David Gorski, Science-based Medicine, explains why the “turbo cancer” that antivaxxers like Dr. Charles Hoffe insist is being caused by COVID-19 vaccines isn’t real.
Myth: The mRNA vaccines change your DNA and could cause cancer.
Truth: None of the vaccines interact with or alter your DNA in any way, and therefore cannot cause cancer.
Messenger RNA (mRNA) is not the same as DNA and cannot be combined with DNA to change your genetic code. Here’s now mRNA vaccines actually work:
The mRNA vaccines use a tiny piece of the coronavirus’ genetic code to teach your immune system how to make a protein that will trigger an immune response if you get infected. The mRNA is fragile and it delivers the instructions to your cells to make antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The mRNA does not enter the nucleus of the cell — the part that contains your DNA.
Therefore, there is no truth to the myth that somehow the mRNA vaccine could inactivate the genes that suppress tumors.
Myth: If I’m not at risk for severe COVID-19 complications, I don’t need the vaccine.
Truth: Healthy people can develop severe COVID-19 infection. Even though they are at a lower risk for severe COVID-19 complications, they can contract and spread the virus. Getting vaccinated protects you as well as your community.
Myth: The vaccines were developed too quickly. We can’t be sure they are safe.
Truth: COVID-19 vaccines were developed rapidly compared with earlier vaccines because scientists, doctors, and government agencies all over the world invested massive resources to cut red tape and publish results as soon as they were available.
More than 200 million Americans have been fully vaccinated and the CDC continues to track all adverse reactions.
Myth: Getting immunity naturally is safer than getting it from a vaccine.
Truth: The amount of natural immunity a person gets after an infection varies from person to person. Developing immunity from the vaccine is less risky than developing immunity naturally because there’s no way to predict the severity of your symptoms if you get COVID-19.
Myth: Getting vaccinated will make me sick.
Truth: The vaccine does not contain any live or inactive portion of the COVID-19 virus. It will not cause you to test positive on a test that looks for active COVID-19 infection. You may experience mild to moderate side effects, including pain at the injection site, fatigue (feeling tired), headache, and muscle pain. Not everyone gets side effects. But if you do, they are normal and a sign your body is building up its defenses against the virus.
Myth: The vaccines aren’t safe for people who are pregnant or are trying to get pregnant.
Truth: There is strong evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective for pregnant women. An August 2021 study showed no increased risk for miscarriage for people who received the mRNA vaccine during the first 20 weeks of gestation.
A study in June 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine found no safety concerns among more than 35,000 pregnant people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Comirnaty®) or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (Spikevax™).
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement emphasizing that “all eligible persons […] including pregnant and lactating individuals, receive a COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine series.” The Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine also encourages people who are pregnant or breastfeeding to get vaccinated.
Myth: The death toll from COVID-19 is exaggerated. It includes people who were already sick with other conditions.
Truth: In a report from the CDC on deaths due to COVID-19, researchers found COVID-19 can directly and indirectly lead to mortality. People with underlying conditions like diabetes or obesity are at higher risk for contracting COVID-19 than those without preexisting conditions. It is true that a person’s preexisting condition may have contributed to their death from COVID-19. However, if the person had not contracted the virus, it is unlikely their preexisting condition would have led to their death. The death toll from COVID-19, in fact, is likely higher than what current numbers indicate. People who die from COVID-19 without being tested, for example, may not be included in current counts.
On 22 February 2013, Sony became the largest shareholder (11.46%) of Olympus, later cutting that stake in half during one of its own restructurings, only to sell its entire remaining stake in Olympus, totaling 5% of the company, after a request by activist investor Daniel S. Loeb to do so, in 2019.
The Olympus scandal was a case of accounting fraud exposed in Japan in 2011 at optical equipment manufacturer Olympus. On 14 October, British-born Michael Christopher Woodford was suddenly ousted as chief executive.Wikipedia
The Olympus scandal was a case of accounting fraud exposed in Japan in 2011 at optical equipment manufacturer Olympus. On 14 October, British-born Michael Christopher Woodford was suddenly ousted as chief executive. He had been company president for six months, and two weeks prior had been promoted to chief executive officer, when he exposed “one of the biggest and longest-running loss-hiding arrangements in Japanese corporate history”, according to The Wall Street Journal.[2]Tsuyoshi Kikukawa, the board chairman, who had appointed Woodford to these positions, again assumed the title of CEO and president.[3][4] The incident raised concern about the endurance of tobashi schemes, and the strength of corporate governance in Japan.
