“Several Smoking Guns”: The US Senate Hearing. The mRNA Vaccine and the SARS-CoV-2 Virus
A 17-Year Old 2003 Coronavirus Categorized in February 2020 as a “New Virus”
[This article was originally published by Global Research. The GR version is more detailed. You can read it here.]
Introduction: U.S. Covid-19 Senate Hearing
The U.S. Senate Hearings suggests that a dangerous NEW VIRUS was detected in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China in December 2019.
It was initially entitled 2019-nCoV which stands for “2019 New (n) Corona (Co) Virus (V).”
On January 1, 2020, “the Chinese health authorities closed the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan following Western media reports claiming that wild animals sold there may have been the source of the virus.”
As of early January 2020, it was the object of extensive media coverage and an unfolding Worldwide fear campaign.
Media disinformation 24/7 went into high gear.
The Chinese authorities (allegedly) “identified a new type of virus” on January 7, 2020, using the RT-PCR test.
No specific details were provided regarding the process of isolation of the virus.”
The Mandate of the Senate Hearings
I have reviewed the latest statements of the Senate Hearings, including Dr. Peter McCullough’s outstanding presentation.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky “has long accused Dr. Fauci of trying to cover up the origin of the coronavirus, and of funding research at a lab in Wuhan in China.
Media reports have point to the so-called “origin of COVID-19” whereas:
“U.S. intelligence agencies are divided on the subject, with some supporting the possibility of the coronavirus emerging from an accidental lab leak in China while others support natural transmission from animal to human.”
Fauci previously said he keeps “an open mind as to what the origin is,” though he has also said he believes the animal-to-human route was more likely.”
In this article, I will focus on two important issues which are of concern to the Senate Hearings:
The Identity and Origin of the New Corona Virus
The Nature of the mRNA Vaccine and its Impacts
In both cases, I will put forth careful factual analysis and supportive data from official sources.
The Most Devastating Crisis in Human History
This video was first published by Vimeo in March 2021. It was censored and taken down by Vimeo in May 2021.
It focusses on the first phase of the Covid crisis including the launching of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020.
Starts at 06:47. The video is also available at the foot of this article. It is also available (click here) with subtitles in 14 languages.
Our thanks to Vaccine Choice Canada.
I. The Identity and Origin of the New Coronavirus
Suggest you view the video prior to reading the analysis.
Video: The Virus that Never Existed?
Michel Chossudovsky, Interview with Caroline Mailloux, GRTV, Lux Media
Click here to watch the video.
Analysis of the New 2019 Corona Virus: 2019-nCoV
There were several name changes. The initial identity of the virus was 2019-nCoV which stands for “2019 New (n) Corona (Co) Virus (V).”
In late January 2020, the WHO based on the analysis of the Berlin Virology Team (Eurosurveillance) confirmed that:
It did not possess an isolate of 2019-nCoV from a purified sample from an infected patient, which meant that they were unable to confirm the identity of the novel coronavirus.
“In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community.
We report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens.
Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness [of 2019-nCoV] to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”
Click here to read the full text of the Euro-Surveillance entitled 2019 Novel Corona Virus.
This Eurosurveillance (01/20/20) report headed by Christian Drosten (Berlin Virology Institute) emphasizes the “close genetic relatedness [of 2019-nCoV] to the 2003 SARS-CoV”, which suggests that the “NEW” virus entitled 2019-nCoV is “similar” to a virus entitled SARS-CoV 2003, which was the object of an in-depth May 2003 study by the New England Journal of Medicine which is reviewed below.
The NEJM Study Pertaining to SARS-CoV 2003
The New England Journal of Medicine, May 2003 (NEJM):
“A Novel Coronavirus Associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome” which broke out in China’s Southern Guangdong Province in 2002 WAS identified and categorized as a “new virus” on May 15, 2003. (17 YEARS PRIOR to the Alleged Covid Outbreak)
See screenshot of NEJM May 15, 2003 article below:
The identification of the virus adopted in the NEJM (May 15, 2003) is as follows: (emphasis added)
“We received clinical specimens from patients in seven countries and tested them [2002-2003], using virus-isolation techniques, electron-microscopical and histologic studies, and molecular and serologic assays, in an attempt to identify a wide range of potential pathogens
“None of the previously described respiratory pathogens were consistently identified. However, a novel coronavirus was isolated from patients who met the case definition of SARS. … Electron-microscopical examination revealed ultrastructural features characteristic of coronaviruses. Immunohistochemical and immunofluorescence staining revealed reactivity with group I coronavirus polyclonal antibodies.
“Consensus coronavirus primers designed to amplify a fragment of the polymerase gene by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were used to obtain a sequence that clearly identified the isolate as a unique coronavirus only distantly related to previously sequenced coronaviruses.”
