Question: The US has retreated from intl health organizations. Are we equipped to respond to outbreaks like this in Russia and share information accurately? @celinegounder “This is part of the problem because we withdrew from W.H.O. We don't have the access to some of the information that W.H.O. shares out to what we call focal points in different countries.”

Epub 2023 Oct 27. Prenatal SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Exposure Induces Autism-Like Neurobehavioral Changes in Male Neonatal Rats pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3788…

U.S. Gov’t Deployed Plague-Linked Raccoonpox Vaccines Before 2009 and 2020 Pandemics, Plans More in 2027 DEFUSE-linked program is now mass-producing its bat vaccine while developing “hands-off, mass delivery” by spray.

Calling it the 'Black Plague' is just as racist as the 'China virus'. White Russian cocktails don't allow you to call it the White Plague either. If you don't refer to it as a 'Plague of Color', you'll be canceled. In times like this it's imperative we get our micro-aggression, victimhood, and privilege rules locked down.

SHUT THE FUCK UP WE’RE NOT DOING THIS AGAIN

Go Where U Wanna Go ~ I Get Around (It doesn't stay in the deltoid!) 🧵🧵s on the bio distribution of the C0VID 💉 LNPs. keep showing replies

You know P Still Very few are connecting the dots To Transhumanism As the Overriding goal To transfecting the global population 81% uptake I've posted this So many times Now Insertional mutagenesis is just starting To go mainstream Sort of m.youtube.com/watch?v=La9dUk…

Now there's Three separate therapies and filtration columns We've found that DARPA and the US Military have access to use Be We Don't... Three separate therapies and medical devices filtration columns. The Fourth is what's being used in Japan Nearly identical to all of these in design, use and effects. And We can't use the Japanese columns here * either * Just thought you'd like to know

Governments and militaries are already developing over 21 PLAGUE VACCINES. Self-amplifying RNA (UK) mRNA (Israel) DNA (U.S.) Viral Vector (UK, U.S.) Bacterial Vector (U.S.) Subunit (U.S., UK, China) Live-Attenuated (Russia, China, U.S.) I won't be taking any of them.

1/3 Once you understand how natural immunity against airborne viruses is created you will never want an injection again. Did you know that immunity against airborne viruses is created in your gut? Peyers patches.

Last year, as part of a comprehensive review of NIH’s intramural policies, I announced that NIH was adopting an updated agency-wide framework to embed principles of academic freedom within our Intramural Research Program. This framework recognizes that intramural researchers must be free to share their scientific viewpoints and to communicate their scientific findings through manuscripts, presentations, media interviews, and so on. This includes hosting outside lecturers for events focused on their scientific work. Today, NIH reaffirms this commitment to academic freedom as members of the intramural research community host Kristian G. Andersen, MPhil, PhD, as a guest lecturer. Dr. Andersen is a co-author of a March 2020 paper published in Nature Medicine titled “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.” The paper’s authors assert: “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” They further write that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” The paper was cited extensively by members of the media, social media companies, and government officials to refute or suppress lab-origin hypotheses and to discredit anyone who publicly dissented from the dominant natural-origins narrative. As then-NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins wrote, “this study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19.” Yet before and after the paper’s publication, Dr. Andersen himself expressed substantially more uncertainty. In January, he wrote in an email that some features of the virus “(potentially) look engineered.” One month after the paper’s publication, he wrote privately that he was not fully convinced that every lab-based scenario could be ruled out. In January 2025, the Central Intelligence Agency released the results of an assessment conducted during the Biden administration that found a “research-related origin” of SARS-CoV-2 was “more likely than a natural origin,” while assessing both theories as plausible. Given the evidence I’ve seen, I think the preponderance of evidence supports the theory that the virus leaked from a lab. I am keenly aware that no hypothesis about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 has been conclusively proven. When it comes to open scientific questions like this, our ability to pursue truth depends on our freedom to explore various hypotheses, weigh all available evidence, and deliberate openly. This freedom was denied to many scientists during the pandemic. 𝗜 𝗮𝗺 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗜𝗛 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗴𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀—𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗔𝗥𝗦-𝗖𝗼𝗩-𝟮—𝗲𝗻𝗷𝗼𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄.

Last year, as part of a comprehensive review of NIH’s intramural policies, I announced that NIH was adopting an updated agency-wide framework to embed principles of academic freedom within our Intramural Research Program. This framework recognizes that intramural researchers must be free to share their scientific viewpoints and to communicate their scientific findings through manuscripts, presentations, media interviews, and so on. This includes hosting outside lecturers for events focused on their scientific work. Today, NIH reaffirms this commitment to academic freedom as members of the intramural research community host Kristian G. Andersen, MPhil, PhD, as a guest lecturer. Dr. Andersen is a co-author of a March 2020 paper published in Nature Medicine titled “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.” The paper’s authors assert: “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” They further write that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” The paper was cited extensively by members of the media, social media companies, and government officials to refute or suppress lab-origin hypotheses and to discredit anyone who publicly dissented from the dominant natural-origins narrative. As then-NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins wrote, “this study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19.” Yet before and after the paper’s publication, Dr. Andersen himself expressed substantially more uncertainty. In January, he wrote in an email that some features of the virus “(potentially) look engineered.” One month after the paper’s publication, he wrote privately that he was not fully convinced that every lab-based scenario could be ruled out. In January 2025, the Central Intelligence Agency released the results of an assessment conducted during the Biden administration that found a “research-related origin” of SARS-CoV-2 was “more likely than a natural origin,” while assessing both theories as plausible. Given the evidence I’ve seen, I think the preponderance of evidence supports the theory that the virus leaked from a lab. I am keenly aware that no hypothesis about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 has been conclusively proven. When it comes to open scientific questions like this, our ability to pursue truth depends on our freedom to explore various hypotheses, weigh all available evidence, and deliberate openly. This freedom was denied to many scientists during the pandemic. 𝗜 𝗮𝗺 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗜𝗛 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗴𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀—𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗔𝗥𝗦-𝗖𝗼𝗩-𝟮—𝗲𝗻𝗷𝗼𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄.