Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance hid Pentagon funding & tie to Fort Detrick; sought to genetically engineer a furin cleavage site into bat coronaviruses

- Peter Myers

Date: September 27, 2021

My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.

Also see

ICC-bioweapon-GoF.html - International Criminal Court asked to hear case that Covid is Bioweapon, Genetic Vaccines are Genocide.

Boyle-Covid-prosecute.html - Dr. Francis Boyle calls for Fauci et. al. to be prosecuted for the Covid Pandemic and Vaccines. Dr Francis Boyle is author of the Bioweapons Act. He does not mention the ICC, but that Court is the logical place for such a case to be brought.

(1) Daszak's EHA hid Pentagon funding & tie to Fort Detrick; sought to genetically engineer a furin cleavage site into bat coronaviruses
(2) Daszak applied in 2018 for US gov't funding to genetically engineer a furin cleavage site into bat coronaviruses - DRASTIC
(3) Daszak's EHA hid Pentagon funding; David Franz, former commander of Ft Detrick, is a 'policy advisor' to EHA
(4) Ivermectin cures Long Covid
(5) FDA's Approval of the Pfizer COVID Shot - No 'double blind' Control Group
(6) 30 facts you NEED to know: Your Covid Cribsheet - from Off Guardian

(1) Daszak's EHA hid Pentagon funding & tie to Fort Detrick; sought to genetically engineer a furin cleavage site into bat coronaviruses
- Peter Myers, September 27, 2021

The US Intelligence Agencies have produced an 'inconclusive' report for Biden which seems to contain no useful information; but it denies that Sars-Cov-2 was developed as a bioweapon: .

Nevertheless, EHA was funded by the Pentagon, and tried to obscure that funding. (item 3).

Further, David Franz, a former commander of Fort Detrick, the Biowar lab, is a 'policy advisor' to EHA.

A private group of researchers, DRASTIC, have released whistleblower documents on the origins of Sars-Cov-2, and the Intercept also obtained documents. This information is being taken seriously by many media sources, so the cover-up denying lab-origin is unravelling.

The best of those materials are collated here.

The DRASTIC information was covered in a recent newsletter using articles from The Telegraph (, Sputnik News (, and DRASTIC itself (

Item 2 today covers that DRASTIC material in more detail. This report is from a 'green' website with a left-wing orientation, showing that the elements of the Left are splitting from the denialist position, although Labor and Trotskyist organizations still promote it (and Lockdown, and Vaccine Mandates).

Item 3 is old news, but somehow escaped our attention. Daszak's EHA hid its Pentagon funding and its tie to Fort Detrick; David Franz, former commander of Fort Detrick, is a 'policy advisor' to EHA.

(2) Daszak applied in 2018 for US gov't funding to genetically engineer a furin cleavage site into bat coronaviruses - DRASTIC

Visit the link to see graphics not displayed here - Peter M.

DRASTIC investigating team releases leaked documents about gain-of-function coronavirus research


A team of scientists, journalists, and other independent researchers ( released leaked documents that state that the US-based EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) requested a grant to fund research that would have involved injecting deadly chimeric bat coronaviruses into humanised mice.

The researchers, who refer to themselves collectively as DRASTIC ( (Decentralised Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19), say the documents ( show that the EHA, in concert with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), attempted to carry out a project that DRASTIC describes as "advanced and dangerous human pathogenicity research that would clearly qualify as gain of function (GoF)".

DRASTIC added: "Given that we find in this EHA proposal a discussion of the planned introduction of human-specific cleavage sites into novel SARS-r CoVs, a review by the wider scientific community of the plausibility of artificial insertion of an FCS [furin cleavage site] into SARS-CoV-2 or a progenitor is warranted."

An FCS is a segment of four amino acids that enables a virus to use furin in the human body as an enzyme to dissolve its coating so that it can release its genetic material to infect cells. Furin cleavage sites tend to be more infectious than cleavage sites that use other enzymes.

According to the documents leaked to DRASTIC, the EHA submitted a grant proposal

( aiiiance.pdf) to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the US on March 24, 2018. The proposal was made to the DARPA under the umbrella of the PREventing EMerging Pathogenic Threats (PREEMPT) programme.

The EHA requested a total $14,209,245 over 3.5 years ($8,411,546 for phase 1 and $5,797,699 for phase 2), according to the leaked documents.

The EHA and its president, Peter Daszak, proposed injecting deadly chimeric bat coronaviruses collected by WIV researchers into humanised and "batified" mice, DRASTIC states.

"The grant proposal includes some elements of research that are already public via scientific papers, as well as other elements that have never been made public, including vaccinating wild bats using aerosolised viruses and further work on published and unpublished strains that could have directly produced SARS-CoV-2," the team added.

"The proposal for wide scale inoculation of bats in the wild using aerosolised inoculum delivery has never been publicly released or opened to the wider scientific community for discussion as to potential risks associated with this plan."

According to the documents given to DRASTIC, the EHA planned to inoculate bats with immune modulators like bat interferon "to upregulate their naturally-inhibited innate immunity and suppress viral replication, transiently reducing viral shedding/spillover risk".

They also planned to inoculate bats with "novel chimeric polyvalent recombinant spike proteins to enhance their adaptive immune memory against specific, high-risk viruses", Daszak stated in an executive summary, according to the documents.

The EHA said a "novel delivery method" for its immune boosting molecules would be developed and implemented by Tonie Rocke at the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in the US.