Apparently irregular payments for acquisitions had resulted in very significant asset impairment charges in the company’s accounts, and this was exposed in an article in the Japanese financial magazine FACTA and had come to Woodford’s attention. Japanese press speculated on a connection to Yakuza (Japanese organised crime syndicates).[5][6] Olympus defended itself against allegations of impropriety.
Despite Olympus’ denials, the matter quickly snowballed into a corporate corruption scandal[7] over concealment (called tobashi) of more than 117.7 billion yen ($1.5 billion) of investment losses and other dubious fees and other payments dating back to the late 1980s and suspicion of covert payments to criminal organisations.[6][8][9][10] On 26 October, Kikukawa was replaced by Shuichi Takayama as chairman, president, and CEO. On 8 November 2011, the company admitted that the company’s accounting practice was “inappropriate” and that money had been used to cover losses on investments dating to the 1990s. The company blamed the inappropriate accounting on former president Tsuyoshi Kikukawa, auditor Hideo Yamada and executive vice-president Hisashi Mori.
By 2012 the scandal had developed into one of the biggest and longest-lived loss-concealing financial scandals in the history of corporate Japan;[2] it had wiped 75–80% off the company’s stock market valuation,[11] led to the resignation of much of the board and investigations across Japan, the UK and US. Among the people criminally charged in this scandal, only two securities brokers went to prison for 3–4 years.[12] A shareholder derivative suit in 2019 fined three Olympus board members for 59.4 billion yen (USD 594 million), the largest of its kind in Japanese history.[13] This scandal also raised considerable turmoil and concern over Japan’s prevailing corporate governance and transparency[14] and the Japanese financial markets. Woodford received a reported £10 million ($16 m) in damages from Olympus for defamation and wrongful dismissal in 2012;[11][15] around the same time, Olympus also announced it would shed 2,700 jobs (7% of its workforce)[16] and around 40 per cent of its 30 manufacturing plants by 2015 to reduce its cost base.[17]
Why Olympus sold off its decades-old camera and microscope business to focus on medical tech: ‘We had to move before it became too late’ Olympus Corporation has long been synonymous with microscopes and digital cameras. But these businesses are no longer areas of focus as the Japanese company shifts to medical tech.7 Oct 2022
The #MadeInChina Soueast DX7 Mid-size crossover manufactured by Chinese automaker Soueast Motors. It's not even an EV but it still features their infamous high end self-immolation technology. pic.twitter.com/9GblQJGWL4
— Northrop Gundam ∀ 2.0 捍禦の大佐 (@GundamNorthrop) March 8, 2023
Jim Jordan’s 3 whistleblowers: Steve Friend, George Hill and Garret O’Boyle.
..
..
yahoo!sports
Democrats Present Damning Info On Jim Jordan’s FBI ‘Whistleblowers’
Arthur Delaney
Sat, Mar 4, 2023, 3:44 AM GMT+8
Two of the three agents have embraced a discredited conspiracy theory that the FBI instigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Two of the three recently received cash payments and other help from a Donald Trump loyalist who used to work for the Trump administration. One of them wouldn’t even explain what he’d done to get suspended by the FBI.
And according to Democrats — who released the material because they claimed Republicans were leaking it first — none of the supposed whistleblowers meets the legal definition of a whistleblower.
“These individuals, who put forward a wide range of conspiracy theories, did not present actual evidence of any wrongdoing at the Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Stacy Plaskett (D-V.I.), the top Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and its weaponization subcommittee, wrote in their 315-page report. .
One of the FBI agents who sat for a closed-door interview with the committee last month is Stephen Friend, who had previously told his story to Senate Republicans. According to Friend’s own version of events, he got suspended after he simply refused to work on any cases related to the Capitol riot.
Friend thought some of the people who stormed the Capitol weren’t guilty and wouldn’t get a fair trial in Washington. He also objected to how the FBI’s Washington field office assigned Jan. 6 cases to regional offices and claimed the FBI improperly deployed tactical teams against rioters.
But according to the partial transcript of his committee interview, Friend essentially admitted last month that SWAT raids were warranted against the potentially armed suspects in question.
“The individuals that you expressed concern about for [a SWAT raid last year], were you aware of any factors that would counsel in favor of a SWAT team?” the committee asked.
“I think being a gun owner meets that matrix, and those individuals were,” Friend said.
Democrats’ report also reveals that Friend’s complaint about case assignments had been investigated by the Justice Department’s inspector general and its Office of the General Counsel, and both found it meritless.
The document highlights the fact that Friend and George Hill, another FBI agent who talked to the committee, have suggested in public statements that a man named Ray Epps helped instigate the attack on the Capitol as an undercover FBI agent.
