in part, due toantibody responses.

The implication for this reversal is that the EUA given for covid-19 vaccines should also be reversed, but whats the likelihood of that happening after millions have already been jabbed?

Moreover, the idea that antibodies provide protection from so-called viral infections represents a poor understanding of the body and the immune system. The fact that antibodies play little role in viral infections has been known by medical scientists since the 1950sbased on researchthat shows persons with the genetic inability to produce antibodies, called agammaglobulinemia, have normal reactions to typical viral infections and even appear to resist recurrences.

One of the covid-19 vaccine manufactures most talked about in the media is Moderna, a biotech company co-founded by Robert Langer, a researcher and inventor at MIT.

In 2013, the biotech startupreceived $25m in fundingfrom DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), a research arm of the United States Department of Defense, and an organization well-known for ruthlessly pursuingdystopian, transhumanist technologies, such as implantable nanoparticles and bio-brain interfaces (more on this later).

Noteworthy is that the US government, through the National Institute of Health,appears to have a financial stakein the Moderna vaccine thanks to a contract signed by both parties, giving the NIH joint ownership over Modernas mRNA vaccine candidates. According to Axios:

The NIH mostly funds outside research, but it also often invents basic scientific technologies that are later licensed out and incorporated into drugs that are sold at massive profits.

This is more than alarming considering the NIH is responsible forprioritizing promising treatmentsfor covid-19 as well as improving clinical trial effectiveness, which, for Moderna, is impossible considering their trial no longer contains a control group.

NIHs vested interest in Modernas success may also provide a plausible explanation for why the biotech startup received EUA for their vaccinedespite failing, for over 10 years, to bring a single product to market.

In an interview for Economic Club, NIH director Francis Collins denied that covid-19 vaccines would be money-makers, saying that Nobody sees this as a way to make billions of dollars.

However, evidence points to the contrary as Modernas covid-19 vaccine sales reached $1.7 billion in the first quarter of 2021, making their CEO, Stephane Bancel, one of themany new pharma billionaires.

Operation Warp Speed, the name given to a partnership between several US Federal agencies aimed at accelerating the development of a covid-19 vaccine, was also wrought with conflicts of interest.

The Operation Warp Speed administration hired several consultants with ties to Big Pharma, including two former Pfizer executives. And in May 2020, it was reported that their chief adviser, Dr Monsef Slaoui, a former pharmaceutical executive himself,held $10m in GlaxoSmithKline stock, the same company that was later awarded a $2 billion contract to supply the US government with 100 million vials of covid-19 vaccine.

Dr Slaoui also held significant stock in Moderna, to whom the federal governmenthas awarded over $2.5b in funding.

Moderna co-founder, Robert Langer, whose net worth has alsoskyrocketed into the billions, is one of the worlds most cited researchers. A scientist at MIT, Langer holds over 1,400 patents and specializes in biotechnology, nanotechnology, tissue engineering and drug delivery.

Furthermore, Langer holds an administrative role at theMIT Media Lab, the same institute that was the focus of a scandal after it was revealed that the lab accepted funding from convicted sex-offender, Jefferey Epstein. Epstein also happened to have adisturbing fascination with transhumanism, a modern-day version of eugenics (transhumanism is discussed later in this article).

Then director of the MIT Media Lab, Joi Ito,approved two donations from Epstein of $1.75m and allowed the prolific paedophile to direct funds to the lab from other wealthy benefactors, including a $2m donation from Bill Gates, who also has unsettling ties to Epstein, havingflown on his private jetand met with him on several occasions.

When the news broke out and Joi Ito resigned from his post at the lab, Langer was one of the first people tosign a letter calling for him to stay, and as an administrator for the labs Directors Office, its hard to believe he didnt know about the Epstein donations in advance.

Described as the common denominator in several coronavirus efforts, Robert Langer is certainly an interesting player in the transhumanist movement. In 2015, his company, Microchips Biotech, partnered with Israeli pharmaceutical giant, Teva Pharmaceutical, to commercialize its implantable drug delivery device.

