Over the past year-plus, athletes across the world have been dropping like flies as they compete in games. If they aren’t passed out cold, they are seen gripping their chests in agony, unable to breathe due to sudden cardiac events that hit in the heat of the competition.
This wave of heart issues is unprecedented, to say the least. Never before have we seen young, healthy, world-class athletes experiencing heart issues en masse like this. It has never happened, ever. Furthermore, the timing of this sweeping phenomenon could not be more relevant, coinciding perfectly with the rollout of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines.
In December nearly 300 athletes reportedly collapsed or suffered cardiac arrests after taking the COVID vaccines.
But it gets worse. Thanks to a new explosive report by OAN that pegs the number of affected athletes in the hundreds.
In all, their investigation found a jaw-dropping 769 men and women who collapsed with heart issues during competition over the past year (between March 2021 and March 2022).
Most shockingly, the average age of those who experienced full-blown cardiac arrest was just 23.
Considering the timing of this never-before-seen issue in healthy athletes, and the universal push for Covid jabs, all signs point to one culprit: the experimental vaccine.
After detailing two recent high-profile cases, in which two tennis players were forced to recuse themselves from last month’s Miami Open, OAN’s Pearson Sharp reviewed their shocking investigation and asked a few pressing questions that should be answered if you are still questioning what is driving these heart issues in young individuals:
“These are just two o more than 769 athletes who have collapsed during a game on the field over the last year. From March of 2021 to March of this year. The average age of the players suffering cardiac arrest is just 23-years-old.
How many 23-year-old athletes were collapsing and suffering heart attacks before this year? Do you know any 23-year-old people who had heart attacks before now?
And these are just the ones we know about. How many have gone unreported? Nearly 800 athletes – young, fit people in the prime of life falling down on the field. In fact, 500% more soccer players in the EU are dropping dead from heart attacks than just one year ago.”
Just in case there is any lingering inclination to call this a coincidence, Sharp sets the record straight.
“Coincidence? When the Pfizer vaccine is known to cause heart inflamation? No. In fact, many doctors treating these players list their injuries and deaths as being directly caused by the vaccine…
This is not a coincidence – healthy teenagers dying after getting the Pfizer injection. Doctors warned the FDA before they released the experimental vaccine that it would ‘almost certainly cause terrible organ damage.’”
The only question left is: when do we see some accountability?
This video taken yesterday in Shanghai, China, by the father of a close friend of mine. She verified its authenticity: People screaming out of their windows after a week of total lockdown, no leaving your apartment for any reason.
Videos circulating on social media show an eerie cityscape at night filled with the anguished screams of residents forcibly quarantined in their apartment buildings for over a week.
Haunting video out of Shanghai shows thousands of frustrated residents screaming from apartment buildings after being locked down again following another alleged COVID-19 outbreak.
What the?? This video taken yesterday in Shanghai, China, by the father of a close friend of mine. She verified its authenticity: People screaming out of their windows after a week of total lockdown, no leaving your apartment for any reason. pic.twitter.com/iHGOO8D8Cz
‘It’s Shanghai, everyone is screaming, started with a couple now everyone is screaming, after a week of lockdown, something is going to happen, no one knows when this is going to end.’ He says they can’t even step outside their apartments.”
Another dystopian video shows a drone hovering around the buildings with a prerecorded message discouraging residents from crying for help: “Please comply with COVID restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.”
As seen on Weibo: Shanghai residents go to their balconies to sing & protest lack of supplies. A drone appears: “Please comply w covid restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.” https://t.co/0ZTc8fznaVpic.twitter.com/pAnEGOlBIh
The Chinese Communist Party extended its citywide “zero tolerance” lockdown for 26 million residents in Shanghai earlier this week after thousands of new COVID cases were detected in the city.
“The city will continue to implement seal and control management and strictly implement ‘staying at home,’ except for medical treatment,” the city wrote in its official WeChat account.
The People’s Liberation Army has deployed 2,000 medical personnel to Shanghai with an additional 38,000 medical workers to carry out a mass mitigation effort to test all 26 million city residents for COVID.
Authorities had initially locked down Shanghai, China’s largest city, on March 28 amid a surge of mostly asymptomatic COVID cases.
Exemptions are privileges. What the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
Rights are not gifts from government. – Nature of Healing
The Ruse of Benefits & Privileges
Government laws exist to grant “BENEFITS and PRIVILEGES” to citizens who agree to be governed. Benefits and privileges do not usurp birthrights, rights that are inborn or inherent. Thus, birthrights supersede laws, mandates, and exemptions.
A government exemption is an “opt out.” By asking permission of government to opt out from any government-imposed health mandates, you agree to bypass birthrights.
Under exemptions, you are requesting permission from government to make a choice that you already possess. Remember, bodily autonomy is a BIRTHRIGHT. You come into this world alone. You leave this world alone, without government approval. Therefore, an exemption or an Exemption Act, is a form of entrapment known as Color of Law.
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. Since the inception of the United States in 1776, both presidents and governors have been bypassing the laws through illegal Executive Orders (E.O.s) under Color of Law. Even though it might be argued that ALL federal Acts fall under the Color of Law, the chances of adjudicating an equitable solution through the court system is about as likely as isolating the Coronavirus in a lab. The CDC still admits there is no gold standard for the isolation of any virus.
So it is by the will of the people that allows government to usurp its authority and ensure the end of freedom of choice for all. In the near future, in order to attain an education, or maintain a job, to enter a hospital or clinic, to shop or travel, in order to live within any community, or function on any practical level within society, people will be made to get government shots.
The Ruse of Exemption
Have you been told to get a medical or religious exemption by your employer? Think again.
Government-granted exemptions for government-imposed health mandates are strategically designed to fail by entrapping those members of the community who sign onto them. Why?
Because here is no legal defense or enforcement for religious or medical exemptions since businesses have no legal duty of care from imposing mandates in the first place, based on the The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk.
The Doctrine of Assumption of Riskstates that no business is liable to protect others from a risk that’s widely known or believed to exist in the community.
An exemption means there has to be a legal duty of care. If there is no legal duty, there is no exemption. A legal duty is a legal obligation, the breach of which can result in liability. Businesses that impose mandates must have an insurance policy. Without one, no court will take jurisdiction. A plaintiff in court will never win. This is another reason you do not have to beg for a right you already possess.
In addition, laws cannot conflict with each other. So, for instance, when mandates, statutes, Acts, or Executive Orders conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), then there is a violation of the legal duty of care.
Federal (statutory) Acts attempt to protect “the public health” with “statutory rights.” Beware: A “statutory right” is an oxymoron, similar to public health, safe vaccine, and honest thief. It is meant to confuse.
All federal Acts steer “the public” into a herd by the language of legalease. In reality, there is no such thing as “Public Health.” Public Health does not exist outside of individual health. You cannot wear a life jacket to keep others afloat. So to consent to “Public Health mandates” is to give up bodily autonomy in exchange for Public Rights (i.e., Children’s rights, Gay rights, Parent rights, Women’s rights) granted by the State. State Rights can be modified, suspended, and revoked. See how California revoked all vaccine-related exemptions. By taking the Public out of Public Health, we begin to reclaim responsibility for choice and freedom.
The success of any Act depends from which perspective you view its success. From the first Act, passed in 1784, to the latest draft government Acts, ALL Acts appear to be an extension of The CIRCUS Act. From the people’s perspective, success rates are dismal thanks to exemptions and exceptions to exemptions in every Act. A few examples include:
The US PATRIOT Act of 2001 and US Patriot and Reauthorization Act of 2005 “to unite and strengthen America,” with exemptions to banking agencies which serve to divide and weaken America.
The PREP Act of 2005, allows government to bypass Rights and Freedom. The DHHS Amended Version authorizes an increased workforce to administer COVID (experimental) vaccines. And The PREP Act 2022 – limits liability for COVID countermeasures.
Note also, that any discussion of science for “public health” purposes is a purposeful distraction away from inherent rights. Do not be distracted by the vaccine debate or by the Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed study that will never be formally approved by government. The science debate is merely a ruse to eliminate freedom.
Contagions and The American With Disabilities Act
John Jay Singleton, of TheZunga, helps people to exercise their RIGHTS to bodily autonomy under the ADA. TheZunga.com endeavors to extract people caught in the government web of exemptions under COVID19 policies. Singleton writes:
Having a contagious disease is defined as having a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Rehabilitation Act, under the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act, precludes employers from imposing any accommodations upon employees unless they meet the criteria for establishing that the employee is a direct threat following an individualized assessment (diagnosis). Employers are prohibited by law from requiring any medical examination in this process as it is an accommodation for which the employer must advise the employee that he has the right to accept or refuse
Singleton contends that the ADA, a federal law, requires businesses to aid and encourage those with disabilities in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights. This means that not only can a business owner not impose such measures on anyone, he must actively protect everyone from any violation of this law, at least by not imposing them.
To exercise and enjoy your rights doesn’t mean you have to have a disability. It means you’re regarded as having a disability. If you’re regarded as having a disability its because the government announced a public health disaster, so the legal duties come into play with the ADA. And the legal duty of care is on anyone trying to force these measure on you. John Jay Singleton
In summary, exemptions bind people to an arbitrary, and a constantly changing, list of demands. These demands supersede basic freedoms, and thereupon deny people of their inalienable, God/life given rights to self-determination of their bodies. As the government giveth, so, too, can the government taketh away, on a whim.
No Consent
Governments have inverted inherent rights by statutes, policies, Acts, E.O.s and exemptions. In doing so, they have bound freedom, itself, to a contract. All government Acts apply to government entities and persons; not to men and women. Men and women are not subject to Acts, because they are not subjects.
Exemption or no exemptions, the power of NO always applies, as long as you can voice it. One way to say No Thank You is through a Conditional Acceptance, a lawful response to any offer to contract. Can they sign a statement agreeing to your conditions to their offer? If not, there is no contract and you remain in honor. See more at Youarelaw.org.
All Acts attempt do one thing: to allow the government to legislate choice and freedom, that is, if you consent to the offer. However, if offered an experimental product, make sure you are provided with Informed Consent (45 CFR § 46.116) before you consent, because you become a subject taking part in a clinical study.
When it comes to any mandate, it is important to appreciate that all exemptions (medical, religious, or philosophical/personal belief), are fundamentally illegal, because they transpose an inherent human RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE, on the presumption that you acknowledge, and thus sacrifice or forfeit your natural BIRTHRIGHTS to an external authority.
For instance, there is no American authority for compulsory vaccination, in the sense of forcing one to submit even if policies require compliance. When it comes to commerce, everything is an offer to contract. When it comes to Acts, All the world is a stage.
Shakespeare titled his play, As You Like It, as if to say, you always have a choice. There is no law that compels anyone to do anything related to mandated restrictions, whether COVID-related or not. The freedom to choose is non-negotiable. You always have options just like you have opinions. However, in this era, freedom must be defended and claimed as a BIRTHRIGHT.
Do you trust a government calling the shots under the ruse of exemptions? Now is the time to seize your courage, to wake up, to rise up and to find your will to act for yourself. As always, freedom lives in you!
Former CDC Director Robert Redfield has stated that Bird Flu will jump to humans and be highly fatal in the coming “Great Pandemic,” for which C19 was a mere warm-up.
Over the years there has been opposition and warnings worldwide about various catastrophic issues associated with SpaceX’s Starlink as well as other companies’ satellites (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.) In fact, insurance companies have become less willing to insure satellites. Additionally, earlier this year, 40 Starlink satellites fell from orbit and burned. More recently a court ruled in favor of environmental groups who opposed the company being approved to launch satellites in France.
Elon Musk’s Starlink Blocked In France Over Legal Battle Against Environmental Groups
Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet service has effectively lost its frequencies in France following a legal battle waged by environmental groups. The decision was published by the Conseil d’Etat, France’s Supreme Court for administrative justice, reports Teslarati. According to the court, the recent Starlink ruling negated a decision by Arcep, France’s telecoms regulator, back in February 2021.
Arcep had granted Starlink two bands of frequencies that would link the company’s satellite constellation to France-based customers, the report said. Since the decision to grant licenses to SpaceX‘s Starlink can “impact the market of access to high-bandwidth internet and affect the interests of end-users” as per the Conseil d’Etat, the satellite internet system should have carried out public hearings before its license was granted.
This was something that Arcep did not do. Stephen Kerckhove, who heads Act for the Environment, one of the environmental groups that took legal action against Starlink, stated that the ruling is a way for the State Council to “send a signal to those who confuse speed with haste”.
Kerckhove also noted that he is hoping Arcep would not just go through a public consultation now for sheer compliance but “truly carry out an economic and environmental evaluation” of the satellite internet service.
It’s official, as of right now the Russian ruble is worth more US dollars than before the invasion of Ukraine.
On the 22nd of February this year, one US dollar would exchange for just over 79 rubles. As of the time of writing, it is now 78.
The same is true of the British pound (around 108 rubles before, 102 now), and the Euro (88 rubles before, 84 now).
Across the board, the ruble is stronger than before the war. So, how has this happened?
Aren’t NATO, the EU and the rest of the “international community” meant to be crippling the Russian economy with biting sanctions?
The media are claiming that the strength of the ruble “may be illusory” or that Russia has exploited a “loophole” in the sanctions and used “financial alchemy” to “rescue the ruble”.
Reminder: In 2014, when the west sanctioned Russia over the Crimean referendum, the ruble lost almost half its value.
It recovered slightly in 2016, and has since stabilized, but has never come close to its pre-Crimean worth:
So, presumably the earlier sanctions didn’t have a “loophole” in them, and/or the Russians either weren’t aware of this “financial alchemy” back then, or simply decided not to use it.
Of course there is one key difference between 2014 and 2022 – the oil market.
As we have written before, in 2014/15 the US and Saudi Arabia flooded the market with cheap oil and crashed the price. Russia (and Iran, and Venezuela) all suffered huge economic damage from this move.
The Western press claims that the US asked Saudi Arabia to increase oil production and they refused. They claim Saudi Arabia “sided with Russia”, and that they should be “punished”.
Meanwhile, Turkey has just suspended the trial of the Saudi citizens alleged to have murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a move that should please the Saudi government no end.
The West seems as bad at “punishing” their misbehaved allies as they are at tanking the value of the Russia’s currency.
To sum up – The price of oil is going up and the ruble is worth just as much as it was before the war.
Airplane leaving jet contrails with COVID-19 word inside. Symbolizing the global spread of the coronavirus through global air traffic.
A few months ago, I wrote an article exploring the connection between the symptoms of disease known as “Covid-19” and air pollution. While air pollution is not the only factor currently causing disease, I laid out why I believe that this is the most likely explanation for any perceived increase in respiratory symptoms of disease. I provided a general overview on the problem of air pollution and how it can impact our health and environment. Within the article, I touched upon the issue of persistent contrails, a.k.a. chemtrails, and provided information directly from Government sources admitting the impact that these trails have on our health and environment. Even though this information is readily available to anyone willing to look, there are many out there who still seem to believe that these trails are harmless. They claim that I am promoting nothing but a baseless conspiracy theory.
The fact of the matter is that these trails are admitted to be harmful to our health and environment by both sides of the “chemtrail” debate. There is no conspiracy theory here. This is a FACT. We can speculate as to who is doing this and why but that is ultimately irrelevant. While pollution from automobiles, factories, power plants, forest fires, etc. all contribute to this air pollution health crisis, the harmful effects from the aviation industry are regularly glossed over and/or omitted when this issue is discussed. However, if you dig deep enough and actually search for the information, what can be found to be admitted by official Government sources regarding the health consequences from these trails is very telling and disturbing.
To start with, I want to provide a quick breakdown of the negative health impact of just one component that is admitted to be found within these persistent trails left in the wake of aircrafts. This is known as particulate matter, the most dangerous of which is PM2.5. From the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), you will see that PM2.5 is a known toxin potentially made up of hundreds of different chemicals that is so small that it can collect deep within the lungs and even enter the bloodstream. It has been associated with cardiovascular and respiratory disease, irritation of the eyes, throat, and lungs, and premature death:
Particulate Matter (PM) Basics
What is PM, and how does it get into the air?
“PM stands for particulate matter (also called particle pollution): the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye. Others are so small they can only be detected using an electron microscope.
Particle pollution includes:
PM10: inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller; and
PM2.5: fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller.
How small is 2.5 micrometers? Think about a single hair from your head. The average human hair is about 70 micrometers in diameter – making it 30 times larger than the largest fine particle.
Sources of PM
These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals.
Some are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks or fires.
Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are pollutants emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles.
What are the Harmful Effects of PM?
Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems. Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream. Of these, particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles or PM2.5, pose the greatest risk to health.
Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States, including many of our treasured national parks and wilderness areas.”
Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM)
Health Effects
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Small particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream.
Exposure to such particles can affectboth your lungs and your heart. Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including:
premature death in people with heart or lung disease
nonfatal heart attacks
irregular heartbeat
aggravated asthma
decreased lung function
increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing.
People with heart or lung diseases,children, and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure.
PM2.5 and other particulate matter is only part of the dangerous substances found in these persistent contrails. Other admitted substances include carbon dioxide (CO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), black carbon soot, and other trace metals. It is simply beyond logic and reasoning to believe that the inhalation of these substances on a daily basis is not harmful to one’s health.
Recently, some members of Congress were interested in addressing the health and environmental problems associated with aviation. On February 8th, 2022, the Congressional Research Service released a report describing the problem and how to address it. A few highlights showcase that aviation pollution is the fastest-growing pollutant over the past decade and that there are numerous toxic substances found within these trails: Aviation, Air Pollution, and Climate Change
Emissions from Aircraft
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that transportation—including passenger cars and light trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, trains, ships, and aircraft—accounted for 35% of carbon dioxide (CO2, the principal GHG) emissions in 2018. While CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light trucks exceed those from aircraft in the United States, CO2 emissions from aviation are currently experiencing a faster rate of growth. All aircraft, including military, commercial, and privately chartered, accounted for 13% of the U.S. transportation sector’s CO2 emissions and 5% of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2018. Commercial aircraft, including those operated by passenger and all-cargo airlines, accounted for 11% of transportation sector and 4% of all emissions. These estimates include emissions from U.S. domestic flights and emissions from international flights departing the United States, referred to as “international bunkering.”
