The Plandemic Documentary Is An Exposé Of Corruption Found At The Highest Levels Of Our Health Institutions
By Nate Doromal
The Plandemic documentary has taken the social media world by storm, becoming the most censored documentary on social media of all time, generating tons of hit pieces on nearly all mainstream media channels. Why is this happening?
It’s time to settle the BS and let’s talk about why “Plandemic Is a Bombshell,” why this message is coming out now, why it is so important, and why the censors are so eager to shut it down.
The following started as a refutation of “Plandemic is Nonsense” but I realized that many of these “debunking” pieces miss the boat.
The real message of Plandemic is about REFORM. This is what the censors don’t want talked about. So we will speak about REFORM first and then address the “debunking” attempts later.
If you haven’t seen the Plandemic documentary, then you need to do so now (also at the top of this web page):
Plague co-author Kent Heckenlively has his own defense here:
Note a readable transcript of Plandemic is available here: https://medium.com/@good_scribe/readable-transcript-plandemic-part-1-82ffdd72f5ab
Why is Plandemic a bombshell?
Plandemic exposes some inconvenient truthsin our society that are hard for everyday citizens to digest:
- There are huge conflicts of interests and money flows from our government public health system, and private sectors within the pharmaceutical industry and the tech industry.
- There is abuse of power and corruption within our public health system which seek to suppress and cover-up damaging scientific discoveries, cover-ups which are abetted by our mainstream media outlets and social media tech companies.
- The conflicts of interests and abuse of power result in harms to everyday American citizens, including innocent children.
Plandemic exposes a reality for the everyday person that is hard to swallow, that our public health and scientific institutions are prone to the corrupting influence of money and corporate money flows. Moreover, they function as paternalistic, good old boy networks where obedience is rewarded and whistleblowers are punished.
In a world where we are bombarded with glitzy and feel-good advertising promoting a kind of hedonism, the average person would want to sweep the dirt under the rug and be comforted that authorities are taking care of everything for them rather than do rigorous self-examination as to whether their lives and ultimately society are headed in the right direction.
The main message of Plandemic is this: the need for reform, reform, reform in our public health institutions. And it is a dangerous message for those that profit from the current institutional setup.
Is Dr. Judy Mikovits “just an anti-vaccine activist”?
Attacks on Dr. Judy Mikovits often rely upon ad-hominem and labeling that ignore the full extent of her credentials which are numerous.
Robert F. Kennedy wrote in his introduction to her book Plague of Corruption, “By any standard, Dr. Judy Mikovits was among the most skilled scientists of her generation. She entered professional science from the University of Virginia with a BA degree in chemistry on June 10, 1980, as a protein chemist for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) working on a life-saving project to purify interferon. The quality of her work and her reliable flashes of genius soon propelled her to the apex of the male- dominated world of scientific research.”
She was part of the 1980 team which purified interferon alpha, worked on research with Upjohn Pharmaceutical, awarded graduate student of the year in 1991 for work regarding HIV/AIDS, served as appointed director of the Lab of AntiViral Drug Mechanisms in the Developmental Therapeutics program of the National Cancer Institute, worked EpiGenX in Santa Barbara, CA, directing their Cancer Biology program and was named chief scientific officer in 2005, served as research director of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome-focused Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI), and developed the research program of the first neuroimmune institute in the world at the University of Nevada (Reno). She has over 50 publications.
If someone as credentialed as Dr. Judy Mikovits has outstanding concerns regarding vaccination, then maybe the rest of us should pay attention.
The resume of Judy Mikovits and her collaborator Frank Ruscetti can be found here:
A collection of Judy Mikovits 2009 and prior papers can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r75h5su69gzkdc/Judy_Mikovits_Prior_Papers.zip?dl=0
A collection of Judy Mikovits research specifically related to XMRV can be found here:
Was Dr. Judy Mikovits’ “debunked” by mainstream sources?
