Everything Wrong with the Documentary ‘Plandemic’
A science-based debunking of that video that keeps appearing on social media
In the past two days, I have seen a 25 minute video from the upcoming documentary titled ‘Plandemic’ featuring interviews with Judy Mikovits circulating constantly on social media. It has repeatedly been deleted from YouTube, not due to silencing the truth, but due to it being factually incorrect and dangerously misleading people to distrust science and medical advice. Still, it keeps reappearing on different channels and won’t seem to go away. There has been a huge influx in misinformation since the emergence of Covid-19, and I said I wouldn’t get involved but this finally compelled me to do something. Scientists and doctors are often blamed as not doing a good enough job of communicating their work to the public. However, when we do try to present the facts , we often get buried by celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow who have no scientific training, but way more followers or other ‘wellness’ experts promoting their alternative cure with tons of marketing experience. Conventional medicine and the pharmaceutical industry always gets accused of being for profit, and for sure there are problems there, but it still is based on peer reviewed science. We forget that the wellness industry promoting this vitamin or that herbal remedy is very much a for profit industry. One that is not at all regulated, that spends a lot of marketing dollars trying to promote their products and sow distrust in conventional medicine. But here is one more attempt to try to drown out the misinformation with facts.
Now on to Plandemic.
First of all, the whole introduction about Judy Mikovitz and how she was arrested and silenced for speaking the truth is completely false. Judy Mikovitz published a paper in the highly-respected journal Science in 2009 linking chronic fatigue syndrome to the XRMV virus [1]. The paper was later retracted because other researchers in several different countries at completely unrelated institutes couldn’t replicate her research, finding no links between XRMV and chronic fatigue syndrome patients in thousands of different patients [2]. When it became clear no one could replicate her findings, it was determined that the results she reported must have been due to contamination of the cells she was studying with a XMRV virus in the lab, and not from patients infected with the virus [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. The paper was then retracted. Mikovitz was arrested for stealing notebooks from the lab and refusing to hand them over. Once the work she was doing was coming under question, the Whitmore Institute, her employer, wanted to preserve the results as they were and prevent Mikovits from tampering with them. The employer typically owns the notebooks, because they pay for the research. In a scientific research lab, notebooks are meant to preserve a meticulous record of everything that was done, to allow others to continue the research, or to confirm the details if other scientists are questioning the published results. Lab notebooks never leave the lab. From a scientist’s perspective, she didn’t steal them to protect the truth but more likely to hide her bad science, as demonstrated by the fact that her work was not reproducible by other research groups. Mikovitz has been outcast from the scientific community due to her lack of scientific integrity, not because of some conspiracy. She has twisted the truth about her past and has now rebranded herself as some persecuted martyr. She has been a guest speaker at an anti-vax conference and published a book with renowned anti-vax advocate Kent Heckenlively. As a darling of the anti-vax community, she has a vested interest in having people distrust the scientific establishment.
One thing Mikovitz says is there are no RNA virus vaccines currently on the schedule. First, a tiny aside about viruses. Viruses are tiny infectious particles composed of genetic material, RNA or DNA, protected by a protein coat, known as the capsid. Viruses cannot replicate on their own and need a host to replicate. I am assuming that by RNA virus Mikovitz was referring to viruses that use RNA as their genetic material and it is simply not true that their are no routine vaccines for any of those. Polio, measles and influenza are all RNA viruses and vaccines to all of those are regular vaccines, with polio and measles forming part of routine childhood vaccines, which I’m assuming is what she meant by ‘on the schedule’. If instead she meant an RNA-based vaccine, then it is true that it is a new technology that is being explored to develop a potential COVID-19 vaccine, along with more conventional vaccine methods such as using inactivated virus particles.
Next, she goes on about how the virus couldn’t be naturally occurring. Several scientific groups have analyzed the genetic sequence of the virus, and the evidence is overwhelming that it arose naturally [9, 10]. Furthermore, she says it could only mutate that way or jump to humans after 1000 years, but shortly after the SARS outbreak, scientists were predicting the emergence of another coronavirus in the next ten years. Coronaviruses do occur in nature and occasionally jump over from their animal hosts to humans, with SARS emerging in 2003, and then MERS in 2012 and COVID-19 in 2019 [11, 12, 13]. Other viruses routinely mutate and jump the species barrier. This is how the Swine flu emerged in 2010.
