The Real Story on “Hot” COVID-19 Lots is Much Worse than We Ever Imagined

That stunt was pulled with the military’s experimental anthrax vaccine

In my previous posts, I have alluded to the tendency of history to repeat and how each scam from the past is used as a prototype for the current con.  I originally created this substack to bring awareness to the fact the smallpox vaccine campaigns were a very similar disaster to the COVID vaccine campaigns.  Over a century ago, those deadly vaccines actually made smallpox worse, and as public resistance grew, governments responded increasingly draconian mandates and all of that only stopped because of mass protest by the working class.

There are a few other striking examples of where an “emergency” situation was used to enact cruel and legally questionable medical campaign on a vulnerable demographic.  My familiarity with these campaigns and my previous advocacy for many of the forgotten victims of western medicine made me able to predict the seemingly unthinkable situation we are in now.  Of these events, the military anthrax vaccine campaign appears to have the closest parallels to our current situation, especially considering that many of the exact same parties responsible for that debacle have done the identical thing with COVID-19.

The story of the military anthrax vaccine campaigns is horrific and even a few years ago would have been challenging to believe it could have ever happened.  An extremely dangerous medical experiment was conducted in absolute secret on large segments of the military so that a new wave of highly profitable vaccines the NIH was heavily invested in could be brought to market.  Massive casualties emerged (in those who received hot lots), and the military did everything they could to cover it up. 

Eventually outside investigators obtained clear proof that a phase 1 dose response trial (this is the initial part of testing a drug where “small” numbers of volunteers are given a medication to assess its safety for further testing) was being conducted.  Despite this the military continued this experiment for over a decade, and while there were large numbers of victims, the numbers were small enough to sweep everything under the rug.  Now in the present day, it appears that some of the technologies used for operation Warp Speed are the same ones that were developed during this experiment.

Much of this article is sourced from the phenomenal journalism by Gary Matsumoto within “Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing Our Soldiers -- and Why GI's Are Only the First Victims.”  An abridged version can also be found within Chapter 16 of Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children.  Both books are only a decade old and accurately predicted much of what was soon to come. 

I understand everyone working on this project has limited time.  However, I would strongly urge any attorneys involved to review the details within Vaccine A, as I believe they will prove crucial for future litigation.  I have put an immense amount of time I don’t really have into drafting this, and I would greatly appreciate your assistance in getting it to the appropriate parties. 

This article will be broken into the following sections:

-Hot mRNA Lots
-History of Unethical Human Experimentation
-Bioweapons
-Lipid Adjuvants
-The Anthrax Vaccines

Hot mRNA Lots:

When Operation Warp Speed was announced, I was hopeful it would give therapeutics the FDA had stonewalled in the past a chance to shine, and apprehensive it would allow unsafe, untested pharmaceuticals to enter the market.  After I and others attempted in vain to attain regulatory approval to conduct non-commercial clinical trials for viable solutions for the pandemic, we each saw the regulatory barriers that had been removed were only to support pharmaceutical profiteering and not to promote public health. 

The thing I failed to appreciate until recently was the significance of the military being intimately involved with Operation Warp Speed.  I hadn’t paid much attention to this, as I thought it was done to expedite the production and distribution of medical supplies.  What I’ve realized recently is that this allowed a lot of horrible people in our government to shape Operation Warp Speed around their pet projects that would normally never be permitted to happen.

Everything about COVID, particularly the PR campaigns for the vaccines screamed to me that something very bad was in the works.  Many of us watched as everything was coordinated to create a once in a lifetime opportunity, step by step, to push through a variety of otherwise unacceptable medical experiments and practices.  As mRNA technology likely represents a potential multi-trillion-dollar source of revenue and the pharmaceutical industry is desperate for innovations (it is getting very difficult to develop new traditional drugs), bringing mRNA to market seemed a likely goal of Operation Warp Speed.

When the COVID vaccines were being developed, one of my early questions was “how are they going to dose the mRNA?”  Within pharmacology, a concept known as therapeutic window exists.  Briefly, all medications at certain doses are toxic, and all medications need a certain (therapeutic) dose to work.  Some medications have a much higher toxic dose than therapeutic dose, so anyone can take the medication at home without worrying about toxicity.  Other more dangerous medications have much closer therapeutic and toxic doses, and hence must be given in a controlled setting. 

As best as I could gather, a major problem with mRNA technology had been that to produce enough protein in the recipient, the mRNA and their lipid nanoparticles had to be given at a dose that had significant side effects.  This poor therapeutic window I suspected was a key reason why despite significant investment, this technology had never been able to make it to market. 