“Happy Anniversary Ray Epps, from your friends in The Deep State,” Hill wrote in a Jan. 6, 2023, tweet that has since been deleted. “Job well done!”
The theory is based almost entirely on video snippets showing Epps talking about going inside the Capitol and saying something to a man who then fought police. It’s thin evidence for an extraordinary claim to begin with, but Epps, a roofing contractor and Trump supporter in Arizona, repeatedly told investigators last year, under penalty of perjury, that he wasn’t acting as an FBI informant or under the direction of any law enforcement agency.
Democrats said another suspended FBI agent, Garrett O’Boyle, wouldn’t tell them why he’d been suspended, except to say his suspension notice claimed “an unidentified person … made an allegation that [he] had been making unprotected disclosures to the media.” Democrats’ report says O’Boyle did share more than 50 documents with the committee’s Republicans, however.
In his quest to prove the federal government has been “weaponized” against conservatives, Republican House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has touted the allegations of what he claims are “dozens” of whistleblowers who have come to his office with stories of discrimination and bias.
While little is known about them, Jordan’s reliance on these whistleblowers is already emerging as an early flashpoint, with Democrats raising questions about their legitimacy as actual whistleblowers and the relevance of their testimony.
Three of Jordan’s witnesses have come in for private interviews with committee staff so far. None of them appear to have had their claims validated by government entities that grant federal whistleblower protection, sources familiar with their testimony said. One who alleged there was FBI wrongdoing had their claims rejected. Another is retired and it’s unclear whether he has first-hand knowledge of the violations he alleges. The third has not revealed his direct disclosures or FBI suspension notice to House Democrats, according to transcripts reviewed by CNN. .
Right-wing opinions about the January 6 attack appear to be a consistent throughline among the three individuals that have come forward so far.
One of them is Steve Friend, a former FBI agent working out of Florida who was suspended in August 2022 for objecting to using a SWAT team to arrest a subject for what Friend described as “misdemeanor offenses.”
Friend, who was interviewed by Republican and Democratic subcommittee staff earlier this month, was not part of the SWAT team but was asked to help with the case and refused, he told CNN in an interview.
The men arrested on the date Friend listed in his disclosures were members of a Florida-based organization known as the “Guardians of Freedom,” which adheres to the ideology of the “Three Percenters” and were illegally at the Capitol on January 6, according to the FBI.
The one individual charged with a misdemeanor of that group from Florida was at the Capitol on January 6 wearing a black gas mask, a tactical vest and a military-type helmet and goggles, according to court documents reviewed by CNN. One witness interviewed for the case claimed that the defendant had an AR-style rifle with him as well.
Following his subcommittee interview, Friend told CNN he was suspended, in part, for raising concerns that the FBI was using “unnecessary force.”
“I compared it to using an elephant gun to kill a mouse,” Friend, who officially resigned from the FBI on the day of his interview with committee staff, told CNN.
Friend also told CNN that his concern with using a SWAT team would contribute to the illusion that “half the country are potentially domestic terrorists” and therefore prevent people from participating “in a political dialogue.”
Friend admitted in the subcommittee interview that owning a gun or being accused of a felony crime were reasons for FBI management to consider using a SWAT team, according to transcripts reviewed by CNN.
After Friend was suspended for refusing to help in the case, he filed a whistleblower complaint to the Justice Department inspector general on September 21, 2022. He also filed a claim with the US Office of Special Counsel, the function of which is to protect federal employees making whistleblower complaints.
Friend’s claim was eventually rejected by both entities. .
‘Insurrection my a$$’: A retired FBI agent’s allegations
Judiciary committee staff have also interviewed a former FBI analyst who retired in October 2021 named George Hill, who supervised intelligence analysts that provided support to less than a dozen cases related to January 6.
In his interview with the subcommittee Hill criticized a bank that he says shared with the FBI records of people who were in DC on January 6, according to transcripts reviewed by CNN. When pressed, Hill said he simply saw a record listed in Sentinel, the FBI’s case management system, and that he did not open it, according to the transcript. .
Hill also raised concerns about a request that he says the Washington, DC, FBI field office made to the Boston field office to open preliminary investigations into two buses of people that traveled into DC on January 6. In his interview with the committee, Hill said he was told about the request, sources familiar with his testimony told CNN. Hill said there were concerns about violating people’s First Amendment protected activity, the transcript read.
Pullen said in a statement to CNN, “the FBI’s policy is to neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigations, however, the FBI will never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity,” when asked about the claim of an investigation being opened into those buses. .