Another thing this video does is accuse hospitals of skewing numbers to make the pandemic seem worse than it is by reporting unconfirmed cases as COVID-19 deaths. The decision to report unconfirmed cases is a difficult one. China and Russia have been accused of underreporting to downplay the severity of the outbreak by only reporting cases that have been confirmed by laboratory results. Italy also admitted to only reporting confirmed cases, therefore deflating the official numbers since many suspected cases died at home without confirmation. Parts of the US are being accused of over reporting by including suspected cases based on clinical diagnosis to made based on medical signs and symptoms rather than a lab test . The truth is there is a backlog of tests, which can take a day or two, and sometimes patients go downhill very quickly, and die before a confirmation. However, it is common practice in medical fields to determine a cause of death based on clinical symptoms, without a diagnostic confirmation. Often, the exact cause of death can only be determined in an autopsy, and this is not routinely done, so a clinical diagnosis is sufficient to establish cause of death.
Another point she makes is including everyone who tests positive in the death count, regardless of whether COVID-19 was the cause of death. But comorbidity, meaning presenting with another illness at the same time as COVID-19, is what makes people most susceptible to infection [14, 15]. While they may have another pre existing condition, the truth is without COVID-19 infection they would not have died of that condition alone. Studies have shown a link between negative outcomes with COVID-19 and several other comorbidities, including diabetes, asthma, COPD, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. COVID-19 is also linked to an increase in pulmonary embolisms, a blood clot in the lungs [16, 17]. Often, there are a number of different things going wrong at once that ultimately kills the patient, so it is not possible to narrow it down to one of the many medical conditions affecting a patient simultaneously.
Next, the video talks about an influenza vaccine given in Italy and mistakenly says it increases susceptibility to coronaviruses. The study cited was a Department of Defence study which was severely misquoted [18]. What the study showed was that individuals who had received the influenza vaccine had a decreased risk of receiving other respiratory pathogens compared to control groups, except coronaviruses. COVID-19 was not in circulation at the time and the coronaviruses cited in that study were different strains, such as the ones that cause common colds. These results did not mean that individuals who received the vaccine were more susceptible to coronaviruses, just that the flu vaccine didn’t provide any added protection compared to those who didn’t receive it.
Mikovits also mentions that the flu vaccine was grown in dog cells, which is true and common practice. The flu vaccine was grown in dog kidney cells, Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK cells), which are able to grow enough virus to produce a vaccine in 3–4 days compared to the six months it takes using other methods [19]. This is a huge time savings, and would be especially important now when we need a vaccine as soon as possible. Contrary to what Mikovits says, growing up the virus in MDCK cells does not infect people with coronaviruses. Cell lines used in the lab are not just taken from wild dogs. They are cells that have been grown up in a lab under sterile conditions and would not contain the coronaviruses found in those cells in the wild. To make this claim, Mikovits is conflating a few facts that don’t belong together. To understand why her claims don’t make sense, we re going to take a small virology detour. If you remember from a few paragraphs earlier, viruses can contain either DNA or RNA as their genetic material. Mammalian cells, unlike certain RNA viruses, only store their genetic material in DNA. Some RNA viruses, called retroviruses, have a special enzyme that can make DNA from RNA but mammalian cells don’t have that enzyme or that ability. Cell lines occasionally have been contaminated with retroviruses or DNA viruses. The reason for this is certain DNA viruses and retroviruses can integrate into the host cell’s viral DNA, making it difficult to detect them in the lab and it also helps them evade immune detection. HIV is an example of a retrovirus. One of the reasons it is so hard to treat is that it translate it’s viral RNA into DNA and then integrates it into the host cell’s DNA. HIV targets the host T cells, which form part of the immune system that attacks viruses, so this is a particularly good strategy for the virus. Mikovits’ retracted research also had cells contaminated with a retrovirus, XMRV. And there is a precedent for vaccines being contaminated with other viruses from the cells they were grown in being infected with a different virus. Like retroviruses, some DNA viruses can also integrate into host cell DNA since their genetic material is already compatible with the host cell’s genetic storage mechanism. More known DNA viruses that do this include the Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV) and the Human Papillomavirus Virus (HPV). Viruses that can integrate into a host cell can sometimes cause mutations when they insert themselves into the host DNA, which can cause cancer. This is the logic for the HPV vaccine preventing cancer. But there was one instance where a vaccine did increase susceptibility to cancer. The polio vaccine given out in between 1955 and 1963 was contaminated with the SV40 virus, a DNA virus that can integrate into cells and this contaminated vaccine was later linked to cancer [20]. I was actually surprised Mikovits didn’t bring this up since it was a legitimate problem with contamination in a vaccine. However, we have learned from our mistakes and greatly improved vaccine development and safety precautions since then. Not being vaccinated due to a mistake made in vaccine development in the 50s is like saying we shouldn’t fly ever again because of the high number of airline fatalities in the 60s. Safety regulations and protocols in both vaccines and airlines have come a long way in the past 70 years. Regardless of all this, the coronavirus is not a retrovirus nor a DNA virus and it is incapable of integrating into the DNA of mammalian cells. Therefore it is not possible that it could be infecting the cells used to develop the flu vaccine unknowingly. Unlike retroviruses and certain DNA viruses, simple RNA viruses don’t have a way to integrate into host cell DNA. If the cells used to create the flu vaccine were infected by coronavirus, there would be thousands of virus particles in the cells and it would be incredibly obvious to the researchers.