Delivery vehicles and methods to be assessed included transdermally applied nanoparticles, sticky edible gels that bats would mutually "groom and consume", aerosolisation via prototype sprayers designed for cave settings, and automated sprays triggered by timers and movement detectors at critical cave entry points.

The proposal to DARPA goes into further detail about the "deployment of immune modulation molecules" in test caves in Yunnan province.

"Spray will be activated by bat movement to spray continuously or in a staggered manner during flyout and flyin to create an aqueous curtain that bats will fly through," the document states. [...]

In the proposal document, in the 'technical plan' section, the EHA stated that, over the previous 14 years, its team had conducted CoV surveillance in bat populations across south China, resulting in more than l80 unique SARSr-CoVs in about 10,000 samples: ">5% prevalence, including multiple individuals harbouring the same viral strains and a per-bat species prevalence up to 10.9%".

It is stated in the proposal that Yunnan province harbours a quasispecies population assemblage "that contains all the genetic components of epidemic SARS-CoV".

The EHA continued: "We have isolated three strains there (WIV1, WIV16 and SHC014) that unlike other SARSr-CoVs, do not contain two deletions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike, have far higher sequence identity to SARS-CoV, use human ACE2 receptor for cell entry, as SARS-CoV does, and replicate efficiently in various animal and human cells, including primary human lung airway cells, similar to epidemic SARS-CoV.

"Chimeras (recombinants) with these SARSr-CoV S genes inserted into a SARS-CoV backbone, and synthetically reconstructed full length SHC014 and WIV1 cause SARS-like illness in humanised mice {mice expressing human ACE2), with clinical signs that are not reduced by SARS-CoV monoclonal antibody therapy or vaccination."

The EHA added that people living up to six kilometres from its test cave had SARSr-CoV antibodies (about 3% seroprevalence), "suggesting active spillover".

According to the leaked documents, the DARPA refused to give full funding for the EHA/WIV project, named 'DEFUSE' (Defusing the Threat of Bat-Borne Coronaviruses). However, DRASTIC says, the door was left open for partial funding, "in part because DARPA misinterpreted the GoF guidelines".

A branch of the federal government had already judged aspects of the EHA's research, and the project to be conducted with the WIV, as falling under the definition of GoF, only for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to approve similar work without Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (P3CO) review in 2018 and 2019, DRASTIC adds.

"The P3CO framework was designed to allow greater flexibility for vaccine development, and in June of 2018 the NIH's Vaccine Research Center (VRC) expanded its existing partnership with Moderna to include full-scale research into a pan-coronavirus (CoV) vaccine platform," DRASTIC said.

DRASTIC says the EHA repeatedly took advantage of this flexibility to continue its work with the WIV.

The documents made available to DRASTIC by the whistleblower detail the EHA's past achievements along with planned experiments in collaboration with researchers from the WIV, East China Normal University in Shanghai, Duke-National University in Singapore and, in the US, the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill, the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in Reston, Virginia, and the Palo Alto Research Center in California.

DEFUSE proposal overview

DRASTIC says the grant proposal documents show "a staggering level of deep involvement of EHA with the WIV, on matters of national interest such as dual use research of concern (DURC)".

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US describes DURC as "life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security".

DRASTIC notes that the EHA proposed that the DARPA grant should cover a significant amount of key WIV researchers' salaries and that some of these researchers should be invited to DARPA headquarters in Arlington "all the while without proper risk assessment and considerations for ethical and social issues and incorrect evaluation of what constitutes GoF research".

The lifting of the GoF moratorium in late 2017, via the P3CO framework has allowed GoF research with SARS-like coronaviruses to resume with very few practical limits, DRASTIC says.

"In particular the absence of clear definitions of GoF, creative interpretations of the guidelines, and rather discretionary decisions to refer research projects or not, all contributed to reducing the effectiveness of the P3CO framework - despite the fact that other agencies of the US federal government actively maintained the GoF standards," the team adds.

Richard Ebright, who is a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in the US, said the EHA's project was considered to potentially involve GoF/DURC research because it proposed to synthesise spike glycoproteins that bind to human cell receptors and insert them into SARSr-CoV backbones to assess whether they could cause SARS-like disease.

However, the proposal did not mention or assess potential risks of GoF research or mention or assess DURC issues, and thus failed to present a DURC risk mitigation plan, he tweeted.

In the EHA's proposal it is stated that live bats would be used at the WIV and labs in Singapore and the US for infection experiments, often using captive bat colonies.

The EHA proposal also includes the introduction of "human-specific cleavage sites" into bat coronaviruses.

"Human protease-specific site insertion was proposed," DRASTIC said. "The proposal does not specify exactly which protease, but does discuss furin in the preceding text."

Human airway epithelial (HAE) cultures effectively mimic the human bronchial environment. Three to five chimeric coronaviruses were to be created per year.

The researchers planned to identify "key minor deletions" in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the viruses so as to alter human pathogenicity.

The EHA also said researchers would evaluate whether RBD deletion repair restored the ability of low- risk coronavirus strains to use human ACE2 and grow in human cells.

In the grant application, the EHA also proposed MERS-coronavirus experiments and said it had already introduced SARS and MERS into bat cell lines.

According to one of the leaked documents, the programme manager of the biological technologies office at DARPA, James Gimlett, said that the DEFUSE proposal was "selectable based on the evaluation criteria included in the BAA [broad agency announcement)", but he was not recommending funding "at this time".

Gimlett wrote: "The team discusses risk mitigation strategies to address potential risks of the research to public health and animal safety but does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of function (GoF) research and DURC.

