mRNA/Gene Therapy Technology: Futile, Deadly, but Hugely Profitable - Part 1

Is it ok to experiment on children who are "going to die anyhow"?

This article is a follow on to my previous post:

While harrowing in its stupidity and futility, at least the fratricide/suicide-by-science was between two consenting adults. The current story is about children.

Timothy Yu at the Boston Children’s Hospital - one of the most celebrated and prestigious pediatric hospitals in the nation, made a scientific breakthrough and designed a “targeted gene therapy” for one patient! We are officially in the new techno era of the N-of-1 treatments. Of course, this fairytale for gullible science fans has been promoted under various flavors for decades, but ok, we are now, finally there!

According to Endpoint News:

Timothy Yu sent shockwaves through the genetic therapy world four years ago after revealing that he had developed — in under a year — a treatment tailored to a young girl’s unique genetic mutation.

The patient, Mila had a life-threatening condition called ataxia-telangiectasia, or A-T, and severe immunodeficiencies and neurodegeneration of the cerebellum — the part of the brain that controls movement.

There are no drugs that address the underlying cause of the disease, and few new treatments are in the works, partly because the condition is so rare and partly because the vital enzyme is too large to encode in the viral vectors widely used in gene replacement therapies.

Yu was undeterred however, and made a treatment for Mila using CRISPR and something that’s called “splice-switching” to cook up an antisense oligonucleotide that would be injected into the poor girl’s spinal cord. Endpoint’s pharma sales reps journalists call this “the closest thing to a cure”:

There’s also the question of timing. Mila, who had a lethal neurodegenerative condition called Batten disease, died despite treatment because her condition had already progressed too far.

“If someone is already very severely sick and too far down the line, it will be very tricky for us to do something,”

Why didn’t they think of this before experimenting on a terminally ill child?

Are children who are “immunocompromised” or severely ill a fair game for mRNA/CRISPR an other forms of genetic experiments?

Which child isn’t “immunocompromised”, really, after 70+ injections of health from CDC? As an example, adult “vulnerable population” for the Russian government now includes anyone who has not been injected with genetic concoctions yet. If you think the US government is not going to attempt the same switcheroo of definitions to target your kids, you are not thinking like a globalist.

Let’s ask the experts. When asked by Glen Beck whether mRNA injections are ok for children, Dr. Malone says of course no, except…

…it’s ok for severely ill children, as “they are going to die anyhow” according to Dr. Steven Hatfill, a bioweapons expert with deep connections in the intelligence community. Full interview here, the clip was made at 1:18:03.

This position on bioethics is frequently taken by the military-academic-biotechnology/biochemical weapons elite scientists. They do it so often, they no longer notice they are doing it, as it becomes a second nature to all involved.

When someone is terminally ill and is expected to die, it is unethical to experiment on them unless there is very strong evidence that the experimental treatment would benefit THEM (not their grandma, not Boston Children’s scientists, their IP department, and balance sheet). It is in general not ok to justify this as “searching for a cure” as that is too generic of a reason. Same goes, for example, making new weapons biodefense countermeasures (Steven Hatfill’s occupation) for “pandemic preparedness” - that’s just fantasy narrative to justify government racket and removal of our rights. The evidence for possible direct benefit to the experimental subject must not be theoretical, it should have a sufficient empirical basis. It also requires an informed consent, which children cannot legally provide, and this last point makes it a particularly thorny ethical issue.

The justification given in the clip above is that mRNA “vaccines” are ok for severely ill children because they are at a high risk of death, presumably from covid (whatever that is). Is that really so? Is there a reliable dataset anywhere that shows this is actually true? Are there any reliable data showing that injections with mRNA “vaccines” improved the health outcomes, quality of life and/or survival of, for example, kids with cancer?

The answer is no. No such data exist. The numbers of children who may have died from covid are vanishingly small, and the data manipulation effort so massive that there is no way today to make this conclusion with any degree of certainty. This assertion is not science based - it is a “biodefense” cult perpetuating itself through mythology.

We are supposed to ASSUME that these kids would benefit from a concoction consisting of non-cGMP secret DARPA garbage contaminated with massive quantities of plasmid DNA and toxic metals. Because you see, they are “immunocompromised”. Side note - they still cannot describe the normal immune function, but they know for sure when it is “compromised”.

Why inject these kids, when we know that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have decades of safety track record, and are both a prophylaxis and an effective treatment for covid symptoms?

Back to Mila - she was experimented on and died after the experiment, but nobody seems concerned. Her parents apparently sold her to the Boston Children’s lab out of desperation and trusting of the science. Parents of terminally damaged children and everyone around them are trained to repeat the narrative of “hope for the cure”, and “this will help finding the cure for others” to support academia’s fundraising for more futile but deadly experiments. There will be no attribution of her death to the experiment, and no discussion whether it was ethical to torture the already suffering child in the last few months she had in this world.

Of course, institutional IRBs approve these experiments on dying children, they have the same incentives as Boston Children’s and Yu.

Those incentives include nice grants to play science and write prestigious publications shilling gene therapies, hope for Nobel Prizes, and patent the IP that they will license to pharma for royalties or to DARPA/BARDA for weapons of mass destruction. The girl is dead (she was “going to die anyhow”) and they are the heroes who tried to save her with magic spells, quackery and pushing large needles into her spinal cord. As if that child did not suffer enough. But it was a success! Yu swears his treatment worked! It was that other thing that killed her.

And now Yu and a Dutch “non-profit consortium” called Center for RNA Therapeutics are salivating over 25-30 patients they can go after with a similar scam. If this sounds like very little, recently another bullshit gene therapy, BioMarin’s hemophilia-A Roctavian received FDA approval after delay and a previous FDA rejection, priced at a cool $2.9M per treatment! BioMarin advertises it as nearly curative claiming a 97% reduction in usage of factor VIII (standard treatment). The FDA label however says only 52% decrease in average number of bleeds.

“The learning here was it doesn’t work in everybody. It doesn’t last forever,” Henry Fuchs, BioMarin’s president of worldwide R&D, told Endpoints News in an advance interview. “Our view is it works in enough people and long enough.”

Oh.

They expect to charge nearly $3M at last every 6 months to 2 years for every patient for the rest of their lives, what’s not to like about it? The payment to doctors to push this on their patients will be in the hundreds of thousands, so one can be certain they will ensure frequent usage. BioMarin hopes their revenues will go from $2.1 billion currently to $4-$5 billion very soon.

Futile but hugely profitable is the nature of the scam with “orphan drugs” for “rare genetic conditions”. That’s why we have great interest in it from the highest ranks at the FDA which will be discussed in Part 2 of this article. Stay tuned.

Art for today: Plein air sketch, oil on panel.