Welcome to Med Crimes.

Learn what censored doctors, scientists, and legal experts have to say about the true nature of the pharmaceutical industry and SARS-CoV-2.

Site Mission

This site is dedicated to a relative who will remain unnamed for now. This relative received a COVID-19 vaccine on March 7th of 2021, and on March 10th began having trouble catching her breath and experienced extreme fatigue. She went from walking 2 – 4 miles a day to barely walking to the end of the block with the assistance of a walker. She never recovered and eventually died on July 21st of 2021. She had no history of high blood pressure or heart disease.

My relative's death prompted me to investigate the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine's alleged efficacy and the companies behind them. What I found was shocking and is what motivated me to I created this site; Pfizer appears to have bought off much of the media and the regulators. This small sampling of the programs that are sponsored by Pfizer sums up the situation in my mind. (original twitter account is now suspended but can be found on Ruble sponsored by Pfizer). Funny, simply posting Pfizer ads will now get you suspended. It is no wonder the media is so unquestionably pro-vaccine. But it gets worse. It turns out that 27% of all FDA regulators end up working for big pharma companies, and nine out of the last ten FDA commissioners have gone on to work for big pharma. Scott Gottlieb is the latest; he now sits on the board of, you guessed it, Pfizer.

It is interesting to note that most of the narratives we have been led to believe are demonstrably false. For example, this study Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States published in the European Journal of Epidemiology shows that there appears to be no discernable relationship between the percentage of a population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases. To make matters worse, this study titled Shedding of infections SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination shows that the viral load between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is virtually the same. Still, the vaccinated are more likely to continue their normal routine instead of staying in bed and thus are more likely to spread the virus. If that is the case, why the forced vaccine mandates? Wasn’t the point of the mandate to reduce the spread of the virus?

And it only gets worse; when I started my investigation, I was prepared to acknowledge that the COVID-19 vaccines reduced hospitalizations, but not even that is true. This Public Health England - Technical briefing 23 9-17-21 (pages 19 - 20) shows that vaccinated individuals over 50 make up the vast majority of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths for that age group. Granted, the majority of the population in the UK n that age group has been vaccinated. Weren’t the vaccines supposed to prevent hospitalizations and death?

While the argument can still be made that the vaccines reduce hospitalizations and deaths and provide booster shots periodically, my question is for how long and at what cost. It appears the vaccines damage the immune system; N antibodies are lower in people who have had COVID-19 after having the vaccine than in those who had COVID-19 with no vaccine. But what is even more horrifying is that according to this paper, SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro, the spike proteins appear to enter the cell nucleus, damage the DNA repair mechanisms, suppress T-Cells and immune function, and shorten telomeres. If the paper is correct, you can expect accelerated aging, increased cancer rates, and a myriad of other illnesses. Vaccines potentially take a bad situation and make it much worse. What was the purpose of the vaccine mandates again?

I also explore how many governments around the world are using the pandemic to extend their power. As I learn more, I will add to the site. Finally, I have not created this site for profit; I have created this site to expose or at least better understand what is true. My opinions are not fixed in stone. If you are also concerned and would like to contribute to the effort, I would be happy to talk. Collaboration with medical professions, programmers, and people who are multimedia specials would help speed things up.


Marcia Angell - Former, editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

Richard Charles Horton - Editor-in-chief of The Lancet

“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

My Top 40 SARS-CoV-2 Related Questions

Here’s a list of questions I came up with when I started looking into SARS-CoV-2.