Isolate of “Novel Coronavirus 2003” (NEJM). Absence of Isolate of Novel 2019 Corona Virus. “2019-nCoV” (WHO)
While the 2003 SARS-CoV was duly isolated as documented in the NEJM, the WHO acknowledged in January 2020 that it did not have an isolate and purified sample of the NEW 2019 coronavirus from an infected patient, which meant that they were unable to confirm the identity of the 2019 novel coronavirus entitled 2019-nCoV.
It should be noted that, the EuroScience Report conducted by the Berlin Virology Institute in liason with the WHO confirmed numerous cases of sick patients, while pointing out that “no virus isolates were available” (see bebelow)
“As at 20 January 2020*, 282 laboratory-confirmed human cases have been notified to WHO [5]. Confirmed cases in travellers from Wuhan were announced on 13 and 17 January in Thailand as well as on 15 January in Japan and 19 January in Korea.”
Not Wuhan! Berlin
Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Institute of Virology
Following advice from Bill Gates, the WHO Director General Dr. Tedros was in liaison with the Berlin Virology Institute at Charité Hospital. Under the scientific guidance of Dr. Christian Drosten, a decision was reached concerning the alleged identity of the New Virus.
How was this matter addressed under the auspices of the WHO?
The Berlin Virology Institute study firmly acknowledged that: “[While]… several viral genome sequences had been released,… virus isolates or samples [of 2019-nCoV] from infected patients were not available …”
What the Berlin team recommended to the WHO was that in the absence of an isolate of the 2019-nCoV virus, a similar 2003 SARS-CoV virus should be used as a “proxy” (point of reference) of the novel 2019 coronavirus:
“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].
We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens.
Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.” (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).
What this ambiguous statement suggests is that the identity of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “COVID-19 confirmed cases” (aka infection resulting from the 2019 novel coronavirus) would be validated by its “close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV.”
How could the new virus be categorized as “similar” without having been identified, i.e. without an “isolate” from an infected patient? Moreover, bear in mind that while the PCR test does not detect the virus, it detects genetic fragments (of numerous viruses).
Smoking Gun. Bill Gates to the Rescue of Dr. Tedros
What this means is that a coronavirus detected in 2002-2003 in Guangdong Province (2003 SARS-CoV) has been used to “validate” the identity of a so-called “novel coronavirus” allegedly detected in China’s Hubei Province in late December 2019.
The recommendations of the Drosten team (financed by a grant of $249,550 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were then transmitted to the WHO. (See (March 2020, 249,500)
They were endorsed by the Director-General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
The WHO did not have in its possession the “virus isolate” required to identify the new virus.
“Never mind.” It was decided by the Berlin Virology Team that an isolate of the new coronavirus was not required.
It stands to reason that if the PCR test uses the 2003 SARS-CoV virus as a proxy or “point of reference,” there can be no “confirmed” cases pertaining to the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV.
In early February 2020, following the failure to identify the novel coronavirus, a decision was taken to change its name to:
February 11, 2020. The Alleged “New Virus” is Renamed
“Severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus”: SARS-CoV-2 which (according to the WHO) is “similar” to a 20 year old virus entitled: 2003-SARS-CoV.
SARS-CoV-2: a twenty-year old 2003 coronavirus categorized in February 2020 as a “new virus”? Nonsense!
There was “similarity” but there was no “new coronavirus”?
I should mention that while SARS-CoV-2 is not a New Virus, this does exclude the possibility that “other viruses” created in a laboratory could have been released.
The Lancet Letter
The SARS-CoV-2 virus was confirmed on February 11, 2020 (see above). A week later, following the February 11, 2020 decision to rename the virus, was addressed by 27 scientists public health professionals medical doctors in the Lancet Letter of February 19, 2020 (also referred to as Calisher et al. 2020) was published.
For the full text, click here.
Excerpts from the Lancet Letter:
“…They overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus.
We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture. We want you, the science and health professionals of China, to know that we stand with you in your fight against this virus.
Visibly the 27 scientists had not taken the trouble to read the Drosten report of the Berlin Virology Institute. Nor did they acknowledge thatthe WHO did not possess an isolate of a SARS-CoV-2 from a sample of an infected patient.
And the fact that WHO did not follow up in the conduct of an isolate at a later date.
Both the WHO and the Berlin Institute of Virology formally acknowledged that the alleged “new” SARS-Co-2 virus is “similar” to a virus entitled SARS-CoV 2003 (outlined in the Drosten report of the Berlin Virology Institute, quoting the NEJM report). (See above)
What the Berlin Virology Institute contends is that because the new SARS-CoV-2 virus is “similar”, an isolate from an infected patient is not required.
