Tuesday, March 2, 2021

TRUTH DECAY...Where's the Fluoride?

When a Journalism Lecturer Sells Out To Facebook... oh, I mean RAND Corporation

Written in response to Lead Stories' Dean Miller's relentless attack on facts by seeking confirmation bias for propaganda (reference below).

Dear Dean,

The epistemological trap in which you find yourself is instructive.  On the human level, I am deeply sympathetic.  On the social consequence level, far less so given the destructive and divisive power of the self-appointed, compensated, purveyors of “facts”.


1.      You allege to favor “experts in COVID”.  As COVID is a set of clinical symptoms that have been organized for just over a year, you cannot help but see the paradox in your criteria for expertise. No one could be an “expert” in a thing that has been characterized for less than a year with no causal evidence linking virus and disease to date.   You have not made any published effort to reference either scientific perspective of the highly controversial Gain of Function Moratorium or the researchers that raised genuine concerns about what was being done with NIAID’s funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and UNC Chapel Hill amplification of coronavirus pathogenicity from 2015 forward. 


2.      When the White House sent me to Tehran in 2005 for the International Congress on Bioethics based on my deep involvement in supplying technical and intelligence data on the counter-proliferation of biological agents (called into first public service in 2001 with the anthrax investigation), I was fascinated on what I met upon my return.  The New York Times and other media outlets wanted to ask me about nuclear weapons!  While I did meet with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) leadership and engaged in several technical interactions, the media was officially disinterested in bioweapons as the story line was nuclear.  A year later, when I was asked to review the anthrax program at Jawaharal Nehru University, the “anthrax” story was politically too hot to handle so it was largely ignored by the U.S. media.


3.      The CDC and WHO announced that vaccines were the only way out of the pandemic before it was a pandemic.  The FDA stood in opposition to emergency use authorizations of countless therapy alternatives as an emergency vaccine authorization can only be activated if there are no treatment alternatives.  When Moderna was founded, the scientists associated with the company were deeply aware of RNA’s role both in protein synthesis and in DNA transfection.  Their use of the term “gene therapy” was a scientific and market distinction from being just another vaccine “loss-leader” company (https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/).  Outside of an Emergency Use Authorization for a symptom treatment (the only primary outcome that has been measured in the vaccine trials to date), mRNA technology has had a decade of abysmal failures.  In all of your reporting, you have not acknowledged that NO vaccine clinical trial has ever selected as a primary outcome a committee-determined set of two symptoms when those symptoms also are standard adverse reactions to the intervention.   Remember, Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks stated, “our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission, because … you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable,” citing the need for a five-to-ten times longer trial length and even higher costs. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037.  In short, your “expertise” does not include persons who are vaccine clinical trial experts, coronavirus experts, or the like. 


4.      While geopolitics make the laboratory conversation taboo, the absence of zoonotic evidence is problematic in the face of laboratory data showing that the most troublesome aspects – the S1 spike protein and the ACE2 receptor interaction – are precisely what was being amplified in labs since 2015!  While this can clearly be coincidental and while the idiopathic pneumonia in Wuhan may be simple lottery-odds improbability, you and others continue to ask the wrong question.  With over 45,000 known modifications of the subclade now called SARS CoV-2, the obsession with an “origin” story flies in the face of evidence.  Now there is ample published evidenced of immunology to what we’re calling SARS CoV-2 in Italy and France in the Fall of 2019 – long before the Wuhan “outbreak” (Carrat, F. et al. Eur. J. Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-020-00716-2 (2021).  And, if the Chinese data is to be accepted, 67 blood samples from “COVID-19” symptom patients from November and December 2019 did not have any SARS CoV-2 evidence (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00502-4#ref-CR1).


5.      Suggesting that Oklahoma University’s Dr. Douglas Drevets is an expert in Moderna’s mRNA gene therapy or COVID-19 is as much a stretch as it is to say that what you’re doing is “fact checking”.  With HIV/AIDS and neuro-infection expertise, I’m sure Dr. Drevets has great insights.  That he is supported by the Gilead Foundation (a COVID-19 conflicted party) is, once again, overlooked by fact-checkers.  The quote from Dr. Drevets (“In the clinical trials, patients were identified first by symptoms, and then were tested for the presence of virus to confirm that the symptoms were caused by the SARS-2-CoV rather than some other virus. So in the person infection comes first then symptoms, but in the study infected people were first identified by symptoms and then by the presence of virus.) is patently false.  None of these “facts” are anywhere in the Phase III trials for the Pfizer or Moderna studies.  Tragically, this is falsifiable by reading the study protocol!  In short, Dean Miller, in your “fact checking” of statements I made directly from Moderna’s OWN publications, you promulgated a lie.


And that’s the problem.  In over a year, not a single fact about CDC’s patents, NIAID’s funding, the 5,111 proprietary rights granted around SARS Coronavirus, the Wuhan Institute of Virology or Peter Daszak’s 2016 quote have been challenged.  THE EVIDENCE of an economic fraud is staring any human in the face and “Fact Checkers” are willfully avoiding THE FACTS:


“we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process, Daszak stated.”


(Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events; Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation; Forum on Microbial Threats; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Rapid Medical Countermeasure Response to Infectious Diseases: Enabling Sustainable Capabilities Through Ongoing Public- and Private-Sector Partnerships: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Feb 12. 6, Developing MCMs for Coronaviruses. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK349040/)


In response to the FALSE and MISLEADING “Fact Check” publication by Dean Miller.



Here’s Dean Miller’s Lead Stories smear piece:  https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/02/fact-check-the-moderna-pfizer-covid-jabs-are-legally-not-vaccines.html



Oh, and did I mention that, despite public statements about being “self-funded”, Facebook fact-checking partner Lead Stories is an organization directly endorsed by RAND Corporation https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay/fighting-disinformation/search/items/lead-stories-factchecker.html)





  1. David,
    I am glad you posted this. It's hard to find anybody that engages truth tellers. So every contribution helps to demonstrate due dilligence to the conditioned masses. Maybe we need to set up devils advocate style discussions among the genuine people or peer reviews of opinion pieces.

  2. Followers of David can now go to Prosecutenow.com for complete access to legal information and filings.

    1. The first priority should be mobilizing support to reverse the WHO change in the definition of a pandemic. The death toll requirement must be reinstated failing which we will have pandemics Iof the common cold with all the nonsense repeating itself


Thank you for your comment. I look forward to considering this in the expanding dialogue. Dave