False. If you look at many “refutations” they rely upon a sentence claim that goes like this: “She claimed A, B, C, and D. D is untrue, so her claims A, B, and C are also untrue.” This is a logical fallacy and should be called out as such.
We see such examples in the Snopes article:
This gives the misleading impression that she was not jailed, there were no retroviruses, there was nothing in vaccines, and her research was false.
A thorough read over the Snopes article obscures over the basic facts: she actually was jailed, charges were brought against her for theft of property, the charges were later dropped, she was fired from her position under strange circumstances, and the implications of all these were disastrous to her career.
These facts can clearly seen be seen here:
A more thorough timeline of events is covered by the following article in Discover magazine:
In her account, Dr. Judy Mikovits made that charge that abuse of power was used to destroy her reputation and line of research. This is an important line of exploration, arguably the main story here, but Snopes then uses a number of techniques to distract from it.
First, it presents her side of the story but uses the tool of conspiracy association, where the story is presented as coming from a “conspiratorial” new source (Natural News) thereby serving as a false proxy for refutation. It doesn’t take much to see that ad hominem attacks and labeling does not logically invalidate a story.
Second, it reframes the abuse of power into a discussion regarding scientific controversy. Snopes cherrypicks its refutation from published articles. It then implicitly makes a false association: if her science was wrong, then her claims regarding abuse of power are wrong too.
So what are we seeing here in these debunking attempts? They seem to be more public relations propaganda pieces than an attempt to get at the actual truth.
Conspicuously lacking are a presentation from her side of the story, attempts to investigate whether her side is true or not, interviews with witnesses that corroborate or disprove any of her story, motives for those involved for wanted her research stopped, and any investigation as to deeper reasons why charges were brought forth and later dropped. There are unanswered questions here.
What are Dr. Judy Mikovits’ actual concerns regarding vaccination?
Dr. Judy Mikovits is an expert on retroviruses and her main concerns revolve around whether these retroviruses are present in vaccines (which note are prepared using animal tissues). There seem to be scientifically valid concerns here that would be important to both recipients of vaccines and public health professionals:
“MMR, polio, and varicella are live attenuated vaccines. The contaminants and excipients include human MRC5 cells, Human WI- 38 lung cells, monkey kidney cells, guinea pig cell cultures and bovine serum. Live viral vaccines are all grown in human and animal cells lines and these animal and human cell lines contain human and animal retroviruses (adventitious agents which can recombine to generate new infectious retroviruses during the manufacture.)
In addition to the animal and human retroviral contaminants, the carcinogen formaldehyde, antibiotics which dysregulate the GI [gastro-intestinal] and nasopharyngeal microbiomes, glutamate, and bio-incompatible contaminants including nickel and chromium (EXH 6) can synergize in toxicity and the development of neuroinflammatory, neurodegenerative and neuroimmune diseases and cancer which can become clinically apparent decades later.”
It is crucially important that both science and media move beyond labels of “anti-vaccine,” and move towards full investigation and transparency regarding concerns in vaccine science and policy.
Why was Dr. Judy Mikovits’ research so threatening to the establishment?
First, to understand the full implications of the below, you need to understand what a retrovirus is. HIV is a retrovirus whose effect and danger to our society is well-known. Similar to the concerns regarding a novel coronavirus, we would have plausible concerns about the discovery of a novel retrovirus.
Now imagine if a novel retrovirus were found in our vaccines and our blood supplies, and imagine if this virus were distributed to millions of people with unknown health effects to our populace. This is the story of the XMRV retrovirus. And it is a damaging one to the public health establishment as it greatly undermines the public trust in long-established public health initiatives, including vaccines and blood supplies.
