“The latest widest news in Molecular Microbiology”, according to microbiologists. Not so much outside their world. The consequences are beyond imagination…

Here’s the study, my brief comments after:

SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro

by Hui Jiang 1,2,* andYa-Fang Mei 2,*1Department of Molecular Biosciences, The Wenner–Gren Institute, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden2Department of Clinical Microbiology, Virology, Umeå University, SE-90185 Umeå, Sweden*
Received: 20 August 2021 / Revised: 8 September 2021 / Accepted: 8 October 2021 / Published: 13 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue SARS-CoV-2 Host Cell Interactions)
View Full-TextDownload PDFBrowse FiguresCitation Export


Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV–2) has led to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic, severely affecting public health and the global economy. Adaptive immunity plays a crucial role in fighting against SARS–CoV–2 infection and directly influences the clinical outcomes of patients. Clinical studies have indicated that patients with severe COVID–19 exhibit delayed and weak adaptive immune responses; however, the mechanism by which SARS–CoV–2 impedes adaptive immunity remains unclear. Here, by using an in vitro cell line, we report that the SARS–CoV–2 spike protein significantly inhibits DNA damage repair, which is required for effective V(D)J recombination in adaptive immunity.
Mechanistically, we found that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein BRCA1 and 53BP1 recruitment to the damage site. Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines.
 View Full-Text

The study is in vitro (of course), remains to be confirmed in vivo (that will be a long adventure), but it’s very worrying nevertheless.

Some scientists have quickly reacted by demanding a reformulation of the Covid vaccines so that they contain only a fragment of the protein that would delivere the desired effect without the unwanted ones. But:
1) do they have any proof a fragment won’t wreck havoc too?
2) have they forgotten already that the spike originates in the ‘virus’, are they really telling us everyone who had Covid is potentially ‘broken’, or
3) do they think, as I do, that the virus exists only on servers and the protein only in the goo they sell as ‘Covid vaccines’?

Dr Mikolaj Raszek, Phd from Merogenomics

“Antibody Dependent Enhancement or ADE could occur with use of full length of Spike protein”, dr. Rszek says, I’d ask what are the chances for it to NOT occur in the billion people or so that have been chemically raped so far?

What all this involves:

  1. Anyone who got the spike can break down at any time in ways we can’t even fully anticipate. That includes those who got it from a virus as well as those who got it from an injection. Recent discovery that Spikes may circulate for months on end in Exosomes to different parts of the body and in theory enter cells well after the point of vaccination
  2. I’m personally not worried about any natural coronaviruses ever, but if you are or if you think an artificial virus had a pandemic outbreak recently, and it became unescapable, then this is an extinction level threat and the countdown has already started. Reformulating vaccines will only prevent us from pouring gas on our own burning roof.
  3. Whether if you think the spike only comes from the syringe and the shedding vaxxtards, like I do, or from viral sources, vaccination must be stopped NOW, there’s no way the benefits can outweigh the risks!

So yeah…

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.

Take it with a pinch of salt, as per usual, this still a product of MIT.

Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19

Stephanie Seneff1 and Greg Nigh – Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge MA, 02139, USA, E-mail: seneff@csail.mit.edu / Naturopathic Oncology, Immersion Health, Portland, OR 97214, USA


Operation Warp Speed brought to market in the United States two mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Interim data suggested high efficacy for both of these vaccines, which helped legitimize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA.

However, the exceptionally rapid movement of these vaccines through controlled trials and into mass deployment raises multiple safety concerns. In this review we first describe the technology underlying these vaccines in detail.

We then review both components of and the intended biological response to these vaccines, including production of the spike protein itself, and their potential relationship to a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases.

Among these potential induced pathologies, we discuss the relevance of prion-protein-related amino acid sequences within the spike protein. We also present a brief review of studies supporting the potential for spike protein “shedding”, transmission of the protein from a vaccinated to an unvaccinated person, resulting in symptoms induced in the latter.

We finish by addressing a common point of debate, namely, whether or not these vaccines could modify the DNA of those receiving the vaccination. While there are no studies demonstrating definitively that this is happening, we provide a plausible scenario, supported by previously established pathways for transformation and transport of genetic material, whereby injected mRNA could ultimately be incorporated into germ cell DNA for transgenerational transmission.

We conclude with our recommendations regarding surveillance that will help to clarify the long-term effects of these experimental drugs and allow us to better assess the true risk/benefit ratio of these novel technologies.


