Kent reviewed these materials and had many questions. “There can be viruses which do nothing in the animal, but when injected into human beings will wake up and cause damage?”
“Yes,” I replied. That was the reason the most dangerous viruses are those which jump from animals into humans.
“These viruses can cause inflammation and demyelination of the nerves?” Kent asked.
“Yes.”
“If the viruses don’t wake up, or cause inflammation and demyelination of the nerves, it might still cause a serious reaction involving the central nervous system?”
“Exactly,” I replied.
The scientists weren’t too far behind Kent’s excellent questions and they published an article in January 2011 in Frontiers in Microbiology, which came to many of the same conclusions.
And despite the fact that mice or mouse tissue may have been removed from general usage, the fact is it was already circulating in the human population, and also in cell cultures which were still being used.
In other words, it was like closing the barn door, after the horse had already run away.
Perhaps it was these realizations, or the presentations at the July 22, 2009 meeting, that resulted in Dr. John Coffin reportedly leaning over to one of the participants and saying, “Oh my God? You mean all those sequences we saw in the 1980s were real?”19
***
We may have stumbled into this problem in 2009, but this is likely to have been a problem from the 1930s, and it’s only been the advances in technology which have allowed us to identify the problem. Maybe those sequences many scientists saw in the 1980s weren’t “junk” as thought at the time, but the first indication we had pursued a dangerous course for humanity.
Was it in 2010, when I started talking about autism and its possible linkage to this virus and vaccinations, that Coffin decided to put all his available energy into killing this line of inquiry? It’s difficult to come to any other conclusion, and when combined with what I consider to be his raging hatred of women in science, it made for a very toxic brew. This is a direct quote from Coffin which he provided to Jon Cohen of Science magazine for his “False Positive” story of September 23, 2011, which tried to put the XMRV genie back in the bottle:
“I began comparing Judy Mikovits to Joan of Arc. The scientists will burn her at the stake, but her faithful following will have her canonized.”20
Perhaps John Coffin thinks it’s appropriate to burn women at the stake for challenging powerful men. But that’s not likely to be a widely shared view among the population in the twenty-first century. Maybe that “faithful following” of which he speaks is the honest women, men, and children who are suffering from this plague of corruption.
I’m not even sure the burning of Joan of Arc at the stake was a popular opinion in the fifteenth century when she was murdered. Her death provoked such an outrage, revealing corruption within the French royalty and the Catholic Church which had condemned her, and eventually leading to the English being driven from France. This is what Science magazine wrote about the autism issue:
“You don’t talk about autism in the US, it’s too politically charged,” Mikovits claims Coffin told him. She believes Coffin turned against her that very day. Coffin confirms that he was upset that Lombardi [my colleague at the time] presented such preliminary data on such a fraught topic, but says, “I did not ‘turn against’ Judy at that or any other point.”21
If this was a court of law, my testimony would be accepted as factual. Coffin admits he was “upset” that I was talking about such a “fraught topic.”
And how can he claim with a straight face that he did not “turn against” me when he invited scientists to “burn” me at the stake?
What does Coffin say in explanation to my research? Here’s what he told journalist Hillary Johnson in a 2013 Discover magazine article:
[A] government consultant named John Coffin, had his own theory: XMRV had been accidentally created in a lab at Case Western University in Cleveland sometime between 1993 and 1996. Coffin described how lab workers there had transplanted human prostate tumor cells into an immune-deficient lab mouse, a common procedure for procuring a colony of cells, or a human cell line, for further study.
When the human cells failed to thrive, lab workers transplanted those same cells into another mouse. Coffin and his collaborator, Vinay Pathak, suggested that with each passage, the human cells acquired genetic portions of a murine leukemia virus, which then merged to form a new virus, a hybrid of the parent sequences.22
The public probably doesn’t realize it’s a “common procedure,” to use animal tissue to grow human cancer cells, as well as human viruses, just as Dr. Maurice Brodie did with the polio virus vaccine and mouse tissue in the 1930s.
