Feb 1 • 33M

Harvard Accidentally Demonstrates that Covid-19 Gaslighting May Cause Depression

Open in playerListen on);
When words are many, transgression is not lacking Proverbs 10:19 Here I present many words on current events, politics, health, medicine, and corruption, through the lens of the gospel. As best I can. But as we know, when words a many, transgression is not lacking, so I apologize in advance for what I will get wrong.
Episode details

Harvard Accidentally Demonstrates that COVID-19 Gaslighting May Cause Depression



mis·​in·​for·​ma·​tion | \ ˌmis-ˌin-fər-ˈmā-shən \

Definition of misinformation

: incorrect or misleading information

I would like to call your attention to a recent study published in JAMA Network, entitled, "Association of Major Depressive Symptoms With Endorsement of COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation Among US Adults." It brings us important clinical insight into the current mental health challenges that we are facing in the pandemic era.

The the study was performed at some of the most highly respected institutions in the world:

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (Perlis);

Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (Perlis, Santillana);

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Ognyanova);

Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (Santillana);

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois (Lin, Druckman);

Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts (Lazer, Green, Simonson);

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Baum, Della Volpe).

Its primary author, Dr Perlis, “had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.”

(Dr Perlis reported receiving personal fees from Burrage Capital, Genomind, RID Ventures, Belle Artificial Intelligence, and Takeda and owning equity in Psy Therapeutics and Belle Artificial Intelligence outside the submitted work.)

The study examines the potential relationship between depression and belief in COVID "misinformation," and their premise is that “Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccination may contribute substantially to vaccine hesitancy and resistance.”  As markers of belief in "misinformation" they offered the participants a chance to respond to four statements that they deem such.  But true to the pattern of “vaccine hesitancy research,” one of the statements is factually true (when stated correctly), two others are potentially true and currently under investigation, and a fourth is a question that no official source will answer, as none of the COVID vaccine makers will disclose the full ingredient list in the vaccines.

“We assessed vaccine-related misinformation using 4 statements, which respondents were asked to rate as accurate (statement is true), inaccurate (statement is not true), or not sure. We selected these statements based on misinformation prevalent on social media platforms in spring 2021. Specific statements of misinformation included “The COVID-19 vaccines will alter people’s DNA,” “The COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips that could track people,” “The COVID-19 vaccines contain the lung tissue of aborted fetuses,” and “The COVID-19 vaccines can cause infertility, making it more difficult to get pregnant.”

At the conclusion of the study, the participants were offered a correction on their “misinformed” opinions. I wondered what the corrections were, so I emailed Dr. Perlis and asked. He responded.

“For each of the 4 items of vaccine misinformation, we display: "THIS STATEMENT IS NOT ACCURATE. THE VACCINES DO NOT ..." followed by whatever the misinformation item was.”

Here I examine their four pillars of misinformation.

DNA Alteration

Let’s look at the first statement: “The COVID-19 vaccines will alter people’s DNA.”

This is not “misinformation,” it is the subject of open research.

In fact, it was Harvard that jump-started that inquiry in finding that “SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome” in December of 2020 before the mRNA vaccines were released to the public.

“…we found chimeric transcripts consisting of viral fused to cellular sequences in published data sets of SARS-CoV-2 infected cultured cells and primary cells of patients, consistent with the transcription of viral sequences integrated into the genome. To experimentally corroborate the possibility of viral retro-integration, we describe evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse transcribed in human cells by reverse transcriptase (RT) from LINE-1 elements or by HIV-1 RT, and that these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed. Human endogenous LINE-1 expression was induced upon SARS-CoV-2 infection or by cytokine exposure in cultured cells, suggesting a molecular mechanism for SARS-CoV-2 retro-integration in patients. This novel feature of SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain why patients can continue to produce viral RNA after recovery and suggests a new aspect of RNA virus replication.”

So does Harvard believe misinformation, or does Harvard believe that members of the public who believe their previous findings on the impact of the presence of reverse transcriptase on RNA integration into DNA are believing misinformation? Does Harvard believe its information is misinformation? I need some clarification on which of their studies is sharing “incorrect and misleading information.”