Famed environmental lawyer Robert F Kennedy does a great job explaining the implication of Dr. Judy Mikovits’ research, and the consequences for both government public health agencies and the pharmaceuticals in the introduction to Plague of Corruption:
“On October 8, 2009, Mikovits and Ruscetti published their explosive findings in the journal Science, describing the first-ever isolation of the recently discovered retrovirus XMRV, and its association to ME/CFS…
The blowback grew even grimmer when Mikovits’ subsequent research suggested that the new retrovirus, originally found in mice, had somehow jumped into humans via contaminated vaccines.
Even more troubling to the medical establishment, Dr. Mikovits’ research revealed that many of the female patients afflicted with XMRV had children with autism. Suspecting XMRV might be passed from mother to child, as with HIV, Mikovits tested seventeen of the children. Fourteen showed evidence of the virus. Those findings dovetailed with parental reports of autistic regression following vaccination. Subsequent studies linked XMRV to epidemics in leukemia, prostate cancer, autoimmune disease, and the explosion of Alzheimer’s disease. Worse yet, research also found widespread XMRV contamination in the blood supply and blood products.
Based on her research and the findings of others, it seemed that anywhere from 3 to 8 percent of the population now carry the virus—XMRV has become part of human ecology, passed from mother to child in vitro or through breast milk. Mikovits’ data suggest that more than ten million Americans are harboring this virus like a ticking time bomb—a potential threat far greater than the HIV-AIDS epidemic.”
The implications of all the above are devastating if true. Rather than censor Dr. Judy Mikovits for inconvenient research, public health agencies should grant her the resources needed to fully verify or dispute this research or conduct this critical safety research itself.
It is telling to see the CDC’s own statement on XMRV which seems less than enthusiastic about the urgency in pursuing safety studies on XMRV but begrudgingly acknowledges the potential for deleterious health effects:
“The potential role of XMRV and MLVs in causing diseases such as prostate cancer and CFS remains unknown at this time. Additional research is needed to further evaluate a possible link of XMRV and MLVs with negative health outcomes, including prostate cancer and CFS. If it is determined that XMRV and MLVs may have a role in causing disease and illness, prevention recommendations can be made.”[06-03-2020 Update on above: CDC has pulled the given page and it is no longer visible. The pulling of this material is most suspicious given the coverage from Plandemic. The pulled CDC page exists still in web archives.]
Although it is presumed that XMRV can be transmitted through blood transfusion, no such transmission event has been identified, and there is no known evidence of XMRV or MLV infection or related illness or disease in transfusion recipients. Agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are conducting studies to determine the prevalence of XMRV in the blood donor population.” https://www.cdc.gov/xmrv/index.html
It is a failure of public health authorities to refute valid scientific questions and to fail to conduct proper precautionary research in order to defend pre-existing policy.
The full explanation of events and the cover-up attempts at her research (including the involvement of Dr. Anthony Fauci) is too voluminous to include here. I refer you to her book Plague of Corruption.
Was Judy Mikovits discredited and jailed for stealing lab notebooks?
The charges brought against Judy Mikovits and the circumstances surrounding them are crucial to evaluate. Debunking attempts often incorrectly report facts of the story, or fall prey to the logical bias in thinking that if they are plausibly right about one fine point that they are right about their entire version of the story.
There are two narratives at play here. The first is the “official narrative,” the one told by the authorities and by mainstream media accounts. The second is that of Judy Mikovits’ own personal account in which she alleges that retaliatory action was taken against her and a subsequent cover-up of those attempts were done.
In the former, though the source differs, they all repeat the following version. From a recent Guardian piece: “Mikovits long ago lost credibility in the scientific community when the journal Science retracted a 2009 article the virologist co-authored claiming her research showed that a mouse retrovirus caused chronic fatigue syndrome. The controversy helped cost Mikovits her job at the Whittemore Peterson Institute. A few months later she was briefly jailed for allegedly removing a computer, notebooks and proprietary information from the institute although the charges were dropped on technicalities. Mikovits has since claimed she was arrested in an attempt by the ‘deep state’ to stop her revealing the truth.”