To some extent the issue now seems to have been addressed by enhancing the amount of protein each mRNA would produce.  This was done by attaching pseudouridine to the mRNA so it would not be broken down as quickly (although it also has been argued this was done so a unique and therefore patentable modification existed) and codon optimization. These two innovations also appear to have created new sets of problems, and the R&D situation largely reminded me of the challenges the designers of the anthrax vaccine faced.  The pandemic, like the Gulf War, had created a once in a lifetime opportunity for questionable data gathering and as one of my colleagues put it: “The vaccine isn’t free.  If the government is putting this much money into it, they must want a lot of data in return.”

As the rollout began, I noticed individuals had very different responses to the vaccinations, which seemed to suggest placebos and more toxic or less toxic lots were present.  Similarly, one of my colleagues (who I consider to be a superb diagnostician) told me he was absolutely certain some of his patients had received placebos.  At the same time, as I began witnessing a horrifying emergence of severe adverse events, I also observed multiple cases of close relatives who lived together (such as a husband and wife) having the same, sometimes fatal reaction. 

If we were to assume 0.1% of vaccinations result in death, then mathematically, the odds are very close to 0 that in my relatively small sample size (roughly 40 deaths) I would be seeing cases of the same severe adverse event happen to two people who lived together (I also saw a few other non-fatal things cluster like this).  While there were a lot of possibilities to explain this observation, the best fit hypothesis I had was, as was the case with the anthrax vaccine, there were dangerous hot lots that both members of the household had likely gotten when they were vaccinated together.  From reading numerous reports from online forums, I have found I am not the only person who had encountered this clustering of adverse events.

Once this dawned on me, I checked VAERS and couldn’t believe most of the deaths and severe injuries from the vaccine were associated with specific lots…and nothing was being done.  Later, as this began to be investigated, it was also discovered most of these hot lots appeared to be in red states, which matched the clustering of adverse events within my sample (these were concentrated in Ohio). However, I believe it is critical to not overstate your conclusions, and having talked to numerous data analysts, at the time, while there is data suggest this may be happening, I do not believe there is sufficient data within VAERS to prove red states are being prioritized for more harmful vaccinations.

Around the same time, some of Pfizer’s drug approval documents from the European FDA (the EMA) were leaked.  One regulatory concern discussed in these documents was the stability of the mRNA product (which has likely gotten worse now as most of the strict refrigeration protocols are often not followed and the scaling production of vaccines up from the small number needed for clinical trials verses that needed for billions of people will inevitably lead to production mishaps).  Another was that the FDA had found differences between lots from different facilities.  These made me wonder if part of the variation in toxicity between the lots was from manufacturing issues that were being swept under the rug by Operation Warp Speed, something members of the FDA responsible for inspecting vaccine production had voiced serious concerns about.

Further support for this theory arose from the recent J&J manufacturing fiasco, where the company they had contracted to produce their vaccine, Emergent Biosolutions was required by the (very lenient) FDA to dispose of millions of improperly produced doses.  This manufacturer (previously known as Bioport) has deep connections to the military.  The company was also responsible for producing the military’s anthrax vaccine, and had also been repeatedly penalized and cited by the FDA for serious production quality issues with that vaccine.

Bioport, like the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers now, was also given complete legal immunity to any issues from their vaccine which likely incentivized ignoring safety and appropriate production of the vaccine.  Oddly enough, the manager responsible for quality control at the Emergent Biosolutions plant producing J&J’s COVID vaccine, according to Whitney Webb, had no background in pharmaceutical manufacturing or quality control, and rather had served as a head of military intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While I have been seeing signs of something very nefarious in the works since late 2019, I still hoped against hope this was all simply my own paranoia.  The moment when reality crashed into my face was a presentation put together by Craig Paardekooper. 

For those who do not have time to watch it, he showed that in addition to VAERS having evidence suggestive of hot lots, there is also data in VAERS that suggested Pfizer, J&J, and Moderna had been testing hot lots with various degrees of lethality in collusion with each other.  As time progressed, the toxicity of these lots became more precise, and at one point Pfizer conducted a dose response study that could be observed within VAERS. As this had recently been done to a large segment of the military with the anthrax vaccine, I was open to this possibility, but the fact that something like this could actually be occurring was still very difficult for me to stomach.