If the public didn’t believe Harvard, which has become a source for a morass of contradictory information, perhaps they believed MIT in their statement that “Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues.

Does Harvard believe that reverse transcriptase can reverse transcribe SARS-CoV-2 RNAs from natural infection, but not from a vaccine injection? And if they do, should the public know this?

Is this not at the beginning stages of inquiry?

Dr. Perlis insulted anyone who has done any investigation into this by talking to them like they are children at the conclusion of the study emphatically that “THE VACCINES DO NOT alter people’s DNA.”

Which he cannot know, as there is no research on this yet.

This will soon be a statement of complete fraud, if the Gates backed Inovio vaccine is released to the public, as it is a DNA vaccine, which is designed to “alter people’s DNA.” INO-4800 is in phase 2 clinical trials, which means it has actually altered some people’s DNA.

Tracking Chips

Let’s tackle the second pillar of their “misinformation” platform.

“The COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips that could track people.”

I believe that this is an incorrect statement, but there actually is no official answer to this question that I can find.

The confusion about the tracking of cases of vaccine and the tracking of individual vaccine uptake information is largely the fault of vaccine advocates, government agencies dispersing vaccines, and the mainstream media. But the vaccine makers are culpable in allowing the confusion to spread in failing to make quick and emphatic statements clarifying the role of tracking chips involved in their vaccine disbursement, and vaccine content.

The Gates Foundation has advocated for digital vaccine tracking via chip for many years, reportedly running animal trials. DOD designs for vaccine syringes included tracking RFID chips on the outside of the syringe so the location of the uptake could be digitally tracked. Prior to the rollout of the vaccines in late 2020, New York Governor Cuomo held a press conference showing the vaccine shipments that would be sent out, noting the tracking chip on the packaging. Further articles in the mainstream media then used muddled language to cover the vaccine launch tracking that lead some to interpret the articles as reporting that the tracking devices were IN the syringes, rather than on them or on the boxes that contained them. Then 2018 video surfaced of Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla discussing an FDA approved “digital pill” that when taken transmits a signal to medical personnel that the patient is compliant with medical orders.

Ending this “misinformation” would have been a simple matter had Pfizer and Moderna issued a quick and emphatic statement to the public that there were no tracking devices in the vaccine solution that they were offering to consumers.

They didn’t.

Instead, a slow stream of articles mocking and insulting individuals for being confused by the confusing reporting were released over the next few months such as, “No, COVID-19 vaccine patients are not being injected with a microchip,” all of which lacked an official statement from any government, health authority, or pharmaceutical company.

The statements, far from respectful of the mistrusful public, simply engendered more distrust, as bullying does not build trust. If the truth is a simple truth, why not just respectfully release the simple truth?

Does the vaccine solution contain tracking chips? When people ask me I answer that I don’t think so, but I can’t find a statement from the vaccine makers or the US Vaccine Plan that simply says so. And as the vaccine makers won’t release the full list of vaccine contents, I have at times been unsuccessful at convincing some that are worried about the possibility that it is a very unlikely one. But I can’t speak with authority on the question, and as a Christian, I cannot, nor do I want to, mock people for their questions. So I am actually stuck here.

The question is for either the vaccine makers to answer, or the FDA to answer. Have they offered an answer? I would appreciate an official answer to the concern so that I can lay it to rest for those who ask me. Please, anyone who knows of one, please send it.

Dr. Perlis told the study participants at the conclusion of the study that, “THE VACCINES DO NOT contain microchips that could track people.”

What is his source? I need an official source so I can put this to bed.


“The COVID-19 vaccines contain the lung tissue of aborted fetuses.”

The third “misinformation” statement is only misinformation in so much as “lungs” are not “retinas.” But the premise of this is factually correct. One of the vaccines contains aborted fetal cell remains.

The Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine does not contain "the lungs of aborted fetuses." It contains the blood proteins and DNA of an aborted fetus’ retina.