Now there appears to be some hand-waving that occurs over this official narrative as there are important questions here that aren’t examined. Was there scientific fraud involved? There doesn’t appear to be. Retractions are not uncommon so why does this retraction have such prominence? This study showed the number of retractions over the past two decades number over 1,000. Why were charges even brought against her in the first place? There seemed to be concerns regarding informational materials; it would seem this concern would only be here if the topic of study were informationally-sensitive. The charges were dropped on technicalities but is there more to the story here that is worth mentioning?
It is factually established that charges were brought against her for allegedly stealing material, she was briefly jailed, and the charges were dropped by the district attorney. It is also factually established that the events in question ruined her career; she was unable to secure funding for her studies, and later filed bankruptcy due to legal fees.
Now it would be worth it to examine the side from Judy Mikovits side. The following is from her book Plague of Corruption:
“Pharmaceutical companies and their captive regulators unleashed a furious broadside against Mikovits and Ruscetti, besieging them from every stronghold.The journal Science feverishly pressed Mikovits to retract her October 2009 article. In September of 2011, the Whittemore Peterson Institute at the University of Nevada, Reno, fired Judy from her faculty job.
Judy and her family noticed menacing-looking men following her in pickup trucks and other incidents indicating she was under surveillance. In one incident, burley thugs surrounded her home and forced her to
flee in a boat. After she escaped, they barged into her home, claiming to work for the government.
In November, Ventura Police arrested Judy without a warrant and held her in jail for five days without bail. The police searched her house from top to bottom, strewing her papers everywhere. That same day, cops raided the home of her friend, Lilly, and forced her to sit in a chair for several hours while they ransacked the building. NIH officials told Nevada police that Dr. Mikovits had illegally taken her research notebooks from their lab. This was a fabricated charge. As the principal investigator on two government grants, it was Dr. Mikovits’ obligation to retain all of her research papers.
Furthermore, Judy had left all of the notebooks in her university office on September 29. That same day, someone illegally burglarized Judy’s office, removed her notebooks, and then somehow planted them in a closet of her home, apparently to incriminate her. Weeks later, as Judy languished in a cell, her husband, David, found the journals neatly packed in a linen beach bag in an obscure closet in her Southern California home. David frantically took them to the jail after midnight and then handed them over to Ventura Police.
While she was in jail, Judy’s former boss told her husband and Dr. Ruscetti that if she just signed an apology admitting her paper was wrong, the police would release her from confinement and she could salvage her science career. Judy refused. No prosecutor has ever filed charges against her, but the pharmaceutical cartel and its captive scientific journals launched a campaign of vilification against her. Less than two years earlier, the journal Science had celebrated her. Now, the same journal published her mug shot and retracted her paper.”
Later in the book, she wrote in her own words:
“If you read the Wikipedia version of my life, you will find that our work has been discredited, that what we believed to be an infection was simply lab contamination, and for good measure you might also find the mug shot of me that was published in the journal Science when I was arrested, but curiously, not charged for supposedly ‘stealing’ my own research journals, a requirement as the principal investigator on two large government grants and required by federal law.
The principal investigator on a government grant is responsible for the security of all materials on the project. As of this date, more than seven years later, I have not been provided copies of a single page of my notebooks or those of my research team… If I am a criminal, why were no charges ever brought against me? My record is clean. And in the years since my false arrest and imprisonment, why have I been unable to have a single day in court for a judge and jury to hear my claims, even though I have never given up the effort to receive due process?”
Her story paints a picture at odds with the official narrative, one in which abuse of power and intimidation is used to cover-up and censor damaging scientific work. Her full account is given in the books Plague and Plague of Corruption.
We are left trying to reconcile these two narratives. Reconciliation of two diverging narratives in which parties were wronged and justice is needed is the domain and responsibility of our court systems. It is telling that in Judy Mikovits’ case this “trial” has occurred in the public world of social media.