"Given the team's approach does potentially involve GoF/DURC research (they aim to synthesise spike glycoproteins that may bind to human cell receptors and insert them into SARSr-Co V backbones to assess capacity to cause SARS-like disease), if selected for funding an appropriate DURC risk mitigation plan should be incorporated into contracting language that includes a responsible communications plan."

DRASTIC notes that the EHA makes only one reference to GoF and DURC in its entire DEFUSE project proposal ("non-DURC and non-GoF").

Gimlett said the EHA's proposal did not discuss either regulatory or ethical, legal, and social issues. Variability of vaccine dose due to variability in delivery mechanisms was also not discussed, he said.

"In addition, there is concern that vaccine approaches may lack sufficient epitope coverage to effectively protect against the diverse and evolving quasispecies of the many coronaviruses found in the bat caves," Gimlett added.

Gimlett also said the proposal lacked detail about data, statistical analyses, and model development and how prior work would be leveraged and extended.

Jamie Metzl, who is a member of a WHO advisory committee on human genome editing said in a tweet that it was "highly significant" that Daszak applied in 2018 for US government funding to genetically engineer a furin cleavage site into bat coronaviruses. "How could Peter call the lab origin hypothesis a 'conspiracy theory' knowing this?" Metzl tweeted.

He also tweeted: "As a first step toward overcoming the shocking obfuscation & misinformation campaign, I call for Peter Daszak to immediately be removed from both @TheLancet #COVID19 commission & the @WHO convened int'l expert group on pandemic origins. Join me."

Daszak pushes 'conspiracy theory' claim

It was Daszak (left) who drafted a statement from 27 health scientists that was published ( 9/fuiitext#%20) in The Lancet on February 19, 2020, and condemned as "conspiracy theories" suggestions that Covid- 19 does not have a natural origin. [...]

In an interview ( on December 9, 2019, with Vincent Racaniello, who runs the 'This Week in Virology' netcast, Daszak talked openly about manipulating coronaviruses in the lab: "Coronaviruses are pretty good... you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily," he said.

"Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with a coronavirus; zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence; you can build the protein; and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab."

Daszak said that researchers did surveillance of bats across southern China. "We have now found, after six or seven years of doing this, over a hundred new SARS-related coronaviruses, very close to SARS," he told Racaniello.

"Some of them get into human cells in the lab, some of them can cause SARS disease in humanised mice models and are untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals and you can't vaccinate against them with a vaccine...

"We've even found people with antibodies in Yunnan to SARS-related coronaviruses so there's human exposure."

There were serious concerns about the makeup of the WHO team that went to Wuhan in January/February this year, and not least about the presence of Daszak, who is considered to have a serious conflict of interest.

Daszak was also leading The Lancet Covid-19 Commission's task force that was set up to investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2, but, in June 2021, it was announced that he was recused from commission work on the origins of the pandemic. [...]

On December 10,2020, Peter Daszak tweeted that the Wuhan labs did not have live or dead bats in them.

Daszak's claim is disproved in a promotional video made to celebrate the construction of the WIV BSL4 laboratory in 2018 that clearly shows bats in their cages. The WIV has also filed patents for new designs for bat cages.

(3) Daszak's EHA hid Pentagon funding; David Franz, former commander of Ft Detrick, is a 'policy advisor' to EHA


Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance Has Hidden Almost $40 Million In Pentagon Funding And Militarized Pandemic Science

by Sam Husseini

DECEMBER 16, 2020

"Pandemics are like terrorist attacks: We know roughly where they originate and what's responsible for them, but we don't know exactly when the next one will happen. They need to be handled the same way ‹ by identifying all possible sources and dismantling those before the next pandemic strikes."

This statement was written in the New York Times earlier this year by Peter Daszak. Daszak is the longtime president of the EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based non-profit whose claimed focus is pandemic prevention. But the EcoHealth Alliance, it turns out, is at the very centre of the COVID-19 pandemic in many ways.

To depict the pandemic in such militarized terms is, for Daszak, a commonplace. [...]

Following the EcoHealth Alliance's money trail to the Pentagon

Collecting dangerous viruses is typically justified as a preventive and defensive activity, getting ahead of what "Nature" or "The Terrorists" might throw at us. But by its nature, this work is "dual use". "Biodefense" is often just as easily biowarfare since biodefense and the products of biowarfare are identical. It's simply a matter of what the stated goals are. [...]

For much of this year, Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance garnered a great deal of sympathetic media coverage after its $3.7 million five-year NIH grant was prematurely cut when the Trump administration learned that EcoHealth Alliance funded bat coronavirus research at the WIV.

The temporary cut was widely depicted in major media as Trump undermining the EcoHealth Alliance's noble fight against pandemics. The termination was reversed by NIH in late August, and even upped to $7.5 million. But entirely overlooked amid the claims and counter-claims was that far more funding for the EcoHealth Alliance comes from the Pentagon than the NIH.

To be strictly fair to the media, Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance obscures its Pentagon funding. On its website EcoHealth Alliance states that "A copy of the EHA Grant Management Manual is available upon request to the EHA Chief Financial Officer at finance ( at )". But an email to that address and numerous others, including Peter Daszak's, requesting that Manual, as well as other financial information, was not returned. Neither were repeated voicemails.

Only buried under their "Privacy Policy," under a section titled "EcoHealth Alliance Policy Regarding Conflict of Interest in Research," does the EcoHealth Alliance concede it is the "recipient of various grant awards from federal agencies including the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense."

