Liability waivers for vaccines must end

  • How You Are Being Robbed Of Your  Freedoms With COVID-19.
  • The manufactured anthrax crisis of 2001 initiated the PATRIOT Act, one of the most severe compromises of our personal freedoms up to that point. Now, the COVID-19 pandemic is being used to take away even more freedoms
  • It appears influential virologists are protecting the narrative that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally, and did not originate from a lab in China or elsewhere, even though their scientific justification for that conclusion is faulty
  • Strong evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 cannot be the result of a natural mutation
  • The National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), under Dr. Anthony Fauci’s leadership, has funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses for about two decades
  • Efforts to develop coronavirus vaccines have failed for two decades, as the vaccines tend to cause paradoxical immune enhancement resulting in damaging and lethal cytokine storms

Dr. Meryl Nass is a physician in Ellsworth, Maine, who in previous interviews has helped us understand the unforeseen consequences of mass vaccination — consequences that could end up impacting public health in a very negative way. Here, she discusses what she’s been working on for decades, and how it relates to this current pandemic.

An outspoken supporter of health freedom, Nass provided scientifically referenced testimony to the Massachusetts legislature, December 3, 2019, when it was considering legislation to eliminate the religious vaccine exemption. This is now more relevant than ever, considering there is talk, worldwide, about implementing more or less mandatory vaccination against COVID-19. In her December 2019 testimony, Nass pointed out that:1

There is no crisis (no epidemic of deaths or disabilities) from infectious diseases caused by lack of vaccinations … The elephant in the auditorium today is Pharma profits …

The pharmaceutical industry has undertaken a very ambitious campaign to legislate away vaccine exemptions in the United States and Canada. France, Italy and Germany have rescinded vaccine exemptions too, suggesting the campaign is worldwide …

It has been claimed that vaccines are, by nature, extremely safe. Yet vaccines are usually injected, bypassing all the body’s natural barriers. Even minute contamination or inadequate microbial inactivation can maim or kill … Vaccines have caused many autoimmune disorders, from Guillain-Barre syndrome to narcolepsy …

Vaccines appear safe because the immediate side effects are usually mild and temporary. Serious vaccine side effects often take weeks or months to surface, and by then it is difficult to know what caused them …

A 2009 European swine flu vaccine (GSK’s Pandemrix) caused over 1,300 cases of severe narcolepsy, mostly in adolescents. This vaccine was linked to narcolepsy because 15 times the usual number of narcolepsy cases suddenly appeared in clinics …

It should be apparent, but isn’t: Government waivers of vaccine liability discourage manufacturers from ensuring that the vaccines they sell are as safe and effective as possible.

The removal of vaccine exemptions, combined with liability waivers for vaccine side effects and recently loosened standards for licensing vaccines, create a highly toxic mix.”

Nass goes on to cite statistics showing why the claim that draconian laws are required to control the “crisis” of vaccine-preventable diseases is false. She also points out that:

“The bedrock expectation of medical ethics is that patients must give informed consent2for all medical procedures, including vaccines. Informed consent means that patients must be informed about the procedure, have the right to refuse, and may not be coerced to accept it.

Isn’t withholding an education an extreme form of coercion? Without any discussion of its moral or ethical dimensions by media, medical societies or government officials, the requirement for informed consent for medical procedures, including vaccinations, vanishes in the blink of an eye when patients are not allowed the right to refuse.”

Anthrax

In 1992, Nass published a paper3 identifying the 1978-1980 Zimbabwe anthrax outbreak as a case of biological warfare. In 2011, I also interviewed her about the 2001 false flag anthrax attack in the U.S., on the heels of 9/11, and the dangers of the anthrax vaccine.

That manufactured crisis initiated the PATRIOT Act, one of the most severe compromises of our personal freedoms up to that point. Now, it appears they’re using the COVID-19 pandemic to take away even more freedoms.

There’s strong evidence that this is precisely what’s going on. Early in the interview, Nass summarizes our earlier discussion about the anthrax attack, so for a refresher, listen to the interview or read through the transcript. That attack, however, is also what allowed government funds to be allocated toward even more biological warfare research. She explains:

“Congress appropriated a lot of money for bio-terrorism, which is conjoined with pandemic planning. So, the same pot of money that goes into pandemics goes into Biological Defense. Much of it is duly used for research performed in high containment, BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs.

We don’t call it biological warfare, but when you’re designing pathogens to be more virulent than the originals in nature … essentially biological warfare research gets done. Things are called biological warfare if the intent is to create a weapon. It’s called biological defense if the intent is to design a bad bug so you can come up with defenses against that bug.

What has happened is that a lot of money was spent to develop new high containment labs — many, many more high containment labs … about $6.5 billion a year since 2001 has been designated for this biodefense. So, what we wound up with is hundreds of biodefense labs that have to be used and thousands, possibly 15,000, newly trained bio-defense researchers.

So, now we have cadres of people who are experts in coronaviruses or avian flu viruses, Ebola, Lassa, et cetera. And what most of that money … has been spent on, has been researching these pathogens. Even though the money was supposed to be spent on developing countermeasures and stockpiling countermeasures, to a great extent that did not happen …

As a result, we know a lot about highly virulent coronaviruses that have been created in labs around the world as well as in the U.S. and China, and we have absolutely no countermeasures that have been developed for coronavirus.”

Advertisement

Click here to learn Dr. Mercola's top tips to combat coronavirus


Where Did SARS-CoV-2 Originate?

“Like everybody else, I wondered whether this was a natural jump from a bat or some other animal to humans and scratched my head about it,” Nass says. While she’s not a virologist, she does have a three-decade background in biological warfare and is aware of what’s been created in the past, what it takes, where they may be made, and how it has been done.

“So, I remained curious. Then on February 19 online, and in the March 7 print edition, a group of scientists had a “Correspondence” published in The Lancet, and it was a very curious piece to me. It didn’t make sense.

And these were very prominent signatories, including the former head of the National Science Foundation, one of the former top people at CDC, the director of the Wellcome Trust, coronavirus researchers and funders, and other prominent people.