The video then faults Fauci for not recommending hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. The reason is the data showing a positive effect on COVID-19 is not very convincing and it can have some pretty severe side effects and risks [21, 22, 23]. The COVID-19 hydroxychloroquine trials to date have been very limited, with very small sample size and did not have the proper control groups not receiving treatment. Hydroxychloroquine was thought to show promise to treat Chikungunya virus but clinical trials showed that the group receiving hydroxychloroquine had more complications than the control group not receiving it. There is a risk the same is true for COVID-19. Furthermore, known risks of hydroxychloroquine treatment include arrhythmias, hypoglycemia, neuropsychiatric effects including depression psychosis, mania, catatonia and hallucinations, and adverse drug–drug interactions. A recent study which has yet to be peer-reviewed showed the hydroxychloroquine actually increased the risk of death compared to patients who did not receive it [24]. It is also extremely toxic at as little as twice the recommended dose [25]. Dr. Fauci was right to not recommend a treatment that has no proven benefit and could actually kill people or make things worse until we know for sure the benefits outweigh the risks.
Also the video says that ‘big pharma’ is shutting down potential natural remedies for COVID-19. The sheer global demand for any promising cure and the potential resulting profits would say that even in the most cynical and capitalist of worlds that isn’t true. If there was a natural or herbal cure that showed promise, I can guarantee you that ‘big pharma’ would be trying to isolate it, validate its efficacy and sell it to you. Many drugs we use today come from plants. Aspirin was isolated from the willow plant, penicillin was isolated from bread mold, and in the past 50 years, over 24 approved drugs were isolated from natural products [26]. While pharmaceutical companies can’t patent the natural compound itself, they can modify the compound to make it more effective and then patent it or patent the process used to extract it. If there was anything that had promise, it would need to be investigated and rigorously tested before it could be developed into a drug. But unfortunately, many are taking advantage of the situations to promote their unproven herbal cures or natural remedies and make money off of people’s desperation and fear.
Another point brought up was that your immune system will suddenly become naive from social isolation. This theory is misplacing the hygiene hypothesis [27]. The hygiene hypothesis is a theory that links an overly sterile childhood to an increase in allergies and autoimmune disease, because the immune system is not exposed to enough pathogens and is not trained to recognize them. However, the preliminary studies supporting this theory are for individuals not being exposed to enough pathogens in early childhood due to an overly sterile environment. This does not extrapolate to adults in self isolation. Your immune system doesn’t suddenly forget everything it learned over a lifetime of exposure to pathogens during a few months in self isolation. Immunity to known pathogens lasts for years. Memory B cells survive for decades. They create acquired immunity by memorizing a specific antigen upon first encounter and then recognizing it upon subsequent encounters. And the pathogens you see in your daily life are the ones you were most likely already exposed to. Your immune system learns and remembers over your lifetime. Antibodies to known pathogens last for many years. Furthermore, even if you are staying home, you are still being exposed to tons of pathogens everyday. I don’t care how often you clean your house, there is no way it is sterile. Human bodies have trillions of bacterial cells living in our bodies as part of a commensal relationship, colonizing our gut and skin.