In the United States, aggregate CO2 emissions from aircraft have fluctuated due to changes in technology, the economy, travel frequency, and military activity, among other reasons. However, since the global financial crisis in 2009,aggregate CO2 emissions from all aircraft types have grown steadily, increasing by almost 22% between 2009 and 2018. This increase makes aircraft one of the faster-growing sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the past decade. This trend is likely to be affected, at least temporarily, by reduced air travel in 2020 and 2021 due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The effects of aircraft emissions on the atmosphere are complex, reflecting differing altitudes, geography, time horizons, and environmental conditions. Research has shown that in addition to CO2 emissions, other factors increase the climate change impacts of aviation. These factors include the contribution of aircraft emissions to ozone production; the formation of water condensation trails and cirrus clouds; the emission of various gases and particles, including water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulfates, and particulates from jet fuel combustion; and the high altitude location of the bulk of these emissions. In examining the warming and cooling influences of these factors, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated aviation’s total climate change impact could be from two to four times that of its past CO2 emissions alone.
Aside from GHG emissions, aircraft engines emit a number of criteria—or common—pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, oxides of sulfur, unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), particulates, and other trace compounds. A subset of the VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants.”
In case you wanted a visual representation of how this pollution is said to form and impact our health.
As can be seen, the pollution coming from the aviation industry is a fast-growing problem that is impacting our health and environment in numerous ways. While this has been known for decades and solutions have been presented to try and reverse the impact, nothing is ever implemented to fix the problem. Solutions are only useful if they are enacted upon. While Congress gathers reports, there is little action taken in regards to those reports. It is one thing to acknowledge the negative health and environmental impact yet it is another thing entirely to actually shake up the industry by doing something about it. This seems not to be a major concern as these trails have become worse over time, increasingly contributing to erratic weather, disease, and premature death.
For further evidence of the impact that these trails have on our health and environment, we can turn once again to the EPA to provide more detail. In a document from January 11th, 2021, the EPA enacted standards that are supposed to combat greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation industry. In this document are findings from reports they had compiled in 2016 which call out the dangers these trails have on the public health and welfare:
Control of Air Pollution From Airplanes and Airplane Engines: GHG Emission Standards and Test Procedures
“In August 2016, the EPA issued two findings regarding GHG emissions from aircraft engines (the 2016 Findings).[7]First, the EPA found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Second, EPA found that emissions of GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Additional details of the 2016 Findings are described in Section III. As a result of the 2016 Findings, CAA sections 231(a)(2)(A) and (3) obligate the EPA to propose and adopt, respectively, GHG standards for these covered aircraft engines.”
III. Summary of the 2016 Findings
“On August 15, 2016,[46] the EPA issued two findings regarding GHG emissions from aircraft engines. First, the EPA found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. The EPA made this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane, N2 O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009 Endangerment Finding [47] under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together were found to constitute the primary cause of climate change. Second, the EPA found that emissions of those six well-mixed GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft [48] cause or contribute to the air pollution—the aggregate group of the same six GHGs—that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).”
In February of 2022, the EPA proposed standards that would reflect the importance of the control of PM emissions in aviation. They were looking to secure the highest practicable degree of uniformity in aviation regulations and standards. Within this proposal, the EPA provided plenty of insight into the potential health impacts of PM2.5 on human health such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, neurological disorders, asthma, cancer, ferility/reproductive problems, and premature death. They also outlined the impact the chemicals in the trails have on the environment such as affecting the metabolic processes of plant foliage, altering the soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, disrupting plant and animal growth and reproduction, and the corrosion of metals and soil. They even provided more detail on the make-up of the composition of the dangerous toxins inside these trails with the addition of carcinogens such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and certain metals such as chromium, manganese, and nickel. Judging by this information alone, it should be rather clear that these trails are negatively impacting our health and environment in numerous ways:
Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft Engines: Emission Standards and Test Procedures
III. Particulate Matter Impacts on Air Quality and Health
A. Background on Particulate Matter
“Particulate matter (PM) is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles range in size from those smaller than 1 nanometer (10−9 meter) to over 100 micrometers (μm, or 10−6 meter) in diameter (for reference, a typical strand of human hair is 70 μm in diameter and a grain of salt is about 100 μm). Atmospheric particles can be grouped into several classes according to their aerodynamic and physical sizes. Generally, the three broad classes of particles include ultrafine particles (UFPs, generally considered as particulates with a diameter less than or equal to 0.1 μm (typically based on physical size, thermal diffusivity or electrical mobility)), “fine” particles (PM2.5; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm), and “thoracic” particles (PM10; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm). Particles that fall within the size range between PM2.5 and PM10, are referred to as “thoracic coarse particles” (PM10-2.5, particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm and greater than 2.5 μm).
Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions between PM precursors; the former are often referred to as “primary” particles, and the latter as “secondary” particles. Particle concentration and composition varies by time of year and location, and, in addition to differences in source emissions, is affected by several weather-related factors, such as temperature, clouds, humidity, and wind. Ambient levels of PM are also impacted by particles’ ability to shift between solid/liquid and gaseous phases, which is influenced by concentration, meteorology, and especially temperature.
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions ( e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region, meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon, and metal compounds. These particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers.
Particulate matter is comprised of both volatile and non-volatile PM. PM emitted from the engine is known as non-volatile PM (nvPM), and PM formed from transformation of an engine’s gaseous emissions are defined as volatile PM.[35] Because of the difficulty in measuring volatile PM, which is formed in the engine’s exhaust plume and is significantly influenced by ambient conditions, the EPA is proposing standards only for the emission of nvPM.
B. Health Effects of Particulate Matter
Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM is associated with a broad range of health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA), which was finalized in December 2019.[36]The PM ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient PM2.5 are associated with a number of adverse health effects and characterizes the weight of evidence for broad health categories ( e.g., cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, etc.).[37] The PM ISA additionally notes that stratified analyses ( i.e., analyses that directly compare PM-related health effects across groups) provide strong evidence for racial and ethnic differences in PM2.5 exposures and in PM2.5 -related health risk. As described in Section III.D, concentrations of PM increase with proximity to an airport. Further, studies described in Section III.G report that many communities in close proximity to airports are disproportionately represented by people of color and low-income populations.
EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA supports a “causal relationship” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects and a “likely to be causal relationship” between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects.[38]Additionally, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a “likely to be causal relationship” between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer. In addition, EPA noted that there was more limited and uncertain evidence for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and developmental effects ( i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility; pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects resulting in the ISA concluding “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship.”
More detailed information on the health effects of PM can be found in a memorandum to the docket.[39]
C. Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter
Environmental effects that can result from particulate matter emissions include visibility degradation, plant and ecosystem effects, deposition effects, and materials damage and soiling. These effects are briefly summarized here and discussed in more detail in the memo to the docket cited above.
PM2.5 emissions also adversely impact visibility.[40]In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized visibility’s value to society by establishing a national goal to protect national parks and wilderness areas from visibility impairment caused by manmade pollution.[41] In 1999, EPA finalized the regional haze program (64 FR 35714) to protect the visibility in Mandatory Class I Federal areas. There are 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas (62 FR 38680-38681, July 18, 1997). These areas are defined in CAA section 162 as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. EPA has also concluded that PM2.5 causes adverse effects on visibility in other areas that are not targeted by the Regional Haze Rule, such as urban areas, depending on PM2.5 concentrations and other factors such as dry chemical composition and relative humidity ( i.e., an indicator of the water composition of the particles). EPA established the secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 1997 and has retained the standard in subsequent reviews.[42] This standard is expected to provide protection against visibility effects through attainment of the existing secondary standards for PM2.5 . EPA is reconsidering the 2020 decision, as announced on June 10, 2021.[43]
1. Deposition of Metallic and Organic Constituents of PM
Several significant ecological effects are associated with deposition of chemical constituents of ambient PM such as metals and organics.[44]Like all internal combustion engines, turbine engines covered by this rule may emit trace amounts of metals due to fuel contamination or engine wear. Ecological effects of PM include direct effects to metabolic processes of plant foliage; contribution to total metal loading resulting in alteration of soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, plant and animal growth and reproduction; and contribution to total organics loading resulting in bioaccumulation and biomagnification.
2. Materials Damage and Soiling
Deposition of PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects) and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects). Wet and dry deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by deteriorating building materials such as stone, concrete and marble.[45]
D. Near-Source Impacts on Air Quality and Public Health
Airport activity can adversely impact air quality in the vicinity of airports. Furthermore, these adverse impacts may disproportionately impact sensitive subpopulations. A recent study by Yim et al. (2015) assessed global, regional, and local health impacts of civil aviation emissions, using modeling tools that address environmental impacts at different spatial scales.[46] The study attributed approximately 16,000 premature deaths per year globally to global aviation emissions, with 87 percent attributable to PM2.5 . The study concludes that about a third of these mortalities are attributable to PM2.5 exposures within 20 kilometers of an airport. Another study focused on the continental United States estimated 210 deaths per year attributable to PM2.5 from aircraft.[47] While there are considerable uncertainties associated with such estimates, these results suggest that in addition to the contributions of PM2.5 emissions to regional air quality, impacts on public health of these emissions in the vicinity of airports are an important public health concern.
A significant body of research has addressed pollutant levels and potential health effects in the vicinity of airports. Much of this research was synthesized in a 2015 report published by the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), conducted by the Transportation Research Board.[48]The report concluded that PM2.5 concentrations in and around airports vary considerably, ranging from “relatively low levels to those that are close to the NAAQS, and in some cases, exceeding the standards.” [49]
Furthermore, the report states (p. 40) that “existing studies indicate that ultrafine particle concentrations are highly elevated at an airport ( i.e., near a runway) with particle counts that can be orders of magnitude higher than background with some persistence many meters downwind ( e.g., 600 m). Finally, the report concludes that PM2.5 dominates overall health risks posed by airport emissions. Moreover, one recently published study concluded that emissions from aircraft play an etiologic role in pre-term births, independent of noise and traffic-related air pollution exposures.[50]
Since the publication of the 2015 ACRP literature review, a number of studies conducted in the U. S. have been published which concluded that ultrafine particle number concentrations were elevated downwind of commercial airports, and that proximity to an airport also increased particle number concentrations within residences.Hudda et al. investigated ultrafine particle number concentrations (PNC) inside and outside 16 residences in the Boston metropolitan area. They found elevated outdoor PNC within several kilometers of the airport. They also found that aviation-related PNC infiltrated indoors and resulted in significantly higher indoor PNC.[51] In another study in the vicinity of Logan airport, Hudda et al. analyzed PNC impacts of aviation activities.[52] They found that, at sites 4.0 and 7.3 km from the airport, average PNCs were 2 and 1.33-fold higher, respectively, when winds were from the direction of the airport compared to other directions, indicating that aviation impacts on PNC extend many kilometers downwind of Logan airport. Stacey (2019) conducted a literature survey and concluded that the literature consistently reports that particle numbers close to airports are significantly higher than locations distant and upwind of airports, and that the particle size distribution is different from traditional road traffic, with more extremely fine particles.[53] Similar findings have been published from European studies.[54 55 56 57 58 59 ] Results of a monitoring study of communities near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport also found higher levels of ultrafine PM near the airport, and an impacted area larger than at near-roadway sites.[60] The PM associated with aircraft landing activity was also smaller in size, with lower black carbon concentrations than near-roadway samples. As discussed above, PM2.5 exposures are associated with a number of serious, adverse health effects. Further, the PM attributable to aircraft emissions has been associated with potential adverse health impacts.[61 62] For example, He et al. (2018) found that particle composition, size distribution and internalized amount of particles near airports all contributed to promotion of reactive organic species in bronchial epithelial cells.
Because of these potential impacts, a systematic literature review was recently conducted to identify peer-reviewed literature on air quality near commercial airports and assess the quality of the studies.[63] The systematic review identified seventy studies for evaluation. These studies consistently showed that particulate matter, in the form of ultrafine PM (UFP), is elevated in and around airports. Furthermore, many studies showed elevated levels of black carbon, criteria pollutants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well. Finally, the systematic review, while not focused on health effects, identified a limited number of references reporting adverse health effects impacts, including increased rates of premature death, pre-term births, decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage and childhood leukemia. More research is needed linking particle size distributions to specific airport activities, and proximity to airports, characterizing relationships between different pollutants, evaluating long-term impacts, and improving our understanding of health effects.
A systematic review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in the vicinity of airports was also recently published.[64] This study concluded that literature on health effects was sparse, but jet engine emissions have physicochemical properties similar to diesel exhaust particles, and that exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions.A 2010 systematic review by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) concluded that evidence was sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma among children, and suggestive of a causal relationship for childhood asthma, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function and cardiovascular mortality.[65]”
F. Other Pollutants Emitted by Aircraft
“In addition to particulate matter, a number of other criteria pollutants are emitted by the aircraft which are the subject of this proposed rule. These pollutants, which are not covered by the rule, include nitrogen oxides (NOX), including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Aircraft also contribute to ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), compounds that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects. These compounds include, but are not limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and certain metals. Some POM and HAP metals are components of PM2.5 mass measured in turbine engine aircraft emissions.[70]
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs). POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Metal compounds emitted from aircraft turbine engine combustion include chromium, manganese, and nickel. Several POM compounds, as well as hexavalent chromium, manganese compounds and nickel compounds are included in the National Air Toxics Assessment, based on potential carcinogenic risk.[71] In addition, as mentioned previously, deposition of metallic compounds can have ecological effects. Impacts of POM and metals are further discussed in the memorandum to the docket referenced above.”
PM stands for particulate matter – the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air
Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye while others are too small to be seen
PM10: inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller
PM2.5: fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller
These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals
Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems
Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream
Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems
Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart
Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including:
Premature death in people with heart or lung disease
Nonfatal heart attacks
Irregular heartbeat
Aggravated asthma
Decreased lung function
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing
People with heart or lung diseases,children, and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure
According to a Congressional Research Service report from February 8th, 2022, CO2 emissions from aviation are currently experiencing a faster rate of growth than other sources
All aircraft, including military, commercial, and privately chartered, accounted for 13% of the U.S. transportation sector’s CO2 emissions and 5% of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2018
Commercial aircraft, including those operated by passenger and all-cargo airlines, accounted for 11% of transportation sector and 4% of all emissions
Since the global financial crisis in 2009, aggregate CO2 emissions from all aircraft types have grown steadily, increasing by almost 22% between 2009 and 2018
This increase makes aircraft one of the faster-growing sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the past decade
The effects of aircraft emissions on the atmosphere are complex, reflecting differing altitudes, geography, time horizons, and environmental conditions
Research has shown that in addition to CO2 emissions, other factors increase the climate change impacts of aviation which include:
The contribution of aircraft emissions to ozone production
The formation of water condensation trails and cirrus clouds
The emission of various gases and particles, including water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulfates, and particulates from jet fuel combustion
The high altitude location of the bulk of these emissions
In examining the warming and cooling influences of these factors, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated aviation’s total climate change impact could be from two to four times that of its past CO2 emissions alone
Aside from GHG emissions, aircraft engines emit a number of criteria—or common—pollutants, including:
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Oxides of sulfur
Unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs])
Particulates
Other trace compounds
A subset of the VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants
According to a 2021 report by the EPA, they found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
Second, EPA found that emissions of GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
The EPA made this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009 Endangerment Finding under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together were found to constitute the primary cause of climate change
The EPA found that emissions of those six well-mixed GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft cause or contribute to the air pollution—the aggregate group of the same six GHGs—that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
Another report by the EPA from February 2022 states that particulate matter (PM) is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases
Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) in the atmosphere
PM2.5 may include a complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon, and metal compounds
These particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers
Particulate matter is comprised of both volatile and non-volatile PM
PM emitted from the engine is known as non-volatile PM (nvPM), and PM formed from transformation of an engine’s gaseous emissions are defined as volatile PM
Because of the difficulty in measuring volatile PM, which is formed in the engine’s exhaust plume and is significantly influenced by ambient conditions, the EPA is proposing standards only for the emission of nvPM
In other words, there are no standards proposed by the EPA for the transformation these chemicals go through after leaving the enginewhen they become lingering trails
Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM isassociated with a broad range of health effects
The PM ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient PM2.5 are associated with a number of adverse health effects and characterizes the weight of evidence for broad health categories ( e.g., cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, etc.)
EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA supports a “causal relationship” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects and a “likely to be causal relationship” between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects
Additionally, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a “likely to be causal relationship” between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer
In addition, EPA noted that there was more limited and uncertain evidence for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and developmental effects ( i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility; pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects resulting in the ISA concluding “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship”
Environmental effects that can result from particulate matter emissions include:
Visibility degradation
Plant and ecosystem effects
Deposition effects
Materials damage and soiling
PM2.5 emissions also adversely impact visibility
Like all internal combustion engines, turbine engines covered by this rule may emittrace amounts of metals due to fuel contamination or engine wear
Ecological effects of PM include:
Direct effects to metabolic processes of plant foliage
Contribution to total metal loading resulting in alteration of soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, plant and animal growth and reproduction
Contribution to total organics loading resulting in bioaccumulation and biomagnification
Deposition of PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects) and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects)
Wet and dry deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by deteriorating building materials such as stone, concrete and marble
A recent study by Yim et al. (2015) assessed global, regional, and local health impacts of civil aviation emissions, using modeling tools that address environmental impacts at different spatial scales
The study attributed approximately 16,000 premature deaths per year globally to global aviation emissions, with 87 percent attributable to PM2.5
The study concluded that about a third of these mortalities are attributable to PM2.5 exposures within 20 kilometers of an airport
Another study focused on the continental United States estimated 210 deaths per year attributable to PM2.5 from aircraft
Impacts on public health of these emissions in the vicinity of airports are an important public health concern
A 2015 report concluded that PM2.5 concentrations in and around airports vary considerably, ranging from “relatively low levels to those that are close to the NAAQS, and in some cases, exceeding the standards.”