Unprecedented. This word has defined so much about 2020 and the pandemic related to SARS-CoV-2. In addition to an unprecedented disease and its global response, COVID-19 also initiated an unprecedented process of vaccine research, production, testing, and public distribution (Shaw,

2021). The sense of urgency around combatting the virus led to the creation, in March 2020, of Operation Warp Speed (OWS), then-President Donald Trump’s program to bring a vaccine against COVID-19 to market as quickly as possible(Jacobs and Armstrong, 2020). OWS established a few more unprecedented aspects of COVID-19.

First, it brought the US Department of Defense into direct collaboration with US health departments with respect to vaccine distribution (Bonsell, 2021).

Second, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) collaborated with the biotechnology company Moderna in bringing an unprecedented type of vaccine against infectious disease to market, one utilizing a technology based on messenger RNA (mRNA) (National Institutes of Health, 2020).

The confluence of these unprecedented events has rapidly brought to public awareness the promise and potential of mRNA vaccines as a new weapon against infectious diseases into the future. At the same time, events without precedent are, by definition, without a history and context against which to fully assess risks, hoped-for benefits, safety, and long-term viability as a positive contribution to public health.

In this paper we will be briefly reviewing one particular aspect of these unprecedented events, namely the development and deployment of mRNA vaccines against the targeted class of infectious diseases under the umbrella of “SARS-CoV-2.

”We believe many of the issues we raise here will be applicable to any future mRNA vaccine that might be produced against other infectious agents, or in applications related to cancer and genetic diseases, while others seem specifically relevant to mRNA vaccines currently being implemented against the subclass of corona viruses. While the promises of this technology have been widely heralded, the objectively assessed risks and safety concerns have received far less detailed attention. It is our intention to review several highly concerning molecular aspects of infectious disease-related mRNA technology, and to correlate these with both documented and potential pathological effects.


Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population.

Some of these includes the following.

  1. First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)

2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent

3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market

4. First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction

5. First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text)

6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths

7. First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans

8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

Vaccine Development

Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies.

Unprecedented represents a category of vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)

Figure 1.Launching innovative vaccines is costly and time-consuming, with a low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines (adapted from Young et al, 2018).

With that in mind, two years later we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy (Baden et al. 2020). In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). This defies not only predictions, but also expectations.

The British Medical Journal(BMJ) may be the only prominent conventional medical publication that has given a platform to voices calling attention to concerns around the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy are in need of re-evaluation. Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data released to the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).

A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna and Pfizer trials were deemed to be SARS-CoV-1-positive at baseline despite prior infection being grounds for exclusion. For these and other reasons the interim efficacy estimate of around 95% for both vaccines is suspect.

A more recent analysis looked specifically at the issue of relative vs. absolute risk reduction. While the high estimates of risk reduction are based upon relative risks, the absolute risk reduction is a more appropriate metric for a member of the general public to determine whether a vaccination provides a meaningful risk reduction personally. In that analysis, utilizing data supplied by the vaccine makers to the FDA, the Moderna vaccine at the time of interim analysis demonstrated an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% (p= 0.004), while the Pfizer vaccine absolute risk reduction was 0.7% (p<0.000) (Brown 2021).

Others have brought up important additional questions regarding COVID-19 vaccine development, questions with direct relevance to the mRNA vaccines reviewed here.

For example, Haidere, et. al. (2021) identify four “critical questions” related to development of these vaccines, questions that are germane to both their safety and their efficacy:

•Will Vaccines Stimulate the Immune Response?

•Will Vaccines Provide Sustainable Immune Endurance?

•How Will SARS-CoV-2 Mutate?

•Are We Prepared for Vaccine Backfires?

Lack of standard and extended preclinical and clinical trials of the two implemented mRNA vaccines leaves each of these questions to be answered over time. It is now only through observation of pertinent physiological and epidemiological data generated by widescale delivery of the vaccines to the general public that these questions will be resolved. And this is only possible if there is free access to unbiased reporting of outcomes –something that seems unlikely given the widespread censorship of vaccine-related information because of the perceived need to declare success at all cost.

The two mRNA vaccines that have made it through phase 3 trials and are now being delivered to the general population are the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The vaccines have much in common. Both are based on mRNA encoding the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Both demonstrated a relative efficacy rate of 94-95%. Preliminary indications are that antibodies are still present after three months. Both recommend two doses spaced by three or four weeks, and recently there are reports of annual booster injections being necessary (Mahose, 2021). Both are delivered through muscle injection, and both require deep-freeze storage to keep the RNA from breaking down. This is because, unlike double-stranded DNA which is very stable, single-strand RNA products are apt to be damaged or rendered powerless at warm temperatures and must be kept extremely cold to retain their potential efficacy (Pushparajah et al., 2021).