This brings me to addressing the following:
Who was behind the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic fraud?
The major actors and personalities behind the Covid-19 pandemic were:
Dr Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Chief Medical Advisor to the U.S. President (2021-2022)
Dr. George Gao Fu, Director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China’s CDC) (August 2017 to July 2022, Fellow of the Wellcome Trust
Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO)
Dr. Christian Drosten, Director of the Institute of Virology, Charité Hospital, Berlin.
William Henry Gates, Director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Philanthropic support to the WHO and The Berlin Institute of Virology’s study in Eurosurveillance
The WHO decision pertainng to the alleged SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was endorsed in the U.S by the Trump Administration, while placing the blame on China.
In the EU, it was endorsed in March 2020 by the President of the European Commission Ursula von Der Leyen (2019- ).
The World Economic Forum (WEF) Meetings in Davos in the Swiss Alps in mid January 2020 played a key role.
The Director General of the WHO Dr. Tedros was present at the meetings in Davos Switzerland.
A couple of weeks later, the WHO Director General’s Dr.Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus took the decision on January 30, 2020, to call for a Worldwide Public Health Emergency of International Concern, based on 83 confirmed positive PCR cases outside China for a population of approximately 6.4 billion people.
[Image: Screenshot from WHO, January 29, 2020. Number of confirmed positive cases in US, Canada, France and Germany.]
Three weeks later at a press conference on the 20th of February 2020 the WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus intimated that the pandemic was imminent:
“[I am] concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” … I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” (emphasis added)
What was the evidence put forth by Dr. Tedros in support of his bold statement? On February 20, 2020, there were only 1076 confirmed [cumulative] cases outside China.
Click the screenshot below to enlarge (Tedros’ opening remarks at media briefing).
“Outside China there are now 1076 cases in 20 countries, with a total of seven deaths….
….Of all cases outside China, more than half are among passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship“
Official Statement of WHO Director General Dr. Tedros, Geneva, 20 February 2020.
On March 11, 2020, the Pandemic is launched.
Important references:
By Sen. Scott Jensen, Laura Ingraham, and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 04, 2026
There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 31, 2026
II. The Nature of the mRNA Vaccine and Its Impacts
The “Classified” Pfizer Report
Already in early 2021, the Classified “Secret” Report by Pfizer based on data (mortality, morbidity) collected on behalf of Pfizer from mid-December 2020 to the end of February 2021 had been submitted to the U.S. health authorities.
The Pfizer-Moderna mRNA “Vaccine” was endorsed by the Trump Adminstration in December 2020.
The Senate Hearings have failed to address the relevance of the Classified Pfizer Report which confirmed the impacts of the mRNA vaccine on mortality and morbidity from the very onset in early 2021.
Sections of the so-called “secret” (classified) report were released under Freedom of Information (FOI) in October 2021, nine months following the launching of the vaccine in early January 2021.
That report “says everything”, it comes from the horse’s mouth. It’s their data. Yet medical doctors hesitate to quote Pfizer’s data for obvious reasons.
It is essential that this Pfizer report be addressed by the Hearings.
This interview of Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux focussing on Pfizer’s mRNA Vaccine, was conducted on February 24, 2023.
Click here to watch the video.
The Objective of the Classified Pfizer Report
Tabulate and categorize detailed data pertaining to the impacts of the Pfizer BioNTech mRNA vaccine on, Mortality, Morbidity and Adverse Events from December 14, 2020 to February 28, 2021. namely two and a half months.
The results of Pfizer’s classified Report were not made public. They were available to several health agencies (including the CDC, NIAID and FDA) involved in overseeing the distribution of the vaccine under the clauses of “Emergency Use Authorization”.
Bear in mind, this is Pfizer’s own data.
This Confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) procedure provided data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in mid December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namely a very short period (at most two and a half months).
The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine was launched in the US on the 14th of December 2020 after the granting of Emergency Use Authorization on December 11, 2020.
In a twisted irony, the data revealed in this “insider report” confirms mortality and morbidity.
The alleged “vaccine” is a dangerous drug.
It also refutes the official vaccine narrative peddled by the governments and the WHO.
Excerpt from the Classified Pfizer Report
As shown in Figure 1 [see below], the System Organ Classes (SOCs) that contained the greatest number (≥2%) of events, in the overall dataset, were General disorders and administration site conditions (51,335 AEs),
Nervous system disorders (25,957), Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (17,283), Gastrointestinal disorders (14,096),
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (8,476), Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (8,848), Infections and infestations (4,610), Injury, poisoning and procedural complications (5,590), and Investigations (3,693)
[emphasis added]
The scamdemic Harmacide never ended
Someone needs to say the quiet part out loud.. EUGENICS.