Furthermore, the report stated (p. 40) that “existing studies indicate that ultrafine particle concentrations are highly elevated at an airport ( i.e., near a runway) with particle counts that can be orders of magnitude higher than background with some persistence many meters downwind ( e.g., 600 m)
Finally, the report concluded that PM2.5 dominates overall health risks posed by airport emissions
Hudda et al. investigated ultrafine particle number concentrations (PNC) inside and outside 16 residences in the Boston metropolitan area and found that aviation-related PNC infiltrated indoors and resulted in significantly higher indoor PNC
Stacey (2019) conducted a literature survey and concluded that the literature consistently reports that particle numbers close to airports are significantly higher than locations distant and upwind of airports, and that the particle size distribution is different from traditional road traffic, with more extremely fine particles
PM2.5 exposures are associated with a number of serious, adverse health effects and the PM attributable to aircraft emissions has been associated with potential adverse health impacts
He et al. (2018) found that particle composition, size distribution and internalized amount of particles near airports all contributed to promotion of reactive organic species in bronchial epithelial cells
A systematic review of 70 studies consistently showed that particulate matter, in the form of ultrafine PM (UFP), is elevated in and around airports
Furthermore, many studies showed elevated levels of black carbon, criteria pollutants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well
Finally, the systematic review, while not focused on health effects, identified a limited number of references reporting adverse health effects impacts, including increased rates of premature death, pre-term births, decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage and childhood leukemia
A systematic review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in the vicinity of airports found that jet engine emissions have physicochemical properties similar to diesel exhaust particles, and that exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions
A 2010 systematic review by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) concluded that evidence was sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma among children, and suggestive of a causal relationship for childhood asthma, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function and cardiovascular mortality
Besides PM2.5, other harmful pollutants, which are not covered by the rule, include:
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Aircraft also contribute to ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), compounds that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects
These compounds include, but are not limited to:
Benzene,
1,3-butadiene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Polycyclic organic matter (POM)
Certain metals
Some POM and HAP metals are components of PM2.5 mass measured in turbine engine aircraft emissions
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs)
Metal compounds emitted from aircraft turbine engine combustion include:
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Several POM compounds, as well as hexavalent chromium, manganese compounds and nickel compounds are included in the National Air Toxics Assessment, based on potential carcinogenic risk
When dealing with a potential health threat, we tend to jump to the conclusion that we are facing a new “virus” as this well-orchestrated lie has been drilled into our collective consciousness since birth. It is second nature to blame the new invisible boogeyman while overlooking the old visible threats that have been plaguing us for years with no end in sight. It seems too easy to admit to ourselves that any perceived increase in respiratory disease could be attributable to the continued increase in air pollution.
Yet from the start, “Covid-19” has been linked to air pollution. The areas hit the hardest were those with the highest levels of these harmful toxins in the air. As travel died down during the lockdowns, cases fell along with subsiding smog. As travel and pollution rose up again, so too did the “Covid” cases. Even small increases in air pollution has been shown to have an impact on “Covid” case numbers and deaths.
We know for a fact that air pollution is harmful to our health and environment. We know that every single symptom of disease associated with “Covid-19” can be linked to the PM2.5 particles which make up the majority of the dirty air we breathe. We know for a fact that automobiles, factories, power plants, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. all contribute to the harmful levels of toxins in the air. However, the one thing we have been told not to question as a contributor to our current problems are the lingering trails in the sky which form artificial clouds blocking out the beneficial rays of the sun. We are told that these are just regular old contrails from commercial airliners made up of ice crystals which eventually dissipate into a completely safe and harmless nothingness. Anyone questioning the trails is immediately labelled a conspiracy theorist.
It should be clear now, whether you call them chemtrails or not, that these persistent streaks in the sky are full of dangerous substances that attack the cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological systems. Thanks to government sources such as the EPA and the Congressional Research Service, we know that these trails are the fastest growing pollutant in the air and that they are contributing to even greater levels of smog and haze. The trails and the artificial cirrus clouds they form are a near constant sight in the sky these days and the problem is only growing worse with time. The damaging effects that these lines in the sky have on our health and environment is not even debatable. It is agreed upon by both sides of the debate. That these “persistent contrails” are harmful to our health and environment is a FACT. That the chemicals and toxins found within the vapors cause the exact same symptoms of disease as “Covid-19” is not a coincidence.
Thus we are left with two choices. We can either believe the official narrative that a new “virus” of unknown origin magically leapt from animal to man or somehow escaped from a lab and infected millions of people with a disease that causes the exact same symptoms associated with allergies, the common cold, the flu, and pneumonia. And with it’s rise, it has eliminated the majority of the cases of those previous ailments and can also constantly mutate (over 10 million versions now according to GISAID.org) in order to slip by every possible measure to contain it including masks, social distancing, lockdowns, quarantines, vaccines, etc.
Or we can believe that the ever-increasing and constant daily exposure to air pollution has taken a toll on the populace damaging the health and environment of everyone living within these dangerous levels of toxic fumes. While this is not the only explanation for any perceived increase in respiratory and other diseases, it is the most logical one over an invisible “virus.” According to Occam’s Razor, the simplest of competing theories should be preferred over those that are more complex and that explanations of unknown phenomena should be sought first in terms of known quantities. We know air pollution is harmful. We know that these trails are increasing at a faster rate than any other pollutant. We know that the chemicals residing within them are associated with the exact same symptoms of disease that are ascribed to “Covid.” Unlike a “virus,” we can see this boogeyman with our own two eyes.
All we have to do is look up.
From their own sources, the trails are a threat to our health and our environment. Contrary to what they want you to believe about “persistent contrails,” a.k.a. chemtrails, this is NOT a conspiracy.
You can see more of the slides from Government sources that were presented within this article here.
A catchy title, The NICE Act, (HR 5816), is a federal Act recently introduced in Congress under the appearance of a Health Freedom Bill.
Look closer. The NICE Act is not what it appears to be. It attempts to do something it is not designed to do. Then again, the rule of law always has exceptions. In this case, it is important to be aware that federal Acts regulate commerce, not people. Note, when federal Acts attempt to regulate people, money is always involved.
Follow the money.
The NAUGHTY but NICE Act?
Where there is government overreach, The NICE Act (HR 5816) becomes The Naughty Act. Let us break it down into 8 proofs:
A BILL…
“To prohibit the federal Government, or State or local government or other entity receiving federal funding, from requiring any citizen to be vaccinated, including federal agencies from requiring its employees to take any vaccination, without the citizen being fully advised in writing of all known potential risks from the vaccine and consultation with a physician followed by the voluntary informed consent of the citizen, and for other purposes.”
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “National Informed Consent Exemption (NICE) Act.”
1. This bill directly affects any entity, or person, receiving federal money.
The federal Government, and persons receiving federal funding, are prohibited from requiring any citizen to be vaccinated or tested for an infectious disease without due process of law. Citizens have the fundamental right to decline vaccination for an infectious disease without penalty.
Aha! The beginning of the money trail. This Act attempts to regulate an individual’s choice for healing. Whether a citizen chooses vaccination or not speaks to consent, not Informed Consent. This is a consent bill masquerading as an Informed Consent bill. However, whatever this bill claims to be, the freedom to choose is a Right, far removed from federal commerce and its regulations. How people heal is protected by States and State Constitutions, and should not be redefined by federal Acts that attempt to legislate choice.
2. Informed Consent is Not Consent
Informed Consent already exists in a current law, codified at 45 CFR § 46.116 – General requirements for informed consent. It exists to protect a patient’s right to receive information, including risks, before accepting or declining a medical procedure. No one is required to submit to any procedures without informed consent. Again, informedconsent is not to be confused with Consent, meaning the ability for someone to accept or to decline an offer, such a vaccination. This bears repeating.
Informed consent occurs when there is agreement to an interaction or action rendered with knowledge of relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives. Informed consent often comes up in the contexts of legal ethics, medical treatment, and waiver of constitutional rights. – Legal Information Institute.
It is important to know that a government-granted exemption is a privilege, not a right. The ability to decline a medical procedure, including vaccination, is, and always has been, a Right. Rights are inborn, granted by the Creator. Rights do not come from government. Governments are established to protect the rights of men and women. See ‘The Declaration of Independence.’
No government has the power to legislate a right, even when naming it as “an exemption,” unless the people sign on, with their signatures.
3. Medical freedom is much broader than vaccines, alone.
This medical freedom bill is limited in scope, focusing on freedom from vaccine mandates only, as if vaccination is a gold standard with few exceptions. What about freedom from coercion, drugging, medical testing, medical tracking, medical chipping, and all forms of medical tyranny inside and outside of “public health emergencies?”
4. Under the NICE Act, citizens would agree that this human right (the right to decline a vaccine) does not apply when:
(3) Federal, State, and local emergencies where the governing authority has first formally applied to the President of the United States of America for a NICE exception, and provided that the President in his discretion formally authorizes the requested exception based on the following criteria proven by the governing authority: (i) compliance with the procedure in section 5(b) would be materially impractical, (ii) the requested NICE exception would not materially interfere with National Security, and (iii) short-term and long-term side effects from the vaccination, including serious injuries and deaths, have been proven to occur in less than 1 in 200,000 individuals.
Did you notice that this bill includes exceptions for the exemption? Would a perceived threat to national security invalidate the NICE exemption? What authority determines the level of security threat that would trigger this revocation? Would government be able to deploy a mass vaccine rollout in public schools, as has happened in the past? The language of this bill attempts to swap a privilege for a privilege, with exemptions for an exemption, but remember, human rights ALWAYS apply.
5. Any medical procedures, drugs, or vaccines are always optional, yet the NICE Act makes the assumption that there is always an exception.
(b) Vaccination shall henceforth be optional to citizens, except as provided in section 5, for their participation in society, including but not limited to education, travel, employment, government service, housing, social welfare programs, access to courts, and medical care.
6. Americans currently have guardianship laws and power of attorney, yet this Act would not apply to:
(1) lawfully incarcerated and institutionalized individuals lacking the right or ability to meaningfully provide informed consent or informed refusal;
7. The authors of this Act say this law would also not apply to the following:
(2) courts of law issuing individualized court orders specific to one individual, provided the court order applies strict scrutiny following a hearing affording due process of law to the individual affected;
Still, governments have no authority to vaccinate anyone against his will. Even though governments do coerce, they cannot mandate a vaccination.
8. This bill creates victims and subjects of the court system if violations occur under the Act.
(a) Any person who has been the victim of a violation of this Act may bring a civil action for damages against any responsible party.
Legally, a “PERSON” means an individual, a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, association, trust, unincorporated organization, or other legal entity or organization, or a Government Body. Alternatively, if you are not a PERSON, subject to this Act, then you are neither a victim of the Act, nor a subject of the federal judicial system.
Law Basics 101
The United States Congress was established for the purpose of making and enacting laws that protect the rights and freedoms of people. However,people existed before the government existed. Therefore, the rights of people supersede government laws, Acts, statutes, and dictates. Since the
origin of rights and freedom comes from birth, they are known as birth RIGHTS.
Government laws exist as “BENEFITS and PRIVILEGES.” However, since the inception of the United States in 1776, both presidents andgovernors have been bypassing the laws through illegal Executive Orders(E.O.s) under Color of Law.Even though it might be argued that federalActs fall under the Color of Law, the chances of finding a solution through the court system is about as likely as isolating the Coronavirus. The CDCstill admits there is no gold standardfor the isolation of any virus.
Government-granted exemptions for government-imposed health mandates are strategically designed to fail by entrapping those members of thecommunity who sign onto them. Firstly, there is no legal defense or enforcement for religious or medical exemptions because businesses have nolegal duty of care from imposing mandates based on the The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk.
The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk states that no business is liable to protect others from a risk that’s widely known or believed toexist in the community.
Secondly, laws cannot conflict with each other. So when mandates or Executive Orders conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),then there is a violation of the legal duty of care. A legal dutyis a legal obligation, the breach of which can result in liability. Businesses that imposemandates must have an insurance policy.
John Jay Singleton, of Zunga,says, Federal law, the ADA, requires businesses to aid and encourage those with disabilities in the exercise andenjoyment of their rights. This means that not only can a business owner not impose such measures on anyone, he must actively protect everyonefrom any violation of this law, at least by not imposing them.
To exercise and enjoy your rights doesn’t mean you have to have a disability. It means you’re regarded as having a disability. Ifyou’reregardedashavingadisabilityitsbecausethe governmentannouncedapublichealthdisaster,sothelegal dutiescomeintoplaywith theADA. Andthe legal dutyof careis onanyone trying toforce thesemeasure onyou.John JaySingleton
An exemption means there has to be a legal duty of care. If there is no legal duty, there is no exemption. So no court will take jurisdiction. Aplaintiff in court will never win. This is another reason you do not have to beg for a right you already possess.
Exemptions bind people to an arbitrary, and a constantly changing, list of demands. These demands supersede basic freedoms, and thereupondeny people of their inalienable, God/life given rights to self-determination of their bodies. As the government giveth, so, too, can the governmenttaketh away, on a whim.
It is important to appreciate that all vaccine-related exemptions, whether, medical, religious, moral/philosophical/personal belief, naughty orNICE, are fundamentally illegal, because they transpose an inherent human RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE, on the presumption that you acknowledge,and thus sacrifice, or forfeit, your natural born rights and ‘freedom to choose’ to an external authority.
What if declining to participate in Acts preserves your authenticity and your rights?
All Acts attempt do one thing: to allow the government to legislate choice and freedom, that is …ifyou consentto the offer. But were you provided Informed Consent?
For instance, there is no American authority for compulsory vaccination, in the sense of forcingone to submit. When it comes to the government, everything is an offer to contract. When it comesto Acts, All the world is a stage.
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts, – Shakespeare, As You Like It,
Shakespeare titled his play, As You Like It, as if to say, you always have a choice. There is no law that compels anyone to do anything related tomandated restrictions, whether COVID-related or not. The freedom to choose is non-negotiable. You always have options just like you haveopinions. However, in this era, freedom must be defended and claimed as a birthright.
Becausegovernmentshaveinvertedandoverturnedthe basicprincipleofchoice,bywayof Acts,statutesandpolicies,theyhave boundfreedom,itself, to a contract.
All government Acts apply to government entities and persons; not to men and women. Men and women are not subject to Acts, because they arenot subjects.
This is not a group enterprise. Creation doesn’t wait for a committee to issue a letter of approval. Or a King to incline his head in assent.
Something happens. An insight. A spark. You see a possibility, and instead of dismissing it, you pursue it. The pursuit becomes relentless.
And one day, the Monarchy falls.
The mob is loose. But unknown individuals are also freed from restraints. They work their way through the blood and smoke of revolution to a landing place, where they execute laws.
These laws stand up against sheer anarchy. They have double purpose—for freedom; and opposed to incursions freedom might make on person and property.
Now a new work begins. How to keep the apparatus that enforces the law from falling into the hands of monopolists and their agents.
A vision of the individual is at the heart of this work. It doesn’t matter whether one person or another lives up to that vision. The Idea is enough: “uncompromising, acute, intensely creative, immune to the group and its manipulations aimed at owning him.”
This vision breaks the old mold. People sitting in Plato’s cave see it stand out as a shadow on the wall; and when they turn and walk out into the sun, they see it again, unchanged.
The rest is up to them.
This progression isn’t partial. It isn’t omitting something essential. It’s gone as far as it can go.
Otherwise, what one person builds would be permitted to belong to another. The rejection of that principle endures beyond any level of destruction.
Those who INVENT can trade their inventions on any terms they choose. But they can never impart the quality that enables them to create to another person. It’s impossible.
The people who want everything for nothing will try to wheedle society back into the dark age of the monarchy. They will call this return by names that suggest glory. It’s all a ruse to take absolute power. To make what was never theirs, theirs.
They call it justice. But it’s sheer war.
Underneath their chants, they’re lambs being taken to the slaughter. They want to reach out and take you, too.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee & BitChute channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Good day South Africa. My name is Ricardo Marmaan and today is the 8th of April 2022, exactly three days after the Western Cape High Court dismissed our ‘Show us the virus‘ court case application, an application for an urgent interim interdict against the lockdown regulations.
It was dismissed with a punitive cost order against me. This judgment came after a 2-month long delay and exactly one day after Ramaphosa made his speech in which he so-called ended the lockdown. We know he did not end it; he merely escalated it by deceptive means.
This is a very strange coincidence. May be no coincidence all.
We asked the Western Cape High Court to grant the people legal protection against being forced by Ramaphosa and the big businesses into these harmful lockdown regulations — like the wearing of the suffocating masks, the use of these poisonous hand sanitizers, and to be forced into taking these deadly vaccinations.
Ramaphosa and these vaccine producers and big businesses already enjoy such legal protection because they are protected by the regulations. They are acting under the regulations.
We asked the Western Cape High Court, in a reasonable and just application, that the people of South Africa be granted the very selfsame legal protections.
But the court unfortunately dismissed our application with a punitive cost order against me.
South Africa, at the very beginning of this process, we asked Ramaphosa to show us the virus. He failed to do so and, therefore, he is perpetrating a virusless pandemic against the people of South Africa.
Parliament, through its silence, is consenting to Ramaphosa and now the judiciary, through its legal — using its legal power and its judgments and rulings protecting and I’m up also protecting the vaccine producers — are protecting Ramaphosa, protecting the vaccine producers, and protecting the big businesses, and depriving the people of South Africa of the very selfsame legal protection.
South Africa, it is time that we see this for what it is. Our beautiful nation has been completely, or more or less completely subverted.
Subversion means that our beautiful nation has been infiltrated by foreign aggressive actors and their local agents. And they are, through lies and deception, leading us to our own self destruction.
The National Health Act amendments will make this subversive and self destructive measures permanent. But Parliament can stop these amendments. Parliament have taken an oath to represent the interests and protect the interest of the people of South Africa, to represent the people of South Africa, to hold Ramaphosa, the Minister of CoGTA [Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs] , and the Minister of Health accountable.
It is time that we wake Parliament up and instruct them because they are our representatives.
I suggest that you go to the Parliament website, parliament.gov [parliament.gov.za], and find the members of Parliament, identify them, contact them and go to them in droves. They live amongst us.
It is time that we instruct them that we the people of South Africa do not want these amendments because they are subversive and self destructive
— that the members of Parliament have a duty to protect the people of South Africa and to stop Ramaphosa
— that if they fail to obey our lawful instructions then it is clear that they are agents of subversion.
South Africa, do not let them divide you. Wake everyone you know up and let us act together. South Africa, do not let them distract you.
Parliament has the power to stop these amendments and we have the lawful authority to instruct Parliament to do so.
South Africa, let us all act together and let us go to Parliament, to the members of Parliament. Let us phone them, let us email them and let us go to them.
And let us say to them that we the people of South Africa say no to these amendments.
I am so frustrated by all the well-meaning activists and their signs emblazoned with that message.
What I do with my body has nothing to do with the degree of risk involved. What I do with my body is strictly my choice, period. This is not negotiable. I am a sovereign human being with natural rights no person or government may infringe.
And I would die defending those rights.
No, I’m not being sensational. I simply refuse to live as a slave and do not want that future for my husband, my son, or all the other people on the planet enduring this dystopian present.
This is a line I will not, and we must not, concede.