It is claimed by the manufacturers that the Pfizer vaccine requires storage at -94 degrees Fahrenheit (-70 degrees Celsius), which makes it very challenging to transport it and keep it cold during the interim before it is finally administered. The Moderna vaccine can be stored for 6 months at -4 degrees Fahrenheit (-20 degrees Celsius), and it can be stored safely in the refrigerator for 30 days following thawing (Zimmer et al., 2021).

Two other vaccines that are now being administered under emergency use are the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the AstraZeneca vaccine. Both are based on a vector DNA technology that is very different from the technology used inthe mRNA vaccines.

While these vaccines were also rushed to market with insufficient evaluation, they are not the subject of this paper so we will just describe briefly how they are developed. These vaccines are based on a defective version of an adenovirus, a double-stranded DNA virus that causes the common cold.

The adenovirus has been genetically modified in two ways, such that it cannot replicate due to critical missing genes, and its genome has been augmented with the DNA code for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. AstraZeneca’s production involves an immortalized human cell line called Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) 293, which is grown in culture along with the defective viruses (Dicks et al., 2012).

The HEK cell line was genetically modified back in the 1970s by augmenting its DNA with segments from an adenovirus that supply the missing genes needed for replication of the defective virus (Louis et al., 1997).

Johnson & Johnson uses a similar technique based on a fetal retinal cell line. Because the manufacture of these vaccines requires genetically modified human tumor cell lines, there is the potential for human DNA contamination as well as many other potential contaminants.

The media has generated a great deal of excitement about this revolutionary technology, but there are also concerns that we may not be realizing the complexity of the body’s potential for reactions to foreign mRNA and other ingredients in these vaccines that go far beyond the simple goal of tricking the body into producing antibodies to the spike protein.

In the remainder of this paper, we will first describe in more detail the technology behind mRNA vaccines. We devote several sections to specific aspects of the mRNA vaccines that concern us with regard to potential for both predictable and unpredictable negative consequences.

We conclude with a plea to governments and the pharmaceutical industry to consider exercising greater caution in the current undertaking to vaccinate as many people as possible against SARS-CoV-2.



Experimental mRNA vaccines have been heralded as having the potential for great benefits, but they also harbor the possibility of potentially tragic and even catastrophic unforeseen consequences.

The mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been implemented with great fanfare, but there are many aspects of their widespread utilization that merit concern. We have reviewed some, but not all, of those concerns here, and we want to emphasize that these concerns are potentially serious and might not be evident for years or even transgenerationally.

In order to adequately rule out the adverse potentialities described in this paper, we recommend, at a minimum, that the following research and surveillance practices be adopted:

•A national effort to collect detailed data on adverse events associated with the mRNA vaccines with abundant funding allocation, tracked well beyond the first couple of weeks after vaccination.

•Repeated autoantibody testing of the vaccine-recipient population. The autoantibodies tested could be standardized and should be based upon previously documented antibodies and autoantibodies potentially elicited by the spike protein. These include autoantibodies against phospholipids, collagen, actin, thyroperoxidase (TPO), myelin basic protein, tissue transglutaminase, and perhaps others.

•Immunological profiling related to cytokine balance and related biological effects. Tests should include, at a minimum, IL-6, INF-α, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and C-reactive protein.

•Studies comparing populations who were vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines and those who were not to confirm the expected decreased infection rate and milder symptoms of the vaccinated group, while at the same time comparing the rates of various autoimmune diseases and prion diseases in the same two populations.

•Studies to assess whether it is possible for an unvaccinated person to acquire vaccine-specific forms of the spike proteins from a vaccinated person in close proximity.

•In vitro studies to assess whether the mRNA nanoparticles can be taken up by sperm and converted into cDNA plasmids.

•Animal studies to determine whether vaccination shortly before conception can result in offspring carrying spike-protein-encoding plasmids in their tissues, possibly integrated into their genome.

•In vitro studies aimed to better understand the toxicity of the spike protein to the brain, heart, testes, etc.

Public policy around mass vaccination has generally proceeded on the assumption that the risk/benefit ratio for the novel mRNA vaccines is a “slam dunk.” With the massive vaccination campaign well under way in response to the declared international emergency of COVID-19, we have rushed into vaccine experiments on a world-wide scale. At the very least, we should take advantage of the data that are available from these experiments to learn more about this new and previously untested technology. And, in the future, we urge governments to proceed with more caution in the face of new biotechnologies.