One of the last points brought up in that video segment was whether masks should be worn. There are two types of masks, an N95 mask and a surgical mask. An N95 is a tightly fitting mask that prevents the wearer from breathing in virus particles, and is usually worn by healthcare professionals treating COVID-19 patients. Surgical masks are looser fitting masks that prevent the wearer from spreading droplets. They provide less protection for the wearer than an N95 mask because they are not fitted and air can get in the sides. These are the types of masks that ERs would usually have available and they tell visitors to wear if you had cold or flu-like symptoms. The reason for this is when sick people wear them, they can significantly reduce them spreading the virus through droplets[28]. This can be confusing because, at the beginning, official recommendations were for healthy individuals to not wear masks. However, recently it has been discovered that people can transmit the virus before they show symptoms while other people are asymptomatic and some even never develop symptoms but can still spread the virus [29]. And while a basic surgical mask or homemade cloth mask won’t protect you 100 % from getting infected, it does provide some protection. And more importantly, wearing one can significantly help prevent you from spreading the virus to others if you happen to unknowingly have the virus [30, 31, 32]. Lastly, the whole bit about it increasing your chances of getting sick by breathing in your own coronavirus is ridiculous. The coronavirus cannot replicate on its own; it needs to replicate within a host, which is your cells. So the majority of the virus once infected will be in your cells, and the number of viruses you are secreting will be far less than what is already in your cells. We also don’t go through life with low levels of COVID-19 in us. We need to be exposed to it from somewhere in our environment. Just clean your reusable mask regularly or change your disposable mask.
This is a scary and uncertain time. It can be confusing too since this is a new virus, scientists and doctors are learning about it now as we try to fight it, so sometimes recommendations can change as we learn new things about it. But just because science doesn’t know everything about this virus yet doesn’t mean we should disregard everything we do know. Misinformation is at an all time high but we need to resist the temptation to fall victim to it. Trust the experts and stick to the facts. It becomes dangerous for everyone when people stop believing the science and don’t follow public health recommendations. So next time someone shares the ‘Plandemic’ video with you, please share this with them.
References from Peer-Reviewed Literature
Retracted Article
1) Lombardi, V. C., et al. “Detection of an Infectious Retrovirus, XMRV, in Blood Cells of Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” Science, vol. 326, no. 5952, 2009, pp. 585–589., doi:10.1126/science.1179052. pdf
Retraction Notice
2) Alberts, B. “Retraction.” Science, vol. 334, no. 6063, 2011, pp. 1636–1636., doi:10.1126/science.334.6063.1636-a pdf.
Other Articles Disproving It
3) Blomberg, Jonas, et al. “No Evidence for Xenotropic Murine Leukemia-Related Virus Infection in Sweden Using Internally Controlled Multiepitope Suspension Array Serology.” Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, vol. 19, no. 9, 2012, pp. 1399–1410., doi:10.1128/cvi.00391–12 pdf.
4) Robinson, Mark J, et al. “Mouse DNA Contamination in Human Tissue Tested for XMRV.” Retrovirology, vol. 7, no. 1, 2010, p. 108., doi:10.1186/1742–4690–7–108 pdf.
5) Oakes, Brendan, et al. “Contamination of Human DNA Samples with Mouse DNA Can Lead to False Detection of XMRV-like Sequences.” Retrovirology, vol. 7, no. 1, 2010, p. 109., doi:10.1186/1742–4690–7–109 pdf.
6) Sato, Eiji, et al. “An Endogenous Murine Leukemia Viral Genome Contaminant in a Commercial RT-PCR Kit Is Amplified Using Standard Primers for XMRV.” Retrovirology, vol. 7, no. 1, 2010, p. 110., doi:10.1186/1742–4690–7–110 pdf.
7) Hue, Stephane, et al. “Disease-Associated XMRV Sequences Are Consistent with Laboratory Contamination.” Retrovirology, vol. 7, no. 1, 2010, p. 111., doi:10.1186/1742–4690–7–111 pdf.
8) Alter, Harvey J., et al. “A Multicenter Blinded Analysis Indicates No Association between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Either Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus or Polytropic Murine Leukemia Virus.” MBio, vol. 3, no. 5, 2012, doi:10.1128/mbio.00266–12 pdf.
Natural Origin of Coronavirus
9) Andersen, Kristian G., et al. “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Nature Medicine, vol. 26, no. 4, 2020, pp. 450–452., doi:10.1038/s41591–020–0820–9 pdf.
10) Liu, Shan-Lu, et al. “No Credible Evidence Supporting Claims of the Laboratory Engineering of SARS-CoV-2.” Emerging Microbes & Infections, vol. 9, no. 1, 2020, pp. 505–507., doi:10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440 pdf.
Predicting the Coronavirus Pandemic
11) Jones, Kate E., et al. “Global Trends in Emerging Infectious Diseases.” Nature, vol. 451, no. 7181, 2008, pp. 990–993., doi:10.1038/nature06536 pdf.