Have we forgotten what our founders declared in the Declaration of Independence? Those prescient, revolutionary masterminds proclaimed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [Emphasis mine.]
Have we forgotten why they wrote those words and what they truly mean?
Those who came before us wrote these words because they endured firsthand the hardship, suffering, indignity, and torment attendant to a system of government devoid of basic human rights and self-determination. They wrote them as they understood that our rights derive from something larger than any human being or human source – not from government, a person, or any manmade construct.
We possess natural rights due to the very fact of being born human. Our rights come from the source of all things and therefore cannot be removed.
This notion is unique to the United States. No other country’s founding documents proclaim such a fundamental and profound concept as this, an ideal millions of Americans hold dear, even sacred.
Our founders understood all too well the primacy of the individual and the fundamental rights which accompany each individual.
They grasped that if I yield the power and authority over my body to another who can force me to undergo a medical procedure as long as it’s deemed safe, then I am not free and may be compelled to submit to all manner of bodily intrusions.
That many politicians, thought leaders, and even judges defend a utilitarian ethos does not make it moral, ethical, or constitutional.
It is never right to harm one individual in service to the greater good and violating one individual’s fundamental right to bodily autonomy cannot be construed as anything other than harm.
As enlightenment philosopher John Locke explained so well, a society consists of individuals and cannot take precedence over the individual without sacrificing itself. Indeed, the individual is everything. If the greater good takes priority over the individual, we are a faceless mass.
If the greater good rules, may I be forced to eat only food deemed healthy and appropriate by the government? Does that mean I may eat no red meat, no butter and eggs, no raw foods – all foods I consider nutrient-dense health foods but which government has wrongly denigrated for decades?
May I be forced to eat bugs and synthetic meat, GMO salmon, corn, or soy? Before you laugh, search it up for yourself – lately, articles about the wonders of bug-eating abound. Restaurants serving ants, locusts, mealworms, and more are popping up nationwide.
What if I have allergic reactions or sensitivities to foods? Who decides how severe my reaction must be? What if my research on GMOs concludes they are harmful? Must I submit simply because some bureaucrat or potentially vested individual says so?
Can the amount of sugar I eat be restricted? Sugar undermines the immune system after all, so wouldn’t that benefit the greater good? What about potato chips, alcohol, cookies, crackers, and chips, all of which undermine my health and vitality, and therefore that of my community?
May I be coerced to donate blood to help my neighbor in need? What about one of my kidneys? May I be forced to take antidepressants to boost my mood or ADHD meds so I am more productive? May I be required to have brain and other implants installed in my body to monitor my moods and bodily functions and assure compliance with my medical treatment? May I be obliged to carry a baby for a woman who desperately wants to be a mother but can’t bear her own children?
Where do I the individual end and where does my community begin? If I as an individual can be harmed in service to the greater good, is my society a moral and ethical community?
With respect to what is deemed safe, who decides this? Have we completely forgotten history and all the mistakes science and scientists have made ranging from Vioxx to thalidomide and opioids?
Science is not absolute – it shifts and advances constantly. We once believed it was wise to x-ray pregnant women’s pelvises, we once believed handwashing was nonsense, we once believed mercury was a useful medicine. Ignoring these lessons of history is pure folly.
Who decides what is healthy or what research is valid? Why should someone I don’t know, who knows nothing about me, who is not me, who may have ulterior profit, political, or social motives, have ANY voice in how I keep myself well, how I care for myself when ill, or how I use my body?
When did we all vote and decide that the good of the community trumps the value of the individual? Western civilization, the US in particular, was built on the foundational principle of individual rights and freedoms. The Nazis reminded us that utilitarianism, the misguided belief that individuals may be sacrificed in service to the many, is evil. How did we so profoundly lose our way in 75 years?
The greater good is a glorified slide into a dark and endless black hole. A black hole I cannot and will not abide.
My body and my choices in relation to my body are not conditional on anything. Period.
As avian influenza runs through the nation’s poultry flocks, with the current extermination of about 28 million laying hens and turkeys, I can’t help but wonder why we aren’t putting beak masks on the chickens.
If masks are so effective against viruses in the human population, why don’t we just make a chicken mask to stop this virus? Seems like a better fix than exterminating all these animals.
The problem is that Dr. Fauci isn’t in the chicken business. Rats. What a shame. If only he were in charge of chickens, he’d have this thing under control in a day. I think we need to expand his authority to the animals of America so he can take care of them like he’s taken care of the humans of America.
When avian flu broke out in our part of Virginia many years ago, two of the federal veterinarians sent in to exterminate chickens visited me just to chat. The independent visits shared an identical assessment: too many chickens crammed in too tight a space in too small a geographic area. Both said if they mentioned that publicly they would be fired.
Hmmmm, I wonder if decentralization of poultry would be better than centralization. Notice that on one farm, 5.8 million laying hens were destroyed—ON ONE FARM!
It’s all blamed on wildlife. Folks, whenever a culture views wildlife as a liability rather than asset, you know everything is wonky. It’s like blaming babies for drug addiction. Or blaming churches for drunkards. When wildlife is the enemy, something is out of whack in the culture’s thinking.
I don’t trust the tests. I don’t trust the experts. I don’t trust the bureaucrats. Isn’t it amazing that as a culture, we’re fixated on prolonging human life for a week or two with ultra-expensive, painful, and invasive intervention but at the first sign of sniffles in a chicken, the “only” cure, according to the experts, is mass extermination. Perhaps the wrong beings are being exterminated. Just sayin’.
The biggest tragedy is that these government gumshoes will come onto a property, without a warrant and unannounced, demanding to pull blood from pastured chickens. They’ll take that sample to a lab driven by political agendas and industrial paradigms (chickens locked in houses are healthier than chickens roaming on a pasture) to determine positive or negative.
Does this sound like incestuous fraternal collusion shenanigans to you?
In a World First on Maria Zeee Uncensored, Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts exposes the Nanotech found in the COVID-19 Vaccines, declaring this is genocide.
We discuss the incoming Digital Identity and the government’s plan to enslave humanity through their plans for a New World Order.
“And what we’re seeing in the world today, I think, is we are on the brink of a dramatic change where we are about to, and I’ll say this boldly, we’re about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one.
And the new one, the new accounting, is what we call blockchain. It means digital. It means having a almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what’s going on.”
James Evan Pilato:
“Like Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, she sees covid as an opportunity to transform the world. The new money system Malmgren talks about with such enthusiasm will not only be digital, it’ll be centralized and programmable.
As we’ve talked about the Bitcoin psyop now for several years, don’t confuse this with Bitcoin or other actual cryptocurrencies. The only thing it’ll share in common with other crypto is that it will be based on blockchain technology.
So what do they mean by programmable money? This means that central banks will have complete control over your money and can program it so that it can only be spent on certain things, in certain places.”
[Globalist/Elitist] Dr Pippa Malmgren:
“We’re already in World War III. We are already in conflict that extends so far beyond Ukraine actually, even within the context of western Europe. But we’ve clearly been pretty much at war in space, below the surface of the ocean, submarine warfare between superpowers. I would even say that this has been happening for a least four years, and it spilled over into public view on the ground. But we don’t frame it that way.”
James Corbett:
“And then Pippa goes on with that statement, but also she prefaces that statement by saying what underpins a world order is always the financial system. Ding Ding Ding Ding. That is true… What is happening in Ukraine right now fundamentally, at base, is not a geopolitical event. It is a monetary event, a changeover in the monetary paradigm of the world…
This is what it’s about. It’s the change over to the central bank digital currency paradigm. And, as she points out, the Chinese are pioneering it. And they’re the first ones to roll out with the digital yuan. And they’re spearheading this thrust into the digital divide — between pre-digital humanity and trans-humanity…
It’s all about… how we set the rules around this. And who gets to be in charge of the system. Yes, this could be used for bad purposes, this kind of digital ID surveillance tracking control of everything that everyone does. But as long as it’s in the right hands, it’ll be okay. And you will notice that the pimps of the New World order will always frame it this way.”
Globalists Spill the Beans at the World Government Summit
GeoEngineeringWatch.org is the most visited website in the world on the subject of covert climate engineering operations.
Dane Wigington begins this Q&A with his question for the day:
“If the human race remains on the current course of all-out planetary decimation, how much time do we have until the extinction of our species? And will we bring the entire web of life down with us? We’re getting close to that now and few even realize it.”
Dane and his callers cover many topics, including the link between HAARP and other ground-based, radio frequency transmitters, microwave transmission networks and other silent weapons for quiet wars.
A few quotes from Dane:
“So again, they’re using the atmosphere for a physics lab.”
“What’s happening in our skies will very soon determine our collective futures if it’s not stopped. At any point time, if those in power choose to, if they feel they’re losing control, they can put something much more lethal in this mix and put us all on our backs. Overnight. Literally.”
“We have a common thread of the various forms of mental deficiency with those in power — the common thread is this — a near total lack of comprehension as to the consequences of their actions even to themselves. Would they do this to themselves? Yes, they have and they continue to.”
“Those in power don’t care how toxic these elements are. And for those that don’t know what graphene is — look it up… Graphene toxilogical effects — it reads like a horror story. It’s a vascular machete, destroying parts of our bodies’ vascular system and countless other downstream elements. And it can be used for biological carrier, can be used to carry some sort of biological agent from the clouds to the ground.”
Those who follow this site will easily see the link between the toxic ingredients in the so-called covid vaccines and similar toxic nanoparticles that have, for decades, been pumped into our skies, continue to kill off forests and vegetation, and are being breathed in by all humans and all animal life on the planet.
On this Coming Collapse Q and A session, a highly credentialed scientist from a top 10 science testing facility joins us for a shocking front line report.
Recent testing has now confirmed that the highly toxic element graphene is in our precipitation, along with an already long list of toxins including aluminum nanoparticles.
Surfactants have also been confirmed in recent precipitation testing. Climate intervention operations are ubiquitously contaminating the entire planet and every breath we take.
How long do we have if the human race remains on the current course?
Please join us for this front line report on the most dire and immediate threats we collectively face.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Dr. Naomi Wolf discusses the war on children and on Western values. Forcing children to wear masks is abusive because new studies show that this prevents them from developing normal facial recognition and the practice has a now-measurable effect on their IQ levels.
With all the new information surfacing from the WarRoom/DailyClout volunteers regarding the formerly secret Pfizer documents, and with attorney Stevan Looney’s new essay on the redacted documents in the secret Pfizer tranche now published on DailyClout.io, it is becoming clear that informed consent before receiving the vaccine was never even possible.
Bombshell: in order to process just the paperwork from the “large number of adverse events” — Pfizer’s own words — Pfizer had to hire 2,400 new, full-time employees and the company proudly informed the FDA of these thousands of new hires to grapple with the flood of adverse events they saw as early as February 28, 2021. Yet they did not disclose these adverse events to the public and neither did the FDA.
“The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica…
[….]
“What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice.”
virus, infectious agent of small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria. The name is from a Latin word meaning “slimy liquid” or “poison.”
I have purposefully stayed away from the whole “SARS-COV-2” as a gain of function/bioweapon disinformation campaign as it is obvious to anyone who has ever read any “virus” paper, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” or any of these other invisible entities. At no point has any virologist ever properly purified and isolated the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from a sick patient and then proven them pathogenic in a natural way. As this is a fact that is even admitted by virologists themselves, it should also be obvious that if they can not find the particles assumed to be “viruses” in nature, they can not tinker around and modify these fictional entities in a lab in order to create some sort of contagious bioweapon.
Somehow, this logic escapes many. Even though some have woken to the truth and accepted that “SARS-COV-2” does not exist in nature, they still believe that it must have been developed in a lab and unleashed upon the world in order to create a new contagious disease which is wrecking havoc on the elderly and immunocompromised. What they fail to realize is that there simply is no new disease and that none of the symptoms associated with “SARS-COV-2” are new, unique, or specific. There is zero proof of transmission and/or contagion beyond highly flawed epidemiological studies. There is no new “virus,” no new disease, and no contagious bioweapon. It is pure fiction based upon faulty cell culture and genomic experiments.
Before diving into the experimental evidence presented for gain of function studies, I figured it would be a good idea to get some background information on what exactly these kinds of studies entail first. From the October 2021 Nature article highlighted below, we learn that the gain of function concept earned widespread recognition in 2012 due to a pair of studies which both looked to tweak an avian influenza “virus” in order to make it transmissable by air between ferrets. Disregarding the contradictory fact that aerosol transmission is supposedly the way an upper respiratory “virus” is supposed to spread, many became concerned that this kind of work may eventually lead to the release of a super “virus” which could result in the next pandemic. These ferret studies were apparently pivotal with bringing virology into the gain of function field, even though it could be easily argued that virology has been performing these kinds of experiments throughout its existence.
The gain of function term refers to any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host. This is done by fiddling with cell culture material in a lab combined with genomic sequencing. They do this either by inserting genetic material into the cell culture or by way of animal models where the animal is said to be genetically altered in some way to be more susceptible to the “viral” material.
The article provides an example where mice were genetically modified to become susceptible to MERS. However, the mice did not become ill upon being challenged with the “virus.” Thus, the researchers resorted to passaging the “virus” between mice, which involved infecting a couple of mice, giving the “virus” two days to take hold, and then killing the mice and grinding up the lung tissue to inject into other mice. They repeated these steps at least 30 times which eventually made some mice sick. This process of culturing toxic material, injecting animals with the concoction, killing them and grinding up their remains, and then injecting this emulsified goop into other animals in an attenpt to make them sick is what GOF is all about. While this horrific process is getting recognized today, these kinds of experiments have been a staple of virology since the very beginning:
The shifting sands of ‘gain-of-function’ research
“The term first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza virus, using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets2,3. Many people were concerned that publishing the work would be tantamount to providing a recipe for a devastating pandemic, and in the years that followed, research funders, politicians and scientists debated whether such work required stricter oversight, lest someone accidentally or intentionally release a lab-created plague. Researchers around the world voluntarily paused some work, but the issue became particularly politicized in the United States.
US funding agencies, which also support research abroad, later imposed a moratorium on gain-of-function research with pathogens while they worked out new protocols to assess the risks and benefits. But many of the regulatory discussions have taken place out of the public eye.
Now, gain-of-function research is once again centre stage, thanks to SARS-CoV-2 and a divisive debate about where it came from. Most virologists say that the coronavirus probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the virus was first reported. But a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out. They are demanding investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where related bat coronaviruses have been extensively studied, to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 could have accidentally leaked from the lab or crossed into humans during collection or storage of samples.”
“The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term — and it stuck, says Gigi Gronvall,a biosecurity specialist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host.
Virologists do regularly fiddle with viral genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models. “People do all of these experiments all the time,” says Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. For example, her lab has made mouse viruses that are more harmful to mice than the originals. If only mice are at risk, should it be deemed GOF? And would it be worrying?
The answer is generally no. Morrison’s experiments, and many others like them, pose little threat to humans. GOF research starts to ring alarm bells when it involves dangerous human pathogens, such as those on the US government’s ‘select agents’ list, which includes Ebola virus and the bacteria responsible for anthrax and botulism. Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza viruses and coronaviruses. “For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory viruses because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School. GOF studies with those viruses are “a really tiny part” of virology, he adds.”
“Animal research — although fraught with its own set of ethical quandaries — allows scientists to study how pathogens work and to test potential treatments, a necessary precursor to trials in people. That’s what Perlman and his collaborators had in mind when they set out to study the coronavirus responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012. They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS.
The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells. So, the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4. The virus could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill. “Having a model of mild disease isn’t particularly helpful to understand why people get so sick,” says collaborator Paul McCray, a paediatric pulmonologist also at the University of Iowa.
So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance virulence. The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the virus two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice. They did this repeatedly — 30 times9. By the end of two months, the virus had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells. In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly, says McCray. That’s GOF of a sort because the virus became better at causing disease. But adapting a pathogen to one animal in this way often limits its ability to infect others, says Andrew Pekosz, a virologist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.”
“With all the challenges inherent in GOF studies, why do them? Because, some virologists say, the viruses are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match. “We can either wait for something to arise, and then fight it, or we can anticipate that certain things will arise, and instead we can preemptively build our arsenals,” says Morrison. “That’s where gain-of-function research can come in handy.”
This next source is from 2015. The authors admit that virology is heavily reliant on gain or loss of function studies. They offer an alternative definition for GOF research which is any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes. Obviously, this definition leans far more into the genomics side of the equation. This is due to the claim that these kinds of studies are used by virologists in order to understand a “viruses” genetic make-up. It is stated that researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA. In other words, they mix genetic material from different sources, poison and/or kill lab animals by injecting them with this toxic soup, and then analyze the resulting mixture using computers so that they can claim that the generated model is a new creation. However, it is admitted that these kinds of mutations happen “naturally” with “viruses” every time a person is infected, thus confirming what we already know: virologists can not sequence the same exact “virus” every time:
Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives
“The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function. In order to understand the role of such studies in virology, Dr. Kanta Subbarao from the Laboratory of Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave an overview of the current scientific and technical approaches to the research on pandemic strains of influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses (CoV). As discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, many participants argued that the word choice of “gain-of-function” to describe the limited type of experiments covered by the U.S. deliberative process, particularly when coupled with a pause on even a smaller number of research projects, had generated concern that the policy would affect much broader areas of virology research.
TYPES OF GAIN-OF-FUNCTION (GOF) RESEARCH
Subbarao explained that routine virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.
Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of viruses and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Subbarao introduced the key questions that virologists ask at all stages of research on the emergence or re-emergence of a virus and specifically adapted these general questions to the three viruses of interest in the symposium (see Box 3-1). To answer these questions, virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of viruses and the specifics of virus-host interaction. For instance, researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant viruses from cloned cDNA, and deep sequencing that are critical for studying how viruses escape the host immune system and antiviral controls. Researchers also use targeted host or viral genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool.
During Session 3 of the symposium, Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments. The first category, which he called “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature. The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A viruses that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type. The second category deals with the generation of viruses that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type viruses but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature. Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates will improve their replication in mammalian cells. Finally, the third category, which is somewhere in between the two first categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible viruses in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern. An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans. During the discussion, Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature.”
“Imperiale explained that, with respect to the GoF terminology, whenever researchers are working with RNA viruses, GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.” He also commented that the term GoF was understood a certain way by attendees of this symposium, but when the public hears this term “they can’t make that sort of nuanced distinction that we can make here” so the terminology should be revisited.”
