In a recent article, I highlighted the “law of displacement” which encapsulates my belief that a harmful lucrative technology, regardless of the evidence against it, will almost only be removed from the market once either a more profitable alternative emerges, or a less harmful but equally profitable one does (as in all other cases, the profit the technology makes outweighs the cost of silencing critics of its toxicity). In some cases, this works in a positive manner and finally expels bad things from the market (e.g., lead in gasoline), but in other cases, it results in something worse entering the market.Presently, there are increasing signs of a major push to replace the existing vaccine schedule with mRNA vaccines, and on one side, this has been accompanied by increasing mainstream discussion of the serious issues with vaccination (along with efforts by authors like me to highlight how many of these problems are due to the foundational issues with how most vaccines are produced)—which, on one level is an extremely positive shift.Note: this is somewhat similar to how the statin community went to great lengths to dismiss the existence of their (extremely common) side effects, but then suddenly pivoted to stating a large number of patients are “statin intolerant” once a need arose to sell far more expensive next-generation cholesterol lowering drugs (detailed here).However, while I have serious concerns about traditional vaccines, the more I study the mRNA technology, the more I feel it is significantly more problematic than the existing platforms (e.g., in a recent article I highlighted how these vaccines have an intrinsic problem with the toxicity of the lipid nanoparticles used to deliver them, shedding to those who were not vaccinated, persisting within the body, suppressing the immune system, getting into the nucleus where DNA is, and causing cancer—all of which becomes even worse when it mass produces a highly toxic antigen like the spike protein).Furthermore, while each of those is a major issue, I believe the largest problem with the mRNA technology is simply the fact so much of it remains unknown, but rather than slow down to try and understand the actual physiologic consequences of the widespread genetic pollution this technology is creating (something humanity has never had to deal with before), because so much money stands to be made off something which can “print out new medical technologies like a computer code,” a decision has been made by mRNA’s investors to go full speed ahead and find a way to sweep any issues that later emerge under the rug (a situation somewhat analogous to the current situation with AI—where many of the top researchers have admitted in private they don’t actually understand how it is working).Note: in places like Europe, the precautionary principle—“where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”—is widely practiced, while in the United States, it receives much less of an emphasis as economic progress (which the precautionary principle slows) is prioritized.For that reason, I feel it is important to briefly review the timeline of the mRNA vaccines:1. For decades, mRNA could not find a dose that was both safe and effective.1 Most recently, Moderna had raised billions by selling investors the vision of life as software that could be rewritten into health, yet it could not make even its easiest target (a single missing liver enzyme) work, which left vaccines as the only viable use, since one or two doses never gave the toxicity time to accumulate.1,2 By the time COVID arrived, both existing mRNA companies were in trouble. Moderna’s December 2018 IPO, then the largest in biotech history, fell 19% on its first day,1,2 and the company closed 2019 with no product, a $1.5 billion accumulated deficit, and a share price below its offering.1,2 BioNTech had never taken a product past phase 2 and had to shrink its October 2019 IPO to find enough buyers,1,2 a month after the Gates Foundation bought in at a higher price.1,2 Both needed what a former Moderna employee had called a “miraculous, Hail Mary sort of save.”12. A 2004 law created the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authority, allowing unapproved drugs, vaccines, and devices (or unapproved uses of approved ones) to be deployed once an emergency is declared1 (first used in 2005 to authorize the anthrax vaccine).1 In 2016 at Davos, the Gates Foundation and the World Bank proposed running large-scale pandemic simulations modeled on the Department of Defense’s war games,1 which then happened in October 2019 as Event 201, a simulated coronavirus pandemic (which I now think happened after COVID already had begun to spread).1 When COVID officially arrived months later, each organization stepped into the role it had rehearsed: CEPI (Gates’s industry coalition) directed vaccine funding, the Gates Foundation handled financing and distribution, the World Bank mobilized resources, and the WHO coordinated messaging.1 Much of this built upon work in July 2017 where CEPI presented the WHO with its plan for the next pandemic: rapidly financing liability-free “emergency” vaccines and bringing them to market under a “no loss” guarantee that reimbursed developers for their direct and indirect costs.13. The moment COVID emerged, significant focus was given to developing mRNA vaccines (e.g., the NIH gave Moderna their own research they’d invested years into), as beyond the existing incentives, mRNA technology was seen as the ideal “solution” for a pandemic because the vaccines could be produced in a very short time. In tandem, Operation Warp Speed enacted the Gates-led plan for rapid emergency vaccine development, effective treatments (which would eliminate the need for EUA vaccines) were stonewalled and the population was isolated, preventing America from developing herd immunity to COVID before the vaccines came out.Note: a key part of the push for bringing the COVID vaccines to market came from the fact Trump had been boxed into needing them to reopen the country so he could win the 2020 election (so everything possible was done to accelerate their development and approval—which included cutting many corners), which ultimately resulted in them backstabbing him at the last moment by delaying the vaccine until after the election.1,24. Accelerated clinical trials were conducted, which concluded the vaccines were very safe and “95% effective.” On the basis of these trials, an EUA was granted, which came with the condition the vaccines would be rigorously evaluated for safety once they hit the market1,2 (e.g. V-safe was specifically made as a more robust way to monitor vaccine safety since there were limitations to what VAERS data could show). In tandem with this, what was arguably the most aggressive propaganda campaign in history was enacted to vaccinate as many people as possible.5. The