Suspiciously, all of the debunking attempts treat her accounts as if they never happened. There is no deeper examination, just a reiteration of the public narrative. In this world of #metoo and sexual misconduct by people in positions of power (ie. Harvey Weinstein), isn’t it quite possible that abuse of power to hide inconvenient truths exists tpp in public health and scientific institutions?
Why was Dr. Judy Mikovits’ XMRV research retracted?
The standard mainstream media narrative was that her research was retracted due to lab contamination and that what she found in the blood of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome patients she was examining was endemic XMRV but merely a lab contamination.
The standard mainstream media is contradicted by the extraordinary events that surround this retraction, and the seemingly use of political power to stop XMRV research. Dr. Judy Mikovits alleges that the directive to stifle her research came directly from Dr. Fauci. Given an examination of the events, there is enough evidence to warrant examination of this claim. Suffice to say, public health authorities like the CDC and NIH have been less than enthusiastic about looking for the ill-effects of XMRV.
It is reported by the media that follow-up studies failed to detect XMRV in humans suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. However, one group of researchers did corroborate the XMRV finding.
The following is from the Discover magazine article:
“Shyh-Ching Lo, a pathologist and director of the FDA’s Tissue Microbiology Laboratory, discovered that he possessed 37 unopened vials of whole blood and plasma from CFS sufferers, the pristine cryopreserved remains of experiments undertaken in the early 1990s. To his surprise, Lo found four different MLV-related gene sequences in 32 of the 37 patient samples.
Although the gene sequences were not identical to the Mikovits-Ruscetti XMRV gene sequence reported in Science, they were so close Lo believed he had found genetic variants of a single MLV-like virus species that likely included XMRV. Lo was encouraged by the variants because retroviruses are extremely mutable pathogens that change their gene sequences again and again in response to immune system efforts to kill them. “This is what we expect,” Lo said at the time.
Lo asked a friend and sometime collaborator, Harvey Alter, chief of the infectious disease section in the department of transfusion medicine at the NIH, for some healthy blood samples to use as controls. Alter, who had discovered the hepatitis C virus in the 1970s, provided Lo with blood that had been donated to local blood banks by presumably healthy people. Lo found 6.8 percent of the healthy controls positive for MLV-related infection. The startling figure doubled the Sciencepaper’s estimates of prevalence for Americans who might be infected with a doomsday bug. Lo and Alter’s paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in August 2010.”
The paper that Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo published is here:
Shyh-Ching Lo, Natalia Pripuzova, Bingjie Li, Anthony L. Komaroff, Guo-Chiuan Hung, Richard Wang, and Harvey J. Alter. “Detection of MLV-related virus gene sequences in blood of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and healthy blood donors” PNAS September 7, 2010 107 (36) 15874-15879; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006901107
This brings up the further question: were samples in the other replication studies cherry-picked to avoid detection of XMRV? This is what Dr. Judy Mikovits alleges has happened in order for public health authorities to cover-up the dissemination of XMRV to the larger populace via the national vaccine program.
What does Plandemic get right about Covid-19 origins?
Debunking attempts at Plandemic do some major hand-waving regarding Covid-19 origins. In fact, these attempts back-fire, and draw more attention to some key facts.
- The first Covid-19 reports originated in Wuhan.
- Wuhan Institute of Virology had been doing risky “gain-of-function” viral research on coronavirus from bats.
- The NIH (with involvement from Dr. Anthony Fauci) gave $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study coronavirus from bats including “gain of function” research (which would make the virus more likely to infect humans).
On April 15 2020, Fox News reported, “The sources believe the initial transmission of the virus – a naturally occurring strain that was being studied there – was bat-to-human and that “patient zero” worked at the laboratory, then went into the population in Wuhan. The ‘increasing confidence’ comes from classified and open-source documents and evidence, the sources said.”