Hopefully the above two sources have shown that GOF studies are nothing more than the exact same cell culture experiments utilizing the exact same genomic sequencing technologies and tricks that virologists have always used. The only difference is that they are combining different culture supernatant and genetic materials together into one in order to create a brand new synthetic computer-generated sequence. At no point in time are any purified/isolated particles ever used in these studies. In fact, there are no EM images of the new “virus” of any kind. It should therefore not be surprising that we can see the exact same pattern of unscientific methods and illogical reasoning in GOF studies as found in any of the original “virus” papers.
Seeing as to how the 2012 avian flu studies brought GOF research to the forefront, it seemed ideal to step into this area a bit more to see what actually transpired. The main study presented as evidence of GOF research was led by a man named Ron Fouchier. If that name sounds familiar, that’s because it should. Fouchier was involved in the 2003 “SARS-COV-1” study which proclaimed the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates for proving a microorganism causes disease yet it failed miserably by not only not being able to satisfy Koch’s four original Postulates, but also Thomas River’s six revised Postulates made strictly for virology. In other words, it was an epic fail.
In Fouchier’s 2012 avian flu GOF study, he attempted to make the H5N1 “virus” infectious through the air. This was done through a process involving cell culturing combined with genetic engineering as well as passaging the material through numerous ferrets. Sounds familiar to the mice example from before, correct? You also see this same process with the early polio and influenza studies as well as in many other virology papers. The main difference is the genomic narrative and the use of modern technology such as reverse genetics to claim the insertion of specific genes.
Highlights from the below paper provide an overview of what was done during this study. It details how the material was collected from a flu strain in Indonesia, genetically altered in a Petri dish, and then transferred to ferrets in a series of experiments using the “wildtype” strain along with different modified strains. Fouchier and Co. were repeatedly unsuccessful in their endeavors of infecting ferrets until they started passaging the “virus” in the animals by injecting them with the cultured soup, grinding up their lung tissues, and injecting other ferrets in the same manner. They repeated this process 6 times and then changed up the experiment by switching to nasal turbinates for the last 4 passage attempts. The only illness said to be achieved via airborne exposure was a loss of appetite, lethargy, and ruffled fur. Upon sequencing the “viruses,” there were only two amino acid switches shared by all six “viruses.” There were several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses.” In other words, they could not sequence the same “virus” at any point:
Fouchier study reveals changes enabling airborne spread of H5N1
“A study showing that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza virus into an airborne spreader in mammals—and that launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency—was released today in Science, spilling the full experimental details that many experts had sought to suppress out of concern that publishing them could lead to the unleashing of a dangerous virus.
In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 virus that can spread among ferrets without direct contact.
They say their findings show that H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve in mammals to gain airborne transmissibility, without having to mix with other flu viruses in intermediate hosts such as pigs, and thus pose a risk of launching a pandemic.”
Indonesian H5N1 strain used
Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 virus collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 viruses more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways. Avian flu viruses prefer to bind to alpha2,3-linked sialic acid receptors on cells, whereas human flu viruses prefer alpha2,6-linked receptors. In both humans and ferrets, alpha2,6 receptors are predominant in the upper respiratory tract, while alpha 2,6 receptors are found mainly in the lower respiratory tract.
The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the virus’s HA protein, the viral surface molecule that attaches to host cells. Q222L and G224S together change the binding preference of H2 and H3 subtype flu viruses, changes that contributed to the 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics, according to the report. And N182K was found in a human H5N1 case.
The scientists created three mutant H5N1 virus strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes, the report explains. They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 virus. Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type virus shed far more virus than those infected with the mutants.
In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different viral gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein. The mutation E627K in PB2 is linked to the acquisition by avian flu viruses of the ability to grow in the human respiratory tract, which is cooler than the intestinal tract of birds, where the viruses usually reside, according to the report.
The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a virus that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the virus did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones.
The passaging step
Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract—the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid,” according to a report of his initial description of the research at a European meeting last September.
They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type virus and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs). Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times. For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest viruses that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract.
The amount of mutant virus found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages, signaling that the virus was increasing its capacity to grow in the ferret upper airway. In contrast, viral titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type virus stayed the same.
The next step was to test whether the viruses produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission. Four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant virus, and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain. Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact.
The ferrets exposed to those with the wild virus remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant virus did get infected, the researchers found. Further, they took a sample from one of the “recipient” ferrets and used it to inoculate another ferret, which then transmitted the virus to two more ferrets that were placed near it.
Thus, a total of six ferrets became infected with the mutant virus via airborne transmission. However, the level of viral shedding indicated the airborne virus didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 virus does.
In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur. One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne viruses survived.
When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the viruses that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six viruses: H103Y and T156A. They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne viruses.
“Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of [highly pathogenic avian flu] H5N1 virus,” the researchers wrote.
In further steps, the researchers inoculated six ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible virus; after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund.” “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia,” the report notes.”
While the proceeding article did an excellent job of providing the main points from Fouchier’s 2012 GOF study, I wanted to showcase relevant highlights directly from the paper to flesh out the methods used even further. Here you will see that Fouchier’s team claimed that they genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. They used Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) which they said was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection. This was passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs which was followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000. They then used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce the desired amino acid substitutions. Site-directed mutagenesis is a synthetic process utilizing PCR to make artificial changes in a DNA sequence. They then took their synthetically-created cultured soup and experimented on ferrets while manipulating the methods until they achieved the results that they desired.
At no point in the paper was a “virus” of any kind ever purified and isolated. At no point were any electron microscope images of the newly mutated “viruses” ever shown. The only “evidence” of an airborne strain is genomic sequencing data from consensus genomes which did not match up. Fouchier and Co. even admitted that airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but even this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. They also stated that the mutations they had identified needed further testing to determine their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and that further experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals. In other words, their study only told them that they could create mutated genomes and not that they created more “virulent viruses” that are transmissable by air:
Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets
“Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus farhas not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”)between humans. To address the concern that the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions,we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage inferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimatelybecoming airborne transmissible in ferrets. None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection withthe mutant A/H5N1 viruses. Four amino acid substitutions in the host receptor-binding protein hemagglutinin, and one in the polymerase complex protein basic polymerase 2, were consistently present in airborne-transmitted viruses. The transmissible viruses were sensitive to the antiviral drug oseltamivir and reacted well with antisera raised against H5 influenza vaccine strains. Thus, avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses can acquire the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate host and therefore constitute a risk for human pandemic influenza.
Influenza A viruses have been isolated from many host species, including humans, pigs, horses, dogs, marine mammals, and a wide range of domestic birds, yet wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the virus reservoir in nature (1). Influenza A viruses belong to the family Orthomyxoviridae; these viruses have an RNA genome consisting of eight gene segments (2, 3). Segments 1 to 3 encode the polymerase proteins: basic polymerase 2 (PB2), basic polymerase 1 (PB1), and acidic polymerase (PA), respectively. These proteins form the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase complex responsible for transcription and replication of the viral genome.”
Since the late 1990s, HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have devastated the poultry industry of numerous countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. To date, A/H5N1 has spread from Asia to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, resulting in the death of hundreds of millions of domestic birds. In Hong Kong in 1997, the first human deaths directly attributable to avian A/H5N1 virus were recorded (11). Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 virus infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries (12). Although limited A/H5N1 virus transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus has not been detected (13–15). Whether this virus may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness. Although our knowledge of viral traits necessary for host switching and virulence has increased substantially in recent years (16, 17), the factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza viruses among mammals, a trait necessary for a virus to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown (18–21). Therefore, investigations of routes of influenza virus transmission between animals and on the determinants of airborne transmission are high on the influenza research agenda.
The viruses that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza viruses (22). However, given that viruses from only four pandemics are available for analyses, we cannot exclude the possibility that a futurepandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian virus without the requirement of reassortment. Several studies have shown that reassortment events between A/H5N1 and seasonal human influenza viruses do not yield viruses that are readily transmitted between ferrets (18–20, 23). In our work, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus could change its transmissibility characteristics without any requirement for reassortment.
We chose influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 for our study because the incidence of human A/H5N1 virus infections and fatalities in Indonesia remains fairly high (12), and there are concerns that this virus could acquire molecular characteristics that would allow it to become more readily transmissible between humans and initiate a pandemic. Because no reassortants between A/H5N1 viruses and seasonal or pandemic human influenza viruses have been detected in nature and because our goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza virus to become airborne transmissible in mammals, we decided to use the complete A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus that was isolated from a human case of HPAI A/H5N1 infection.
We chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for our studies. Ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza viruses (24). After infection with human influenza A virus, ferrets develop respiratory disease and lung pathology similar to that observed in humans. Ferrets can also transmit human influenza viruses to other ferrets that serve as sentinels with or without direct contact (fig. S1) (25–27).”
Human-to-human transmission of influenza viruses can occur through direct contact, indirect contact via fomites (contaminated environmental surfaces), and/or airborne transmission via small aerosols or large respiratory droplets. The pandemic and epidemic influenza viruses that have circulated in humans throughout the past century were all transmitted via the airborne route, in contrast to many other respiratory viruses that are exclusively transmitted via contact. There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols. However, it is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols. Because we did not measure particle size during our experiments, we will use the term “airborne transmission” throughout this Report.”
“Using a combination of targeted mutagenesis followed by serial virus passage in ferrets, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus can acquiremutations that would increase the risk of mammalian transmission (34). We have previously shown that several amino acid substitutions in the RBS of the HA surface glycoprotein of A/Indonesia/5/2005 change the binding preference from the avian a-2,3–linked SA receptors to the human a-2,6–linked SA receptors (35). A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus with amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S (numbers refer to amino acid positions in the mature H5 HA protein; N, Asn; Q, Gln; L, Leu; G, Gly; S, Ser) in HA display attachment patterns similar to those of human viruses to cells of the respiratory tract of ferrets and humans (35). Of these changes, we know that together, Q222L and G224S switch the receptor binding specificity of H2 and H3 subtype influenza viruses, as this switch contributed to the emergence of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics (36). N182K has been found in a human case of A/H5N1 virus infection (37).
Our experimental rationale to obtain transmissible A/H5N1 viruses was to select a mutant A/H5N1 virus with receptor specificity for a-2,6–linked SA shed at high titers from the URT of ferrets. Therefore, we used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit (Agilent Technologies, Amstelveen, the Netherlands) to introduce amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S in the HA of wild-type (WT) A/Indonesia/5/2005, resulting in A/H5N1HA N182K, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, and A/H5N1HA N182K,Q222L,G224S. Experimental details for experiments 1 to 9 are provided in the supplementary materials (25). For experiment 1, we inoculated these mutant viruses andthe A/H5N1wildtype virus intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each virus (fig. S3). Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and virus titerswere determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify virus shedding from the ferret URT. Three animals were euthanized after day 3 to enable tissue sample collection. All remaining animals were euthanized by day 7 when the same tissue samples were taken. Virus titers were determined in the nasal turbinates, trachea, and lungs collected post-mortem from the euthanized ferrets. Throughout the duration of experiment 1, ferrets inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype virus produced high titers in nose and throat swabs—up to 10 times more than A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, which yielded the highest virus titers of all three mutants during the 7-day period (Fig. 1). However, no significant difference was observed between the virus shedding of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L, G224S or A/H5N1HA N182K during the first 3 days when six animals per group were present. Thus, of the viruses with specificity for a-2,6–linked SA, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S yielded the highest virus titers in the ferret URT (Fig. 1).
As described above, amino acid substitution E627K in PB2 is one of the most consistent host-range determinants of influenza viruses (29–31). For experiment 2 (fig. S4), we introduced E627K into the PB2 gene of A/Indonesia/5/2005 by site-directed mutagenesis and produced the recombinant virus A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. The introduction of E627K in PB2 did not significantly affect virus shedding in ferrets, because virus titers in the URT were similar to those seen in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S-inoculated animals [up to 1 × 104 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50)] (Mann-Whitney U rank-sum test, P = 0.476) (Fig. 1 and fig. S5). When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously (27), A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted (fig. S5).
Because the mutant virus harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, we designed an experiment to force the virus to adaptto replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select virus variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructedA/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus and A/H5N1wildtype virus in the ferret URT (Fig. 2 and fig. S6). In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs. The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of virus-transport medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate thenext ferret intranasally (passage 2). This procedure was repeated until passage 6.
From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi. To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise tothe nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing. Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml. The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10. We changed the source of inoculum during the course of theexperiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of viruses that were secreted from the URT. Because influenza viruses mutate rapidly, we anticipated that 10 passages would be sufficient for the virus to adapt to efficient replication in mammals.
Virus titers in the nasal turbinates of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1wildtype ranged from ~1 × 105 to 1 × 107 TCID50/gram tissue throughout 10 serial passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). In ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus, a moderate increase in virus titers in the nasal turbinates was observed as the passage number increased. These titers ranged from 1 × 104 TCID50/gram tissue at the start of the experiment to 3.2 × 105 to 1 × 106 TCID50/gram tissue in the final passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). Notably, virus titers in the nose swabs of animals inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K also increased during the successive passages, with peak virus shedding of 1 × 105 TCID50 at 2 dpi after 10 passages (Fig. 3B).These data indicate that A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was developing greater capacity to replicate in the ferret URT after repeated passage, with evidence for such adaptation becoming apparent by passage number 4. In contrast, virus titers in the nose swabs of the ferrets collected at 1 to 4 dpi throughout 10 serial passages with A/H5N1wildtype revealed no changes in patterns of virus shedding.
Passaging of influenza viruses in ferrets should result in the natural selection of heterogeneous mixtures of viruses in each animal with a variety of mutations: so-called viral quasi-species (38). The genetic composition of the viral quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform (Roche, Woerden, the Netherlands) (tables S1 and S2). The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the virus population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5% (Fig. 4 and table S1). Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all viral gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kafter passaging, except in segment 7 (tables S1 and S2). Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions.The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kwas T156A (T, Thr; A, Ala) in HA. This substitution removes a potential N-linked glycosylation site (Asn-X-Thr/Ser; X, any amino acid) in HA and was detected in 99.6% of the A/H5N1wildtype sequences after 10 passages. T156A was detected in 89% of the A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K sequences after 10 passages, and the other 11% of sequences possessed the substitution N154K, which removes the same potential N-linked glycosylation site in HA.
In experiment 4 (see supplementary materials), we investigated whether airborne-transmissible viruses were present in the heterogeneous virus population generated during virus passaging in ferrets (fig. S4). Nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were usedin transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible virus was present in the virus quasi-species. For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally: two for passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype and four for passage 10 A/H5N1HA-Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus.
The following day, a naïve recipient ferret was placed in a cage adjacent to each inoculated donor ferret. These cages are designed to prevent direct contact between animals but allow airflow from a donor ferret to a neighboring recipient ferret (fig. S1) (27). Although mutations had accumulated in the viral genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, we did not detect replicating virus upon inoculation of MDCKcells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype virus(Fig. 5, A and B). In contrast, we did detect virus in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kvirus.Three (F1 to F3) out of four (F1 to F4) naïve recipient ferrets became infected as confirmed by the presence of replicating virus in the collected nasal and throat swabs (Fig. 5, C and D). A throat-swab sample obtained from recipient ferret F2, which contained the highest virus titer among the ferrets in the first transmission experiment, was subsequently used for intranasal inoculation of two additional donor ferrets. Both of these animals, when placed in the transmission cage setup (fig. S1), again transmitted the virus to the recipient ferrets (F5 and F6) (Fig. 6, A and B). Avirus isolate was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi. The virus from F5 was inoculated intranasally into two more donor ferrets. One day later, these animals were paired with two recipient ferrets (F7 and F8) in transmission cages, one of which (F7) subsequently became infected (Fig. 6, C and D).
We used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences ofviruses recovered from the six ferrets (F1 to F3 and F5 to F7) that acquired virus via airborne transmission (Fig. 4 and table S3). All six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S,and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics. Surprisingly, only two additional amino acid substitutions, both in HA, were consistently detected in all six airborne-transmissible viruses: (i) H103Y (H, His; Y, Tyr), which forms part of the HA trimer interface, and (ii) T156A, which is proximal but not immediately adjacent to the RBS (fig. S8). Although we observed severalother mutations, their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne viruses, indicating that of the heterogeneous virus populations generated by passaging in ferrets, viruses with different genotypes were transmissible. In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible viruses because, for example, the consensus sequence of virus isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental virus isolated from F2.
Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus between mammals. The airborne-transmissible virus isolate with the least number of amino acid substitutions, compared with the A/H5N1wildtype, was recovered from ferret F5. This virus isolate had a total of nine amino acid substitutions; in addition to the three mutations that we introduced (Q222L and G224S in HA and E627K in PB2), this virus harbored H103Y and T156A in HA, H99Y and I368V (I, Ile; V, Val) in PB1, and R99K (R, Arg) and S345N in NP (table S3). Reverse genetics will be needed to identify which of the five to nine amino acid substitutions in this virus are essential to confer airborne transmission.
During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible viruses, ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation. One of eight inoculated animals died upon intranasal inoculation (Table 1). In previously published experiments, ferrets inoculated intranasally with WTA/ Indonesia/5/2005 virus at a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 showed neurological disease and/or death (39, 40). It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 virus and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans.Importantly, although the six ferrets that became infected via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment. Moreover, previous infections of humans with seasonal influenza viruses are likely to induce heterosubtypic immunity that would offer some protection against the development of severe disease (41, 42). It has been shown that mice and ferrets previously infected with an A/H3N2 virus are clinically protected against intranasal challenge infection with an A/H5N1 virus (43, 44).
After intratracheal inoculation (experiment 5; fig. S9), six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible virus F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBS died or were moribund at day 3. Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia (45), as is done for vaccination-challenge studies. At necropsy, the six ferrets revealed macroscopic lesions affecting 80 to 100% of the lung parenchyma with average virus titers of 7.9 × 106 TCID50/gram lung (fig. S10). These data are similar to those described previously for A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets (Table 1). Thus, although the airborne-transmissible virus is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the virus was not lethal after airborne transmission.”
“Although our experiments showed that A/H5N1 virus can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear. Previous data have indicated that the 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 virus transmits efficiently among ferrets and that naïve animals shed high amounts of virus as early as 1 or 2 days after exposure (27). When we compare the A/H5N1 transmission data with that of reference (27), keeping in mind that our experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative, the data shown in Figs. 5 and 6 suggest that A/H5N1 airborne transmission was less robust, with less and delayed virus shedding compared with pandemic A/H1N1 virus.
Airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs (59), but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. The mutations we identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 virus lineages (60), and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect viral fitness and virulence in birds and mammals. For pandemic preparedness, antiviral drugs and vaccine candidates against airborne-transmissible virus should be evaluated in depth. Mechanistic studies on the phenotypic traits associated with each of the identified amino acid substitutions should provide insights into the key determinants of airborne virus transmission. Our findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in humans. Identification of the minimal requirements for virus transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness (34).”
“Influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI virus infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a singlepassage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000 (63-64). Mutations of interest (N182K, Q222L, G224S in HA and E627K in PB2) were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit (Aligent, Amstelveen, The Netherlands) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Recombinant viruses were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and virus stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells as described (63).
Cells
MDCK cells were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium (EMEM, Lonza Benelux BV, Breda, the Netherlands) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS), 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2 mM glutamine, 1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate (Lonza), 10 mM Hepes (Lonza), and non-essential amino acids (MP Biomedicals Europe, Illkirch, France). 293T cells were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM, Lonza) supplemented with 10% FCS, 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 mg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1mM sodium pyruvate, and non-essential amino acids.
Virus titration in MDCK cells
Virus titrations were performed as described previously (27). Briefly, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of virus preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs.Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with 100 U/mlpenicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate, 10mM Hepes, non-essential amino acids, and 20 μg/ml trypsin (Lonza). Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of virus replication in the cells. Infectious virus titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the virus preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber (65).”
The term “Gain of Function” first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza “virus,” using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets
Most virologists say that the “coronavirus” probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the “virus” was first reported
However, a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out
The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade when the ferret influenza studies came along
From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host
Virologists regularly fiddle with “viral” genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models
Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza “viruses” and “coronaviruses”
“For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory “viruses” because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School
He added that GOF studies with those “viruses” are “a really tiny part” of virology
Perlman and his collaborators set out to study the “coronavirus” responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012
They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS
The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells and so the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4
The “virus” could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill
So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance “virulence”
The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the “virus” two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice
They did this repeatedly — 30 times and by the end of two months, the “virus” had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells
In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly
Some virologists say “viruses” are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match
The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function
Any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research
Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of “viruses” and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for “SARS-CoV” and “MERS-CoV”
Virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of “viruses” and the specifics of “virus-host” interaction
Researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA (i.e. they are synthetic lab creations)
Researchers also use targeted host or “viral” genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool
Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments:
The fisrt category is “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of “viruses” with properties that do not exist in nature
The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A “viruses” that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type
The second category deals with the generation of “viruses” that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type “viruses” but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature (which is odd considering no “viruses” have been found in nature…)
Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates (there are no natural isolates) will improve their replication in mammalian cells
The third category, which is somewhere in between the first two categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible “viruses” in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern
An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans
Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature
GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.”
In other words, they can never sequence the same “virus” every time so what they do in the lab in GoF studies is no different than how they culture and “isolate viruses” in order to sequence the genomes in the first place
A 2012 study supposedly showed that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza “virus” into an airborne spreader in mammals—and this launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency
In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 “virus” that can spread among ferrets without direct contact
Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 “virus” collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 “viruses” more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways
The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the “virus’s” HA protein, the “viral” surface molecule that attaches to host cells
The scientists created three mutant H5N1 “virus” strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes
They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 “virus”
Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” shed far more “virus” than those infected with the mutants
In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different “viral” gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein
The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a “virus” that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the “virus” did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones
Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract
This was the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid” (are we sure he wasn’t referring to the whole study?)
They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type “virus” and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs)
Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times
For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest “viruses” that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract
In other words, they completely changed the source material from tissue to nasal secretions more than halfway through the experiment
It was said that the amount of mutant “virus” found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages while “viral” titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” stayed the same
Quick Sidenote From the Supplemtary Materials:
“After inoculation with A/H5N1wildtype, virus titers in the nasal turbinates were variable but high, ranging from 1.6 x 105 to 7.9 x 106 TCID50/gram tissue (panel A), with no further increase observed with repeated passage. After inoculation with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K, virus titers in nasal turbinates averaged 1.6 x 104 in the first three passages, 2.5 x 105 in passage four to seven and 6.3 x 105 TCID50/gram tissue in the last three passages, suggestive of improved replication and virus adaptation. In the lungs, no apparent adaptation was observed for animals inoculated with either virus. Virus titers in lungs were highly variable; presumably it was a matter of chance whether the virus reached the lower airways.”
In other words, the “wildtype virus” titers remained and stayed high while the “mutant virus” started low and elevated throughout passaging yet was still underneath the amount seen in the “wildtype” strain. They also note that finding “virus” in the lungs was a “matter of chance” with either “virus.”
End Quick Sidenote.
The next step was to test whether the “viruses” produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission so four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant “virus,” and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain
Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact
The ferrets exposed to those with the wild “virus” remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant “virus” did get infected (“infected” meaning they found “viral” RNA)
Thus, a total of six ferrets became “infected” with the mutant “virus” via airborne transmission
However, the level of “viral” shedding indicated the airborne “virus” didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 “virus”
In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur (no consideration is given to the fact that the animals were caged, tortured, and experimented on)
One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne “viruses” survived
When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the “viruses” that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six “viruses:” H103Y and T156A
They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses”
In other words, once again they were unable to sequence the exact same genome in the samples from each ferret
In further steps, the researchers inoculated intratracheallysix ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible “virus;” after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund”
They stated: “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia”
Highly “pathogenic” avian influenza A/H5N1 “virus” can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”) between humans
To address the concern that the “virus” could acquire this ability under natural conditions, the researchers genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets
In other words, in order to test whether the “virus” could mutate naturally, they mutated it synthetically…
The genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets (all “viruses” aquire mutations every time they are sequenced as no “viral” genome is ever the same as the original)
None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection with the mutant A/H5N1 “viruses”
Wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the “virus” reservoir in nature
Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries
Although limited A/H5N1 “virus” transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” has not been detected
Whether this “virus” may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness
The factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza “viruses” among mammals, a trait necessary for a “virus” to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown
The “viruses” that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza “viruses”
However, given that “viruses” from only four pandemics are available for analyses, they cannot exclude the possibility that a future pandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian “virus” without the requirement of reassortment
No reassortants between A/H5N1 “viruses” and seasonal or pandemic human influenza “viruses” have been detected in nature and their goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza “virus” to become airborne transmissible in mammals
They chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for the studies as ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza “viruses”
There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols
It is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols
The researchers used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce amino acid substitutions in the HA of wild-type “virus”
For experiment 1, they inoculated these mutant “viruses” and the A/H5N1wildtype “virus” intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each “virus”
Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and “virus” titers were determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify “virus” shedding from the ferret URT
When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted
Because the mutant “virus” harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, they designed an experiment to force the “virus” to adapt to replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select “virus” variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructed A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus” and A/H5N1wildtype “virus” in the ferret URT
In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K
Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs
The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of “virus-transport” medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate the next ferret intranasally (passage 2)
This procedure was repeated until passage 6
From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi
To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise to the nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing
Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml
The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10
They changed the source of inoculum during the course of the experiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of “viruses” that were secreted from the URT
Because influenza “viruses” mutate rapidly, they anticipated (i.e.guessed arbitrarily) that 10 passages would be sufficient for the “virus” to adapt to efficient replication in mammals
The genetic composition of the “viral” quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform
The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the “virus” population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5%
Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all “viral” gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K after passaging, except in segment 7
Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions
The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was T156A
In experiment 4, nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were used in transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible “virus” was present in the “virus” quasi-species
For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally
Although mutations had accumulated in the “viral” genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, they did not detect replicating “virus” upon inoculation of MDCK cells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype “virus”
In contrast, they did detect “virus” in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus”
Three out of four naïve recipient ferrets became “infected” as confirmed by the presence of replicating “virus” in the collected nasal and throat swabs (in other words, they saw CPE in a cell culture and claimed “virus” was present)
A “virus isolate” was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi
They used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences of viruses recovered from the six ferrets that acquired “virus” via airborne transmission and all six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S, and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics
In other words, they created consensus sequencing through alignment to reference genomes using computer software and algorithms from unpurified material
They observed several other mutations for which their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne “viruses,” indicating that of the heterogeneous “virus” populations generated by passaging in ferrets, “viruses” with different genotypes were transmissible
In other words, they were unable to sequence the exact same “virus” genome every time…and if that wasn’t clear
In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible “viruses” because, for example, the consensus sequence of “virus” isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental “virus” isolated from F2
Together, they claim that these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” between mammals
During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible “viruses,” ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation
It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 “virus” and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans
Importantly, although the six ferrets that became “infected” via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment
After intratracheal (in the throat) inoculation, six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible “virus” F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBSdied or were moribund at day 3
Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of “viruses” to cause pneumonia, as is done for vaccination-challenge studies
Although the airborne-transmissible “virus” is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the “virus” was not lethal after airborne transmission
They openly admit that the route of injection and the amount of toxic culture goo injected causes the severity of disease, which does not require the “virus” as an explanation
They state that although experiments showed that A/H5N1 “virus” can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear
They pointed out that their experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative (i.e. they do not know how much “virus” is required for airborne transmission and assume it occurs via PCR results)
They airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur
The mutations they identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals
Their findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 “viruses” have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in human
Of course, the only place reassortment occurs is in a lab so they never need a host…
Identification of the minimal requirements for “virus” transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness
Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells
All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000
Mutations of interest were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit
Recombinant “viruses” were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and “virus” stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells
MDCK cells (canine) were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium supplemented with:
10% fetal calf serum (FCS)
100 IU/ml penicillin
100 μg/ml streptomycin
2 mM glutamine
1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
10 mM Hepes
Non-essential amino acids
293T cells (human embryonic kidney) were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium supplemented with:
10% FCS
100 IU/ml penicillin
100 mg/ml streptomycin
2mM glutamine
1mM sodium pyruvate
Non-essential amino acids
For “virus” titrations, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of “virus” preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs
Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with:
100 U/ml penicillin
100 μg/ml streptomycin
2mM glutamine
1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
10mM Hepes
Non-essential amino acids
20 μg/ml trypsin
Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of “virus” replication in the cells
Infectious “virus” titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the “virus” preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber
The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica. The only way the liquid poison can potentially harm one is through injection. Cell cultured soup is not transmitted through the air nor is it infectious and/or contagious. In other words, GOF studies are not creating “viruses” in the modern sense of the word and can only be considered as such if viewed through the original Latin lens.
What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice. There will be figureheads who appear to be on the side of truth, questioning the natural existence of “SARS-COV-2,” challenging the safety of the vaccines, promoting alternative therapies, etc. who will also continue to push the idea that “viruses” exist and can be manipulated in a lab. These people are the Pied Pipers leading those who are going astray back into the fold. There is no need to create a “virus” bioweapon when all that was needed to control the masses is a PCR test and some well-designed propaganda.
To anyone who may have been taken in by this GOF/Bioweapon narrative, remember that there is no evidence of any purified and isolated “viral” particles ever coming directly from human samples that are then proven pathogenic in a natural way. Virology does not dispute this. If they can not find a “virus” in nature, they can not create one in a lab. That is truly all you need to know.
Hold the line, hold the line
Won’t let them steal our sovereignty with their lies
This is spiritual warfare
Between the light and darkness
It’s an empirical nightmare
What they’re tryna inject inside us
We’re not signing up
For their experiment
Try to coerce and force us
But they’ll never penetrate our temples cause we
Hold the line, hold the line
Won’t let them steal our sovereignty with their lies, so we
Hold the line, hold the line
We stand together and we do not comply, yeah we hold the line
We are the doctors and nurses
Sleepless nights and overtime on the front lines
We are police in the cities
And firefighters, we’re protecting the families
Kicked us to the curb for the shot we refuse
It’s our body and our right to choose
It don’t matter, we will weather this storm
Cause God is with us in this battle, come and join us as we
Hold the line, hold the line
Won’t let them steal our sovereignty with their lies, so we
Hold the line, hold the line
We stand together and we do not comply, yeah we hold the line
We hold the line in love, hold the line
Show ‘em what we’re made of, hold the line
Hold the line, hold the line
Won’t let them steal our sovereignty with their lies, so we
Hold the line
To the parents of the children
We’re sending hope to you
Pull ‘em out of the system
We’ll build a better school
Hold the line
Is Disney grooming your children? In this special report we look into the “Secret Gay Agenda” of Disney employees to indoctrinate your children. Also Governor Ron DeSantis is fighting back!
‘Defeat the Mandates Coast to Coast’, Next Stop: Los Angeles, CA, April 10, 2022
‘Defeat the Mandates Coast to Coast’, Next Stop: Los Angeles, CA, April 10, 2022
Thankfully some mandates are dropping across the country, but there are still vaccine mandates that persist in schools, colleges, businesses, hospitals, and corporations. Restrictions on doctors who treat COVID, censorship by Big Tech, the unnecessary COVID-19 vaccination of children, silencing of scientific debate, and the extension of the Emergency Powers Act beyond March 1st for the coronavirus pandemic are a few of the main concerns.
In California, an aggressive slate of COVID-19-related bills—mandating vaccines for children and all employees, and allowing 12 to 17-year-olds to get the vaccine without parental consent—remain under consideration by the California state assembly.
Starting at 12:00 noon we will hold a day-long rally in the heart of Los Angeles at Grand Park where a wide range of featured guests including prominent doctors, recording artists, actors, journalists and premier thought leaders will give a series of inspiring talks and musical performances.
Dr. Dolores Cahill is an Inventor and has been granted and licensed patents in Europe, USA, and worldwide with applications in improving the early accurate diagnosis of disease (autoimmune diseases & cancer). Since 2020 she has been working to defend our inalienable rights and freedoms. She is investigating the aspects of the current covid drama which led to the founding of the World Doctor Alliance and the World Freedom Alliance.
The interviews discuss Dr. Cahill’s career and how it has been affected by the established power structure and the methods used to quell dissidents and sane critical thinking.
Lockstep Crises and the Controlled Society
Dolores Cahill says that most crises such as food shortages, shockingly high prices, climate change, inflation, never-ending virus pandemics (including adverse reactions to poisonous injections), and wars between nations are different ways for the power to control society by using fear and misleading narratives.
The power creates a parallel societal and economic structure with its own rules, laws, and functions. This structure – by using the crises – seeks to undermine people’s natural rights and freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom to travel, work and meet, and maintain bodily integrity. This negative process has no end. Cahill says that the current agenda starting in 2020 will end in 2025.
Their aim is to create new generations that have no experience, knowledge, or memory of natural free life. They can’t halt their agenda or else they will be held accountable. So what we must expect are new planned “pandemics” as soon as this autumn. These coming attempts aim to further isolate individuals and families and shorten their life expectancy. Everything will be taxed and they will use taxation in order to make and keep you poor and dependent.
Dolores Cahill experienced how her projects were hit by powers that tried to strangle their enterprises by taking down their websites and social media accounts as well as Paypal. She also revealed – in another meeting – how an insurance company stopped an airplane provider from leasing out their planes to Freedom Travel Alliance.
Step back – Don’t conform – Walk away – Create strong communities
The most important thing for people to do is to step back and unplug from the propaganda machinery for a while and start regarding the world scene as something theatrical played out through mass media and social media. Cahill mentions how an individual can create income from a simple online information channel.
What the powers structures seem to fear the most is people all over the world taking control och their own lives and creating self-sustainable and strong communities.
Cahill says people generally are poisoned by chemicals and toxic metals from food, beverages, and injections and need to detox in order to recapture their natural health.
Knowledge about the elite powers and their agenda is an extremely important parameter in order for people to take back their power. Attention and awareness about the theatrical play are crucial elements for success. People need to understand they are dealing with grossly criminal individuals in power.
Cahill says, that stepping back and away from the control grid decreases the fear of the attempts to control our lives and behaviors. People will demand accountability, and start new media outlets and information sources, new laws, a new money system, and new regulations. They will say no to disinformation and propaganda. They will find new ways to get an income. This means less or no dependence on the controllers and the controlled society.
Every individual need to understand that the control society once in place will give no room for natural freedom for their kids in the generations to come. So everyone needs to start dedicating one hour a day to make sure we all have a bright future. Think and act locally.
It’s not even necessary to fully investigate the current criminal and corrupt system. It’s better to build a new more healthy system, she says. Bartering is a good example. It’s legal. Cahill says that the money you have on your account is really your invested time, productivity, and genius.
This also means that we should think more carefully about where we spend our money. We should only give our money to other entities that respect our freedom, health, and integrity. These entities represent everything from banks to coffee shops. Don’t go to companies that demand face masks or injections etcetera.
Many individuals together and small communities can do this if they organize and help each other. There is space for innovations and creativity. In just a generation things can turn better, she says.
Dolores Cahill (Profdolorescahill.com) is active in or supporting many projects aiming to build a better society:
Torbjorn Sassersson (Sweden) is the founder and editor in chief. He works together with Sanja R. Juric in the editorial office and Aga Wilson with Aga Wilson Show.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Pfizer hired about 600 additional full-time employees to process adverse event reports during the three months following authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine, with plans to hire 1,800 more by June 2021, newly released documents reveal.
Pfizer hired about 600 additional full-time employees to process adverse event reports during the three months following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of its COVID-19 vaccine, newly released documents reveal.
According to the documents, Pfizer said, “More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.”
The information was contained in a 10,000-page document cache released April 1 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and made public as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The latest revelations appeared in a document, “Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports” of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, highlighting such adverse events identified through Feb. 28, 2021.
The document was previously released in November 2021, but was partially redacted. The redactions included the number of employees Pfizer hired and/or was planning to hire.
According to the unredacted document released April 1:
“Pfizer has also taken a multiple actions [sic] to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports. This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues.
“To date, Pfizer has onboarded approximately 600 additional full-time employees (FTEs).
“More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.”
The unredacted version also revealed the number of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine doses shipped worldwide between December 2020 and February 2021:
“It is estimated that approximately 126,212,580 doses of BNT162b2 [the Pfizer EUA vaccine] were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.”
The number of shipped doses previously was redacted.
“The rollout of the Pfizer vaccine has led to an unprecedented number of adverse events reported — 158,000 adverse events in the first two-plus months of the rollout means that the rate of reported AE [adverse events] was approximately 1:1000, with many of the AEs graded as serious. This is based on a denominator of 125,000,000 vaccines distributed.