It’s called mouse xenografts and they did it every single day with patient-derived tumors in order to test drug efficacy in actual patient tumors. There is a 2021 paper in Nature with the title, “Presence of Complete Murine Viral Genome Sequences in Patient-Derived Xenografts.” The abstract reads in part:
Patient-derived xenografts are crucial for drug development but their use is challenged by issues such as murine [mouse] viral infection. We evaluate the scope of viral infection and its impact on patient-derived xenografts by taking an unbiased data-driven approach to analyze the extensive presence of murine viral sequences covering entire genomes in patient-derived xenografts. The existence of viral sequences inside tumor cells is further confirmed by single cell sequencing data. Extensive chimeric reads containing both viral and human sequences are also observed. Furthermore, we find significantly changed expression levels of many cancer, immune, and drug metabolism-related genes in samples with high virus load.23
I believe the use of animal tissue and aborted human fetal tissue in the manufacture of vaccines and other medications, commonly called “biologics,” to be at the heart of this debate, and the one thing Big Pharma doesn’t want the public to understand.
Thank you, Dr. Coffin, for making that crystal clear to people.
However, I took great exception to the conclusions Coffin drew from this information and said so in what seems to have been the final talk of my science career in September 2011.
Despite being jailed and bankrupted, along with the deliberate misrepresentation of the Lipkin study in 2012, there were still courageous doctors and journalists with integrity like Hillary Johnson who wrote about the corruption in the brilliant foreword to our first book, Plague. In the last line of that foreword, Hillary quoted a career NIH official who, when asked why government officials don’t investigate the very real scientific questions raised by this issue, replied that “They hate you.” The scientist who said that was Frank Ruscetti, forced into retirement in 2013. We can’t have honest scientists telling the truth, can we?
Here’s how Coffin continued to try and bury XMRV, as detailed by Hillary Johnson:
Obviously, if XMRV had been inadvertently manufactured as the result of lab experiments in the mid-1990s, it could not be causing disease in CFS or prostate cancer patients who had fallen ill in the 1980s or early 1980s. XMRV was “dead,” Coffin announced in April 2011. He advised CFS researchers to “move on.”24
Why then did Coffin tell everyone to move on, even as his lab continued to publish data that supported the idea that these animal viruses and their sequences had contaminated cell lines used in the manufacture of vaccines since at least the 1960s? Several slides in my talk in September 2013 are the cover-up of information from the lab of Gary Owens, first shown at the Cleveland Clinic on November 10, 2009, showing a variant of XMRV which he named “XMRV-2.” However, a subsequent publication called it B4RV, to cover up the reality that our team was right.
Slide 30 of that presentation shows a Journal of Virology paper, coauthored by Coffin, which shows several strains of XMRV and herpes virus contaminating a commonly used cell line.25
Therefore, I take great exception to Coffin’s call for people to move on from XMRV, wh
ich he believes was created between 1993 and 1996. As his own paper showed, the mixing of human tissue and animal tissue in cell culture will often generate new, replication competent retroviruses (and coronaviruses?) in only two weeks.
That is, in every single new lot of vaccines.
So, what about the fact we’ve been doing this very thing for more than a hundred years in vaccine development? Were we really expected to believe it only happened once? And now, in 2021, papers are being published trying to convince people that the viruses in these human xenografts are jumping from the human to the mouse cells, but not the other way around. This is extremely unlikely.
In Coffin’s view, XMRV had to be what I dubbed “the immaculate recombination,” meaning that this type of virus was generated in only one time at one place in history, despite the fact we’ve been conducting similar experiments for more than a hundred years.