Finally, as an obvious but tragically ignored suggestion, the government should also be encouraging the population to take safe and affordable steps to boost their immune systems naturally, such as getting out in the sunlight to raise vitamin D levels (Ali, 2020), and eating mainly organic whole foods rather than chemical-laden processed foods (Rico-Campà et al., 2019). Also, eating foods that are good sources of vitamin A, vitamin C and vitamin K2 should be encouraged, as deficiencies in these vitamins are linked to bad outcomes from COVID-19 (Goddek, 2020; Sarohan, 2020).


This research was funded in part by Quanta Computers, Inc., Taiwan, under the auspices of the Qmulus project.Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests or conflicts to declare.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


WTH ever happened to “verify from three independent sources”? All we have is a letter salad uploaded on a server by CCP.

These guys:

… said this:

This is a video presentation, if YouTube Takes it down again, please look it up on Odysee, Brighteon or Bitchute


Amazing list of investors for Illumina, btw!

HOLLY MACARONI: CDC confirmed piecing together the code for the virus from scraps and apparently different places use different codes, which better explains some incidents. See from minute 5 here





Prof. David Rasnick PhD is a reputed researcher, a friend of Kari Mullis’ and one of the first to whistleblow on the AIDS hoax. A bit of a hero to me, which makes it all more exciting.


This above is the easiest way to officially corner the officials, because they had no basis for that letter salad upload:

UPDATE JULY 10, 2021

And yet another loud and clear confirmation that no one notices because…

“A bipartisan pair of lawmakers want information from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) about the deletion of data on the genetic sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that could provide answers as to the virus’s origin.

In a letter sent Friday and shared first with The Hill, Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) and Mark Green (R-Tenn.) ask for answers about the missing genetic sequences, and press NIH Director Francis Collins to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect scientific data.

The letter comes after a scientist last month said he found some of the genetic sequences of the virus that had previously been uploaded to an NIH server in March 2020 were subsequently deleted at the request of the Chinese researchers from Wuhan who initially uploaded them.

Jesse Bloom, a principal researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, wrote in a preprint paper that he recovered 13 missing sequences that purportedly show the virus was circulating in the Chinese city of Wuhan before a December outbreak of COVID-19 that was linked to a “wet market” selling live animals.

The NIH said the requestor wanted the data removed from the agency’s Sequence Read Archive and indicated it was being submitted to another database. Submitting investigators hold the rights to their data and can request withdrawal of the data, the agency said.

Top U.S. public health officials and experts are increasingly lending credibility to the need for a deeper investigation into the origins of the coronavirus.

Scientists haven’t discovered definitive proof the virus leaked from a lab. But they also have not found hard evidence that shows the virus started in animals before naturally infecting humans, which is why some now argue an investigation is needed.” – The (S)Hill

I mean it’s hard to feel sorry for the human race when it’s this dumb, eugenicists are not totally wrong, just not in position to decide who dies, because no one is.

UPDATE #4: JUNE 4, 2021





Ah, and a “Nature publication”, I loled. o_O
What kind of people use “there is no question” as scientific argument/evidence? Pseudo-scientists, snake-oil salesmen and con artists of all kinds.

The sub-zeroes from the CBS-affiliate WUSA9 try to lend a helping hand to their owners, but they double down for us:

They link, as evidence, to this NIH page which ONLY MENTIONS GENBANK, which is the same fridge on which China stuck that “post it” note.

WTH ever happened to “verify from three independent sources”?
It used to be Rule #0 in journalism, back when I studied it in college.

Here are a bit over three sources to support something:


FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever


“Would a sane person mix a patient sample (containing various sources of genetic material and never proven to contain any particular virus) with transfected monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs, then claim that the resulting concoction is “SARS-COV-2 isolate” and ship it off internationally for use in critical research (including vaccine and test development)?

Because that’s the sort of fraudulent monkey business that’s being passed off as “virus isolation” by research teams around the world.

Just 1 of many examples is shown below – this is from a study cited by the Australian Department of Health as a paper “which led to the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in culture“. (Can you spot the oxymoron in that quote?)” – Fluoride Free Peel

If you are new to the topic of “virus isolation/purification”, I strongly recommend that you begin by reading the Statement On Virus Isolation by Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Thomas Cowan and
Sally Fallon Morell, MAhttps://andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/
or watch this 5 minute video from Dr. Cowan.