With the VAERS data, I acknowledge you could potentially argue the hot lots initially identified arose due to some type of bias.  However, I’ve looked at each of the counter arguments to the clustering of hot lots (Jessica Rose makes a very good one) and at this time I believe Craig’s findings raise serious concerns.  I have also spoken with members of Craig’s team (there are intelligent individuals with a background in this field working together) and they appear to be being very careful to not overstate their conclusions.

In Craig’s subsequent work, using the data he found in VAERS that suggested Pfizer had conducted a dose response study, he was able to identify a simple code from those lots that correlated with toxicity. This had also happened previously with the anthrax vaccines.  A while back I also saw a video where a recently retired Slovenian nurse made a similar claim.  At the time I didn’t know what to make of it or if it was even authentic (which has thus far not been established), but I immediately remembered it after I saw Craig’s work.

Recently, the topic of hot lots has come back into focus after reviewers of the Pfizer FOIA documents found proof that mRNA was being given at different doses.  While this would support the theory I am advancing, I believe this specific conclusion was an example of confirmation bias. When I looked at the table in question, I realized it simply reflected public knowledge of the fact Moderna uses a higher mRNA dose than Pfizer, and different vaccination doses with different billing codes have been developed depending on the age of the recipient.  This does not in any way prove the existence of hot lots, only that data has been gathered to develop appropriate dosing of mRNA.

History of Unethical Human Experimentation:

I have often wondered if the reason the Tuskegee syphilis experiments have received so much attention in the press was to distract from the fact that even more hideous experiments have been performed on vulnerable populations.  Some of those done by Fauci (such as the violent administration of experimental HIV medications to non-consenting orphans in New York that caused them to die in agonizing ways) have been brought the public’s attention because of The Real Anthony Fauci.  Some are discussed in a classic Wikipedia article on the subject.  Many other experiments I have come across are for all purposes unknown, and I am sure there are many more I have never heard of.

The development of medical science has been a struggle of humanity fraught with many mishaps and disasters for those involved.  At the same time, the collective suffering our forefathers experienced, often due to abhorrent medical interventions, eventually made it possible to develop profound improvements in the quality of life for the human species. 

There has hence been a continual debate if it is appropriate to advance medicine through barbaric experimentation.  One example would be animal experimentation.  The life experience of myself and many others has shown us animals are often sentient, and despite this, much of medical research involves barbaric and often completely unnecessary experimentation on animals.  The topic of animal experimentation birthed the “anti-vivisection” movement, which amongst other things, argued that medicine developed through evil would inevitably enact that same evil on its intended recipients, something which often comes true.

Human beings appear to have a limited number of social connections they can maintain an emotional connection to.  As a result, when individuals are in small groups, they typically prioritize the liberty and well-being of those around them.  Yet, when people assume positions of authority where they are responsible for a large number of people, dehumanization frequently occurs and the people they are responsible for become abstract entities whose collective good becomes prioritized over the rights of each individual.  I have observed this entire process in so many ways I am convinced it is an intrinsic aspect of human nature.

As the progression of science is so crucial to the advancement of civilization, and our form of science is largely based on biological experimentation, it is hence a recurring theme that highly unethical human experimentation occurs.  In recognition of this fact, when you complete the training program required in the USA to conduct research on human subjects, the importance of not conducting research on vulnerable groups who lack the ability to refuse to be experimented upon is a key focus of the program. 

At the same time, when viewed from a perspective emphasizing “collective good,” vulnerable captive groups represent the ideal groups to conduct experiments on.  The experimental group can be tightly controlled, preventing many of the common issues with data accumulation (ie. subjects dropping out of the trial).  They also are less likely to resist taking a toxic medication and when something bad happens, they don’t have anyone who will ask questions about what happened to them.

In the past, prisoners, the mentally handicapped, orphans in foster care and those indefinitely confined within medical facilities were frequent targets for horrific experimentation.  Until about half a century ago, it was common to see experiments of this nature be condoned by society and published in leading medical journals and few objections were raised towards those studies.

However, overtime, public protest occurred and eventually experimentation on these vulnerable groups was largely stopped, leading to much of it being outsourced to Africa.  As this reduced the supply of “ideal” domestic research subjects, the only remaining subject pool, the military, was regularly utilized.  Military culture is based around obeying orders from your superiors even if it puts your life in danger and always completing your required period of enlistment.  In short, members of the military often lack the ability to refuse to a medical intervention, something many are all too eager to take advantage of.