“It is no wonder that an army of 1,800 individuals was needed to process all of the information.”
Hooker noted the total number (1,205,755) of COVID vaccine adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 25, 2022, now eclipses the total number (930,952) of adverse events reported in the 32-year history of the database.
Dr. Madhava Setty, a board-certified anesthesiologist and senior science editor for The Defender, previously reported on the same Pfizer document, before the unredacted version was released.
“In that piece, I alluded to Pfizer’s admission that they needed more staff to process all of the adverse events being reported to them,” Setty said.
“It seems this document has now been updated. 600 FTEs [full-time employees]! … I wonder how many extra people the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Protection] has hired? Given how they are operating, I would say zero.”
Pfizer downplayed adverse reactions in request for full FDA license
The April 1 document release also included “request for priority review” — the documentation Pfizer in May 2021 submitted to the FDA for full licensure of its Comirnaty COVID vaccine.
In this document, Pfizer described its vaccine as fulfilling an “unmet medical need,” claiming:
“Mass immunization with a safe and effective vaccine against COVID-19 can dramatically alter the trajectory of the pandemic.
“According to policy briefing by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation published on 31 March 2021, COVID-19 remains a leading cause of death in the US with up to 100,000 additional deaths projected in the US between March and July 2021, many of which can likely be prevented with COVID-19 vaccination.”
Pfizer expressed “concerns” about lifting COVID-related measures, such as lockdowns, on the basis that the lifting of such restrictions would “counteract the impacts of this vaccination effort.”
“Vaccination against COVID-19 began with EUA/conditional approvals in December 2020, in a phased rollout defined by national/regional guidance.
“However, there continue to be concerning trends that may counteract the impacts of this vaccination effort, including:
“[L]imitations in access to obtaining a vaccine due to infrastructure challenges (ie, clinic and appointment capacity and systems)
“[I]ncreasing viral transmission fueled by relaxed compliance with mitigations as the pandemic surpasses the 1-year mark (ie, masks, physical distancing, limiting travel)
“[I]ncreasing circulation of emerging variants of concern (which are currently driving continued spread of viral infection in Europe despite extensive mitigation mandates).”
Pfizer justified its request for full licensure of its COVID vaccine on the following basis:
“A vaccine program must be implemented expediently and rapidly expanded to have a significant impact on the pandemic course.
“Licensure of BNT162b2 is likely to enhance vaccine uptake by facilitating supply of vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech directly to pharmacies and healthcare providers/facilities.
“The greatest impact of BNT162b2 licensure may be direct supply to healthcare providers who serve vulnerable populations such as elderly patients and those who live in rural and underserved communities (ie, individuals who might be unable to navigate the challenges of securing vaccine access using the systems in place for EUA).
“Expansion of vaccine via licensure would ultimately improve the prospect of achieving population herd immunity to bring the pandemic under control.”
The same document glossed over the adverse effects for which the company previously admitted it hired a significant number of new employees to process, claiming:
“Based on Phase 1 data from the FIH Study BNT162-01, BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 [various vaccines tested during the trial period] were safe and well-tolerated in healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age, with no unanticipated safety findings.
“Phase 2/3 safety data were generally concordant with safety data in Phase 1 of the study, both overall and with regard to younger and older participants.”
This is despite hard figures regarding adverse reactions provided later in the document:
“Through 28 February 2021 (data lock point aligned with Pharmacovigilance Plan), there were a total of 42,086 case reports (25,379 medically confirmed and 16,707 non-medically confirmed) containing 158,893 events. Cases were received from 63 countries.
“Consistent with what was seen in Phase 2/3 of Study C4591001, most reported AEs were in System Organ Classes (SOCs) with reactogenicity events: general disorders and administration site conditions (51,335), nervous system disorders (25,957), musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (17,283), and gastrointestinal disorders (14,096).
“Post-authorization data have also informed the addition of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the experience of reactogenicity to the product labeling.”
Release of Pfizer vaccine documents still in progress
Many of the documents released as part of the April 1 tranche appear to include more mundane information and data related to the Pfizer COVID vaccine trials.
These documents include:
Peer-reviewed scientific articles funded by Pfizer-BioNTech, titled “Phase 1/2 Study of COVID-19 RNA Vaccine” (August 2020) and “Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RANA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2020.These studies supported “further evaluation of this mRNA vaccine candidate” despite the apparent appearance of serious adverse effects in one of the 12 participants receiving 30 μg and 100 μg doses of the BNT162b1 candidate vaccine during the trial phase. This, however, does not appear to have been the final vaccine formulation that ultimately received an EUA.
A questionnaire that vaccine trial participants were required to complete, along with a study book displaying the information to be collected from those participating.
Documentsoutlining the randomization scheme used for identifying vaccine trial participants and those who received doses of the vaccine or a placebo.
Documentslisting anonymized demographic characteristics of vaccine trial participants.
An anonymized listing of important protocol deviations.
Consent forms that vaccine trial participants were asked to complete, as well as other related documents submitted by Pfizer for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, and information regarding institutions participating in the IRB process.
Tapping the brakes on Ray Kurzweil’s techno-prophecy, Elon Musk recently predicted a “smoother” transition to the extinction of legacy humans. It’s cool, though, cuz free speech and Ukraine satellites and stuff. Besides, who cares about a transhuman Fourth Industrial Revolution so long as it happens slowly?
Either way, you have to wonder where Musk gets these zany ideas.
Ray Kurzweil, a top Google R&D director, famously predicts that around 2045 the converging fields of genomics, robotics, nanotech, and artificial intelligence will reach an inflection point. As he wrote in his 2005 book The Singularity Is Near:
[W]ithin several decades, information-based technologies will encompass all human knowledge and proficiency, ultimately including the pattern-recognition powers, problem-solving skills, and emotional and moral intelligence of the human brain itself. … The Singularity will represent the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots. There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality.
Following the “law of accelerating returns,” this Singularity will see machines self-improve so quickly, they’ll abruptly become incomprehensible to their human creators—and therefore completely our of our control—forcing us to fuse with them like barnacles on a ship hull.
That is, if they don’t just kill us first.
Because acceleration toward the Singularity will be exponential, according to Kurzweil, it’ll be as if the transformation happened all at once. Whereas most legacy humans are horrified by the prospect, Kurzweil honestly believes rapid assimilation to this nanobot borg will be the best thing to happen to us since sliced bread.
Being slightly more sane, at least in public, Musk has long voiced concerns that an artificial intelligence explosion could mean our extinction. His view is deeply informed by the transhumanist Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom, whose 2014 book Superintelligenceemphasizes how unpredictable this situation really is:
Expert opinions about the future of AI vary wildly. There is disagreement about timescales as well as about what forms AI might eventually take. Predictions about the future development of artificial intelligence, one study noted, “are as confident as they are diverse.”
With that diversity in mind, Bostrom works out every possible way an artificial superintelligence could quietly outpace humanity, gain a decisive strategic advantage, and then consume everything in its path:
The treacherous turn … When the AI gets sufficiently strong—without warning or provocation—it strikes, forms a singleton, and begins directly to optimize the world according to the criteria implied by its final values.
In other words, humans are turned into robot fuel. Elon Musk takes this idea very seriously, but that hasn’t stopped him from attempting to develop strong AI.
You can’t stop progress, man.
When asked for his take on the Singularity in a March 26 interview with Business Insider, Musk offered a curiously blasé response:
I’m not sure if there is a very sharp boundary. I think it is much smoother. … We’ve already amplified our human brains massively with computers. It could be an interesting ratio to roughly calculate the amount of compute that is digital, divided by the amount of compute that is biological. And how does that ratio change over time. With so much digital compute happening so fast, that ratio should be increasing rapidly.
To put it another way, as our minds are absorbed by machines, our brains are being digitized. When asked if one day we could “download our human brain capacity” into Tesla’s new humanoid robot, Optimus, “which would be a different way of eternal life,” Musk replied:
Yes, we could download the things that we believe make ourselves unique…as far as preserving our memories, our personality, I think we could do that.
At one point, Musk’s interviewer lost his grip and went full on fanboy. “You have solved so many problems of mankind and presented so many solutions,” he gushed. But what about increased longevity?
That would cause asphyxiation of society because the truth is, most people don’t change their mind. They just die. So if they don’t die, we will be stuck with old ideas and society wouldn’t advance.
A few days later, Musk took to Twitter to remind the world we need more babies, presumably to jab Neuralink chips into like squalling macaques.
A few days after that, Musk bought nearly ten percent of Twitter’s stock, making him the company’s largest stakeholder. Our hero! Now the masses can discuss post-op tranny suicides and racially insensitive crime stats as they upload their personalities to the borg.
Meanwhile, Tesla is developing an army of robot slaves to place in people’s homes next year, where they can do chores and upload their masters’ every thought and action. The company is already filling the highways with electric self-driving cars—from the Western world to China—simultaneously reducing carbon emissions and human autonomy.
All the while, these bots will be gathering real-world data. Perhaps Musk can add confidential Twitter data to the massive influx.
This flood of physical, digital, and psychological information will soon pour into Tesla’s data centers to train the company’s already impressive AI systems. As Tesla’s algorithms come to resemble the workings of the human brain—or rather, some autistic alien brain—Musk hopes to make the breakthrough to artificial general intelligence, aka the Super Computer God.
Foreseeing this digital deity’s supreme power, Musk hopes his Neuralink brain chips will allow us to interface with the divinized Machine.
The Singularity may be coming on slowly, but Elon Musk is moving fast.
As the Great Reset unfolds, it’s fitting that the world’s richest man is also a transhumanist celebrity. Robots, sentient AI, bionic brain chips, fully immersive virtual reality, space colonization, simulation theory—I’m struggling to think of one tenet of transhumanism that Musk hasn’t brought to public consciousness.
It’s impossible to know where his head is at, but piecing together Musk’s sound bytes and tweets, one hears echoes of the Carnegie Mellon roboticist, Hans Moravec. In fact, the simulation theory—that cornball, screen-junkie delusion that we actually live in a computer simulation, which Musk has repeated publicly many times—has its origins in Moravec.
Without a doubt, Moravec’s lucid, transhuman vision had a profound impact on Bostrom and Kurzweil, who in turn influenced Musk. Like a prophet by the waters of Babylon, Moravec spelled out our fate in his 1988 book Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence:
What awaits is not oblivion but rather a future which, from our present vantage point, is best described by the words “postbiological” or even “supernatural.” It is a world in which the human race has been swept away by the tide of cultural change, usurped by its own artificial progeny.
Out with the old, in with the new!
The ultimate consequences are unknown, though many intermediate steps are not only predictable but have already been taken. Today, our machines are still simple creations, requiring the parental care and hovering attention of any newborn, hardly worthy of the word “intelligent.” But within the next century they will mature into entities as complex as ourselves, and eventually into something transcending everything we know—in whom we can take pride when they refer to themselves as our descendants.
Without shedding a single tear, these robotic “mind children” will replace us.
Unleashed from the plodding pace of biological evolution, the children of our minds will be free to grow to confront immense and fundamental challenges in the larger universe. We humans will benefit for a time from their labors, but sooner or later, like natural children, they will seek their own fortunes while we, their aged parents, silently fade away. Very little need be lost in this passing of the torch—it will be in our artificial offspring’s power, and to their benefit, to remember almost everything about us, even, perhaps, the detailed workings of individual minds.
Imagine becoming a digital wraith, left to float around a data cloud for all eternity. And you thought mass immigration and trans kids were bad ideas.
Transhumanism is a dreamworld where technology is the highest power. In recent decades, this techno-religion has spread from the intellectual fringe to the world’s wealthiest men, and by extension, the most powerful corporations. Klaus Schwab, Kai-Fu Lee, Eric Schmidt,Mark Zuckerberg,Jeff Bezos—all of them offer transhuman fantasies, each with its particular emphasis.
According to his own hype, Elon Musk is making these dreams come true, from sentient robots to AI-powered brain chips. Musk is the embodiment of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a close partner to China, and arguably the greatest benefactor of the Great Reset. In other words, he’s no friend to legacy humans.
Yes, yes—a little “free speech” is great news in the short-term. Now conservatives can be smartasses on Twitter again. I can’t wait. But where is this tech revolution ultimately going?
When Musk says we’re already cyborgs, perpetually attached our smartphones, he’s not wrong. Rather than waving pompoms because the world’s richest transhumanist bought a stake in Twitter, otherwise sane observers should ask why we’re all plugging into the corporate borg.
Ever since the beginning of the Covid saga, people have speculated about a possible link between increased illness and the rollout of 5G networks around the world.
And while “Covid-19” has hardly been the apocalyptic death storm that the media made it out to be, there have been excess deaths recorded in certain areas. The question is: are the excess deaths solely attributable to “pandemic” measures (i.e. lockdowns, masks, toxic medications, etc) or did electromagnetic radiation have a more significant role to play?
And if so, was it due to 5G or the use of some other covert, as yet unknown, technology? That is what this investigation aims to uncover.
This article will also focus mostly on excess mortality. For, if there were no excess deaths, it would be difficult to argue that there was some kind of EMF (electromagnetic fields) weapon being deployed as that would surely increase deaths above the regular threshold. In certain areas, in certain countries, there undoubtedly were excess deaths, and, as this article will demonstrate, these can be explained without the need for a new, infectious pathogen (as I have argued elsewhere).
In fact, there are several independent lines of evidence to suggest that it was not “Sars-Cov-2”, or any alleged virus for that matter, that caused these excess deaths. While the reasons advanced by other researchers as to the real cause are all valid – and probably, to some extent, all true – in this article, I argue for the EMF cause.
I am simply making the case for EMFs, in one capacity or another, having contributed to excess mortality throughout the Covid period. I will also argue that EMFs were responsible for some of the more peculiar symptoms expressed by so-called “Covid” patients.
Also, when I refer to “EMFs” (electromagnetic fields/electromagnetic radiation), I am not referring solely to 5G (although that is important), I am also willing to consider other, covert EMF influences, possibly in the form of weaponry of some kind. And as we shall see, there is evidence to suggest that this type of weaponry exists and has been used.
Make no mistake, much of what I propose here is speculation. However, it is argued speculation, with evidence to back it up.
Evidence for “Other Factors” Contributing to Excess Mortality During the Covid Saga
Here we will examine four lines of evidence that clearly suggest there were other, possibly unknown, factors causing increased ill health during the Covid period. There is more that could be discussed here but for the sake of keeping this article to a readable length, I have chosen just four.
1. The Testimony of Dr Cameron Kyle-Sidell
Early on during the Covid pandemic, a New York doctor named Cameron Kyle-Sidell posted a video on YouTube where he revealed some shocking information about the nature of “Covid-19” and the standard of care that all hospitals in the US were working under.
The video was removed from YouTube (who would have guessed?) but you can still view it here on Bitchute.
Dr Kyle-Sidell is an E.R and critical care doctor working in New York City (Brooklyn to be exact). His testimony was posted online in early April 2020. As the original video was taken down by YouTube, I couldn’t pinpoint the exact date of publishing, but it was likely posted around the 6th.
Dr Kyle-Sidell begins his statement rather harrowingly:
“Nine days ago I opened an intensive care unit to care for the sickest COVID positive patients in the city, and in these nine days I’ve seen things I’ve never seen before.”
This should already give us cause for concern. An experienced critical care doctor seeing things “he’s never seen before”? If Covid-19 were a typical viral pneumonia (AKA a cold), then he surely would have seen it before, countless times in fact. So we can already be certain that there is something different going on here.
And that, in fact, is exactly what Dr. Sidell himself asserts:
“COVID-19 lung disease, as far as I can see, is not a pneumonia and should not be treated as one.”
He then goes on to comment on what he thinks may be the real cause of the condition (emphasis added):
“Rather, it appears as some kind of viral induced disease, most resembling high altitude sickness. It is as if tens of thousands of my fellow New Yorkers are on a plane at 30,000 feet in the cabin pressure is slowly being let out. These patients are slowly being starved of oxygen.”
So Dr Sidell still claims the bizarre condition to be “viral induced”, but let’s face it, his medical training combined with the Wuhan virus propaganda would compel him to do so. What he says next is more interesting for he compares his patients’ condition to high altitude sickness and claims they are being starved of oxygen. Keep this in mind as we move forward.
Dr Sidell goes on to stress the fact that the use of ventilators is the incorrect way to treat such a condition.
“I fear that we are using a false paradigm to treat a new disease…”
He then makes the bold suggestion that ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome), reported as being caused by “Covid-19”, is actually being caused by the use of ventilators.
“…the ARDS that we are seeing, that the whole world is seeing, may be nothing more than lung injury caused by the ventilator.”
Dr Sidell says a lot more in his testimony, I have just pulled out some key extracts so as to keep this section concise. However, feel free to watch the full video yourself.
Here are the key takeaways from Dr Sidell’s testimony:
Patients were being admitted to Dr Sidell’s Covid ward with symptoms that he had never seen before.
The symptoms these patients were experiencing (alleged to be “Covid-19”) were not characteristic of a typical viral pneumonia, but rather something more akin to high altitude sickness, causing oxygen deprivation.
Ventilators were the incorrect treatment for such a condition and were likely doing more harm than good. This last point is highly significant, for it means that hospitals may have intentionally been directed to use ventilators precisely to increase “Covid-19” death rates. In fact, later on, evidence did come out suggesting that ventilators were ineffective and harmful. In fact, according to the above-cited study, “88% of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation died, including 97% of those aged >65”.
It is the first and second point that interests us most here. In other words, some patients in the New York City area (and possibly elsewhere) were exhibiting symptoms foreign to anything regularly observed by experienced doctors and this condition resembled high altitude sickness.
As it turns out, this strange condition can be rationalized by examining the effects of certain electromagnetic frequencies. We will explore this later in the article.
And there is something else to note. It is highly relevant that Dr Sidell observed this strange high altitude sickness-like condition in New York City, for, as we shall see, at one point during the pandemic, NYC had by far the highest Covid-19 death rate, indicating that something strange was happening there that may not have been happening elsewhere.
This anomaly in NYC was also reported by Dr Denis Rancourt, whose research we will now examine.
2. The Research of Dr Denis Rancourt
Dr Denis Rancourt is a Canadian physicist, with highly impressive academic credentials. He has written a number of papers concerning Covid-19 excess mortality in various countries around the world and his findings are rather illuminating.
His first paper concerning this phenomenon was published on June 2nd 2020 titled “All-cause mortality during COVID-19 – No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response”.