12) Anthony, Simon J., et al. “Global Patterns in Coronavirus Diversity.” Virus Evolution, vol. 3, no. 1, 2017, doi:10.1093/ve/vex012 pdf.
13) Sharif-Yakan, Ahmad, and Souha S. Kanj. “Emergence of MERS-CoV in the Middle East: Origins, Transmission, Treatment, and Perspectives.” PLoS Pathogens, vol. 10, no. 12, 2014, doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1004457 pdf.
Comorbidity
14) Wang, Bolin, et al. “Does Comorbidity Increase the Risk of Patients with COVID-19: Evidence from Meta-Analysis.” Aging, 2020, doi:10.18632/aging.103000 pdf
15) Guan, Wei-Jie et al. “Comorbidity and its impact on 1590 patients with Covid-19 in China: A Nationwide Analysis.” The European respiratory journal, 2000547. 26 Mar. 2020, doi:10.1183/13993003.00547–2020 pdf
16) Rotzinger, D.c., et al. “Pulmonary Embolism in Patients with COVID-19: Time to Change the Paradigm of Computed Tomography.” Thrombosis Research, vol. 190, 2020, pp. 58–59., doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.011 pdf.
17) Zhai, Zhenguo, et al. “Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism Associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: A Consensus Statement before Guidelines.” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 2020, doi:10.1055/s-0040–1710019 pdf.
Department of Defence Flu Vaccine Study
18) Wolff, Greg G. “Influenza Vaccination and Respiratory Virus Interference among Department of Defense Personnel during the 2017–2018 Influenza Season.” Vaccine, vol. 38, no. 2, 2020, pp. 350–354., doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.005 pdf.
MDCK Cells to Improve Vaccines
19) Hamamoto, Itsuki, et al. “High Yield Production of Influenza Virus in Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) Cells with Stable Knockdown of IRF7.” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 3, 2013, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059892 pdf.
Report on the Polio Vaccine Infection with SV40 Virus
20) “Immunization Safety Review.” 2002, doi:10.17226/10534 pdf.
Hydroxychloroquine
21) Taccone, Fabio S, et al. “Hydroxychloroquine in the Management of Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: the Need for an Evidence Base.” The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 2020, doi:10.1016/s2213–2600(20)30172–7 pdf.
22) Guastalegname, Maurizio, and Alfredo Vallone. “Could Chloroquine /Hydroxychloroquine Be Harmful in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment?” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020, doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa321 pdf.
23) Juurlink, David N. “Safety Considerations with Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in the Management of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 192, no. 17, 2020, doi:10.1503/cmaj.200528 pdf.
Preprint (not yet peer-reviewed) Showing Negative Outcomes of Hydroxyloroquine Usage to Treat COVID-19
24) Magagnoli, Joseph, et al. “Outcomes of Hydroxychloroquine Usage in United States Veterans Hospitalized with Covid-19.” MedRxiv, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1 Apr. 2020, www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v2 pdf.
25) Stokkermans TJ, Trichonas G. Chloroquine And Hydroxychloroquine Toxicity. [Updated 2019 Jun 4]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537086/
Natural Products
26) Ganesan, A. “The Impact of Natural Products upon Modern Drug Discovery.” Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, vol. 12, no. 3, 2008, pp. 306–317., doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2008.03.016.
Hygiene Hypothesis
27) Olszak, T., et al. “Microbial Exposure During Early Life Has Persistent Effects on Natural Killer T Cell Function.” Science, vol. 336, no. 6080, 2012, pp. 489–493., doi:10.1126/science.1219328 pdf
Wearing Masks
28) Bourouiba, Lydia. “Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions.” Jama, 2020, doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4756.
29) Bai, Yan, et al. “Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19.” Jama, vol. 323, no. 14, 2020, p. 1406., doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2565.
30) Sunjaya, Anthony Paulo, and Christine Jenkins. “Rationale for Universal Face Masks in Public against COVID ‐19.” Respirology, 2020, doi:10.1111/resp.13834 pdf.
31) Feng, Shuo, et al. “Rational Use of Face Masks in the COVID-19 Pandemic.” The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, vol. 8, no. 5, 2020, pp. 434–436., doi:10.1016/s2213–2600(20)30134-x pdf.
32) Leung, Nancy H. L., et al. “Respiratory Virus Shedding in Exhaled Breath and Efficacy of Face Masks.” Nature Medicine, 2020, doi:10.1038/s41591–020–0843–2 pdf.