What they said is, ‘We need to quash the rumors that this came from a lab. That is a conspiracy theory and we need to get rid of it. They wrote:

The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.’ 4

So, what this group was doing, in a very short, less than a page-long letter, was calling the possibility that SARS-2 might have come from a lab a conspiracy theory, and conflating any consideration of this possibility with threatening “transparent sharing of data” with China. And we couldn’t interfere with that because we need to work with China to fight the coronavirus …

A couple of weeks later, an article came out in Nature Medicine, which said, ‘Here we have the scientific proof that this did not come from a lab’ …

And this second paper talked about the two things that have been identified by others as the most problematic new genetic segments on SARS-CoV-2 — two sites on the spike RNA, which seem to enhance the tropism and the binding/entry, so it makes it easier for the virus to get into human cells and expands the range of cell types the virus can enter.

And the Nature Medicine authors took these two regions and said: ‘Look, these mutations that are found in the new CoV-2 virus, which are not seen in any of the other coronaviruses anywhere near it genetically, must have come from the wild because these weren’t created in the ways that we virologists would have chosen to create them.’

They said, ‘We already have ways to create these mutations that would leave a lab signature, but there is no lab signature. And furthermore, we decided that based on computer modeling, the receptor binding domain did not use the ideal formulation we predicted. If a geneticist, a virologist, was doing this, they would have used our computer model. They didn’t, and therefore this must have come from the wild.’

Well, that was a really odd argument because it didn’t make any scientific sense. The authors did a lot of hand-waving, but failed to consider that other techniques could have been used to create this virus. Nor did the authors explain how such a virus, so ideally adapted to humans, could have developed in wildlife.

We should understand that those were two highly virulent and surprising mutations that could well have been added to a preexisting coronavirus, by a variety of techniques, including the old passage technique, still used today, which is what Louis Pasteur used to create the first live, attenuated rabies vaccine in 1885.

If you passage a virus through multiple human tissue cultures, or mice that contain, for example, humanized lung tissue, you force the virus to develop mutations that adapt it better and better to the new tissue. If the current coronavirus, as claimed by some scientists and seems borne out clinically, is better adapted to binding to the human ACE-2 receptor than to all known animal ACE-2 receptors, then it either:

1) mutated that way by jumping from wildlife to humans long ago, subsequently optimizing its ACE-2 receptor for humans over a prolonged period of time, or

2) was genetically engineered in a lab to do so, or

3) was passaged through cells with human ACE-2 receptors in order to accumulate the mutations that made it most virulent to humans. 

I believe the same argument holds for the second unique coronavirus mutation, the addition of four amino acids to form a furin (polybasic) cleavage site. This site takes advantage of the human furin enzyme present intra- and extracellularly, which enhances viral entry into human cells and might convey other advantages to the virus.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the first hypothesis, that this virus has been circulating in humans for years. Thus, we are left with hypotheses 2 and 3: Each requires the human hand, only differing by the technique used. In my opinion, it is likely that both techniques (genetic engineering and serial passage) were used to produce the SARS-2 coronavirus, or its laboratory progenitors.”

We Absolutely Have the Know-How to Create SARS-CoV-2

Nass countered Nature Medicine’s narrative in a March 26, 2020, blog post,5 and again in an April 2, 2020, post, in which she wrote:6

“Why are some of the U.S.’ top scientists making a specious argument about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2? … Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed …

They resulted in biological weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases, used … These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from known RNA or DNA sequences.

In fact, it would be desirable to produce such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they were deliberately constructed in a lab. Here are just a few possibilities for how one might create new, virulent mutants:

  • Exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics
  • Passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures
  • Mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors”

Why Is Protecting the Narrative so Important?

Nass believes the old technique of passage is a likely candidate here. According to Nass, if you take viruses that are ill adapted to the human ACE-2 receptor but are adapted to another animal’s ACE-2 inhibitor, and then passage them in human tissue culture with the human ACE-2 receptor, over time, the viruses will develop improved receptor binding.

“It’s a likely way that this coronavirus might have been produced,” she says. “Anyway, I read that article and I said, ‘This is complete nonsense. I can’t believe Nature Medicine published it.’ And the two groups of authors, the group from The Lancet and the group from Nature Medicine, have consistently referred to each other as they’ve been interviewed since.

Science Magazine did a short piece on The Lancet article. USA Today did a piece on the Nature of Medicine article. And then the head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, Tony Fauci’s boss, wrote a blog post (or somebody wrote it for him) about the spurious Nature Medicine article.

He stated, ‘Now we have the scientific answer. This article in Nature Medicine has put to rest any thoughts that this could be a lab construct. That’s a conspiracy theory. We have no room for conspiracy theories. This is the end of the discussion’ …

Now, the first thing I thought about the Nature Medicine article was, ‘Did these authors actually write it?’ Because it’s such a piece of scientific nonsense than any real scientist reading it, if you can read the language, would not accept it, would dismiss it out of hand. Many other scientists have said exactly this, subsequently.

So, were the Nature Medicine authors asked to place their names on a piece of junk science in order to get it into a high impact journal and create this smoke screen — that “the science proves” (but only to the scientifically illiterate) this is a naturally occurring coronavirus?

There were five authors. I know of a couple of them. One was a virologist named Robert Garry, who I have had some interactions with over the last 22 years, another one was Ian Lipkin. Garry and coauthor Kristian Andersen both worked in Sierra Leone during the Ebola epidemic. 

Garry was principal investigator for a project in Kenema, Sierra Leone before the outbreak started. Ian Lipkin’s group at Columbia University claimed, just last year, to have finally found a bat in west Africa carrying Ebola virus; in other words, this Nature Medicine coauthor’s group produced the long-sought evidence for a natural origin of west Africa’s Ebola epidemic.7

I happened to show the Nature Medicine article to a friend of mine, Ed Hooper, who wrote a well-known book called, ‘The River,’ about the origin of AIDS: How did AIDS jump from monkeys into the human population?

Although many claim that it’s due to Africans eating bush meat (from monkeys), Ed makes a very strong case that HIV made the species jump via oral polio vaccines that were prepared locally, in the Belgian Congo, from the kidneys of various types of monkeys that were locally caught. The vaccine was designed by Hilary Koprowski in the U.S., and given to millions of Africans.

Ed Hooper has put out additional evidence in the intervening 20-plus years since he wrote ‘The River,’ that it’s much more likely that the jump into humans occurred because the oral polio vaccine grown on monkey kidneys was contaminated by monkey viruses, and that those monkey kidneys probably contained the precursor to HIV.