Even this listing is deceptive. It obscures that its two largest funders are the Pentagon and the State Department (USAID); whereas the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which accounts for a minuscule $74,487, comes before either.

Meticulous investigation of U.S. government databases reveals that Pentagon funding for the EcoHealth Alliance from 2013 to 2020, including contracts, grants and subcontracts, was just under $39 million. Most, $34.6 million, was from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is a branch of the DOD which states it is tasked to "counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks."

Most of the remaining money to EHA was from USAID (State Dept.), comprising at least $64,700,000 (1). These two sources thus total over $103 million. (See Fig).

Summary EHA Grants and Contracts

Note this figure doesn't count subcontracts so it undercounts USAID's contribution, see footnote (1) below (Credit: James Baratta and Mariamne Everett)

Another $20 million came from Health and Human Services ($13 million, which includes National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control), National Science Foundation ($2.6 million), Department of Homeland Security ($2.3 million), Department of Commerce ($1.2 million), Department of Agriculture ($0.6 million), and Department of Interior ($0.3 million).

So, total U.S. government funding for EHA to-date stands at $123 million, approximately one third of which comes from the Pentagon directly. [...]

More military connections

The military links of the EcoHealth Alliance are not limited to money and mindset. One noteworthy 'policy advisor' to the EcoHealth Alliance is David Franz. Franz is former commander of Fort Detrick, which is the principal U.S. government biowarfare/biodefense facility.

David Franz was part of UNSCOM which inspected Iraq for alleged bioweapons ‹ what were constantly referred to as WMDs or Weapons of Mass Destruction by the U.S. government and the media. Franz has been one of those eager to state, at least when discussing alleged Iraqi programs, that "in biology Š everything is dual use ‹ the people, the facilities and the equipment." (NPR, May 14, 2003; link no longer available).

Just this year Franz wrote a piece with former New York Times journalist Judith Miller, whose stories of Iraqi WMDs did much to misinform the US public regarding the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Their joint article, "A Biosecurity Failure: America's key lab for fighting infectious disease has become a Pentagon backwater," urges more funding for Fort Detrick.

Miller and Franz are long-time associates. Miller co-wrote the book Germs, released amid the 2001 false flag anthrax attacks, which repeatedly quotes Franz. Miller at the time received a hoax letter with a harmless white powder, increasing her prominence.

Franz continued hyping the existence of Iraqi WMDs even after the invasion of Iraq. While she was still with the Times, Miller quoted him in a story "U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs To Germ Arms" on May 21, 2003 pushing the theory that Iraq had mobile biological WMD units. (This theory was debunked by the British scientist Dr David Kelly, who would die, apparently by suicide, soon thereafter.)

Four significant insights emerge from all this. First, although it is called the EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak and his non-profit work closely with the military. Second, the EcoHealth Alliance attempts to conceal these military connections. Third, through militaristic language and analogies Daszak and his colleagues promote what is often referred to as, and even then somewhat euphemistically, an ongoing agenda known as "securitization". In this case it is the securitization of infectious diseases and of global public health. That is, they argue that pandemics constitute a vast and existential threat. They minimize the very real risks associated with their work, and sell it as a billion dollar solution. The fourth insight is that Daszak himself, as the Godfather of the Global Virome Project, stands to benefit from the likely outlay of public funds.

Acknowledgements Thanks to James Baratta and Mariamne Everett for researching the funding sources.

Footnote The figure for EHA's USAID funding was obtained from the University of California at Davis, a major grantee of PREDICT funds, which EHA has been a major sub-grantee of Davis confirmed that EHA's funding from PREDICT totaled $64,722,669 (PREDICT-1: 2009 to 2014: $19,943,214; PREDICT-2: 2014 to present (2020) $44,779,455) Sam Husseini is an independent journalist.

(4) Ivermectin cures Long Covid

Vaccine Awareness Week Update 2021 Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola September 26, 2021

... This week, we celebrate our 12th anniversary of Vaccine Awareness Week. In this video, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) ‹ which will celebrate its 40th anniversary as an organization in April 2022 ‹ summarizes some of the high and low points we've experienced over the past year. ...

From the beginning, health authorities have been neglectful when it comes to the treatment of COVID-19. They've even actively prevented safe and effective treatments from being used. In the interview, Fisher describes her own experience with COVID-19:

"I had COVID in December of 2019. I had a fairly difficult course with it for 10 weeks into the end of February of 2020. Of course, I didn't know what I had, but it was not a fun experience, and I was left with long-COVID that lasted 16 months until a functional medicine doctor who tested me found that the COVID had reactivated a [latent] Epstein-Barr infection.

She prescribed a short course of appropriately dosed ivermectin, and I had an amazing reduction in my symptoms, which included cardiac symptoms that had been diagnosed by a cardiologist. So, I had all the classic symptoms of COVID and I had a classic course of long-COVID, yet I didn't know that I could have used ivermectin months ago to help me get through.

My energy shot up after that ivermectin and I stopped having to sleep 12 hours a day. My cardiac symptoms were significantly reduced. It was like I got my life back. Yet the government has gone after doctors who have urged people to get vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, ivermectin11 and these other licensed drugs that are safe and have been around forever. ...

(5) FDA's Approval of the Pfizer COVID Shot - No 'double blind' Control Group

Vaccine Awareness Week Update 2021

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

September 26, 2021

August 23, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted full approval16 to the COVID-19 mRNA injection developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, sold under the brand name Comirnaty, for use in people aged 16 and older. It's the fastest approval in history,17 and is based on just six months' worth of data from 44,060 people.18,19

Half of them got the shots and half initially received a placebo. However, in the second week of December 2020, Pfizer unblinded the control group and 93% of controls opted to get the real injection20 rather than remain in the control group for the remainder of the trial, which is slated to continue for another two years. In other words, there's no control group left against which to compare side effects and effectiveness.