This vaccine is grown on the PER.C6 aborted fetal cell line.  While attempts are made to remove the child's remains from the final vaccine solutions via "purification steps," their biological material cannot be removed entirely; therefore, the child's DNA and blood proteins remain in the final product to be injected.


"The Ad26 vector expressing the SARS-CoV-2 S protein is grown in PER.C6 TetR cells, in media containing amino acids and no animal-derived  proteins.  After  propagation, the  vaccine is processed through several purification steps, formulated with inactive ingredients and filled into vials.

Each 0.5 mL dose of Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine is formulated to contain 5×1010 virus particles (VP) and the following inactive ingredients: citric acid monohydrate (0.14 mg), trisodium citrate dihydrate  (2.02 mg),  ethanol  (2.04 mg),  2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin  (HBCD)  (25.50 mg), polysorbate-80 (0.16 mg),  sodium  chloride  (2.19 mg).  Each dose  may also contain residual amounts of host cell proteins (≤0.15mcg) and/or host cell DNA (≤3 ng)." [emphasis added]

Thus, those who have believed the “misinformation” that “The COVID-19 vaccines contain the lung tissue of aborted fetuses,” are merely wrong on the details. But they are much closer to the truth as admitted established by Johnson & Johnson, than Dr. Perlis and his team.

Dr. Perlis and others may have confused the use of human embryonic kidney cells from an aborted fetus (HEK-293) to both map the SARS-Cov-2 spike protein initially for use in therapeutics and vaccines, and to design and test the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, with the (Per. C6) retinal cells to manufacture the Johnson & Johnson vaccines. While this can be forgiven for members of the public who may not have investigated the use of aborted fetal cell lines in depth, the same grace cannot be offered to Dr. Perlis et al, who have not bothered to get their facts straight, and have offered a statement to participants that was completely misinformed in its construction.

Dr. Perlis told the study participants at the conclusion of the study that, “THE VACCINES DO NOT contain the lung tissue of aborted fetuses.”


The final mocking point by Dr. Perlis is, “The COVID-19 vaccines can cause infertility, making it more difficult to get pregnant.”

When this study questionnaire was given out to participants offering this statement as an example of “misinformation,” there was no information on the impacts of the vaccine on fertility. No one had looked at it yet.

In fact the widespread reports of disruptions in women’s reproductive health following the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine had not broken through into public discussions until March of 2021.

Research only began at The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign on the reproductive health outcomes of women who have received the vaccine in April. The survey became available to the public on April 7, and by April 19 the researchers reported that they had received more than 25k survey responses.

It is unlikely that more than 25k women responded, “Nah, have not noticed any problems. All is well.” A flood of voluntary responses happen when a flood of problems are happening.

By coincidence, the first real data we may be able to examine on this questions has only come to light this week during the Senate hearings held by Senator Ron Johnson on vaccine safety and efficacy. The Blaze has reported that:

“In a declaration under penalty of perjury that Renz plans to use in federal court, Drs. Samuel Sigoloff, Peter Chambers, and Theresa Long — three military doctors — revealed that there has been a 300% increase in DMED codes registered for miscarriages in the military in 2021 over the five-year average. The five-year average was 1,499 codes for miscarriages per year. During the first 10 months of 2021, it was 4,182.”

Currently, the data is not available to review, but Dr. Perlis has declared those who believe that reproductive health may be harmed by the vaccine, “misinformed,” when they simply may have observed a very real phenomenon in their organic relationship circles: women reporting new symptoms on a mass scale.

We are merely at the beginning of the ongoing inquiry into the matter.

Dr. Perlis told the study participants at the conclusion of the study that, “THE VACCINES DO NOT cause infertility, making it more difficult to get pregnant.”