Interestingly, three of these Nature Medicine authors had challenged him on his AIDS origin theory about two decades ago, and now they’re challenging the coronavirus origin theory, which made me wonder, ‘Are these five Nature Medicine authors … repeatedly trotted out by the political medical establishment to try to push false narratives that are politically desirable?”

Compelling Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Is a Lab Creation

May 19, 2020, I reviewed evidence presented in a Medium article8 written by Yuri Deigin, as well as a video presentation of this evidence done by Chris Martenson, Ph.D. If you missed “The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is an Engineered Virus,” you may want to review it after you’re done with Nass’ interview.

Both sources go into great scientific depth, explaining why SARS-CoV-2 cannot be the result of a natural mutation. Deigin doesn’t actually suggest that it is manmade, but provides strong evidence that one needs to consider before coming to the conclusion that it’s of natural origin. Nass comments on Deigin’s work:

“[Deigin] did his own research and published a massive discussion of all the coronavirus research that has gone on since 1999 that is relevant to SARS-CoV-2, and he particularly discusses these two mutations: One, the furin cleavage site and the other is the receptor binding area.

He talks about all the research that’s been done on coronaviruses, the different ways you can make these changes, and how changes like what we’re seeing now have in fact been created by coronavirus researchers over the past 20 years. And he analyzes everything very, very finely. It’s like Ed Hooper’s book. He goes in and out and around and discusses every aspect.

When you finish reading that article, you are convinced that it’s almost certain that these two mutations were put there deliberately.

Whether they were done by passage, whether they were done by CRISPR or whether another method was used, scientists did know the implications, in terms of increasing virulence, of both of these mutations. So, I invite you to read that piece.”

Many Nations Funded ‘Gain of Function’ Coronavirus Research

We now know that the National Institutes of Health, under Fauci’s leadership, funded gain-of-function research, or research on how to increase the virulence of pathogens, with coronaviruses for about two decades.

When the White House temporarily suspended U.S. government funding for that kind of research for MERS, SARS and avian flu in 2014, some work may have shifted over to the Wuhan Virology Institute in China and continued anyway. Other similar research, such as Ralph Baric’s at UNC, was given special permission to continue despite the temporary suspension. The funding ban was lifted in 2017. Nass weighs in:

“Coronavirus research, including gain-of-function research over the last 20 years, has been done in many countries in Europe, in many labs in the U.S., in Japan, Singapore, China, Australia and probably other places. And it has often been funded by multiple countries.

So, funders have included the Australian government, different branches of NIH, but primarily Fauci’s NIAID, the National Science Foundation and USAID — surprising because you would think USAID is an aid agency.

There have also been organizations like the EcoHealth Alliance, which have served as pass-throughs for the funding. The NIAID or USAID would give money to the EcoHealth Alliance and then EcoHealth Alliance would dole it out to the BSL-4 lab in Wuhan and other places and would participate with them in research.

Most of the most prominent researchers have worked in multiple countries’ labs, along with foreign colleagues. It’s very complicated. There’s a lot of back and forth. Europe has funded this research too.

So, Dr. Zhengli Shi has worked in the United States and our researchers have worked in China. Nature Medicine coauthor Ian Lipkin has a post in China, and he was an expert who advised the Saudis on MERS, which is a cousin of SARS, and advised the Chinese on the 2003 SARS. He is affiliated with EcoHealth Alliance too.

He was over in China at the beginning of this SARS-2 pandemic. Ed Holmes, a coauthor of the Nature Medicine article, is an evolutionary biologist at Sydney University who also holds a position in China. So, these people work together, and … the Chinese, the Australians, the Europeans and the Americans fund all this work … Some of this research is funded by five different institutes from three or four different countries.

Gain-of-function research has been controversial since it started being openly discussed. In 2014, in the United States, there was a pause on U.S. government funding of gain-of-function research, but only for three organisms: MERS, SARS and avian flu.

Probably this occurred because researchers announced success in creating lethal avian flu viruses that had gained the ability to spread via aerosol. And because, at the same time, there was widespread media reporting on lab accidents in the U.S., especially at CDC’s, NIH’s and the Army’s high containment labs. These accidents had exposed workers at CDC and over 100 other labs to live anthrax spores and live avian flu.

There was a lot of controversy in the scientific literature over gain-of-function. However, even though about 20 research projects were initially paused in 2014, seven were given special permission to continue. Here is what U.S. government scientists wrote about this in 2015:

‘The recent safety lapses at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH that could have resulted in exposure to anthrax and smallpox, respectively, have diminished public confidence in the ability of even high-containment laboratories to mitigate the risk of accidental release of pathogens of potential harm … public tolerance of that risk may be the ultimate determinant of what types of research are allowed to proceed.

… ‘As recent lapses at high profile laboratories have illustrated, there remains the potential that bacterial and viral strains can escape even the most secure environments.’9

At the end of 2017, the pause was removed, new guidelines were issued but not made mandatory, and everybody was allowed to go back and do whatever gain-of-function research they wanted.”

Nass on Mikovits Retrovirus Hypothesis

I recently interviewed Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., a cellular and molecular biologist who suspects SARS-CoV-2 isn’t the actual or sole cause of COVID-19. Rather, she believes the illness is a coinfection of SARS-CoV-2 with a preexisting XMRV gamma retrovirus infection.

One possibility she has raised is that SARS-CoV-2 activates this underlying, latent infection. She supports this thesis with the fact that the cytokine storm signature of COVID-19 is inconsistent with coronavirus, but very consistent with the gamma retrovirus infections she studied.

“What she says is very interesting,” Nass says. “Some of it I think is incorrect and some of it is correct, and there’s so much of it that it’s very hard to separate … Even though she says coronaviruses don’t do X, Y and Z, this is a very new coronavirus. It has some unique features.

What we’ve talked about so far is only relevant to the spike protein, which is only 13% of the genome. We haven’t even begun to explore changes that may have occurred in the rest of the genome. So, I don’t think we have the evidence yet to say that this coronavirus alone can’t do what it seems to be doing …

Some people are saying there are two, three or four small, six to 10 amino acid segments that look like bits of HIV, and they’re inserted in different places. They may have effects on the immune response. I don’t know. I think that information will gradually appear … I think I’ve got to read her book [‘Plague of Corruption’] … and see what the data show …

In my own research, I have found Anthony Fauci to be a hypocritical fraud, who pretends he knows nothing about coronaviruses, [yet] he’s funded over $100 million of coronavirus research out of NIAID. He looks so gentle and he doesn’t give you any details about anything, but he knows a lot of details. So, I hope she confirms my suspicions about Fauci.”