Noteworthy is that Teva Pharmaceutical has receivedsignificant investment from Warren Buffett, who, in 2006, pledged to gradually donate his fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, an organization whom he served as a trustee up until very recently.

Langer also has ties to Charles Lieber, a Harvard nanotech scientistwho was arrestedin January on account of making false statements to federal authorities regarding his collaboration with Chinese researchers at the Wuhan University of Technology.

In 2012, Langer and Lieberworked togetherto create a material that merges nanoscale electronics with biological tissues. The material was described as a first step toward prosthetics that communicate directly with the nervous system.

Much of Langers research is backed by Bill Gates, who began funding mRNA technology in 2010 and has alsoinvested millionsinto Moderna.

In 2017, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundationsponsored a projectat Langers lab to create a microparticle vaccine delivery system that could generate a novel type of drug carrying particle, allowing multiple doses of a vaccine to be administered over an extended period of time with just one injection.

Then in 2019, Gates and Langerteamed up againto create an invisible ink tattoo that embeds immunization records into a childs skin. Disturbingly, the eventual goal of the project is to inject sensors that can be used to track other aspects of health.

Gates claims he needs the data for disease prevention, referring to his efforts to wipe out polio, measles and other infectious diseases from around the world. However, Gates various health-related initiatives in developing countries are not the work of a loving philanthropist, like the media would have us all believe. Instead, evidence would suggest that Gates involvement in public health represents the continuation of a long-standing eugenics agenda, hiding in plain sight.

Gates links to the eugenics movement start with his father, who praised the Rockefellers for their work in public health and evenmet with them in 2000to discuss matters relating to infectious disease, vaccines and the environment. During the meeting, Gates senior was quoted as saying:

Taking our lead and our inspiration from work already done by The Rockefeller Foundation, our foundation actually started GAVI by pledging $750 million to something called the Global Fund for Childrens Vaccines, an instrument of GAVI.

Interestingly, almost ten years after that meeting, Gates juniorco-hosted a meetingwith David Rockefeller to discuss population reduction.

Perhaps even more telling is the fact that in 2012 Bill and Melinda Gates hosted their London Summit on Family Planning, where they announced their commitment to population control in the third world, on the 100th anniversary of theFirst International Eugenics Congress, also held in London.

Gates is well-known for his obsession with vaccines, a curious pursuit considering that the 9,000,000 people who die every year from hunger would be better served by having clean water, food supplies and sanitary living environments.

In 2009,Gates Foundation funded observational studies in Indiafor acontroversial cervical cancer vaccinethat was given to thousands of young girls called Gardasil.

Within months, many girls began to get sick and within a year, five of them had died. During a similar study for a different brand of the HPV vaccine, many girls were hospitalized and a further two died. The Economic Times of India reported on this in 2014, with the shocking revelation that:

Consent for conducting these studies, in many cases, was taken from the hostel wardens, which was a flagrant violation of norms. In many other cases, thumbprint impressions of their poor and illiterate parents were duly affixed onto the consent form. The children also had no idea about the nature of the disease or the vaccine. The authorities concerned could not furnish requisite consent forms for the vaccinated children in a huge number of cases.

Gates has also heavily promoted the oral polio vaccine in India, after endeavouring to eradicate the disease. However, as discussed earlier in this article, toxic chemicals are involved in the etiology of polio and thus the disease cannot be eradicated by the use of vaccines. In fact, global health numbers indicate that more cases of polio are now beingcaused by the vaccines themselvesthan anything else.

In 2018, a group of brave Indian researcherspublished a paperin theInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Healthshowing a correlation between the oral polio vaccine drives and increased cases of acute flaccid paralysis, a condition described as clinically indistinguishable from polio.

Ironically, Gates has a$23m investmentin Monsanto, the company that markets roundup a glyphosate-containing pesticide that is known tocause adverse health effects, including neurological disorders and paralysis.

Read the original:
OffGuardian because facts really should be sacred