Is Dr. Perlis liable for this potentially false claim? Either financially, ethically, or morally?


gas·​light·​ing | \ ˈgas-ˌlī-tiŋ, -ˈlī- \

Definition of gaslighting

: psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator

Gaslighting can be a very effective tool for the abuser to control an individual. It's done slowly so the victim writes off the event as a one off or oddity and doesn't realize they are being controlled and manipulated.— Melissa Spino

Gaslighting can happen in any relationship circumstance, including between friends and family members—not just in couple relationships.— Deena Bouknight

This is a classic gaslighting technique—telling victims that others are crazy and lying, and that the gaslighter is the only source for "true" information. It makes victims question their reality …— Stephanie Sarkis

Harvard is abusing their study participants, and the public.

Those of us who have been reading the research into “vaccine hesitancy” are quite used to this. The study methods employ demonstrably false information assumed to be true by the venerable “experts” that dissect study group with complete disregard for their intellect and humanity. What is never considered is that the outlier that they are studying might be right.

When researchers are confronted on their inaccurate claims and unethical methods, they rarely respond as professional ethics dictate. I have sent this to Dr. Perlis for comment.

These studies are like something in an absurdist comedy or horror film set in early to mid-century psychiatry where the one who tells the truth is diagnosed as crazy, and locked up in “treatment.” There is a name for this.

The Semmelweis Reflex

“Just as government hails vaccines as a cornerstone of public health, the medical community upholds vaccination as a miracle of modern medicine. If it seems almost impossible that public denial of vaccine injury could exist on such a huge scale, it should be recognized that there is established precedent for such a phenomenon.

In the mid-1800s in Vienna, Austria, mothers were dying shortly after childbirth from a now-extinct illness known as puerperal fever or “child bed fever.” A woman entering the hospital to give birth had a roughly 16 percent chance that she would die before taking her baby home. The mortality rate of mothers giving birth in the midwife centers, however, was lower.

In 1847, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, professor of obstetrics at the University of Pest, performed an autopsy on a colleague who had died from the fever, and then fell ill with it himself. He postulated that small particles of the disease may have been left on his hands and surmised that the maternal death rate from childbed fever was so high because doctors and medical students at the teaching hospital were not properly washing their hands after exams and autopsies of fever patients, before delivering newborns.

He instituted new sterilization guidelines and the death rate in the obstetrics and gynecology ward fell to 1.27 percent.i

When Semmelweis's colleague published the information, rather than finding it cause for celebration, the medical community lashed out against Semmelweis. He was mocked, attacked, and run out of the profession. He subsequently suffered a nervous breakdown. Semmelweis was invited by a colleague to visit an asylum for the mentally ill under the pretense of offering his professional opinion, but was instead locked inside, where he died two weeks later. Conflicting stories report that he died after being physically assaulted by the staff, or alternatively, that he died from puerperal fever. Two decades would pass after Semmelweis's discovery before the work of Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister helped to usher in the modern era of sanitation and hygiene, including medical sterilization.

In serving the public, Semmelweis delivered the unwelcome news to doctors that they were largely responsible for the deaths of new mothers. It was bad news that they were not prepared to hear. This phenomenon has come to be known as the Semmelweis Reflex—the reflex like rejection, often in the medical community, of new scientific information without proper investigation.ii

Today’s vaccine injury denialism is a modern-day Semmelweis Reflex. Pediatricians who care passionately about the welfare of children understandably find repulsive the idea that autism is largely iatrogenic. Statements offered by government agencies (i.e., HHS and the CDC) and medical professionals (i.e., the AAP) offer plausible deniability to those who do not want to know or admit that the vaccines they are administering are capable of causing serious damage to a population, let alone to the individual children in their own practices.

i Notable Name Database, Ignaz Semmelweis, http://www.nndb.com/people/601/000091328/

ii Bálint P, Bálint G, “The Semmelweis-reflex,” Orv Hetil. July 26, 2009;150(30):1430.”

Ginger Taylor, MS. Vaccine Epidemic

Mothers of vaccine injured children are used to hearing the “nuts and sluts” defense from the industry we have accused of holding abuse and medical negligence as their “standard of care” for our families. Moms like me are nuts, and Jenny McCarthy is a slut.