Potential COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers

As discussed in “Fast-Tracked COVID-19 Vaccine — What Could Go Wrong?” COVID-19 vaccines are being fast-tracked, eliminating animal trials and going straight to human trials.

Speaking of Fauci, Moderna was granted a fast-track designation for its mRNA-1273 vaccine by the FDA on May 12, 2020.10,11 This vaccine is sponsored by Fauci’s NIAID, who, echoing Bill Gates’ edicts, has been calling for social distancing and other lockdown measures until a vaccine becomes available. Moderna is currently preparing to enter Phase 2 trials. No results from Phase 1 have been published as of this writing.

“They’re doing human trials of at least two vaccines in the U.S. now. So, I’ll tell you what I know. First of all, the Moderna is an mRNA vaccine. We haven’t had an mRNA vaccine before, so we don’t know what that’s going to do in people.

Therefore, it seems unconscionable to give it to people before you test it in animals, so that you can at least have some idea what the side effects might be …

There [have also been] many [experimental coronavirus vaccines in the past], not just the trials at Galveston with Peter Hotez, where four different types of vaccines against coronaviruses all failed. There have been other vaccine platforms attempted for coronaviruses that also failed.”

In one such study, discussed in my recent interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., ferrets showed an extraordinary good serological antibody response to the vaccine, but when the animals were then exposed to the wild virus, they were overtaken by a cytokine storm response, now known as “paradoxical immune enhancement.” In at least one trial, all the ferrets died.

“Hotez [has stated that] in their animal experiments, the vaccinated animals fared worse when they were exposed to the disease than if they had not gotten the vaccine,” Nass says.

“[In] experiments done in the 1960s, an RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccine [Editor’s note: RSV is similar to coronavirus] … was given to children. Several of the children died — again, with this same cytokine storm problem arising. So, I think this is a vaccine you should tread very lightly with, and it should never have been given to people before it was given to animals.”

COVID-19 Vaccine — Global Experiment Without Precedent

Nass also addresses the issue of how human trials are done, and warns people about joining them without being fully informed about the potential risks. This is particularly pertinent for COVID-19 vaccine trials, considering the lethal failures of such vaccines in the past.

You also need to understand that when you participate in a trial, you are not eligible to receive compensation for any injuries you sustain. As for taking the vaccine once it becomes publicly available, Nass says:

“I’ll just point out that Ralph Baric, the top coronavirus researcher in the United States, at the University of North Carolina, said himself in an interview a couple months ago that vaccines aren’t going to work in the older population for which this disease is most risky …

Having dealt with many people who’ve died or developed chronic illnesses, all sorts of terrible complications from anthrax vaccine and smallpox vaccine, and sometimes other vaccines, I try to do a careful risk-benefit analysis before recommending a vaccine to any patient.

Sometimes I think it makes sense for people to be vaccinated, but their own situation, where they live, their age group, who they’re exposed to, where they’re traveling to are all important factors that would help you to formulate that risk-benefit assessment. And I don’t think vaccines should be looked on as risk-free. They’re clearly not risk-free. Medical interventions should be done thoughtfully …

Another problem … on the FDA website,12,13 there is a page that talks about the problem of growing vaccines in cells14 that may have oncogenes or cancer causing viruses in them, and what research FDA is trying to do to deal with this. So, the FDA acknowledges this serious potential risk from some vaccines… on the FDA website.”

Level 3 and 4 Biosafety Labs Pose Severe Risk to Human Health

The map below was published in the journal Science15 in 2007 and reprinted in Asia Times16 April 6, 2020, showing the proliferation of high-containment labs in the U.S. A USA Today investigation published in 2015 put the number of BSL 3 and 4 labs in the U.S. around 200,17 and Boyle estimates there are about 400 worldwide.18

US biodefense program

In closing, Nass points out there have been many accidental leaks from BSL 3 and 4 labs, causing many deaths. Improperly inactivated vaccines have also claimed many lives.

“Thirty years ago when I was writing papers about the potential risks of biological defense research we had a lot less biological defense research going on. And the risks were significant. Everybody agrees that these labs leak.

I told you there were maybe 600 or more BSL-3s in the United States19 and hundreds of others around the world. There are about 200 reports of lab accidents, mostly exposures of lab personnel to pathogens, in the high-containment labs in the U.S., yearly.20

So, let me actually give you a few examples from a paper by Martin Furmanski, a physician who wrote about lab escapes.21

He pointed out a lab in England. There were several smallpox escapes from that lab to a room below. Two people died. After the second escape happened, I think it was around 1980, the lab director killed himself.

There were huge outbreaks of Venezuelan equine encephalitis. Thousands and thousands of animals and people [were affected] in Latin America, and it turned out to be due to improperly inactivated vaccines. So, the disease they were vaccinating all these livestock for was actually giving them the disease and giving it to humans also. You don’t hear about that.

He points out that the worldwide 1977 H1N1 outbreak … started in China or Russia, probably from long-frozen virus that had been thawed, because that particular strain, H1N1, had not circulated in the world for 21 years, and genetically it looked almost identical to the strains that were around in the late ’40s and 1950s, early ’50s. So that worldwide 1977 flu pandemic was due to a lab escape. 

And Furmanski postulates that the reason the virus was thawed was to do vaccine research because of the fear, in the U.S. in 1976-77, that a deadly swine influenza pandemic might occur … leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy. But fortunately, the virus that circulated was much less deadly than the feared 1918 strain.

[The U.S. government] began a swine flu vaccine program in 1976 after one soldier died at Fort Dix in 1976 of a unique swine flu strain. Frightened that a scenario like the 1918 flu pandemic might emerge, the United States public health agencies got together with the U.S. vaccine manufacturers to create, very rapidly, a swine flu vaccine to save the United States. It was an abysmal failure.

As things progressed, the manufacturers refused to produce vaccine unless the government gave them a waiver of liability for possible vaccine injuries. This they received.