The FDA was expected to hold a public meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC)21 and allow for public and expert input before the first COVID-19 vaccine was formally licensed.

For transparency and full public disclosure of vital scientific information, this meeting should have taken place before approval because COVID-19 vaccines are the first to ever have been distributed to the US population under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

In response, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Children's Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit22 August 31, 2021, against the FDA and its acting director, Dr. Janet Woodcock, for this mess. On its website, CHD says:

"CHD argues that the licensure was a classic 'bait and switch,' allowing Pfizer, the Biden administration, the U.S. military and employers to exhort people to take 'licensed' vaccines when in fact the vaccines available and being administered continued to be the Pfizer-BioNTech Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccines Š

Š the FDA violated federal law when it simultaneously licensed Pfizer's 'Comirnaty' vaccine and extended Pfizer's EUA for its vaccine that has the 'same formulation' and that 'can be used interchangeably Š

The law (21 U.S. Code § 360bbb-3-(3)) on 'authorization for medical products for use in emergencies' requires the EUA designation be used only when 'there is no adequate, approved and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing or treating such disease or condition.'

The lawsuit alleges once the FDA approved and licensed Pfizer's Comirnaty vaccine, there was no further basis for the FDA to preserve the EUA status for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that Pfizer acknowledges has the 'same formulation' and is 'interchangeable.'"

As explained by Fisher, in order to receive Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA, vaccine makers had to show their COVID jabs were more than 50% effective at preventing serious symptoms of COVID-19 disease.23 They were not required to demonstrate that the shots prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or that it prevents transmission of the virus.

"So the bar was set very low at the very beginning for the Emergency Use Authorization," she says. "If you look at the rhetoric the CDC uses, you can see they're always talking about prevention of hospitalization and death. This is not what people think happens when you get a vaccine. We have been carefully taught to believe that when we get vaccinated, we will not get infected and we won't transmit that infection to other people." ...

Note (Peter M.): this article will be deleted from Dr Mercola's above site in a day or two, but will be found elsewhere if you search for a sentence from it.

(6) 30 facts you NEED to know: Your Covid Cribsheet - from Off Guardian

From JUDY schuchmann <>

Sep 22, 2021 442

30 facts you NEED to know: Your Covid Cribsheet

You asked for it, so we made it. A collection of all the arguments you'll ever need.

Kit Knightly

We get a lot of e-mails and private messages along these lines "do you have a source for X?" or "can you point me to mask studies?" or "I know I saw a graph for mortality, but I can't find it anymore". And we understand, it's been a long 18 months, and there are so many statistics and numbers to try and keep straight in your head.

So, to deal with all these requests, we decided to make a bullet-pointed and sourced list for all the key points. A one-stop-shop.

Here are key facts and sources about the alleged "pandemic", that will help you get a grasp on what has happened to the world since January 2020, and help you enlighten any of your friends who might be still trapped in the New Normal fog (click links to skip):

"Covid deaths" ­ Lockdowns ­ PCR Tests ­ "asymptomatic infection" ­ Ventilators ­ Masks ­ Vaccines ­ Deception & Foreknowledge *


1. The survival rate of "Covid" is over 99%. Government medical experts went out of their way to underline, from the beginning of the pandemic, that the vast majority of the population are not in any danger from Covid.

Almost all studies on the infection-fatality ratio (IFR) of Covid have returned results between 0.04% and 0.5%. Meaning Covid's survival rate is at least 99.5%. *

2. There has been NO unusual excess mortality. The press has called 2020 the UK's "deadliest year since world war two", but this is misleading because it ignores the massive increase in the population since that time. A more reasonable statistical measure of mortality is Age-Standardised Mortality Rate (ASMR):

By this measure, 2020 isn't even the worst year for mortality since 2000, In fact since 1943 only 9 years have been better than 2020.

Similarly, in the US the ASMR for 2020 is only at 2004 levels:

For a detailed breakdown of how Covid affected mortality across Western Europe and the US click here. What increases in mortality we have seen could be attributable to non-Covid causes [facts 7, 9 & 19]. *

3. "Covid death" counts are artificially inflated. Countries around the globe have been defining a "Covid death" as a "death by any cause within 28/30/60 days of a positive test".

Healthcare officials from Italy, Germany, the UK, US, Northern Ireland and others have all admitted to this practice:

Removing any distinction between dying of Covid, and dying of something else after testing positive for Covid will naturally lead to over-counting of "Covid deaths". British pathologist Dr John Lee was warning of this "substantial over-estimate" as early as last spring. Other mainstream sources have reported it, too.

Considering the huge percentage of "asymptomatic" Covid infections [14], the well-known prevalence of serious comorbidities [fact 4] and the potential for false-positive tests [fact 18], this renders the Covid death numbers an extremely unreliable statistic. *

4. The vast majority of covid deaths have serious comorbidities. In March 2020, the Italian government published statistics showing 99.2% of their "Covid deaths" had at least one serious comorbidity.

These included cancer, heart disease, dementia, Alzheimer's, kidney failure and diabetes (among others). Over 50% of them had three or more serious pre-existing conditions.