Within the military, it has always been considered acceptable for some soldiers to die on the battlefield to achieve a victory.  This logic in turn has been extended towards it being acceptable for a certain number to be maimed or killed in experiments that yield results of vital strategic importance.  However, that often blends with corruption, leading to profiteers conducting numerous ghastly experiments that are not necessary for national security.  War profiteering, the focus on my previous article, is a dark side of our democracy that when understood, helps to place many of these events into context.

After the events of the anthrax scandal happened, and a senate investigation was conducted, laws were passed to prevent the future forced administration of experimental (non-FDA approved) medications on soldiers.  Despite that, existing legal structures still make this feasible to do, such as soldiers being unable to sue the military for injuries from forced medications (due to the questionable Feres Doctrine), the declaration of “emergency situations” overriding soldiers’ right of consent, and the military being allowed to inflict harsh punishments on soldiers for dereliction of duty when they refuse vaccinations.  These punishments included large fines and prison sentences that were levied against soldiers who refused the vaccination.

There are many tragic cases we have all heard in the military with the COVID vaccines.  One of my friends spent 6 months fighting the mandate and produced a strong legal case showing the specific manner in which Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin had mandated these vaccines violated both the law and rulings from federal judges (there actually was a legal pathway Austin could have followed). 

His exemption request was eventually approved and then rescinded after a very high-ranking member of the military stepped in and overrode his exemption, not unlike the events at Dover Airforce Base.  My friend now, like many others in the military is vaccine injured and unable to perform his duties.  Many similar events played out during the anthrax campaign and both vaccination campaigns had a devastating effect on both our military readiness and general morale in a profession that is built upon troop morale and patriotism.

Additionally, as excellently summarized within The Real Anthony Fauci, Anthony Fauci has played a key role in transforming the NIH and FDA into becoming pharmaceutical production pipelines where many regulatory officials are bribed to create, test and approve these drugs.  Within this paradigm, required safeguards for human subjects (Fauci’s wife is actually the chief bioethics official for clinical trials in the USA) are frequently disregarded or waived.  A significant aspect of Fauci’s career has been to work hand in hand with the military, both through directly conducting illegal research on their behalf (ie. gain of function research) and indirectly by waiving the ethical safeguards for experimentation on members of the military.

There are so many questionable experiments that have been performed on soldiers I cannot even begin to summarize them (Vaccine A lists many).  For example, in the days of nuclear bomb testing, to study the effects of fallout, the military would station troops in trenches near the detonation sites and inform them the fallout was safe, then give orders to charge following detonations.  One of my patients (a marine) told me this happened to his grandfather who was told by his superiors the fallout was safe; he subsequently died from an agonizing cancer.  However, while many “bad” experiments have been done, I believe the anthrax and COVID vaccines are in a class of their own due to how many people they have affected.

In the words of now retired USAF captain Richard Rovert, who tried to protect the servicemen at Dover Airforce Base from anthrax vaccination:

“I write about some of the most vulnerable of society's members: our men and women in uniform…Unfortunately, these brave defenders of our freedom are defenseless against the mandatory use of dangerous vaccines, such as the anthrax vaccine. For the past sixty-four years, the United States military and other government agencies have used our servicemen and women as test subjects, often in secret and without informed consent. Moreover, there is no end in sight; there are additional biodefense vaccines waiting in a pipeline to be tested on our soldiers.

Sadly, this is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact. In December 1994, right after the first Gulf War, the United States Senate released a report titled, "Is Military Research Hazardous to a Veteran's Health?" This report outlined the unethical use of servicemen and women as test subjects. The report revealed that the Pentagon had quietly used soldiers in clinical trials and did not record the resulting information in their medical records, preventing the soldiers from receiving appropriate follow-up care. Many were simply left to die.“

A frequently cited poem from the Holocaust states:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Each time something bad is done, it is first normalized on a vulnerable group, but before long shows up on your doorstep.  What Fauci did to the gay community during the AIDS epidemic was horrendous, but few spoke out for them because they were a heavily marginalized community at the time.  He subsequently did the same thing in many other places (i.e.. in Africa with Ebola), and eventually to the entire country.  Much of what he’s done to the world over the last few years would never have happened if as a society, we had stood up for these forgotten people.

Captain Rovert also was aware of this and predicted the near future:

“I want you to burn these two letters and two numbers into your consciousness (MF59) so you will remember them because squalene will next be used in civilian vaccines”

(read much more)

There is a past precedent of using experimental vaccinations for sterilization