First of all, there was no outbreak. The virus had stopped circulating and disappeared. Had the people at the CDC and HHS been honest with the American public, they would have told them, ‘Hey, there’s no outbreak. We’re just going to cancel the vaccine program. We don’t need it.’ But the vaccine program had developed a life of its own.

Harvey Fineberg co-authored a wonderful book [‘The Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Slope’22,23] about the vaccine program, for the National Academy of Sciences, which the subsequent DHHS (then HEW) Secretary, Joseph Califano, had requested.

I recommend it. It’s a fabulous read because Fineberg was working under the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so he was able to interview everybody involved in government who had been part of the program.

He tells you the inside story of what went on during that year. All the infighting, all the different reasons why a vaccine was made for a disease that didn’t exist. And then, [after the vaccine was] given to 45 million Americans, [it was] found to cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, about 30 people died and 4,000 people applied for damages from the federal government.

This was the first time the government gave a liability waiver to vaccine manufacturers. And I think it was what gave them the idea that in the future they could get liability waivers for all their vaccines.”

You can download a free PDF copy of “The Swine Flu Affair” on The National Academies of Sciences website.24 You can also learn more about the failed 1977 swine flu vaccination campaign in “How Does COVID-19 Compare to Spanish Flu?

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/24/how-did-coronavirus-originate.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20200524Z2&et_cid=DM547461&et_rid=878469319

Download of video with Dr Meryl Nass by Dr Mercola.

Dr. Mercola:

So the U.S. was funding this research. I mean, they really were up until 2014, Obama stopped it. And it was stopped for three years and then it was it was [inaudible 00:35:07] again in 2017. But during that time in 2014, I believe the funding shifted to China, the Wuhan Virology Institute. So from the classic 2015 University of North Carolina paper with Baric and Dr. Shi Zhengli, all that was funded with essentially, the U.S. funding. So I’m wondering if you can give us your perspective on that.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Okay. coronavirus research over the last 20 years has been done in many countries in Europe, in many labs in the U.S. in Japan, Singapore, China, and probably other places. And it has often been funded by

multiple funders. So funders have included the Australian Government, different branches of NIH, but primarily Fauci’s NIAID, the National Science Foundation and USAID, surprisingly because you would think USAID is an aid agency. There have also been organizations like the EcoHealth Alliance, which have served as pass-throughs for the funding so that NIAID or USAID would give money to EcoHealth Alliance and then EcoHealth Alliance would dole it out to the BSL-4 lab in Wuhan and other places and would participate with them in research.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

And most of the most prominent researchers have gone back and forth. It’s very complicated. There’s a lot of back and forth. And Europe has funded this research too. So, Dr. Shay – I don’t know how to pronounce her name exactly, Zhengli Shi, has worked in the United States and our researchers have worked in China, Ian Lipkin has a post in China. And he was an expert who advise the Saudis on MERS, which is another cousin of SARS and advised the Chinese on SARS. And he was over in China at the beginning of this epidemic doing something regarding SARS too. So Ed Holmes works with them. So these people work together, they’re funded… The Chinese, the Australians, the Europeans and the Americans fund all this work.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

I can’t explain to you why that happens and what are the underlying goals. What I can say is that there may be interest on the part of all these countries to be able to keep an eye on what everyone else is doing. So that by encouraging scientists to work in these different labs, they think and develop friendships, personal relationships and all of this joint funding. Some of this research is funded by five different institutes from three or four different countries. I assume that that may be part of it. So getting back to what you said about the research funding and then being cut off, gain-of-function research has been controversial since it began being discussed. In 2014 in the United States only and for NIH only, there was a pause on gain-of-function research for three organisms only. And those were MERS, SARS and avian flu. Probably because they were getting to a point where these things had been developed to be aerosolized and more virulent. And there was a lot of controversy in the scientific literature.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

However, even though, I don’t know, about 20 research projects were stopped, a number of them, maybe half, were then given permission to continue. And Ralph Baric’s work with the Chinese researchers was one of those that was given permission to continue during this three-year slowdown. And back at the end of 2017, the slowdown was taken away and everybody was allowed to go back and do whatever gain-of-function research they wanted.

Dr. Mercola:

Okay. Well thanks for that clarification. I suspect you’ve reviewed Judy Mikovits’ thesis in her new book “Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science,” which is now the no. 1 bestselling book in the whole country. It has gained great attention. Her large numbers of interviews that she’s given have mostly been censored and taken down, at least from the conventional platforms like YouTube. So it’s her contention that the SARS-CoV-2 is not the sole arbiter, not arbiter, but cause of the COVID-19 but it’s actually a coinfection with, and she believes that preexisting infection with a gammaretrovirus from mouse XMRV or mice, is necessary. And she uses, as a support for that thesis that the cytokine storm signature of COVID-19 is not consistent with the coronavirus, but very

consistent with the gammaretrovirus. In fact, one that she characterized. So I’m wondering if you could share your perspective on that.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Joe, I watched her interview with you and I saw she made your head spin.

Dr. Mercola:

Thank you. Well, she’s got a lot of information and it seems she is sincere.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Yes, [crosstalk 00:41:30]. Dr. Mercola:

At least I believed her. And she’s very bright. She’s a profoundly knowledgeable molecular biologist, absolutely committed and not a micro-doubt in my mind that she has integrity and would never do something knowingly that violated them.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Right. So, what she says is very interesting. Some of it I think is incorrect and some of it is correct and there’s so much of it that it’s very hard to separate. I think it’s certainly possible that the XMRV coinfection is necessary for various illnesses and that… I mean, I’ve worked on chronic fatigue for decades and nobody understands that. And if XMRV is the answer, that’d be great. And she says she treated Whittemore’s child and that child got better. If that’s true, I’m not sure why she’s holding back on what the treatment is.

Dr. Mercola:

I don’t think she’s holding back, she’s mentioned it before as a protocol. And part of it, I think it’s the interferon.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Yeah. So, alpha and beta interferons are being trialed in this infection mostly in other countries, mostly because the alpha interferon, the primary alpha interferon being used comes from China and now there’s a – not China, Cuba. And there’s a China-Cuba collaboration that’s making some alpha interferon now. So, it may be hard in the United States to find out how well that works. But, overall I guess I want to say that you can make it – even though she says coronaviruses don’t do X, Y and Z, this is a very new coronavirus. This has some unique features. What we’ve talked about so far is only relevant to the spike protein, which is only 13% of the genome. We haven’t even begun to explore changes that may have occurred in the rest of the genome. So, I don’t think we have the evidence yet to say that this coronavirus alone can’t do what it seems to be doing.

