.png)
3 hour_ago
18
Introduction. U.S. Covid-19 Senate Hearing
The U.S. Senate Hearings suggests that a dangerous NEW VIRUS was detected in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China in December 2019.
It was initially entitled 2019-nCoV which stands for “2019 New (n) Corona (Co) Virus (V)”.
On January 1, 2020, “the Chinese health authorities closed the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan following Western media reports claiming that wild animals sold there may have been the source of the virus.”
As of early January 2020, it was the object of extensive media coverage and an unfolding Worldwide fear campaign.
Media disinformation 24/7 went into high gear.
The Chinese authorities (allegedly) “identified a new type of virus” on January 7, 2020, using the RT-PCR test.
No specific details were provided regarding the process of isolation of the virus.”
The Mandate of the Senate Hearings
I have reviewed the latest statements of the Senate Hearings, including Dr. Peter McCullough’s outstanding presentation.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky “has long accused Dr. Fauci of trying to cover up the origin of the coronavirus, and of funding research at a lab in Wuhan in China.
Media reports have point to the so-called “origin of COVID-19” whereas:
“U.S. intelligence agencies are divided on the subject, with some supporting the possibility of the coronavirus emerging from an accidental lab leak in China while others support natural transmission from animal to human”.
Fauci previously said he keeps “an open mind as to what the origin is,” though he has also said he believes the animal-to-human route was more likely.”
In this article I will focus on two important issues which are of concern to the Senate Hearings
The Identity and Origin of the New Corona Virus
The Nature of the mRNA Vaccine and its Impacts
In both cases I will put forth careful factual analysis and supportive data from official sources.
The Identity and Origin of the New Corona Virus
.
There were several name changes. The initial identity of the virus was 2019-nCoV which stands for “2019 New (n) Corona (Co) Virus (V)”.
In late January 2020, the WHO based on the analysis of the Berlin Virology Team (Eurosurveillance) confirmed that:
It did not possess an isolate of 2019-nCoV from a purified sample from an infected patient, which meant that they were unable to confirm the identity of the novel coronavirus.
“Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness [of 2019-nCoV] to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.:”
.
.
Full Text of the Euro-Surveillance entitled 2019 Novel Corona Virus
What this Eurosurveillance (01/20/20) Report suggests is that the “NEW” virus entitled 2019-nCoV is similar to a virus entitled SARS-CoV 2003, which was the object of an indepth May 2003 study by the New England Journal of Medicine.
The NEJM Study Pertaining to SARS-CoV 2003
The New England Journal of Medicine, May 2003 (NEJM):
.
“A Novel Coronavirus Associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome” which broke out in China’s Southern Guangdong Province in 2002 WAS identified and categorized as a “new virus” on May 15, 2003. (17 YEARS PRIOR to the Alleged Covid Outbreak)
.
See Screenshot 0f NEJM May 15 2003 article below:
The identification of the virus adopted in the NEJM (May 15, 2003) is as follows: (emphasis added)
.
“We received clinical specimens from patients in seven countries and tested them [2002-2003], using virus-isolation techniques, electron-microscopical and histologic studies, and molecular and serologic assays, in an attempt to identify a wide range of potential pathogens
.
“None of the previously described respiratory pathogens were consistently identified. However, a novel coronavirus was isolated from patients who met the case definition of SARS. … Electron-microscopical examination revealed ultrastructural features characteristic of coronaviruses. Immunohistochemical and immunofluorescence staining revealed reactivity with group I coronavirus polyclonal antibodies.
.
“Consensus coronavirus primers designed to amplify a fragment of the polymerase gene by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were used to obtain a sequence that clearly identified the isolate as a unique coronavirus only distantly related to previously sequenced coronaviruses.”
.
Absence of An Isolate of the “New 2019 Virus (2019-nCoV)”
.
While the 2003 SARS-CoV was duly isolated as documented in the NEJM, the WHO acknowledged in January 2020 that it did not have an isolate and purified sample of the NEW 2019 coronavirus from an infected patient, which meant that they were unable to confirm the identity of the 2019 novel coronavirus entitled 2019-nCoV. That was the reason given.
Not Wuhan! The Berlin Virology Institute
How was this matter resolved under the auspices of the WHO?
Following advice and funding from the Gates Foundation, the WHO was in liaison with the Berlin Virology Institute at Charité Hospital.
