The NIH knew the vax spike protein was linked to increases in cancer. New emails show they covered it up.

Newly discovered emails show that NIH / National Cancer Institute staffers concealed evidence that the spike protein in the covid vaccines cauased cancer.

In 2022 I submitted a FOIA request to the NIH for emails regarding an Eric Freed from the National Cancer Institute. The NIH refused to release them. The problem? The emails show that the NIH was aware that spike protein in the COVID-19 vaccines would cause an increase in cancers. Instead of warning the American public, Eric O. Freed actively encouraged the retraction of the first paper warning of the genetic risk created over the objections of one of the authors.

BILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO THIS ‘VACCINE’.

Journalist Rebeka Barnett picked up the scent of this story and obtained emails we couldn’t get from the NIH. Please read her story below.

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Forced retraction of Covid vaccine cancer-risk study, scientist alleges

A problem with the NIH FOIA team?

Much of this problem stems from what appears to be poison at every level of the federal government. Members of the FOIA team at the NIH were linked to democrat congressmen like Jamie Raskin. Despite this diseased government, I attempted to get a statement from Eric O. Freed, the NCI scientist directly involved in this story.

Eric O. Freed in Wuhan, China Zhengli Shi (Wuhan Institute of Virology). (AKA BATLADY!)

Hello Dr. Freed,

I am a journalist, filmmaker, and former CNN editor. I’m also an advisory board member to the Free Press Foundation. 

I’m working with several journalists on ongoing video and print stories regarding the retraction of the paper 'SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro' by Jiang and Mei, the findings of which have since been corroborated by several studies, including a recent one from p53 experts, Professors Shengliang Zhang and Wafik El-Diery of Brown University: https://www.oncotarget.com/article/28582/text/

These stories will focus on the events leading to the paper’s retraction.

In my previous FOIA requests, the NIH refused to release 490 pages of communications between you and Oliver Schildgen regarding this retraction.  

We now have communications between you and Schildgen.

We also have an independent genomics/oncology expert who attests that this paper appears sound despite the technicality used to justify the retraction. This review corroborates the peer review the paper went through before publishing. 

Additionally, we have evidence of political pressure for this retraction from activists with no published expertise in this field.

I have the following questions. 

1. Have you submitted an expression of concern for Wafik El-Diery’s paper?

2. Were you pressured to retract the paper from internal sources at NIH or HHS?

3. In the interest of scientific integrity, will you release all your communications regarding the Jiang paper including any sent to you from within NIH or external sources?

Our reporting on this matter begins on May 28. 

Thank you,

John Davidson

Questions that need answers.

In my previous FOIA requests, the NIH refused to release 490 pages of communications between Eric and Oliver Schildgen, another editor of MDPI Viruses, regarding this retraction.  Thanks to Rebekah Barnett, we now have communications between Eric and Schildgen. These communications indicate Schildgen was very concerned about the unusual nature of the retraction, stating on December 2, 2021: 

"I can understand that the manuscript reached publicity, but also critical science is to be published.”

As well as a December 6̶, 2021 statement:

"I have to express my surprise about the entire history of this process."

We also have Ya-Fang Mei explicitly rejecting Jiang’s call for retraction on Feb 1, 2022:

"I hope I am allowed to argue with the retraction, due to we have sufficient data to support our published results and additional references from Sars-CoV-1that indicates NP localized at cytoplasma and spike at surrounding nucleus as well one of EM shows one structure protein in nucleus. Thus, I absolutely not accept this retraction.

I hope it wil be kept as it was or submitting minimal modified version.”

Which brings us back to what records indicate Eric stated on December 2, 2021:

"Just to add one important point: retraction of a paper does not require evidence of scientific misconduct. If the data are considered to be unreliable, if honest mistakes were made, etc., such that the conclusions are not valid, the paper should be retracted.”

If these statements are true I have several questions.

• There was no proof that the paper’s conclusions were invalid. 

• The lead author Ya-Fang was unwilling to retract and requested a slight modification.

• A retraction is only allowable if the conclusions ‘are not valid’. 

1. Why did Eric allow this paper to be retracted when it did not meet the criteria he set forth on Dec. 2, 2021?

2. Has Eric submitted an expression of concern for Wafik El-Diery’s paper?

3. Was Eric pressured to retract the paper from internal sources at NIH or HHS? Is this what the NIH FOIA team is trying to hide from the American people, millions of which have been injected with these ‘vaccines’?

Just one more thing.

In April 2019, Eric O. Freed at the National Cancer Institute located at Ft. Detrick, Maryland worked directly with Zhengli Shi on a paper. She’s the notorious ‘batlady’ of Wuhan.

Arkmedic has covered this extensively in his own blog below.

GileadGate Exposed

You can review my previous NIHGate stories below.