This pattern has held up in all other countries over the course of the "pandemic". An October 2020 FOIA request to the UK's ONS revealed less than 10% of the official "Covid death" count at that time had Covid as the sole cause of death. *

5. Average age of "Covid death" is greater than the average life expectancy. The average age of a "Covid death" in the UK is 82.5 years. In Italy it's 86. Germany, 83. Switzerland, 86. Canada, 86. The US, 78, Australia, 82.

In almost all cases the median age of a "Covid death" is higher than the national life expectancy.

As such, for most of the world, the "pandemic" has had little-to-no impact on life expectancy. Contrast this with the Spanish flu, which saw a 28% drop in life expectancy in the US in just over a year. [source] *

6. Covid mortality exactly mirrors the natural mortality curve. Statistical studies from the UK and India have shown that the curve for "Covid death" follows the curve for expected mortality almost exactly:

The risk of death "from Covid" follows, almost exactly, your background risk of death in general.

The small increase for some of the older age groups can be accounted for by other factors.[facts 7, 9 & 19] *

7. There has been a massive increase in the use of "unlawful" DNRs. Watchdogs and government agencies have reported huge increases in the use of Do Not Resuscitate Orders (DNRs) over the last twenty months.

In the US, hospitals considered "universal DNRs" for any patient who tested positive for Covid, and whistleblowing nurses have admitted the DNR system was abused in New York.

In the UK there was an "unprecdented" rise in "illegal" DNRs for disabled people, GP surgeries sent out letters to non-terminal patients recommending they sign DNR orders, whilst other doctors signed "blanket DNRs" for entire nursing homes.

A study done by Sheffield Univerisity found over one-third of all "suspected" Covid patients had a DNR attached to their file within 24 hours of hospital admission.

Blanket use of coerced or illegal DNR orders could account for any increases in mortality in 2020/21.[Facts 2 & 6] *


8. Lockdowns do not prevent the spread of disease. There is little to no evidence lockdowns have any impact on limiting "Covid deaths". If you compare regions that locked down to regions that did not, you can see no pattern at all.

"Covid deaths" in Florida (no lockdown) vs California (lockdown)

"Covid deaths" in Sweden (no lockdown) vs UK (lockdown) *

9. Lockdowns kill people. There is strong evidence that lockdowns ­ through social, economic and other public health damage ­ are deadlier than the "virus".

Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19 described lockdowns as a "global catastrophe" in October 2020:

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[Š] it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition [Š] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe."

A UN report from April 2020 warned of 100,000s of children being killed by the economic impact of lockdowns, while tens of millions more face possible poverty and famine.

Unemployment, poverty, suicide, alcoholism, drug use and other social/mental health crises are spiking all over the world. While missed and delayed surgeries and screenings are going to see increased mortality from heart disease, cancer et al. in the near future.

The impact of lockdown would account for the small increases in excess mortality [Facts 2 & 6] *

10. Hospitals were never unusually over-burdened. the main argument used to defend lockdowns is that "flattening the curve" would prevent a rapid influx of cases and protect healthcare systems from collapse. But most healthcare systems were never close to collapse at all.

In March 2020 it was reported that hospitals in Spain and Italy were over-flowing with patients, but this happens every flu season. In 2017 Spanish hospitals were at 200% capacity, and 2015 saw patients sleeping in corridors. A paper JAMA paper from March 2020 found that Italian hospitals "typically run at 85-90% capacity in the winter months".

In the UK, the NHS is regularly stretched to breaking point over the winter.

As part of their Covid policy, the NHS announced in Spring of 2020 that they would be "re-organizing hospital capacity in new ways to treat Covid and non-Covid patients separately" and that "as result hospitals will experience capacity pressures at lower overall occupancy rates than would previously have been the case."

This means they removed thousands of beds. During an alleged deadly pandemic, they reduced the maximum occupancy of hospitals. Despite this, the NHS never felt pressure beyond your typical flu season, and at times actually had 4x more empty beds than normal.

In both the UK and US millions were spent on temporary emergency hospitals that were never used. *


11. PCR tests were not designed to diagnose illness. The Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is described in the media as the "gold standard" for Covid diagnosis. But the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the process never intended it to be used as a diagnostic tool, and said so publicly:

PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn't tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that." *

12. PCR Tests have a history of being inaccurate and unreliable. The "gold standard" PCR tests for Covid are known to produce a lot of false-positive results, by reacting to DNA material that is not specific to Sars-Cov-2.

A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day. In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold viruses. A 2006 study found PCR tests for one virus responded to other viruses too. In 2007, a reliance on PCR tests resulted in an "outbreak" of Whooping Cough that never actually existed. Some tests in the US even reacted to the negative control sample.

The late President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, submitted samples goat, pawpaw and motor oil for PCR testing, all came back positive for the virus.

As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was unreliable. Dr Wang Cheng, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television "The accuracy of the tests is only 30-50%". The Australian government's own website claimed "There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests." And a Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests were "unreliable" and should not be used for diagnosis.

You can read detailed breakdowns of the failings of PCR tests here, here and here. *

13. The CT values of the PCR tests are too high. PCR tests are run in cycles, the number of cycles you use to get your result is known as your "cycle threshold" or CT value. Kary Mullis said: "If you have to go more than 40 cycles[Š]there is something seriously wrong with your PCR."

The MIQE PCR guidelines agree, stating: "[CT] values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported," Dr Fauci himself even admitted anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable.

Dr Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California, Riverside, told the New York Times: Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitiveŠI'm shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positiveŠA more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35¾.

In the same article Dr Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the limit should be 30, and the author goes on to point out that reducing the CT from 40 to 30 would have reduced "covid cases" in some states by as much as 90%.