  1. Why are children who are at low risk of death or injury from SARS-CoV-2 given vaccine shots? From a risk-reward point of view, it makes no sense to me. Please read this Toxicology Report; you can educate me; I am all ears.
  2. Why has a host reservoir still not been found for SARS-CoV-2 if it had a natural origin?
  3. Why were animal trials skipped especially given that past mRNA animal trials resulted in 100% death?
  4. Why is the government talking about vaccine mandates when proper phase three trials, which take 2 to 4 years to complete, have not been done.
  5. Why are federal employees who have achieved natural immunity required to take the vaccine?
  6. Why have cases reported to VAERS skyrocketed since the vaccine's introduction if COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective?
  7. Why is Dr. Fauci lying about his support of gain of function research?
  8. Why are non-Pfizer-funded studies showing that Ivermectin is safe and effective ignored?
  9. Why is the CDC against early treatment protocols that present nearly no risk, cost little, and whose effectiveness is supported with numerous studies?
  10. Why does the FDA now receive 45% of its funding from pharmaceutical companies, and how does this not create a conflict of interest?
  11. Why are 1/3 of all FDA-approved drugs later pulled from the market or get black labeled, and given this track record, why should we assume the COVID-19 vaccines are safe.
  12. Why does big pharma eventually hire 27% of FDA regulations, and why is this even legal?. For example, why does Scott Gottlieb (former FDA commissioner) now sit on the Board of Directors of Pfizer? And why does Stephen Hahn (former FDA commissioner) now sit on Chief Medical Officer of Flagship Pioneer –the venture capital firm behind Moderna. Also, why is James Smith (CEO of Reuters) also on the Board of Directors for Pfizer? Any conflict of interest here?
  13. Why does the CDC not take the health effects of social isolation and related mental health issues into account when making lockdown recommendations?
  14. Why have small businesses been targeted for lockdowns, but large companies like Target and Walmart have not. Where is the study that supports this?
  15. Why is Sweden's case rate lower than the rest of the EU, given that they never imposed lockdowns?
  16. Why did the Wuhan Institute of Virology take its Virology database offline in Sept of 2019?
  17. What proof is there that lockdowns are effective?
  18. What proof is there that non N95 masks are effective?
  19. Why did breakthrough cases in Israel (the most vaccinated country on Earth) skyrocket?
  20. Why did two top officials at the FDA step down when pressured by the Biden administration to approve booster shots.
  21. Why is the former head of the FDA, Scott Gottlieb, now on Pfizer's board of directors, and why is this not a conflict of interest.
  22. Why has the CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky overridden the agency panel regarding the Pfizer-BioNTech booster shots?
  23. Why are Central African countries where Ivermectin is widely used relatively unaffected by the pandemic compared to the rest of the world despite meager vaccination rates?
  24. Why is the death rate in India, where Ivermectin is widely used seven-time lower than in the US?
  25. Why - 40 of 107 physician advisers on the FDA committees examined "received more than $10,000 in post hoc earnings or research support from the makers of drugs that the panels voted to approve, or from competing firms." Of those forty, 26 snagged more than $100,000, and seven of those gained $1 million or more.
  26. Why did the NIH fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
  27. Why are doctors in many institutions forbade from prescribing Ivermectin? Where are the studies that show this is dangerous?
  28. Why is the US military requiring vaccines when it employs primarily young, healthy people who are unlikely to die from COVID-19? Where is the risk-reward assessment?
  29. Why did Pfizer use only 329 primarily healthy young people in its drug trials, and how is this representative of the larger population.
  30. Why is big tech censoring free speech?
  31. Why was the public lead to believe that the vaccinated would not transmit SARS-CoV-2?
  32. Why is the vaccine mandated if it does not prevent transmission?
  33. Why are so many educated health care professionals quitting their jobs when told they must get a vaccine?
  34. Why are PHDs among the most vaccine-hesitant?
  35. Why does the CDC count people as dying of COVID-19 if they die withing 14 days of being vaccinated.
  36. Why did the CDC lower the PCR test threshold when the vaccines were released?
  37. Why do countries with the highest vaccine rate have the worst outcomes?
  38. Why did regulators not require biodistribution studies?
  39. Why did Pfizer not alert the FDA of its internal biodistribution study, which showed that lipid nano partials were not remaining at the site of injections?
  40. What are Dr. Fauci and the CDC’s reasons for not promoting good immune health?