Hill also raised concerns about a request that he says the Washington, DC, FBI field office made to the Boston field office to open preliminary investigations into two buses of people that traveled into DC on January 6. In his interview with the committee, Hill said he was told about the request, sources familiar with his testimony told CNN. Hill said there were concerns about violating people’s First Amendment protected activity, the transcript read.
Pullen said in a statement to CNN, “the FBI’s policy is to neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigations, however, the FBI will never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity,” when asked about the claim of an investigation being opened into those buses. .
A suspended FBI agent with “confidential” claims
The third whistleblower interviewed by the subcommittee is suspended FBI agent Garret O’Boyle, who says he was suspended for making an unauthorized media disclosure. During his interview with subcommittee staff, O’Boyle, who worked out of the FBI’s Wichita field office, would not elaborate on the claim or provide his suspension notice. When asked about his allegations against the FBI, O’Boyle said they were confidential and that he would not turn them over to House Democrats, according to sources familiar with his testimony.
During the interview, O’Boyle’s attorney Jesse Binnall told committee staff that O’Boyle’s allegations were “confidential by statute” and that he had advised his client “to not disclose exactly what was disclosed,” according to a transcript reviewed by CNN. .
O’Boyle also claimed during his subcommittee interview that former Trump national security and defense official Kash Patel had been helping with his legal fees, according to the transcript reviewed by CNN. Patel remains a close associate of former President Donald Trump. He was the former president’s representative to the National Archives and has testified before a federal grand jury investigating the handling of records taken to the former president’s Mar-a-Lago home and resort.
After O’Boyle said Patel was paying his legal fees, Binnall told the subcommittee that unbeknownst to his client he was working pro bono, according to the transcript.
Patel is also helping the other whistleblower Friend, who testified to the subcommittee that Patel gifted him $5,000 in November 2022 after learning about his claims. Friend also said Patel connected him to the Center for Renewing America. Patel is listed as a senior fellow for national security and intelligence on the group’s website.
Reached for comment by CNN, Patel’s spokesperson said his foundation does not publicly disclose the names of people they help financially.
This partisan investigation, such as it is, rests in large part on what Chairman Jordan has described as “dozens and dozens of whistleblowers… coming to us, talking about what is going on, the political nature at the Justice Department.”1 To date, the House Judiciary Committee has held transcribed interviews with three of these individuals. Chairman Jordan has, of course, refused to name any of the other “dozens and dozens” who may have spoken with him. He has also refused to share any of the documents which these individuals may have provided to the Committee.
Nevertheless, based on interviews of the three witnesses that have been made available to us, we are able to draw a number of striking conclusions about the state of the Republican investigation.
First, the three individuals we have met are not, in fact, “whistleblowers.” These individuals, who put forward a wide range of conspiracy theories, did not present actual evidence of any wrongdoing at the Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Second, the transcribed interviews we have held thus far refute House Republican narrative about “bias” at the Department of Justice. We urge Chairman Jordan to schedule the public testimony of these individuals without delay. The American public should be able to judge for themselves whether these witnesses or their allegations are remotely credible.
Third, these interviews also reveal the active engagement and orchestration of disturbing outside influence on the witnesses and, potentially, the Republican members of the Select Subcommittee. A network of organizations, led by former Trump administration officials like Kash Patel and Russell Vought, appears to have identified these witnesses, provided them with financial compensation, and found them employment after they left the FBI. These same individuals lobbied for the creation of the Select Subcommittee in the first place. They have a story to tell, and they appear to be using House Republicans to tell it.
Fourth, and finally, nearly all of the Republicans involved in this investigation—the witnesses, some of the Members, and certainly their outside operators—are tied together by the attacks of January 6, 2021. The witnesses whom we have met objected to the arrest of individuals suspected to have laid siege to the United States Capitol. Others of the “dozens and dozens,” we suspect, participated directly in the riot. If this investigation is an attempt to whitewash the insurrection or hedge against pending indictments, it has been spectacularly ineffective—but these extremists share a view antithetical to the safety of our republic, and the American public has a right to be concerned.
We note that, in the ordinary course of business, we would not disclose the substance of a transcribed interview at this stage of an investigation. Even when we do not agree with the aims of our Republican colleagues, we respect the importance of Congressional oversight. We directed our staff to prepare this report only after we learned that House Republicans had begun to share the contents of these interviews with the press. Full context and a reasonable rebuttal are necessary to protect the truth.
We commend to you this staff report on GOP Witnesses: What Their Disclosures Indicate About the State of the Republican Investigations. We hope it serves to educate the public about how House Republicans have found very few facts to fit their favorite talking points, even if it does not convince our colleagues to change their ways.