Dr. Mercola:

Well, from my understanding, there are only two other or three other modifications. One relates to the HIV envelope protein Gp141, which has to do with the infectivity, the fact that it was aerosolized and there’s the chairman of the department of Harvard, Charles Lieber, who was arrested actually in connection with this. And then the other part is what you mentioned was the furin cleavage site, which

has to do with infectivity. So it seems like almost all the other manipulations were related in infectivity, not pathogenicity. So you just are just using it as [crosstalk 00:44:35]

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Well, see, I don’t know enough, but some people are saying there are two or three or four small, six to 10 amino acid segments that look like bits of HIV and that they’re inserted in different places, they may have effects on the immune response. I don’t know. I think that information will gradually appear.

Dr. Mercola:

Okay. So is that the primary concern you have with what she’s saying? Or are there other areas you have contention with?

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Like you, I think Judy Mikovits is very sincere and so I don’t… People, you know, everyone’s asking everyone now, “Please tell us what’s right and wrong about her statements.” And I just don’t think it’s my role to get into that. I think there’s already been lots and lots of articles trying to make her seem like a crazy person.

Dr. Mercola:

No. There’s a massive discreditation campaign going on-

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Right.

Dr. Mercola:

– from mainstream media. I mean, everything I’ve even heard that YouTube has inserted ads into the mid – left some of her videos up and inserted ads discrediting her right in the middle of the video.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Exactly. So, I’m not going to do that. And I think I’ve got to spend some more time reading the book, not just listening to the interviews and seeing what the data show and understand. I mean, in my own research I have found, Anthony Fauci to be a hypocritical fraud, who pretends he knows nothing about coronaviruses and he’s funded over 100 million dollars of coronavirus research out of NIAID. So, there he is, he looks so gentle and he doesn’t give you any details about anything, but he knows a lot of details. So I think, I’d like her to be right on those areas.

Dr. Mercola:

Okay. Well, you’ve done research in vaccines before, certainly with the anthrax vaccine. And I’m wondering what your take is on this new fast track vaccine, which everyone was saying was going to be taking 18 months and even that was beyond fast-

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Yes.

Dr. Mercola:

– and really aborting any safety precautions. But it’s beyond far beyond worse than that because they are already doing human trials with a vaccine that they anticipate to have in the next three to four months.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Yes. And started in March. They’re doing human trials of at least two vaccines in the U.S. now. So I’ll tell you what I know, first of all, the first one. The Moderna was an mRNA vaccine. We haven’t had an mRNA vaccine before, so we don’t know what that’s going to do in people and therefore it seems unconscionable to give it to people before you put it in animals so that you can at least have some idea what the side effects might be. There are about 80 vaccines in development that I’ve read about, all sorts of vaccines. There were many trials, not just the trial at Galveston with Dr. Peter Hotez where they tried four different types of vaccines against coronaviruses and they all failed, but there have been other types of vaccine platforms that have been used that also failed.

Dr. Mercola:

Can we just stop there for a moment?

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Yeah.

Dr. Mercola:

Because I believe Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went over one of those trials and it was worse than failed. They gave the vaccine to ferrets, I believe, and they got incredibly great humeral antibody response. But then when they were exposed to natural infection, they all died.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Yes. And Hotez also says in their animal experiments, the animals were worse when they were exposed to the disease than if they had not gotten the vaccine, or vaccines. Hotez also says that that reminds people of experiments that were done in the 1960s with an RSV vaccine, which was given to children and several of the children died, again, with this same sort of cytokine storm problem, arising. So I think there’s – this is a vaccine you should tread very lightly with and should never have been given to people before it was given to animals.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

I want to talk about the methods in the United States for doing human subjects research. So, used to be there were IRB – the federal government set up an IRB system. Every university had one of these and faculty members and an ethics person and maybe a community member would be part, and they would have to sign off on all the human trials before they were done. They had to get permission. And that kept most of them honest, not all of them. And there were often conflicts of interests because the university might have a financial stake in the outcome.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

But then the United States allowed commercial IRBs, so you can just go to a company and ask them to approve your clinical trial. And then the United States government allowed commercial clinical trial companies, so you don’t have to get anywhere near an academic to perform a trial in human beings. All

you have to do is go to commercial IRB in a commercial research organization, and there are many of them that are particularly prevalent in the South and in poor places where subjects can earn a little money by agreeing to be human subjects. And so these actually become large companies with many sites. And it is these types of organizations that are used for the most, potentially heinous clinical trials.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

And we have no idea what they’re telling people when they sign them up to be subjects. So I think it’s a real problem. Before you agree to be a subject in any clinical trial, you should really discuss it with other people. Be sure you know exactly what you’re getting into. In general, even if you are injured, disabled or die in a clinical trial, you’re not subject, you are not eligible for any federal payments. There’ve been attempts to try to make that happen, but they have failed. So people take a lot of risks when they get into a clinical trial, particularly a clinical trial like the ones that are going on now at a high speed before there are even animal trials and probably very limited Phase 1 trials. I would just warn your listeners, be very careful about agreeing to join a trial.

Dr. Mercola:

Thank you for your caution. And I would add that it should be extended beyond just participating in experimental vaccine trials, but also to pretty much almost every interaction with the conventional medical system because they have abandoned the true meaning of informed consent and full disclosure of the entire consequences of engaging in many of these interventions is hardly ever given. And if they do, it’s just the tiniest tip of the iceberg. So I couldn’t endorse that caution more thoroughly. So extending beyond that though, I’m wondering what your thoughts are and thanks for summarizing these trials. I mean it looks like the vaccine, this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is coming out this year. So your thoughts on whether you think it will be, and it’s probably beyond your scope of expertise.[crosstalk 00:53:08]

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Right. We can’t imagine if we don’t know what it’s going to be. I’ll just point out Ralph Baric who is the top corona researcher in the United States at the University of North Carolina said himself in an interview a couple months ago that vaccines aren’t going to work in the older population for which this diseases is most risky.