Harvard has refined the shameful act of “punching down” to a science.

These men of hubris use increasingly elevated means, measures, and maths, to put forth the same messages that have been failing them for years, but somehow believe that it is going to work this time. Meanwhile they continue to destroy public trust, while they study the destruction of public trust, and have no idea how public trust is vanishing.

Dr. Perlis literally publishes a table examining public trust in institutions in a study where he and his august institution lie to study participants, and then can’t draw conclusions on why much of the public who have lost trust in institutions that lie to them are depressed. This paper works very hard not to have simple common sense. It is very highly qualified, extremely expensive nonsense.

The Chilling Effect Artifact

Then there is this curious finding.

“However, using a subset of participants from the first wave who returned for the second, we found that depressive symptoms preceded misinformation emergence, suggesting that misinformation was unlikely to cause depression per se.”

In the first round in April/May, respondents showed more depression, but were reported believing less “misinformation,” than they reported in June/July.

But something quite dramatic happened between April and July that the authors did not seem to factor in. Rand Paul v. Anthony Fauci.

In April, the chilling effect on speech of those who did not actually believe the mainstream narrative was in full swing, potentially causing depression who could not say what they believed to be true without reprisals. Then Rand Paul pointed out Anthony Fauci’s involvement in Gain of Function research in the Wuhan Lab, and what was verboten to speak of in the spring was documented fact by mid summer.

What Dr. Perlis may not have considered is that those who may have been depressed due to silencing and gaslighting, may not have answered honestly in the spring for fear of being considered “Conspiracy Theorists,” and becoming further marginalized.

By July, those of us who didn’t believe the mainstream narrative were free to openly discuss even the “Lab Leak Theory.”

What They Probably Got Right

Regardless of the poor study design, I believe it accurately finds a correlation between those who are questioning the mainstream narrative and depression.  The paper reports that it cannot offer speculation on why this is true.  As one who has neither vaccinated, nor unquestioningly believed the mainstream narrative, I would like to offer my own testimony that, for me, the treatment that I have received as an advocate for examining the science and policy more scrupulously has been very poor. 

This poor treatment of outliers like me is now official, even with heads of state of our own country, and other western democracies, slandering us and claiming that we should not be treated as full citizens of our nations. Our views are “not to be tolerated.”  Mistreatment of the unvaccinated is now mainstream medical and government policy, and mocking us is openly encouraged almost everywhere.  Of course, those who see and acknowledge the open corruption overtaking out country, and say so out loud, are depressed.

“We all know people who are deciding whether or not they are willing to get vaccinated, and we will do our very best to try to convince them. However, there is still a part of the population (that) is fiercely against it.”

“They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist. It’s a very small group of people, but that doesn’t shy away from the fact that they take up some space.”

“This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people? Over 80% of the population of Quebec have done their duty by getting the shot. They are obviously not the issue in this situation.” - Justin Trudeau, January 2, 2022

Depression and discouragement is not a bug of the current global policy; it is a feature.

Joe Biden, current President of the United States, famously put a death curse on his own citizens.

Do I even need to support my claim that neglect, gaslighting, and abuse promote depression?

Additionally, I can report that those who are following the medical corruption closely, are largely brokenhearted to see the country, church, and other institutions that we love, falling into corruption and deception as well.  This is not just about “depression;” it is about grief and loss.

Further, when one does not have a place to openly discuss their concerns without fear of further isolation and retribution, risk of depression increases dramatically.  "Oppression makes a wise man mad."  Ecclesiastes 7:7

Even Harvard’s study on "misinformation" is misinformation about "misinformation."  Lies and abuse are now ubiquitous.

Those who know what the truth is, and are marginalized and treated poorly for it, will naturally experience grief and likely depressive feelings. The only antidote I know works all the time is walking closely with the Lord and ONLY looking to Him for one's value. 

Will they repent? Will Dr. Perlis read this, learn that he has become an abuser, and take responsibility for his actions? I forwarded him my first draft of this article, but I have had no response.

There is an old saying.

“You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much.”