ENGDAHL ON THAT PFIZER VACCINE

ENGDAHL ON THAT PFIZER VACCINE…

November 16, 2020 By Joseph P. Farrell

Well folks I'm back. As you know, I took last week off just to recalibrate and rest, and to catch up on emails. As you can imagine, my inbox was flooded (and I mean flooded) with emails containing articles about (surprise surprise), election fraud, so I took the week off also to sort through as many as I could. Accordingly, this week's honorable mentions may have two parts: one about the election fraud articles, and the other about articles on other topics. In posting articles, always remember we're not approving or disapproving of their contents nor vouching for them, merely bringing them to your attention to make up your own minds, rather than let SeeBS, Faux, or the other propatainment and "social" media make it up for you.

With that said, on to the high octane speculation of the day.

Old regulars around here know that I have a deep respect for the research of F. William Engdahl. Well, he's at it again, according to this article shared by M.W.:

What’s Not Being Said About Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine

First off, let's note the peculiar timing of events as Mr. Engdahl summarizes them:

The financial world went ballistic on November 9 when the pharma giant Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, announced in a company press release that it had developed a vaccine for Covid19 that was “90%” effective. The controversial US head of NIAID, Tony Fauci, rushed to greet the news and the EU announced it had purchased 300 million doses of the costly new vaccine. If you believe financial markets, the pandemic is all but past history.

Suspicious events

However it seems Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, doesn’t share the confidence of his own claims. On the day his company issued its press release on the proposed vaccine trials, he sold 62% of his stock in Pfizer, making millions profit in the deal. He made the sell order in a special option in August so it would not appear as “insider selling”, however he also timed it just after the US elections and the mainstream media illegitimately declared Joe Biden President-elect. It seems from appearances that Bourla had a pretty clear conflict of interest in the timing of his press release on the same day.

Bourla lied and denied to press that his company had received any funds from the Trump Administration to develop the vaccine when it came out they contracted in summer to deliver 100 million doses to the US Government. Further adding to the suspect actions of Pfized was the fact the company first informed the team of Joe biden rather than the relevant US government agencies.

But this is far from the only thing alarming about the much-hyped Pfizer announcement. (Emphasis added)

No, nothing suspicious about the timing here... nothing suspicious about that denial that any money was received from the Trump Administration when it had clearly done so.

I don't know what they call this sort of thing in Swampington, D.C., or New York City/Wall Street, because I try not to keep up with the latest doublespeak. But out here in fly-over deplorable country we call this sort of thing "a lie," oftentimes with colorful descriptors like "bare-faced" or "old-fashioned" or even "a whopper of a"  or "a real head-scratcher of a", and so on.  Of course, usage and diction depends upon the region and particular deplorable in question, but the central object remains the same in all cases regardless of the ornamentation: a lie.

The central point of interest here, however, is not Pfizer's CEO's statements, but the German partner and its tie, and what the nature of this vaccine is:

Pfizer, famous for its Viagra and other drugs, has partnered with a small Mainz, Germany company, BioNTech, which has developed the radical mRNA technique used to produce the new corona vaccine. BioNTech was only founded in 2008. BioNTech signed an agreement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in September, 2019, just before announcement in Wuhan China of the Novel Coronavirus and just before BioNTech made its stock market debut. The agreement involved cooperation on developing new mRNA techniques to treat cancer and HIV. Curiously that press release, “The Gates Foundation sees BioNTech potential to ‘dramatically reduce global HIV and tuberculosis’” 05. September 2019, has now been deleted.

BioNTech also has an agreement with one of the largest drug producers in China, Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (“Fosun Pharma”) to develop a version of its mRNA vaccine for novel coronavirus for the Chinese market. Ai-Min Hui, President of Global R&D of Fosun Pharma said in an August statement, “Dosing the first Chinese subject with BNT162b1 marks a milestone of the global co-development program in China. We are closely working with BioNTech and regulatory authorities to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BNT162b1 and other mRNA vaccine candidates…”

And not only that, but according to Mr. Engdahl, we see the same "rush to approval" that we saw with GMOs (which we'll be getting back to later this week):