Here are 5 compilation pdfs containing FOI responses from 79 institutions in 22 countries/jurisdictions, re the isolation/purification/existence of “SARS-COV-2”, as well as emails from authors of studies that claimed to have “isolated the virus” and an email from the Head of the Consultant Laboratory for Diagnostic Electron Microscopy of Infectious Pathogens at Germany’s Robert Koch Institut, last updated July 13, 2021 (note: many of these responses were obtained by FOI-submitters other than Michael S. and myself, as indicated further down this page):
Part 1: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/FOI-replies-SARS-COV-2-isolation-existence-causation-47-institutions-Feb-12-2021-chrono-part-1.pdf
Part 2: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/FOI-replies-SARS-COV-2-isolation-existence-causation-47-institutions-Feb-12-2021-chrono-part-2.pdf
Part 3: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FOI-replies-SARS-COV-2-isolation-purification-existence-part-3-April-3.pdf
Part 4: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FOI-replies-re-SARS-COV-2-purification-existence-June-3-2021-part-4.pdf
Part 5: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FOI-replies-re-SARS-COV-2-purification-existence-July-13-2021-part-5.pdf

I discovered this when the video was already up…


“Most of our readers are interested in consumer DNA testing for genealogy and ancestry research. Illumina played a massive role in making these services affordable. All the big DNA testing companies use Illumina’s chip technology.
But some companies are even more closely intertwined with Illumina. I mention briefly in an article on who owns 23andMe that the chip company was an investor in the 2015 funding found of its customer.”


“If you’ve ever used 23andMeAncestry.com, or any other genetics-testing service, chances are that your genes were sequenced on machines made by the $25 billion biotech behemoth. Now the undisputed leader in the emerging field of DNA sequencing in the U.S., Illumina has outstripped its rivals by selling its sequencing hardware to medical researchers around the world.”


As we’ve shown in previous reports, 23andMe is owned by Richard Branson and a former wife and current partner of Google’s founder Sergey Brin. She also happens to be the sister of YouTube CEO.

“23andMe is owned by a sizeable number of large investors spearheaded by Anne Wojcicki (YouTube CEO sister and former Google owner wife – S.m) and Richard Branson. The list of investors with recent ownership stakes in the company includes Altimeter Capital, Fidelity, Casdin Capital, and Foresite Capital.
Since the company was founded in 2006, it has been involved in multiple funding rounds. There were at least 60 investors in 2020 before the merger, including GlaxoSmithKline and Sequoia Capital. Early investors include Alphabet (Google’s parent company) and WuXi Healthcare Ventures (a Chinese company).
When 23andMe merged with Richard Branson’s acquisition company, the existing stakeholders retained ownership of 81% of the merged company.”


According to Wikipedia:

“In 2005, co-founder and former Chief Scientific Officer Anthony Czarnik sued Illumina; see Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.

In 2010, Cornell University and Life Technologies filed a lawsuit against Illumina, alleging that its microarray products infringed on eight patents held by the university and exclusively licensed to the start-up. The case was settled in April 2017 without any finding of fault. In September 2017 both parties asked to have the settlement reviewed, with Cornell accusing both Illumina and Life Technologies of misrepresentation and fraud.[44]

In February 2020, Illumina filed a patent infringement suit against BGI relating to its “CoolMPS” sequencing products.[48] In return BGI has filed patent infringement lawsuits for violation of federal antitrust and California unfair competition laws, claiming use of “fraudulent behavior” to obtain or enforce sequencing patents that it has asserted against BGI, preventing the firm from entering the US market.[49]

“BGI” as in…


Ah, also…



Sharryl Atkinson investigates the source of the virus, finds out no one in US got samples in their lab, moves on trying to find the source of a virus that no one can provide samples / isolation / purification.

UPDATE 4 (hopefully final)

I think we’re done here.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


Yes, the vaccine passports too, like many other “novel ideas” brought up by the “novel” Macarenavirus, have been actually planned long ago.



24 world leaders announce international pandemic treaty to implement Great Reset agenda

Signatories include the head of the World Health Organization, as well as the leaders of France, Germany, the U.K., and other countries.

March 31, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) –– A host of global leaders issued a call for a global pandemic treaty, purportedly in order to prevent future pandemics, distribute vaccinations, and implement a unilateral approach to global governance.

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the head of the World Health Organisation (WHO), as well as 20 other world leaders, joined forces in penning a joint letter with the apparent intent of winning popular support for the globalist plan.

Writing in U.K. paper The Telegraph, as well as other publications such as Le Monde in France, the leaders declared their intent to “build a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations.”