A Neighbor, a doctor, pointed out that when two people look at a cloud, one might see a dragon, and the other might see a puppy. In reality, neither exist. The brain is a pattern recognition machine, and it might make one up in the absence of an actual pattern. I acknowledge the point, and it may be the case that I see a pattern or set of patterns where none exist.

However, to make the dragon in the cloud go away, I have assembled a set of questions that I would need to have answered. See Top 40 Questions above. If valid explanations can be given for each question, I will happily publish the answer(s). I accept that some of the questions may not be valid and reflect my general ignorance of the subject since I am not a doctor. Still, based on what I have read so far, my working hypothesis is as follows:

I suspect the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are essentially a failure. Their success in reducing hospitalization may prove to be an illusion if you add in the people who have died from the vaccine, which I suspect is significantly underreported, and the potential long-term damage incurred if continual booster shots are required. View the OpenVAERS report that downloads data directly from the VAERS database, and notice the unprecedented increase in reported adverse reactions.

It may also be the case that the CDC's active prevention of early treatment protocols have resulted in much higher death rates than would otherwise occur. Why not try Dr. Peter McCullough's multi-drug early treatment protocol comprised of cheap, readily available medications that are known to be safe. He estimates that 85% of the death that occurred could have been prevented and at the very least, what harm could it do. Also, why did the Lancet have to retract the fraudulent study on hydroxychloroquine. Why did the media not report this very significant retraction.

Additionally, I suspect that this failure is the same thing that explains (Launch Fever) the loss of the space shuttle Challenger. In the hurry up-and-go development cycle of the SARS-Cov-2 vaccines, many essential steps were skipped, and FDA approval was given on flimsy data.

If you had the idea that highly competent professionals work for and advise the FDA, watch this FDA Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee – 10/26/2021 meeting. This meeting is where they decide whether to give the vaccines to five-to-eleven-year-olds. I will sum up the eight-hour discussion like this; about four or more hours of it consisted of doctors saying, we can not answer that question because we do not have the data. Many of the doctors could not even keep a straight face. To get a sense of how utterly stupid some of these conversations were, watch where Dr. Ruben says, “we are never going to know how safe these vaccines are unless we start giving them.” Even Josef Mengele would be impressed by the scale of this medical experiment. However, to Mengele's credit, he would have likely included studies on twins for later long term comparative analysis. The FDA has no plans to track outcome beyond 3 months.

I had to keep rubbing my eyes and asking myself if this was real. Coming from a software development environment where code is tested against every conceivable scenario before delivery, it was SHOCKING to see the caviler tone taken in the meeting. And the FDA wants to release this vaccine to five-year-old’s who are at extremely low risk from COVID-19 in the first place? Zero consideration for sub-populations. Zero consideration for long-term consequences. In my view, the so-called risk assessment had about as much merit as a coin toss.

Another example of flimsy data (the list is almost endless), Pfizer's initial trial sample included only 329 people, most of whom were young and healthy. Young, healthy people are unlikely to die from COVID-19 or the vaccine, but it is a different story with at-risk populations. Vaccine animal trials were skipped even in light of past failures of animal trials for this technology. I also point out that the regulators did not require biodistribution studies because it was assumed that the nano lipid particles from the vaccine would stay in the arm. Incredibly, Pfizer's internal study, which has been leaked, shows that particles do not remain in the arm and are widely distributed. This fact has significant long-term ramifications, especially if people are expected to receive booster shots for the rest of their lives. I will expand on this section in the future. A side note – most vaccine administrators are not trained to aspirate, which means there is a possibility that the vaccine can go directly into the bloodstream. In a nutshell, lipid nanoparticles from the vaccine should never enter the bloodstream! But given the results of Pfizer’s internal study, it only matters if the regulators bothered to say it matters, no need to alarm the shareholders. Pfizer can't be sued anyway thanks to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

In my view, proper consideration may not have been given to issues like immune exhaustion in a rush to produce a vaccine. The immune system may adapt in a dysfunctional way to a continued challenge which 'could' be the case if lifelong booster shots are required. And let’s not forget about the possibility of antibody-dependent enhancement and viral evolutionary pressures from the vaccine itself—more on that in the future; in this meantime, you may want to read this paper that appeared in nature microbiology titled ‘Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies.’