Under the scientific guidance of Dr. Christian Drosten, a decision was reached concerning the alleged identity of the New Virus. (Berlin Virology Institute study entitled: Detection of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real time RT-PCR (Eurosurveillance)
The Berlin Virology Institute study firmly acknowledged that:
[While]… several viral genome sequences had been released,… virus isolates or samples [of 2019-nCoV] from infected patients were not available …”
What the Berlin team recommended to the WHO was that in the absence of an isolate of the 2019-nCoV virus, a similar 2003 SARS-CoV virus should be used as a “proxy” (point of reference) of the novel 2019 coronavirus:
“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].
We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens.
Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.” (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).
What this ambiguous statement suggests is that the identity of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “COVID-19 confirmed cases” (aka infection resulting from the 2019 novel coronavirus) would be validated by
its “close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV.”
How could the new virus be categorized as similar without having been identified, i.e. without an “isolate”?
Moreover, bear in mind that while the PCR test does not detect the virus, it detects genetic fragments (of numerous viruses).
.
Smoking Gun
What this means is that a coronavirus detected in 2002-2003 in Guangdong Province (2003 SARS-CoV) has been used to “validate” the identity of a so-called “novel coronavirus” allegedly detected in China’s Hubei Province in late December 2019.
The recommendations of the Drosten team (financed by a grant of $249,550 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were then transmitted to the WHO. (See (March 2020, 249,500)
They were endorsed by the Director-General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
The WHO did not have in its possession the “virus isolate” required to identify the new virus.
“Never mind”. It was decided by the Berlin Virology Team that an isolate of the new coronavirus was not required.
It stands to reason that if the PCR test uses the 2003 SARS-CoV virus as a proxy or “point of reference”, there can be no “confirmed” cases pertaining to the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV.
February 11, 2020. The Alleged “New Virus” is Renamed
In early February. 2020, following the failure to identify the novel coronavirus, a decision was taken to change its name to:
“Severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus”: SARS-CoV-2 which (according to the WHO) is “similar” to a 20 year old virus entitled: 2003-SARS-CoV.
SARS-CoV-2: A Twenty Year Old 2003 Coronavirus Categorized in February 2020 as a “New Virus”? Nonsense!
There was “Similarity” but there Was No “New Corona Virus”?
.
II
.
.
The “Classified” Pfizer Report
.
.
Already in early 2021, the Classified “Secret” Report by Pfizer based on data (mortality, morbidity) collected on behalf of Pfizer from mid-December 2020 to the end of February 2021 had been submitted to the U.S. health authorities.
The Senate Hearings have failed to address the relevance of the Classified Pfizer Report which confirmed the impacts of the mRNA vaccine on mortality and morbidity from the very onset in early 2021.
Sections of the so-called “secret” (classified) report were released under Freedom of Information (FOI) in October 2021, nine months following the launching of the vaccine in early January 2021.
That report “says everything”, it comes from the horse’s mouth. It’s their data. Yet medical doctors hesitate to quote Pfizer’s data for obvious reasons.
It is essential that this Pfizer report be addressed by the Hearings.
The objective of the Classified Pfizer Report was to tabulate and categorize detailed data pertaining to the impacts of the Pfizer BioNTech mRNA vaccine on, Mortality, Morbidity and Adverse Events from December 14, 2020 to February 28, 2021. namely two and a half months.
The results of Pfizer’s classified Report were not made public. They were available to several health agencies (including the CDC, NIAID and FDA) involved in overseeing the distribution of the vaccine under the clauses of “Emergency Use Authorization”.
Bear in mind, this is Pfizer’s own data.
This Confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) procedure provided data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in mid December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namely a very short period (at most two and a half months).
The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine was launched in the US on the 14th of December 2020 after the granting of Emergency Use Authorization on December 11, 2020.
In a twisted irony, the data revealed in this “insider report” confirms in relation to mortality and morbidity. The alleged “vaccine” is a dangerous drug.
It also refutes the official vaccine narrative peddled by the governments and the WHO.
EXCERPT OF CLASSIFIED PFIZER REPORT
As shown in Figure 1 [see below], the System Organ Classes (SOCs) that contained the greatest number (≥2%) of events, in the overall dataset, were General disorders and administration site conditions (51,335 AEs),
Nervous system disorders (25,957), Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (17,283), Gastrointestinal disorders (14,096),
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (8,476), Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (8,848), Infections and infestations (4,610), Injury, poisoning and procedural complications (5,590), and Investigations (3,693)
emphasis added
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 12, 2026
.jpg)
French (CA)