Calling COVID-19 the “biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s,” the 24 leaders predicted that there “will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies.”

“No single government or multilateral agency can address this threat alone,” they declared. “The question is not if, but when. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly co-ordinated fashion. The Covid-19 pandemic has been a stark and painful reminder that nobody is safe until everyone is safe.”

This final phrase could indicate the influence which World Economic Forum (WEF) founder and committed globalist Klaus Schwab enjoys over the 24 leaders. Just weeks ago, Schwab declared, “As long as not everybody is vaccinated, nobody will be safe,” a statement which in itself poses an interesting question about the trust which such leaders are placing in their much praised, but dangerousexperimental injections.

The leaders re-affirmed their joint aim of global vaccination, describing it as “global public good.”

In order to achieve that “public good,” and to ensure swift roll-out of vaccines across the globe, the 24 globalists initiated their new international treaty: “[W]e believe that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response. Such a renewed collective commitment would be a milestone in stepping up pandemic preparedness at the highest political level.”

This treaty would be based on the principles of the WHO, drawing from the WHO’s constitution, as well as calling on “other relevant organisations key to this endeavour.” The WHO’s director-general, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was one of the signatories of the statement.

“The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics,” the leaders declared.

“This includes greatly enhancing international co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.”

Nor would it be centered purely on globalist vaccination agendas. Due to the leaders’ “One Health” approach, it would build on the principle of a connection between “the health of humans, animals and our planet.”

In language reminiscent of the Great Reset agendapromoted by the WEF and Klaus Schwab, the leaders mentioned that the new treaty would lead to a lack of national interests, and increased international concerns: “[S]uch a treaty should lead to more mutual accountability and shared responsibility, transparency and co-operation within the international system and with its rules and norms.”

No section of society would be exempt from becoming involved in the new treaty, whatever it may turn out to look like, with the world leaders pointing out that “we will work with heads of state and governments globally, and all stakeholders including civil society and the private sector.”

Declaring that the coronavirus, which originated in Wuhan, China, had “exploited our weaknesses and divisions,” the leaders pronounced it to be their “responsibility” to “ensure that the world learns the lessons of the Covid-19 pandemic,” and to “seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful co-operation that extends beyond this crisis.”

The proposal is due to be further discussed among national leaders at the June G7 summit in Cornwall in the U.K., where Boris Johnson will join his counterparts from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.S., and the E.U. Meanwhile, the 24 signatories warned that their new plan “will take time and require a sustained political, financial and societal commitment over many years.”

Speaking to BBC Radio, the WHO’s special COVID envoy Dr. David Nabarro, echoed the language employed by the 24 leaders, noting that it would be 2022 before the globalist agenda of world vaccination was complete, and thus hinted at “all sorts of problems with variants,” before that goal was complete.

The planned treaty appears to align very closely with the Great Reset goals of Klaus Schwab. The World Economic Forum’s promotion of the Reset even employs matching terminology, describing “leaders” who “find themselves at a historic crossroads.”

The societal disruption caused by the Wuhan virus presents “a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery” for Schwab, who added that “this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons.”

Indeed, the link between the new international treaty and the Great Reset caused veteran presenter Richie Allen to write, “This is terrifying. For many years, I have been featuring writers, researchers and academics who warned us that this would happen. This is the end game.”

Such a treaty was simply about “concentrating power in the hands of a tiny elite,” explained Allen. “It’s what globalists have been working towards for decades.”

The full list of signatories is found below:

J. V. Bainimarama, prime minister of Fiji; António Luís Santos da Costa, prime minister of Portugal; Klaus Iohannis, president of Romania; Boris Johnson, prime minister of the United Kingdom; Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda; Uhuru Kenyatta, president of Kenya; Emmanuel Macron, president of France; Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany; Charles Michel, president of the European Council; Kyriakos Mitsotakis, prime minister of Greece; Moon Jae-in, president of the Republic of Korea; Sebastián Piñera, president of Chile; Carlos Alvarado Quesada, president of Costa Rica; Edi Rama, prime minister of Albania; Cyril Ramaphosa, president of South Africa; Keith Rowley, prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago; Mark Rutte, prime minister of the Netherlands; Kais Saied, president of Tunisia; Macky Sall, president of Senegal; Pedro Sánchez, Prime Minister of Spain; Erna Solberg, prime minister of Norway; Aleksandar Vučić, president of Serbia; Joko Widodo, president of Indonesia; Volodymyr Zelensky, president of Ukraine; Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organisation.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!