The CDC's own data suggests no sample over 33 cycles could be cultured, and Germany's Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious.

Despite this, it is known almost all the labs in the US are running their tests at least 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45. The NHS "standard operating procedure" for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles.

Based on what we know about the CT values, the majority of PCR test results are at best questionable. *

14. The World Health Organization (Twice) Admitted PCR tests produced false positives. In December 2020 WHO put out a briefing memo on the PCR process instructing labs to be wary of high CT values causing false positive results:

when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.

Then, in January 2021, the WHO released another memo, this time warning that "asymptomatic" positive PCR tests should be re-tested because they might be false positives:

Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. *

15. The scientific basis for Covid tests is questionable. The genome of the Sars-Cov-2 virus was supposedly sequenced by Chinese scientists in December 2019, then published on January 10th 2020. Less than two weeks later, German virologists (Christian Drosten et al.) had allegedly used the genome to create assays for PCR tests.

They wrote a paper, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR, which was submitted for publication on January 21st 2020, and then accepted on January 22nd. Meaning the paper was allegedly "peer-reviewed" in less than 24 hours. A process that typically takes weeks.

Since then, a consortium of over forty life scientists has petitioned for the withdrawal of the paper, writing a lengthy report detailing 10 major errors in the paper's methodology.

They have also requested the release of the journal's peer-review report, to prove the paper really did pass through the peer-review process. The journal has yet to comply.

The Corman-Drosten assays are the root of every Covid PCR test in the world. If the paper is questionable, every PCR test is also questionable. *


16. The majority of Covid infections are "asymptomatic". From as early as March 2020, studies done in Italy were suggesting 50-75% of positive Covid tests had no symptoms. Another UK study from August 2020 found as much as 86% of "Covid patients" experienced no viral symptoms at all.

It is literally impossible to tell the difference between an "asymptomatic case" and a false-positive test result. *

17. There is very little evidence supporting the alleged danger of "asymptomatic transmission". In June 2020, Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHO's emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said:

From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,"

A meta-analysis of Covid studies, published by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in December 2020, found that asymptomatic carriers had a less than 1% chance of infecting people within their household. Another study, done on influenza in 2009, found:

Šlimited evidence to suggest the importance of [asymptomatic] transmission. The role of asymptomatic or presymptomatic influenza-infected individuals in disease transmission may have been overestimatedŠ"

Given the known flaws of the PCR tests, many "asymptomatic cases" may be false positives.[fact 14] *


18. Ventilation is NOT a treatment for respiratory viruses. Mechanical ventilation is not, and never has been, recommended treatment for respiratory infection of any kind. In the early days of the pandemic, many doctors came forward questioning the use of ventilators to treat "Covid".

Writing in The Spectator, Dr Matt Strauss stated:

Ventilators do not cure any disease. They can fill your lungs with air when you find yourself unable to do so yourself. They are associated with lung diseases in the public's consciousness, but this is not in fact their most common or most appropriate application.

German Pulmonologist Dr Thomas Voshaar, chairman of Association of Pneumatological Clinics said:

When we read the first studies and reports from China and Italy, we immediately asked ourselves why intubation was so common there. This contradicted our clinical experience with viral pneumonia.

Despite this, the WHO, CDC, ECDC and NHS all "recommended" Covid patients be ventilated instead of using non-invasive methods.

This was not a medical policy designed to best treat the patients, but rather to reduce the hypothetical spread of Covid by preventing patients from exhaling aerosol droplets. *

19. Ventilators killed people. Putting someone on a ventilator who is suffering from influenza, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or any other condition which restricts breathing or affects the lungs, will not alleviate any of those symptoms. In fact, it will almost certainly make it worse, and will kill many of them.

Intubation tubes are a source of potential a infection known as "ventilator-associated pneumonia", which studies show affects up to 28% of all people put on ventilators, and kills 20-55% of those infected.

Mechanical ventilation is also damaging to the physical structure of the lungs, resulting in "ventilator-induced lung injury", which can dramatically impact quality of life, and even result in death.

Experts estimate 40-50% of ventilated patients die, regardless of their disease. Around the world, between 66 and 86% of all "Covid patients" put on ventilators died.

According to the "undercover nurse", ventilators were being used so improperly in New York, they were destroying patients' lungs:

This policy was negligence at best, and potentially deliberate murder at worst. This misuse of ventilators could account for any increase in mortality in 2020/21 [Facts 2 & 6] *


20. Masks don't work. At least a dozen scientific studies have shown that masks do nothing to stop the spread of respiratory viruses.

One meta-analysis published by the CDC in May 2020 found "no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks".

Another study with over 8000 subjects found masks "did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection."

There are literally too many to quote them all, but you can read them: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Or read a summary by SPR here.

While some studies have been done claiming to show mask do work for Covid, they are all seriously flawed. One relied on self-reported surveys as data. Another was so badly designed a panel of experts demand it be withdrawn. A third was withdrawn after its predictions proved entirely incorrect.

The WHO commissioned their own meta-analysis in the Lancet, but that study looked only at N95 masks and only in hospitals. [For full run down on the bad data in this study click here.]

Aside from scientific evidence, there's plenty of real-world evidence that masks do nothing to halt the spread of disease.

For example, North Dakota and South Dakota had near-identical case figures, despite one having a mask-mandate and the other not:

In Kansas, counties without mask mandates actually had fewer Covid "cases" than counties with mask mandates. And despite masks being very common in Japan, they had their worst flu outbreak in decades in 2019. *

21. Masks are bad for your health. Wearing a mask for long periods, wearing the same mask more than once, and other aspects of cloth masks can be bad for your health. A long study on the detrimental effects of mask-wearing was recently published by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Dr. James Meehan reported in August 2020 he was seeing increases in bacterial pneumonia, fungal infections, facial rashes .