Both US and EU authorities and presumably also Chinese, waived the standard animal tests using ferrets or mice and have gone straight to human “guinea pigs.” Human tests began in late July and early August. Three months is unheard of for testing a new vaccine. Several years is the norm. Because of the degree of global panic engendered by WHO over the coronavirus, caution is thrown to the wind. Vaccine makers all have legal indemnity, meaning they can’t be sued if people die or are maimed from the new vaccine. But the most alarming fact about the new Pfizer-BioNTech gene edited vaccine is that the gene edited mRNA for human vaccine application has never before been approved. Notably, two year peer reviewed tests with mice fed genetically modified corn sprayed with Monsanto glyphosate-rich Roundup first showed cancer tumors after nine months as well as liver and other organ damage. Earlier Monsanto company tests ended at three months and claimed no harmA similar situation exists with the gene edited mRNA vaccines that are being rushed out after less than 90 days human tests. (Emphasis added)

In other words, the "vaccine" shows none of the usual markers of a "vaccine:"

(1) It has not undergone years of testing;

(2) The companies making it are shielded from any sort of legal action should it prove to be unsafe; and

(3) It's an entirely new type of "vaccine" containing genetically edited human mitochondrial RNA.

It's that last part that forms today's high octane speculation, though I should alert readers that I've entertained this speculation before in slightly different contexts. One wonders, first, where that mRNA came from before it was "edited", and one wonders exactly what the "edit" is designed to do. Crawling way off the end of the twig of high octane speculation here, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it all came from "harvested humans" of one sort or another, Chinese prisoners facing execution, unborn aborted babies, you name it. Grizzly as that thought is, I have deeper concerns here. Genetics has in the last few years been arguing - rather convincingly - that when the mDNA and mRNA from a wide swath of the human population is analyzed, the conclusion is that we all - from Beijing to Berlin to Baltimore - come from a common female human ancestor way back in the mists of pre-history whom geneticists have dubbed "mitochondrial Eve."

Thus, it seems to me - and remember, I'm just a hack from South Dakota sharing my concerns - that a vaccine containing edited mitochondrial RNA, which according to some sources might introduce further modifications into a "vaccine" recipient, might have as one of its "hidden" objectives such a fundamental alteration as to create a divergence from the "mitochondrial Eve", that is to say, an entirely new species of human. Now, if I'm correct in that very high octane speculation, then we should expect, or might be able to predict, that a further "planscamdemic" might eventually come along requiring another "vaccine" to alter the DNA of the y-chromosome in human males. After all, the same geneticists have also pointed out that when the y-chromosome of human males from a wide sampling of the human population is compared and analyzed, voila, it also appears that we all descend from some common male ancestor whom they have dubbed "y-chromosomal Adam." With such an event, we really would be looking at the fulfillment of a goal of transhumanists going all the way back to the Soviet Union and its quest to make a "new Soviet man."

Nor is this all. Engdahl points out the connection to GMOs, and the connection may seem obscure until one recalls a salient point he (and others) have made with respect to GMOs: because of their genetic modifications, GMOs are patented products, and hence, owned by the corporations holding the patents. One may expect that similar patent rights adhere to genetically modified material in the "vaccines". So I have to wonder if the reception of a "vaccine" containing such material subjects the recipient to possible claims of a corporation to and over that recipient? Does a recipient become, in effect and to whatever degree, the property of that corporation? An argument may be raised against this speculative proposition by pointing out that no corporation pressed such an argument with respect, say, to the polio vaccines of the 1950s and 1960s.

However, for those paying attention, the new planscamdemic is been clearly coupled to financial resets, to "passport controls", taxes, and even to digital currencies, clearly indicating that something like my speculation is in their minds.

The question is, why? That question I suspect has a theological component, and a very ancient agenda. So for those who want a little something to "chew on," a ninth century western medieval cleric and theologian, archbishop Hincmar of Reims, stated (and I'm paraphrasing badly, he was much more direct) that just as the inheritance of death from Adam and Eve was a common property of the common human nature we all share, so there could be no such thing as a "limited atonement," because Christ's death affected all human nature. In that respect, it strikes me as extremely intriguing that the transhumanists want to make a "new man," one not "in (mitochondrial) Eve" and presumably not "in (y-chromosomal) Adam", and by that means, perhaps (and according to their twisted logic) not in Christ either, but "property" of someone else, to whom an infinite debt is owed for the gift of virtual immortality of "personalities" downloaded and uploaded into computers?

Of course, everyone's in deep doodoo if "nature" is a term that is broader than mere genetics...

See you on the flip side...