Also, the vaccines are not doing what was initially promised, they are not preventing transmission, and they may even be accelerating the rate at which variants evolve. We might even be setting up a condition similar to Merak disease in chickens.

Merak's disease - Excerpt

Because vaccination does not prevent infection with the virus, Marek's is still transmissible from vaccinated flocks to other birds, including the wild bird population. The first Marek's disease vaccine was introduced in 1970. The disease would cause mild paralysis, with the only identifiable lesions being in neural tissue. Mortality of chickens infected with Marek's disease was quite low. Current strains of Marek virus, decades after the first vaccine was introduced, cause lymphoma formation throughout the chicken's body and mortality rates have reached 100% in unvaccinated chickens. The Marek's disease vaccine is a "leaky vaccine", which means that only the symptoms of the disease are prevented.[12] Infection of the host and the transmission of the virus are not inhibited by the vaccine.

Furthermore, according to a paper named Rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccination impact the fate of vaccine-resistant strains, a worst-case scenario may have been set up by having both a high vaccination rate combined with a high transmission rate. The study states that the "highest risk of resistant strain establishment occurs when a large fraction of the population has already been vaccinated, but the transmission is not controlled."

To add to the illusion allegation I made, I give you this story. An Oncologist I know prescribes a drug called Ibrance for treating cancer. She told me that the drug appears to work because it melts away cancer cells, and after an MRI, you are left with the impression that the drug is working. However, she confided that it is all an illusion that makes the charts look good, but it does little to extend the person's life. The doctors pretend they are helping; the patient has hope for a cure. In reality, the only thing that is happing for sure is $6000 a month (the cost of the prescription) is going to the pharmaceutical company that makes the product. In aggregate, I suspect the same thing is happing with the COVID-19 vaccines.

In my mind, it may make sense to get the vaccine if you have significant risk factors such as old age, obesity, or leukopenia. Vaccination might not be good for humanity, but individually, it is may be worth the risk since your life expectancy profile is lower anyway. My relative took that calculated risk and ended up dying, so it was Russian roulette; how lucky are you feeling today? I advised her to hold off on the shot since she already had COVID-19, but the seemingly credible Dr. Fauci on the nightly news said to get the shot, and natural immunity is no good.

What I find most impressive about Dr. Fauci is how he is absolutely sure he is right, even if it is the opposite of what he said a month earlier or what he will say a month later. Whatever the case is, at any moment in time, he is confident; he is science. Probably this alone, this sound of authority, is what had allowed him to maintain his position for decades. The lay public was none the wiser, but it seems this is changing.

If you believe the Fauci-istic (made up word) view that the vaccination is salvation itself, I suggest you review the DOD's internal review of Medicare data. It shows that people >= 65 are 80% fully vaccinated yet makeup 71% of all cases. Also, the fully vaccinated make up 60% of the hospitalization. So even if the vaccines are marginally effective in preventing hospitalizations, the vaccine's effectiveness wanes over time. Not in years, in months. Suppose you add in VAERS and the number of people killed or injured by the vaccine, then what benefit is there? And there is no long-term data on any deleterious effects the vaccine may have. Like I said, Russian Roulette, pick your poison.

If, however, you are young and have no risk factors, you may want to read this toxicology report titled Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? before getting jabbed again and again for the rest of your life. Also, if you have already had COVID-19, you may want to read this Israeli study titled Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections which confirmed that natural immunity is robust, long-lasting, and better than vaccine immunity.