It is critical again to understand that that “gain-of-function” research was being done in Wuhan, and that this research may have been instrumental in causing novel coronaviruses from bats to infect humans. The following is a good explanation of gain-of function:
“Gain-of-function studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease, help define the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, thereby enabling assessment of the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, informing public health and preparedness efforts, and furthering medical countermeasure development. Gain-of-function studies may entail biosafety and biosecurity risks…”
While the following points is still debated by scientists, there are some scientists who believe that the Sars-Cov-2 virus is genetically engineered:
The following are all sources that corroborate the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a possible source and/or the NIH involvement in such:
All of these taken together present a picture that goes beyond mere coincidence. While we don’t know if this virus was deliberately released into the public, at the least we know that the virus likely resulted from actions undertaken by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
What financial conflicts of interest surround public health policy?
There are numerous financial conflicts of interests.
First, government workers are able to profit from patents, and there is the conflict of interest in being able to recommend solutions that allow money to be made off from that patent.
Second, pharma advertising spend is massive and exerts a powerful influence on media companies and tech companies.
Third, and most dangerous of all, there are financial conflicts of interest that arise from regulatory capture of government public health institutions.
What’s this about government workers making money off of patents?
First, government workers are able to profit from patents. This conflict of interest is multiplied when the same government workers are able to recommend or implement policy solutions that allow money to be made off from the patent in question.
A prominent example is the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices which recommends which vaccines should be added to the CDC recommended vaccine schedule. Current practices allow committee members to recommend vaccines for the schedule on which they hold patents for.
In Plandemic, Dr. Judy Mikovits specifically mentions the need to repeal the Bayh-Dole Act. In her own words, she says: “That act gave government workers the right to patent their discoveries, so to claim intellectual property for discoveries that the taxpayer paid for. Ever since that happened in the early ’80s, it destroyed science. And this allowed the development of those conflicts of interest.
Bayh-Dole fundamentally changed the way universities approach technology transfer, and you can see that best in the statistics. Universities obtain 16 times as many patents today as they did in 1980… Now, everybody’s getting more patents, but still, universities’ share of all patents in the United States is more than five times greater than it was before Bayh-Dole.
The situation has gotten so bad that one information technology industry official has publicly referred to universities as, quote, crack addicts, unquote, driving by, quote, small-minded tech transfer offices addicted to patent royalties.”
Why should we care about conflicts of interest from pharmaceutical advertising spend?
Pharma advertising spend is massive and exerts a powerful influence on media companies and tech companies. Pharma spends $30 billion on drug advertising each year. Facebook itself is the recipient of much advertising for social media drug ads.
Particularly lucrative are partnerships between pharmaceuticals and the tech giants. There is plenty of money to be made from the marriage of machine learning and big data analysis of epidemiological datasets, and enterprise cloud health apps. The potential for collaboration between pharmaceuticals and technology are so large that it could lead to new ecosystems in health.
With significant money flows between tech and pharma, is it any surprise that tech companies are willing to engage in censorship efforts aimed at anything that questions this spending?
What conflicts of interest exist in our government public health institutions?
Most dangerous of all, there are financial conflicts of interest that arise from regulatory capture of government public health institutions. The power of government cannot be understated. There are huge revenues to be made from controlling health policy, including the ability to influence drug approvals, control what constitutes standards of care, and what treatments get mandated.
The problem of pervasive corporate influence is so bad that even scientists within the CDC are calling it out:
There have been concerns of CDC leadership having financial conflicts of interest and/or participating in “revolving door” practices:
There are conflicts of interest that arise from within the Covid-19 response itself. In Plandemic, Dr. Judy Mikovits reported that hospitals receive more money if hospital deaths are classified from Covid-19. This is corroborated by the USA Today, “Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with COVID-19 or if it’s considered presumed they have COVID-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat COVID-19 cases.”
Dr. Deborah Birx of the coronavirus task force recently reported that she “doesn’t trust CDC numbers,” fearing that the CDC’s data-tracking system was inflating coronavirus statistics like mortality rates and case numbers by up to 25%.