Dr. Mercola:

That’s a really profound pearl. Thank you for sharing that. The top expert in the United States states that it will not work. Yet they’re not listening to him even though he’s part of the cabal.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

In the elderly, yes.

Dr. Mercola:

That was the question, in the elderly and that’s clearly their target population. That’s where 70% to 80% of deaths are occurring.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Right.

Dr. Mercola:

So do you have any other thoughts about the vaccine coming up? But that was a good one. That was a really good one. I’m going to give you that one.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Well, having dealt with many people who’ve died or developed tissue disorders, all sorts of terrible complications from anthrax vaccine and smallpox vaccine and sometimes other vaccines, I try to do a careful risk-benefit analysis before recommending a vaccine to any patient. I mean, sometimes I think it makes sense for people to be vaccinated, but that their own situation, where they live, their age group, who they’re exposed to, where they’re traveling to are all important features that would help you to create that risk-benefit assessment. And I don’t think vaccines should be looked on as risk-free. They’re clearly not risk-free. Medical interventions should be done thoughtfully. Oh, let me also point out that talking about these characters that I discussed earlier, Ian Lipkin, one of the authors of the Nature Med piece, has been used to publish about chronic fatigue syndrome and autism. And he spent 10 or more years looking for an infectious cause of autism, excess weight in the mother or maybe in the father, all sorts of things but not vaccines.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

So, again, I think he is likely – When you look at what these folks investigate, Lipkin or Bob Garry in particular, you’ll see that they just jump from one thing like vaccines to Ebola, to SARS, to Gulf War syndrome. I mean, they’re jumping from one highly controversial subject to the next and always pushing the government line on what that is and usually, the line that there is no treatment. So, yeah, I totally agree with you. Vaccines are – once you inject a vaccine, you can’t take it out. At least with drugs, for most of them, the effect wears off in a short time.

Dr. Mercola:

Yeah. Well, Judy helped me understand, what I got from interviewing her is that most of these vaccines are created in cell cultures. That they require nutrients to grow and to scale up their volume so they can be commercialized. And the process of incubating them in these animals’ cell cultures is that they are likely to inquire whatever viruses were present in that animal. As you mentioned in the book in “The River” where these monkey and chimpanzees cells were used to culture smallpox virus. But it was contaminated-

Dr. Meryl Nass:

No. Polio. Oral polio.

Dr. Mercola:

I’m sorry polio, that was contaminated with SIV, simian immunodeficiency virus.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

And God knows what else.

Dr. Mercola:

So, and that’s just one example. Yeah, that’s just one example. Who knows what other retroviruses or contaminants were in that, that we haven’t even yet begun to understand or characterize. So that’s a

danger. It’s an unknown risk. We have no complete understanding or clue as to what’s in these things because of the way that they’re being created. Now you could create them in a different way, but they’re choosing not to do that for whatever, most likely financial. So-

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Right. So, I want to give you another pearl that I have to go to my computer because on the FDA website, there is a page that talks about the problem of growing vaccines in cells that may have oncagenes or cancer-causing viruses and what kind of research they’re trying to do to deal with this. So they acknowledge that that goes on, on the FDA website.

Dr. Mercola:

Yeah. It’s just crazy. And you’ve mentioned Lipkin a few times and that is the scientist who was used to discredit Mikovits-

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Yes, exactly.

Dr. Mercola:

– and her research and basically allow her to get her 2009 science paper retracted. And she was forced to be a co-author on the paper that Lipkin authored, even though she was essentially in lockdown and couldn’t go to the lab and participate in doing the research.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Yes. And Lipkin also has been involved with Peter Daszak. Lipkin has given Daszak a position in his little organization at Columbia. And Daszak is transferring funds, but Lipkin is also getting lots of funds from NIAID but Daszak is transferring funds to do all of this corona research around the world as well as NIH directly funding and others.

Dr. Mercola:

Yeah. He got a $30 million grant after publishing the paper that discredited Mikovits.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Yes.

Dr. Mercola:

So, a pretty generous reward for him. But the craziness goes on. So, do you have any other insights you’d like to share with us? Because you’ve been doing this a long time and you really are a credible source of solid information that’s based in reality. So…

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Well, 30 years ago when I was writing papers about the potential risks of biological defense research, we had a lot less biological defense research going on. And the risks were significant. Everybody agrees that these labs leak. I told you there were maybe 600 or more BSL-3s in the United States and hundreds others around the world. So, let me actually give you a few examples from a paper by Dr. Martin Furmansky who is a physician who looked at lab escapes. He pointed out that there was a lab in England

and there were several smallpox escapes from that lab to a room below. And that two people died. And after the second one happened, I think it was around 1980, the lab director killed himself.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

That there were huge outbreaks of Venezuelan equine encephalitis, thousands and thousands of people in Latin America. And it turned out all to be due to improperly inactivated vaccines. So the disease they were vaccinating all these livestock for was actually giving them the disease and giving it to humans also, thousands and thousands. You don’t hear about that. He points out that the 1977 H1N1 outbreak, every year there’s a flu pandemic. And in 1977 the pandemic started in China or Russia, probably from vaccine that had been defrosted because that particular strain, H1N1 had not been around in the world for 21 years. And genetically it looked almost identical to the strains that were around in the late ’40s and 1950s, early ’50s. So that whole pandemic was a lab escape.

Dr. Mercola:

Is that the pandemic that actually caused the catastrophic swine flu vaccine and had lots of complications Guillain-Barre Syndrome?

Dr. Meryl Nass:

So, no. It wasn’t the same. It was because it started in the borderland of Russia and China. We made our own, but it was probably done in the expectation that we were going to have an outbreak. And so they were trying to, whoever took it out of the freezer was probably, that’s the implication, trying to make a vaccine for 1977. Our swine flu was 1977. It was I think ’76 where the recruit died at Fort Dix and then all the machinery of the United States government and the manufacturers got together to create very rapidly, a swine flu vaccine to save the United States. And-

Dr. Mercola:

Abysmal failure.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Abysmal failure. First of all, there was no outbreak. So had the people at the CDC and HHS been honest with the American public, they would have told them, “Hey, there’s no outbreak. We’re just going to cancel the vaccine program. You don’t need it.” But it had developed a life of its own. Harvey Fineberg, I believe, co-authored this fabulous book about it for the National Academy of Sciences, that the next DHHS secretary had requested. And I recommend, I mean it’s a fabulous read because he was working under the Secretary of Health and Human Services, he was able to interview everybody in government. And he tells you the inside story of what went on during that year. All the infighting, all the different reasons why a vaccine was made for disease that didn’t exist. And then given and then found to cause Guillain-Barre and 4,000 people applied for money back from the government.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

This was the first time the government gave a liability waiver to vaccine manufacturers. And I think it was what gave them the idea that in the future they could get liability waivers for all their vaccines.