I find it hard to side with Dr. Fauci as a creditable person at this point as he appears to be making it up as he goes. The inventor of the PCR test and Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis summed it up in this video long before Dr. Fauci became a household name. Also, Dr. Fauci has never treated a COVID-19 patient, and he reminds me too much of high-level know-nothing managers that I used to work with within large companies. They spent their days playing politics but contributed nothing to the companies bottom line.

As long as I am on the topic, as a software developer, I can tell you that companies that have adopted Agile methodologies have had great success in improving productivity and morale by getting rid of these political animals. Also, Dr. Fauci needs to take some classes in Agile Methodology. He is guilty of sub-optimization, which is when you optimize one part of a system at the expense of others. I believe the lockdowns are an example of sub-optimization gone wild. The Swede's in my view, had it right, no need for lockdowns.

Fauci also has no consideration for mental health and has never advocated that people take simple, cheap steps to strengthen their immune system. Things like reducing sugar intake, weight reduction, and increased sunlight or taking vitamin D3 if you work indoors can have a significant positive impact on your immune system. I’m beginning to think that Dr. Fauci never saw an on patent prescription drug he didn’t like.

Who to believe? To make matters worse, I have found the so-called fact-checkers are suffering from extreme confirmation bias. I will start with the idea that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin. If that is the case, please show me the proof. If you believe that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin, I recommend watching Stanford Professor Dr. David A. Relman's thoughtful presentation on the matter. While he tries to make a fair case for both the Natural Origin and Lab-created theories, it is pretty clear by the end of the presentation that the evidence more strongly aligns with the lab creation theory. Yet Wiki and the so-called fact-checkers label anything that questions the natural origin theory as misinformation. In either case, nothing has been definitively proven at this point. And since the Wuhan lab took its database offline (not suspicious at all) in September 2019, right before the virus went ‘viral,’ definitive proof may not be possible. Truth is misinformation; misinformation is truth.

Finaly and for the record, I currently side with Drs. Peter McCullough and Michael Yeadon (former chief scientist and vice-president of Pfizer's allergy and respiratory research division). Again, if I am a knuckle dragging ignorant Flat Earther, please educate me. I am not married to my current opinions; I am not selling any nutraceuticals or T-Shirts, so I have no vested interest. I’m just trying to figure out what is true and it currently appears we are being duped.

Note – this is only my current opinion and is not meant to be taken as medical advice; I am not a doctor, please talk to your doctor for medical advice. I am only sharing my thoughts in light of what I have read after a relative's death; I believe the vaccine was, at the very least, a contributing factor. As the data comes in and I learn more, I will happily revamp my preliminary conclusion. I view this preliminary conclusion as nothing more than a request for comment, and I am interested in your feedback.


Stay tuned; in the future (as time allows), I plan to add a news section to the site that tries to make sense of the vaccines. The clip below is alarming but is it true? I would like to have qualified experts comment on videos like the one below. While I am inclined to believe the video is non-sense, I would like some feed back on why it is non-sense.

For example, do the vaccines lower your white blood cell count, and how long does it take to recover? Also, do you ever fully recover if you have to take booster shots for the rest of your life? Does your system functionally adjust to this? Even if white blood cell count recovers between booster cycles, is there added immune risk on a cyclical basis? If the lowering of white blood cell count is accurate, I would like to know why this is not a problem. If, however, this is false information, I am glad to hear it but would like to refer to the evidence that sheds light on this.

See what Dr. Nathan Thompson has to say about this topic. In the video, he performs a blood and immune system test before and after a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. He shows how the immune system is tanked after the vaccination.

Also, are breakthrough cases a natural consequence of a weakened immune system after receiving the vaccine, at least for the period of time it takes the immune system to recover? This animation does not make a strong case for the efficacy of the vaccines, quite the opposite. And if the vaccine is so effective, why have vaccine super states like the UK and Israel had such terrible results. It’s becoming laughable in my view.

Finally, again, is the video below 100% non-sense, or are there some elements of truth regarding white blood cells in particular? Let me know.