What’s the concern about conflicts of interest, the Covid response, and Bill Gates?
There is the danger of powerful individuals being able to influence public health policy. This is the concern with technologist Bill Gates, who through the Gates Foundation has donated massive amounts of money to the CDC, WHO, and the Cochrane Collaboration.
Even more disturbing is the evidence that Bill Gates has been actively driving the coronavirus narrative using his influence. According to the Washington Times, “WHO didn’t announce the coronavirus as a pandemic until the very day after Gates — who had wished for some time that WHO would declare the coronavirus a pandemic — well, until the very day after Gates made a very large donation to a cause that benefits WHO.”
Strangely enough, Gates is actively involved in driving the “solution” to the very pandemic with a consortium of corporate partnerships, investments into vaccines, and contact-tracing solutions driven through the technology sector.
Bill Gates has had long-time ties to director of the NIAID and head of the coronavirus task force, Dr. Anthony Fauci. The following shows the partnerships between Gates’ Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiative (GAVI) and the NIH.
The problem of Bill Gates and the financial conflicts of interest associated with his monetary funding is that it allows one powerful man, who is neither a doctor nor an elected official, to drive a narrative regarding the pandemic, one that is inflexible to revision from new data and concerns from the public.
Here we can see the narrative trail that Bill Gates follows. Years ago he spoke about the need for pandemic preparedness. Last fall, he sponsored a global pandemic planning exercise in association with John Hopkins. And then in his recent writings and technology funding, we see his narrative for a “solution.”
What reforms need to be made as a result of Plandemic?
In her book Plague of Corruption, Dr. Judy Mikovits recommends the following reforms to bring back integrity to science:
- Eliminate all financial prizes for scientists, as it hurts cooperation.
- Eliminate all anonymity for reviewers of grants and publications. If a scientist cannot say something publicly, then why is he or she saying it at all?
- Cap the amount of public grant money any individual researcher can receive. The more practicing scientists we have, the better it will be for science in general.
- Repeal of the Bayh-Dole Act.
To add to this list, we should add:
- To improve protection of whistleblowers coming forward from both government and corporations.
- Revisit “revolving door” practices from regulators to industry.
- Require stricter disclosure requirements for scientists and doctors regarding compensation from pharmaceuticals.
- Improve regulatory oversight of media technology companies to police their use of censorship and make sure they adhere to freedom of speech.
- Improve upon legal protection of individual civic rights to safeguard the right to opt-out from medical and technological public health solutions deployed on the public.
- Improve upon standards of safety regarding vaccine approvals (require comparison against an inert saline placebo with a large enough size, proper safety studies on ingredients within vaccines, safety studies regarding effects of over-vaccination, and a full vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study)
Does influenza vaccine increase odds of coronavirus risk?
Published research seems to indicate yes. And Dr. Judy Mikovits was speaking precisely this in Plandemic.
It comes from this paper: “Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season.” Vaccine. 2020 Jan 10;38(2):350-354. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.005. Epub 2019 Oct 10.
Plandemic goes beyond just the story of one woman wronged by an oppressive government health system, the vaccine controversy, and the Covid-19 origins.
It is fundamentally a story about reform:
- Reforming our public health institutions to remove corporate influence and increase transparency,
- Reforming our medical and scientific institutions so that they are immune from the influence of pharmaceutical dollars,
- Reforming our civil liberties protections so they are robust against surveillance capabilities done in the name of public health like contact tracing,
- Reforming our system to remove current and safeguard against forced medical mandates, and
- Reforming our public governance so that our politicians and institutions ultimately serve the public instead of the vested interests of corporations or the beliefs of powerful individuals.
The following are collections of pdfs of Judy Mikovits background and publications:
- Judy Mikovits Resume and Bio info
- Judy Mikovits XMRV Research
- Judy Mikovits Prior Papers https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r75h5su69gzkdc/Judy_Mikovits_Prior_Papers.zip?dl=0