Dr. Mercola:

Yeah. And eventually got passed in 1986 and it serves as the foundation for their insulation from any liability for damages with the product that they’re providing.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

So if your vaccine is on the childhood schedule, according to CDC, you have your liability waived. But as of the 2016, 21st Century Cures Act, if the CDC recommends any vaccine for a pregnant woman, liability is waived for that vaccine. And you can license a vaccine using real-world evidence and you don’t necessarily have to do clinical trials to license vaccines according to that act, which was passed and signed by Obama in December 2016. And as soon as every new vaccine is licensed, the CDC is required to put it in front of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at their next meeting, for consideration to be added to the childhood schedule.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

So we can look forward perhaps to many more vaccines being waived. And also there’s a special waiver program for pandemic and emergency vaccines and drugs. So all the vaccines, all the drugs that are designated for use during this pandemic will have a waiver of liability. And as far as I know, this hasn’t changed. The maximum a person can get is $250,000 for the government, even for a death or permanent total disability.

Dr. Mercola:

That’s if they’re successful in court which is a significant hurdle.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

And it’s not the vaccine court. You don’t go to vaccine court for this, you actually have to apply to HHS. So HHS pays you, HHS is a judge and the jury, and there is no appeal. I know it boggles the mind.

Dr. Mercola:

This is dystopian science fiction in reality. It’s just crazy. So I’m wondering if you think an effort to shut down the 600 BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs in the U.S. is an overambitious goal.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Well, I don’t know if you need to shut all of them down. I think probably there is plenty of valid research that can be done in them, but I think there needs to be oversight. There needs to be an end of gain-of- function research. I think maybe if this is better – if the people realize, if the population understands that this is what your Congress and your scientists have given us, just because everyone was trying to do a CYA. The Congress was trying to throw money at a problem. Nobody was doing oversight. And all these agencies, agencies at the level of secretaries like the VA, HHS, Homeland security, FEMA, there’s eight different agencies that are responsible for doing some pandemic preparedness. And 15 other organizations within the Federal Government.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

But much of this was spent just buying things like anthrax and smallpox vaccine that are probably unnecessary, very expensive, would never be used and not buying personal protective equipment and things that should be used. There’s about $200 million or $300 million a year designated for hospital preparedness in these funds but it doesn’t get spent on the things we would normally consider it should

be spent on. So, I think that if all the countries of the world got together because all their populations are so angry about what has happened, and said, “We don’t want any more of this.” And everybody can inspect everybody else’s labs, we can all make sure that what you’re doing is actually going to be pro-life instead of anti-life, we would be a lot better off.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

And maybe that’s possible. And you don’t have to shut them down. You have to reduce the numbers all over. And, I’m sorry, there may be virologists without a job. But that’s happened before when the U.S. biological warfare program was shut down. There were scientists without a job, but maybe there shouldn’t be dead scientists.

Dr. Mercola:

Yeah. That reminds me to cover some question earlier, a question I had for you. It’s out of context now, but still relevant is the fact of employment, especially connected with the anthrax vaccine. This speculation that the person who was incriminated for doing this was a former employee in the anthrax program who was terminated and he was doing this as a result, speculated to get his job back.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Right.

Dr. Mercola:

And then same course, coming back to this, other people are speculating that it was maybe not accidentally released at all, but was maybe released by one of the virologists or employees at Wuhan who was out of a job and recognizing that they – sort of creating a market for their services and become re-employed again, I’m wondering what your thoughts on that speculations.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Okay. I can’t say about Wuhan but as far as the anthrax attacks go, the person who was ultimately accused after he died, after he was driven to his death by the FBI was Bruce Ivins who was a friend of mine. And the FBI actually never had any proof that Ivins had done it, nor that the anthrax actually even came from the flask that they said it came from, that was in Ivins’ possession, but was available to over 100 other people. So when the National Academy of Sciences report came out a year after the FBI decided to close the case, and they did that because they knew they didn’t want to deal with what was going to be in that report, the National Academy of Sciences group said, “We can’t say where this anthrax came from.”

Dr. Meryl Nass:

So who was the perpetrator or what group was the perpetrator? And the United States Government did have stores of anthrax. It probably had a store that it had retained in 1975 after it had a hidden in Becton Dickinson. After the biological weapons program was shut down, they selectively saved some toxins and bad things and put them in private hands. That’s been documented in a congressional hearing. And I cited that in a congressional testimony I gave in 2001.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

And we also had anthrax that had been made during a probably illegal program during the Clinton Administration. And certainly there could have been other anthrax made here or in other countries. And a cabal got it and used it to perpetrate the anthrax letters. So, it’s easy to blame – I mean the FBI needed somebody to blame. Bruce Ivins was the third or fourth different person that they had decided to focus on because they kept losing their earlier people. They tried to set up a number of people to take the blame for that case. So I don’t know about Wuhan, I tend to think that these big things are probably done by big organizations rather than individual lone nuts.

Dr. Mercola:

Yeah. That would make more sense. More of a coordinated sophisticated plan.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Yes.

Dr. Mercola:

What’s interestingly was the title of Judy’s interview that made her, really catapulted her to fame was “Plandemic.” Interesting play on words, implying that this was intended and it wasn’t happening spontaneously. And events like 201 which happened six weeks before the infection would lend support to that since it was funded by the World Economic Forum, Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Right.

Dr. Mercola:

Yeah. All right. Any other insights you’d like to share with us today?

Dr. Meryl Nass:

I think I’m burned out.

Dr. Mercola:

Okay. All right. Well, we really appreciate you for sharing your wisdom that you’ve acquired over this last three decades in this important area because there’s so much confusion and I think you really helped clarify some issues for many of us, so thank you for that.

Dr. Meryl Nass:

Thank you too. Take care.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.