moment the vaccines hit the market, due to their toxicity, a wide range of side effects emerged—all of which were dismissed because they were “anecdotal” and not shown in the robust clinical trials. Following this, nearly every database started showing massive red flags existed with the vaccines, but in each case, the data was either hidden, doctored or ignored. For example, through extensive litigation, ICAN received the V-safe data, which showed serious safety issues existed within it (that the curated publication in a top medical journal had deliberately hidden), and free text data (which took further litigation to obtain) that showed large numbers of COVID vaccine recipients who deeply trusted the system had severe, progressive (and often fatal) injuries—many of whom gradually realized they had been exploited and abandoned once no one from the CDC ever got back to them.Note: the React19 and the Brownstone Institute recently compiled these injuries into a report that can be read through, and Jeffrey Tucker, believing it’s critical for people to see the human stories and suffering behind this (rather than just zoning out to the data) has been gradually reading through all of them1,2,3,4,5—many of which I’ve now listened to.6. Because the pandemic proved the COVID vaccines were so incredibly safe and effective, the mRNA platform is being treated as a modern day medical miracle that does not require further testing to demonstrate the safety of the platform itself, making it possible to quickly bring large numbers of other mRNA technologies to market (despite the second human mRNA vaccine—influenza—also having serious safety signals that were even shown in its clinical trials1).If you take a step back, much of this ultimately resulted from the (rushed) COVID vaccine clinical trials determining the vaccines were “safe and effective,” and this then becoming an anchor so many refused to deviate from regardless of the evidence to the contrary.Clinical Trial FraudIn many areas, regulation is needed to prevent industry abuses, but since the private “donations” are necessary to get elected (and profit after you leave the government), regulation frequently switches from something that protects the public to something which gives industry a monopoly over a market (along with restricting the rights and freedoms of the public).In the case of the FDA, a dire need existed for it to have the power to block unsafe drugs from coming to market, but in the post-thalidomide law which granted the agency that power, it was also given the right to block drugs unless a “well-controlled” trial demonstrated efficacy—which the FDA then interpreted to mean large randomized controlled trials, which created a massive biomedical industry that has hit the point it is effectively “too big to fail” and hence is so well defended by the system, it is arguably impossible for the government to ever be the party that reforms it (e.g., in this article I showed how over the decades the FDA’s mission switched from protecting America’s health to protecting industry).Since large RCTs cost tens of millions of dollars, three major problems are created:•In many cases, the “proven” benefits RCTs can detect are so small, they are clinically meaningless for patients. This I believe accounts for why so, so many patients (especially elderly ones) are on numerous drugs that are harming them despite it being unclear to the patient if any benefit is being obtained from the medications they are taking (and likewise why this publication has been so successful—as unlike conventional treatments—the simple natural options I share like DMSO make real impacts readers immediately notice that conventional treatments never gave them).•The trials cost so much to conduct most therapies cannot get approved as there is no way to monetize them and recoup those costs—which has effectively transformed medicine into a “pay-to-play” system . This absurdity is highlighted by a 2014 Cochrane review (reviews widely regarded as the benchmark for synthesizing and evaluating medical evidence) which found that smaller unblinded observational trials (which independent investigators can afford to do) typically yielded the same results as large RCTs. This in essence it why tens of thousands of studies (I’ve laboriously compiled) conducted around the world show that both DMSO and ozone treat a wide range of clinical conditions (along with having a mechanistic basis for doing so), and thousands of readers here have directly corroborated those results—yet virtually every medical reference states there is “no evidence” either of those therapies provides benefit (excluding DMSO’s narrow indication for interstitial cystitis).•Since clinical trials (along with all the investment that preceded them) cost so much to conduct, there is always an incentive to ensure a positive result. Over the decades, this has produced a well-established playbook for rigging trials,1 which broadly consists of:•Rigging the design: using a “placebo” that itself causes harm, excluding the patients most likely to be injured, or measuring surrogate markers (e.g., antibody levels) rather than actual health outcomes.•Manipulating the data mid-stream: stopping a trial early when the results happen to look favorable, or ending follow-up before harms have time to emerge.•Gaming the analysis: presenting benefits as relative risks and harms as absolute ones, changing what the trial measures after the data comes in (as something will always show a positive trend due to random variation).•Controlling what gets published: recoding severe injuries under benign diagnoses, burying unfavorable results, and withholding the patient-level data that would allow anyone to check.• Spinning the presentation: writing abstracts and conclusions that contradict the data within the study (since the abstract is all most people read).Note: these tactics persist because regulators tolerate them. Industry user fees now account for nearly half of the FDA’s budget,1 nine of its last ten commissioners went on to work for or sit on the board of a pharmaceutical company,1 and much of its senior staff follows the same path. For example, as director of the FDA’s biologics division (which oversees vaccines), Peter Marks pushed the COVID shots so aggressively that the FDA’s top vaccine scientists left in protest, internally blocked the agency from recognizing critical vaccine safety signals, and continually stonewalled vaccine-injured patients (claiming to care about them while mocking them at industry conferences). He recently left the FDA to become an executive at Eli Lilly with a seven-to-eight figure salary.1,2,3Since no comprehensive summary existed of the common ways trials are repeatedly rigged, I compiled all of it here.Read the Whole ArticleThe post The Fraud That Launched the mRNA Era appeared first on LewRockwell.