However, you don’t have to take my word for it, as we have strong evidence of XMRV existing before Coffin’s 1993 to 1996 time period:
Shyh-Ching Lo, a pathologist and director of the FDA’s Tissue Microbiology Laboratory, discovered that he possessed 37 unopened vials of whole blood and plasma from CFS sufferers, the pristine cryopreserved remains of experiments undertaken in the early 1990s. To his surprise, Lo found four different MLV-related gene sequences in 32 of the 37 patient samples. [Approximately 86 percent, significantly higher than the 67 percent we reported in Science.]26
This is probably about as clear as it gets in science. Yet, Coffin persisted in this unscientific explanation at the April 2011 State of the Knowledge workshop. Harvey Alter, the 2020 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine and senior author on Lo’s 2010 study, took me aside and privately said, “This makes no sense at all. Do you understand this immaculate recombination?” Before I could answer, Alter continued, “I can certainly tell you there was absolutely no evidence of contamination in Lo’s study.”
Coffin suggested XMRV was generated in a lab sometime between 1993 and 1996, eventually contaminating lab samples worldwide. Shyh-Ching Lo had samples taken from actual patients in the early 1990s, before Coffin’s timeline. The findings were consistent with our research. In addition, they found some of those same people from whom the samples had been taken in the early 1990s, drew fresh samples from them in 2010, and were again able to find evidence of the virus.
This was a top-notch investigation, and their findings should have been the confirmation of our work, resolving any lingering doubt and turning the research community toward finding solutions.
Although the gene sequences were not identical to the Mikovits-Ruscetti XMRV gene sequence reported in Science, they were so close Lo believed he had found genetic variants of a single MLV-like virus species that likely included XMRV. Lo was encouraged by the variants because retroviruses are extremely mutable pathogens that change their gene sequences again and again in response to immune system efforts to kill them. “This is what we expect,” Lo said at the time.27
Our discovery of XMRV was confirmed by leading scientists and what we found was consistent with known science about viruses. But Coffin just wanted to muddy the waters.
And what happened to Dr. Maurice Brodie, whose mouse-derived experimental polio vaccine probably caused the first outbreak of chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) in 1934–1935 among 198 doctors and nurses at Los Angeles County Hospital?
Despite the likely help of New York University, President Franklin Roosevelt’s polio foundation, and the Rockefeller Institute’s financial resources in helping cover-up the outbreak, Maurice Brodie died in May 1939 at the age of thirty-six, in what was a suspected suicide.28
***
Without a doubt, another New York criminal is Columbia University’s Ian Lipkin, whom the New York Times proclaimed in a 2010 article spends his afternoons, “prowling his empire of viruses.”29 The writer of the article, Carl Zimmer, described Lipkin in breathless prose more suited for an action hero trying to defuse a ticking time-bomb:
Rather than wait for the elevator, Dr. Lipkin ran up and down the back stairs to move from floor to floor, leaning into the doorways of labs and glass-walled offices to get updates from a platoon of scientists.
Gustavo Palacios was sequencing the genes from a new strain of Ebola virus found in a bat in Spain, a worrisome development, since the fatal virus has almost never been found outside Africa.
Nick Bexfield of the University of Cambridge had flown from England with a new hepatitis virus that had just broken out in British dogs.
… all told, members of Dr. Lipkin’s team were working on 139 different virus projects. It was, in other words, a fairly typical day.30
I think of Ian Lipkin as a well-spoken assassin for Big Pharma.
Frank warned me about trusting Ian Lipkin, and I should have known the trouble that would be brought to me courtesy of Anthony Fauci, as the XMRV-associated disease nightmare was becoming more heated for the NIH.
In the end, the NIH’s AIDS czar, Anthony Fauci, asked his friend Ian Lipkin, a neurologist and virus hunter at the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, to settle the impasse.31
What does the data say about Lipkin’s discoveries? Actually, Lipkin spends most of his time debunking and repackaging the discoveries of others, and then selling these lies to the public in order to continue the eugenics and depopulation agenda of his biggest funders, Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates.
What have others had to say about the quality of Ian Lipkin’s work when he wades into controversial research? Do they say good things about him?