Masks are also known to contain plastic microfibers, which damage the lungs when inhaled and may be potentially carcinogenic.

Childen wearing masks encourages mouth-breathing, which results in facial deformities.

People around the world have passed out due to CO2 poisoning while wearing their masks, and some children in China even suffered sudden cardiac arrest. *

22. Masks are bad for the planet. Millions upon millions of disposable masks have been used per month for over a year. A report from the UN found the Covid19 pandemic will likely result in plastic waste more than doubling in the next few years., and the vast majority of that is face masks.

The report goes on to warn these masks (and other medical waste) will clog sewage and irrigation systems, which will have knock on effects on public health, irrigation and agriculture.

A study from the University of Swansea found "heavy metals and plastic fibres were released when throw-away masks were submerged in water." These materials are toxic to both people and wildlife. *


23. Covid "vaccines" are totally unprecedented. Before 2020 no successful vaccine against a human coronavirus had ever been developed. Since then we have allegedly made 20 of them in 18 months.

Scientists have been trying to develop a SARS and MERS vaccine for years with little success. Some of the failed SARS vaccines actually caused hypersensitivity to the SARS virus. Meaning that vaccinated mice could potentially get the disease more severely than unvaccinated mice. Another attempt caused liver damage in ferrets.

While traditional vaccines work by exposing the body to a weakened strain of the microorganism responsible for causing the disease, these new Covid vaccines are mRNA vaccines.

mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines theoretically work by injecting viral mRNA into the body, where it replicates inside your cells and encourages your body to recognise, and make antigens for, the "spike proteins" of the virus. They have been the subject of research since the 1990s, but before 2020 no mRNA vaccine was ever approved for use. *

24. Vaccines do not confer immunity or prevent transmission. It is readily admitted that Covid "vaccines" do not confer immunity from infection and do not prevent you from passing the disease onto others. Indeed, an article in the British Medical Journal highlighted that the vaccine studies were not designed to even try and assess if the "vaccines" limited transmission.

The vaccine manufacturers themselves, upon releasing the untested mRNA gene therapies, were quite clear their product's "efficacy" was based on "reducing the severity of symptoms". *

25. The vaccines were rushed and have unknown longterm effects. Vaccine development is a slow, laborious process. Usually, from development through testing and finally being approved for public use takes many years. The various vaccines for Covid were all developed and approved in less than a year. Obviously there can be no long-term safety data on chemicals which are less than a year old.

Pfizer even admit this is true in the leaked supply contract between the pharmaceutical giant, and the government of Albania:

the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known

Further, none of the vaccines have been subject to proper trials. Many of them skipped early-stage trials entirely, and the late-stage human trials have either not been peer-reviewed, have not released their data, will not finish until 2023 or were abandoned after "severe adverse effects". *

26. Vaccine manufacturers have been granted legal indemnity should they cause harm. The USA's Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) grants immunity until at least 2024.

The EU's product licensing law does the same, and there are reports of confidential liability clauses in the contracts the EU signed with vaccine manufacturers.

The UK went even further, granting permanent legal indemnity to the government, and any employees thereof, for any harm done when a patient is being treated for Covid19 or "suspected Covid19".

Again, the leaked Albanian contract suggests that Pfizer, at least, made this indemnity a standard demand of supplying Covid vaccines:

Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer [Š] from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses *


27. The EU was preparing "vaccine passports" at least a YEAR before the pandemic began. Proposed COVID countermeasures, presented to the public as improvised emergency measures, have existed since before the emergence of the disease.

Two EU documents published in 2018, the "2018 State of Vaccine Confidence" and a technical report titled "Designing and implementing an immunisation information system" discussed the plausibility of an EU-wide vaccination monitoring system.

These documents were combined into the 2019 "Vaccination Roadmap", which (among other things) established a "feasibility study" on vaccine passports to begin in 2019 and finish in 2021:

This report's final conclusions were released to the public in September 2019, just a month before Event 201 (below). *

28. A "training exercise" predicted the pandemic just weeks before it started. In October 2019 the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins University held Event 201. This was a training exercise based on a zoonotic coronavirus starting a worldwide pandemic. The exercise was sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI the vaccine alliance.

The exercise published its findings and recommendations in November 2019 as a "call to action". One month later, China recorded their first case of "Covid". *

29. Since the beginning of 2020, the Flu has "disappeared". In the United States, since February 2020, influenza cases have allegedly dropped by over 98%.

It's not just the US either, globally flu has apparently almost completely disappeared.

Meanwhile, a new disease called "Covid", which has identical symptoms and a similar mortality rate to influenza, is apparently affecting all the people normally affected by the flu. *

30. The elite have made fortunes during the pandemic. Since the beginning of lockdown the wealthiest people have become significantly wealthier. Forbes reported that 40 new billionaires have been created "fighting the coronavirus", with 9 of them being vaccine manufacturers.

Business Insider reported that "billionaires saw their net worth increase by half a trillion dollars" by October 2020.

Clearly that number will be even bigger by now. *

These are the vital facts of the pandemic, presented here as a resource to help formulate and support your arguments with friends or strangers. Thanks to all the researchers who have collated and collected this information over the last twenty months, especially Swiss Policy Research.


Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.


Write to me at contact.html.