They do not.
My coauthor, Kent, conducted a long interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield in 2016 about the quality of Lipkin’s work, trying to confirm or refute an association between the measles virus, presumably from the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) shot, and the development of gastrointestinal problems and autism. This is what Wakefield said about the quality of Lipkin’s work:
The greatest concern is that when we looked for the virus throughout the bowel, the large intestine, and the terminal ileum with its lymphoid tissue, it was only in this hugely swollen lymphoid tissue that we found the virus. We did not find it anywhere in the colon.
Now, Lipkin got his biopsies from Tim Buie, and Tim, bless his heart, was not very good at getting into the ileum, which is technically challenging to many gastroenterologists. I worked with guys who were very good at it. It wasn’t me. I didn’t do it. But they were very good.
So we were always able to get samples of this lymphoid tissue where we found the virus. When Buie did his studies with Lipkin provided tissues from the cecum (the large intestine), and the ileum, and he didn’t say how many came from the respective sites. Well, all of them that came from the cecum would have been negative based on our earlier studies. It was most definitely not a replication study.
And what slayed me was Lipkin’s subsequent reporting in the news media that this was the final word and it ruled out the possibility that the MMR was causing autism. It didn’t even go close to doing that. 32
Let me put these comments into perspective for you. Wakefield only found the measles virus in the swollen lymphoid tissue of the ileum.
Lipkin had Tim Buie take many samples, but didn’t note where or even if they came from the lymphoid tissue of the ileum. We’re just supposed to accept his word that SOME of the samples came from that region.
It’s like a student telling his teacher he did his homework, but he just can’t show it to the teacher. But he still wants the credit.
That is not good science.
And with that impeccable logic, Lipkin declared we should not do any further investigation into whether the MMR vaccine was linked to the development of gastrointestinal problems and autism.
***
It’s important to understand the approach we used in our initial investigation into XMRV.
We hypothesized that the virus would only be intermittently in the blood, and in only the sickest
patients. It’s not the presence of the provirus in the genome, but the expression of the virus, that generates the cytokine storm, which is the real disease.
We published this data more than a year after the Science paper.33 Not because we didn’t have the data, but because of the misogynistic gatekeepers of science. The so-called peer-review process is little more than competitor regulation by the gatekeepers like John Coffin, Ian Lipkin, Robert Gallo, Anthony Fauci, and Harold Varmus, to control the message and prevent the publication of relevant data which can shift current understandings. That’s why we not only identified the sickest patients, but also took blood at regular intervals over several months and tested each sample, using multiple assays, including the addition of 5-azactydine, the demethylating agent, to activate the expression of latent XMRVs.
If this was a virus which was easily detected, it would already have been done. I could go into a lot more of the science, but I think that’s sufficient for you to understand why Lipkin’s multi-center study was fraudulent collusion by John Coffin, Ian Lipkin, and Anthony Fauci. Coffin had no business being at the November 4, 2010 study design meeting for the study Francis Collins commissioned, and that Anthony Fauci assigned to Ian Lipkin. Nor did Simone Glynn, Nancy Klimas, or Suzanne Vernon. All had conflicts of interest and decades of scientific misconduct towards the ME/CFS population. I had no idea that two years later there would be twenty-five authors on a paper that should have had no more than five or six.
Here are the conditions that were specifically excluded from the Lipkin multi-center study:
Potential CFS/ME and control subjects were excluded for the following confounding medical conditions: serologic evidence of infection with human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, Treponema pallidum, or B. burgdorferi; medical or psychiatric illness that might be associated with fatigue; or abnormal serum chemistries or thyroid function tests.34
These exclusions are insane, and I fought as hard against them that day as I do now. The condition is called chronic fatigue syndrome and you exclude a “medical or psychiatric illness that might be associated with fatigue?” These patients are often unable to function for days or weeks, and you don’t expect them to have “abnormal serum characteristics?”
Ending Plague Page 23