In the abstract of the paper, he states that
“The latest data of all-cause mortality by week does not show a winter-burden mortality that is statistically larger than for past winters. There was no plague. However, a sharp “COVID peak” is present in the data, for several jurisdictions in Europe and the USA.”
It’s this sharp peak that is most interesting, for, as Rancourt notes, this is an anomaly, never having occurred before in the majority of jurisdictions; the data is simply not consistent with a viral cause (the same conclusion was reached by another team of researchers whose research we will analyse later).
Rancourt hypothesizes the anomalous “COVID peak” to be a signature of mass homicide by government response. In other words, according to Rancourt, the original sharp increase in deaths in various areas in the US and EU was a direct result of pandemic measures, including the use of ventilators.
However, important to note here is that the “COVID peak” in the USA arises from certain hot spots, and New York City is the main one. In fact, New York City’s “COVID Peak” is virtually off the charts (see the below graph taken from Rancourt’s paper).
“Figure 8: All-cause mortality by week for NYC, starting in 2013, in black. The red vertical line indicates the date at which the WHO declared the COVID-19 pandemic. The grey line is simply the same data on a vertically expanded and shifted scale, for visualization.”
So here we can clearly see an anomalous increase in all-cause mortality in NYC beginning just before Dr Sidell posts his video testifying to the fact that his patients are experiencing symptoms he’s never seen that are entirely uncharacteristic of any viral pneumonia. Coincidence? I think not.Rancourt’s next paper, co-written with Marine Baudin and Jérémie Mercier, titled “Evaluation of the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 in France, from all-cause mortality 1946-2020” was published on the 20th October 2020. In the paper, the researchers analyse all-cause mortality in France, with a focus once again on the strange “COVID Peak”.In the abstract the researcher state that
“We prove that the “COVID-peak” feature that is present in the all-cause mortality data of certain mid-latitude Northern hemisphere jurisdictions, including France, cannot be a natural epidemiological event occurring in the absence of a large non-pathogenic perturbation.”
The conclusion they reach is that the “COVID peak” was artificial, i.e., caused by deliberate intervention rather than the result of some naturally occurring, novel respiratory virus. The researchers note several reasons for this conclusion, one of which is that the COVID peak
“is absent in many jurisdictions (34 of the USA States have no “COVID-peak”).”
This is highly anomalous, for if there were a novel virus going around, we’d expect to see some level of consistency with regards to the rise in all-cause mortality in different states (and indeed, different countries). Instead what we see is huge increases in all-cause mortality in certain jurisdictions (e.g. NYC) and nothing in others.
Although arrived at differently, Rancourt’s conclusion and Dr Sidell’s are the same – if something new is killing people, it’s not a novel viral pneumonia.
Rancourt & Co’s latest paper dealing with excess mortality is titled “Nature of the COVID-era public health disaster in the USA, from all-cause mortality and socio-geo-economic and climatic data.”
In this paper, the researchers seek to investigate why the USA suffered a sustained, exceedingly large mortality during the Covid period, while Canada and Western European countries did not. Once again, their research indicates that a viral pandemic did not occur (emphasis added):
“The behaviour of the USA all-cause mortality by time (week, year), by age group, by sex, and by state is contrary to pandemic behaviour caused by a new respiratory disease virus for which there is no prior natural immunity in the population. Its seasonal structure (summer maxima), age-group distribution (young residents), and large state-wise heterogeneity are unprecedented and are opposite to viral respiratory disease behaviour, pandemic or not.”
Rancourt & Co conclude that government-imposed measures combined with societal risk factors (obesity, poverty, etc) were responsible for the excess mortality. While I absolutely agree with their findings, I think they may have missed another, important contributing factor: EMFs.
But that’s not all. Rancourt & Co found something else which is highly relevant to Dr. Sidell’s statement:
“We also find a large COVID-era USA pneumonia epidemic that is not mentioned in the media or significantly in the scientific literature, which was not adequately addressed. Many COVID-19-assigned deaths may be misdiagnosed bacterial pneumonia deaths.”
In other words, cases of “pneumonia” increased, but it wasn’t treated properly and it wasn’t being caused by a novel virus. This finding is similar to what Dr Sidell observed, only he referred to cases of “high altitude sickness” (rather than pneumonia). In each case, it is the lungs being affected and it is not hard to see how some kind of novel EMF-induced lung disorder could have been mislabelled as merely “pneumonia”.
3. The Research of Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Kohnlein
The next line of evidence we will examine is that of the research of journalist Torsten Engelbrecht and physician, Claus Kohnlein.
On the 1st of October, the two researchers co-authored an article titled “COVID-19 (excess) mortalities: viral cause impossible—drugs with key role in about 200,000 extra deaths in Europe and the US alone”, in which they reach a similar conclusion to Dr Rancourt – excess mortality was not caused by a novel virus.
Engelbrecht and Kohnlein focused their analysis mostly on EU countries, noting that most of the countries reporting excess mortality instituted stringent lockdowns (a total contradiction of the virus hypothesis). In their analysis, they highlight the same, anomalous “COVID peak” uncovered by Rancourt & Co.
“Z-score for various European countries, Dec. 2019 – Sept. 2020”
But it’s not only this anomalous “COVID peak” (which occurred outside the regular flu season), they also note the fact that neighbouring countries often exhibited a completely different pattern of excess mortality. For example, Belgium had a rather noticeably peak while Germany (its neighbour), did not.
With regards to the viral theory, this kind of wildly inconsistent pattern of excess mortality simply does not make sense.
The conclusion reached by Engelbrecht and Kohnlein is that the “COVID peaks” were caused by the increased use of highly toxic medications.
“Highly toxic and also potentially lethal drugs were used excessively, especially in all of the above-mentioned countries with excess mortality, both experimentally and off-label, meaning that the drugs were used outside of their regulatory approval—and this in people, most of whom were old and had serious illnesses, before being tested “positive” for COVID-19.”
Their article is persuasive and I agree with their conclusions. However, once again, their conclusions do not rule out a contributing EMF-related cause.
4. Wildly Inconsistent Covid-19 Death Rates
Finally, the official COVID death data, as recorded by the WHO, provides yet another line of evidence to suggest that any recorded excess mortality was not due to a novel virus.
For example, take a look at the graph below created by Andrew Mather, a British mathematician in September 2020.
Covid-19 deaths by country per 100m population (Sept. 2020).
The graph shows the number of recorded COVID deaths in different countries, normalised to account for the difference in population sizes. Once again, the data is highly anomalous. New York City has by far the highest COVID death rate, higher than any other country in the world at that time! Belgium, Peru, the UK and Spain are also high on the list, while African countries, South East Asia and Japan barely feature.
So either, we’re dealing with a far deadlier virus in New York City, Western Europe and parts of South America, or there’s another factor at play.
Let’s summarise our findings thus far:
Shortly after the WHO declared a pandemic, an experienced New York City doctor came forward explaining that his so-called “COVID” patients were not suffering from a typical viral pneumonia, but were instead showing signs of something akin to high altitude sickness.
Dr Denis Rancourt and his co-researchers analysed all-cause mortality in various countries and jurisdictions, reaching the conclusion that a pandemic did not occur. They noted an anomalous “COVID peak” which was especially prominent in New York City.
Journalist Torsten Engelbrecht and physician, Dr Claus Kohnlein analyzed European mortality data and came to the exact same conclusion – the data simply did not support the virus theory.
Six months into the Covid “pandemic”, Covid death rates were differing wildly across different countries and jurisdictions. New York City had by far the highest death rate, more than any other country in the world. The data, once again, did not fit a viral cause and instead pointed to an alternate factor at play, localised to NYC and possibly some other countries.
In the next part of this investigation, we’ll build a case for that “other factor” having been EMF-related and likely linked to the 5G rollout.
Symptoms of “Covid-19” Related to EMF Exposure
In this section, we will examine a groundbreaking study published in September of 2021. The study, published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, is titled “Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G”.
The title says it all, for the paper presents a wide range of evidence pointing to a connection between what has been called “Covid-19” and EMF exposure, including 5G.
For anyone unaware of the harms caused by EMF exposure, I suggest reading my two previous articles dealing with this topic, as they provide an overview of the evidence linking EMF exposure to various chronic illnesses as well as environmental devastation.
In order to keep this section short, we’ll dive straight into the aforementioned paper. Here it is worth quoting the study at length. The researchers begin by noting that
“There is a large body of peer reviewed literature, since before World War II, on the biological effects of WCR [wireless communications radiation] that impact many aspects of our health. In examining this literature, we found intersections between the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 and detrimental bioeffects of WCR exposure. Here, we present the evidence suggesting that WCR has been a possible contributing factor exacerbating COVID-19.”
In other words, these researchers found that reported symptoms of Covid-19 were also symptoms of WCR exposure. The researchers go on to summarise some of the epidemiological evidence linking the 5G rollout to the Covid-19 “outbreak”.
“COVID-19 began in Wuhan, China in December 2019, shortly after city-wide 5G had “gone live,” that is, become an operational system, on October 31, 2019. COVID-19 outbreaks soon followed in other areas where 5G had also been at least partially implemented, including South Korea, Northern Italy, New York City, Seattle, and Southern California. In May 2020, Mordachev [4] reported a statistically significant correlation between the intensity of radiofrequency radiation and the mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in 31 countries throughout the world. During the first pandemic wave in the United States, COVID-19 attributed cases and deaths were statistically higher in states and major cities with 5G infrastructure as compared with states and cities that did not yet have this technology [5].”
Here are some maps that I compiled (not from the paper quoted above) showing, visually, the Covid-5G association.
Note that New York City features on the list of areas where, according to the researchers, “5G had been at least partially implemented”. We can now note the following about NYC:
The “COVID peak” was “off the charts” compared to other areas in the US and the COVID death rate was abnormally high.
So-called “COVID-19” patients there suffered from some unknown condition akin to high altitude sickness.
A 5G network had been at least partially implemented shortly before the COVID “outbreak” occurred.
The researchers go on to present the following table, showing a clear relationship between the effects of WCR (Wireless Communications Radiation) exposure and various symptoms associated with “COVID-19”.
Table reproduced from Rubik & Brown, 2021.
They then conclude by summing up the known effects of WCR exposure and how they relate to COVID-19 (emphasis added):
“Specifically, evidence presented here supports a premise that WCR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence by (1) causing morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that may be contributing to hypercoagulation; (2) impairing microcirculation and reducing erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplifying immune dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increasing cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals exacerbating vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increasing intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsening heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.”
What interests us most here is point number 2 (italicised/bolded). The researchers claim that WCR can impair microcirculation and reduce erythrocyte and haemoglobin levels, exacerbating hypoxia. Another name for “hypoxia” is “altitude sickness” (i.e. a severe lack of oxygen). In other words, here we have a potential explanation for the “high altitude sickness” like condition described by Dr Sidell in NYC.
Note also that some of the COVID-19 related manifestations listed in the table such as organ failure, myocarditis, cardiac failure, arrhythmia, etc (effects not generally associated with the flu or any viral pneumonia), may be explainable when one considers the effects of EMF exposure.
In his book “The Contagion Myth”, Dr Thomas Cowan provides more evidence for the deleterious effects of radiofrequency radiation, especially 5G. After noting that “hypoxia” is reported as a frequent symptom of COVID-19 and that this is caused by the release of iron from the haemoglobin molecule, he goes to comment as follows (emphasis added):
“The conventional explanation for the release of iron from hemoglobin is the action of glycoproteins in the coronavirus—but the action of 5G’s millimeter waves is an equally good explanation, especially those at 60GHz, which disrupt oxygen molecules. An interesting observation about lung malfunction in Covid-19 patients is that it is bilateral (both lungs at the same time), whereas ordinary pneumonia typically affects only one lung. What kind of virus knows to attack both lungs?”
Dr Cowan then goes on to comment on the nature of “COVID-19” as experienced by patients in Wuhan (a city that also rolled out its 5G network mere days before the “outbreak”):
“A study from Wuhan showed that more than one-third of coronavirus patients had neurologic symptoms including dizziness, headaches, impaired consciousness, skeletal-muscle injury, and loss of smell and taste—and more rarely seizures and stroke. This is not your normal flu, this is a serious disease.”
When Cowan says, “This is not your normal flu, this is a serious disease.” He is right in one sense and wrong in another. You see, as has been my thesis throughout, “COVID-19” is not and never has been, a single disease, rather, it has been used as an “umbrella term” to include everything from mild flu symptoms to life-threatening, EMF-induced hypoxia.
In light of this evidence, we must ask ourselves – What role did EMFs/5G play in the COVID charade? Was it 5G alone that caused the anomalous “COVID peak” we see in certain areas? If so, why was the death rate in NYC so much higher than anywhere else? Was “Sars-Cov-2″ used as a cover for the rollout of dangerous radiofrequencies?
Or… Was there some sort of covert, EMF-related weaponry being used in select areas?
Speculating on the Existence and Possible Use of Advanced Electromagnetic Weapons
The reader should be advised that this section of the article is mostly speculation. However, the case for the intentional deployment of some kind of EMF-related weaponry, is, I believe, a solid one. After all, if you were part of a group looking to feign the signs of a viral respiratory pandemic, blasting people with hypoxia-inducing radiofrequencies is one way you could do it. And as we discovered, that appears to be what happened in NYC (and possibly other areas).
However, the only evidence for this theory is the rollout of a 5G network in key pandemic “hotspots” around the world (including NYC). The problem, of course, is that there were plenty of countries that had 5G networks and yet did not showcase the same dramatic “COVID peak” as NYC did.
While there are many factors that would have contributed to this COVID peak besides EMFs, including lockdown stringency, care home laws, population age and health status, etc, three other possibilities exist:
5G networks in certain areas were covertly used (or possibly hijacked) to “blast” the local population with dangerous radiofrequencies (such as 60Ghz millimetre-wave 5G which can disrupt oxygen molecules).
The increased density of radiofrequencies, brought about by the 5G rollout interacted with something that was already present within people’s bodies, “activating” a disease state.
An altogether separate EMF technology was in use.
As it turns out, there is evidence to support all three possibilities.
Evidence for the Existence of EMF-Related Weapons
The Spanish research group “La Quinta Columna” (the fifth column) have also argued that there is an EMF-related component to the Covid-19 “pandemic”.
La Quinta Columna was founded by Ricardo Delgado Martín, a biostatistician from Seville university. Quinta Columna says its main objective is to
“Show THE REALITY, no matter how uncomfortable the TRUTH may be due to the nature of the events or news in which it participates, without being subject to prejudice and conflicts of economic, moral, ethical, political, religious, ideological or otherwise.”
Most of the information regarding Quinta Columna online is in Spanish and as such, I lack the necessary information to make an informed judgement regarding their thesis. However, as they are one of the few research groups brave enough to investigate the link between Covid-19, vaccines and 5G/EMFs, it’s important to consider what they have to say.
Delgado’s thesis is that increased illness due to “COVID-19” is actually a result of the excitation, by radio-frequency signals, of graphene oxide already present within the body. Delgado briefly outlines his hypothesis in a July 2021 interview:
“…we are convinced that precisely the graphene oxide was the cause of the COVID-19 disease that was introduced, silently and stealthily in the 2019 anti-flu campaign globally. And they caused, with the subsequent electromagnetic bidding that everyone knows —with the famous 5G switch-on, the tests— the fashionable disease.”
In other words, Delgado believes that graphene oxide was introduced into people’s bodies via the 2019 flu vaccine and then excited by 5G radiofrequencies, causing hypoxia (i.e. “Covid-19”) which was then propagandized as a viral pandemic.
Noteworthy is that flu vaccine uptake was highest among the elderly population.
Delgado goes on to remind us that many surgical masks were also found to contain graphene and hypothesizes that Covid “waves” (i.e. the observed “COVID peaks”) are actually the result of 5G antenna activations:
“And by pressing a little button that activates the 5G, that is why they know when a wave is coming, the 2nd, the 3rd… The Delta variant, the Lambda… The Delta variant is the next 5G antennas activation, and that’s why we have to be careful.”
Delgado claims that NAC (n-acetylcysteine) and Glutathione were successful treatments for Covid patients suffering from hypoxia. The reason for this, he claims, is because, along with inhibiting or reducing the cytokine storm, “glutathione reduces and oxidizes, that is, eliminates the graphene oxide.”
Their research has claimed to find graphene oxide present in Covid-19 vaccines, which they say interacts with radio frequencies causing a number of severe health effects, including cardiac events.
Their research is controversial and their claims are not supported by all on the alternative side. However, in light of everything presented in this article thus far, it is worth considering.
And there is one more interesting piece of evidence that they have brought forward, possibly indicating the existence of a powerful EMF-related weapons capability. This will be more persuasive when we examine other anomalous happenings later on.
In this video, Ricardo Delgado and Jose Luis discuss a recording (seemingly captured by a CCTV camera, though it’s hard to tell) showing what appears to be the sudden death of a cyclist. The most interesting aspect of the video is the split-second glitch in the recording at the precise moment the cyclist collapses to the ground.
According to Delgado and Luis, this constitutes evidence of an electromagnetic “pulse” of some kind. I have embedded the video below.
A disclaimer is in order: I have not been able to verify the original footage. I don’t know where it comes from, I don’t know if the cyclist actually died and I don’t know whether it’s a legitimate recording. However, I include it here because, if real, this odd phenomenon seems to fall in line with another perplexing phenomenon that has increased in recent years: mass, sudden bird deaths.
Mass Sudden Die-Offs of Birds: Evidence of EMF Weaponry?
While not common knowledge, there have been a number of recorded mass sudden bird deaths in recent years. Not much digging was needed on my part to uncover these cases, for many of them have been catalogued by Dr Joseph Farrell on his blog at gizadeathstar.com.
Here is a brief overview of some of these strange cases, along with Dr Farrell’s enlightening commentary:
“On June 27, 2015, a road in Kuna, Idaho, was found covered with dead songbirds. This follows the mass deaths earlier this year of over 2,000 migrating snow geese that dropped to the ground dead or dying in eastern Idaho.”
“Now you’ll note that in this version of the story, in the comments section, there’s a brief exchange between two commenters, one of whom notes strange intereference with his bluetooth signal as he was driving through Idaho.”
(I haven’t been able to find the comment he refers to but then again, the article is almost 7 years old so it may have been removed).
Dr Farrell then speculates as follows
“Could these events be caused by some sort of secret human technology, or could they be the unintended consequence of its use or other secret activity? Maybe. Again, I don’t know.”
“About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven’t heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died – bringing the death toll to 297 – some started to take notice.”
“…And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station.”
The interesting thing about this story is that Snopes was quick to publish a “fact check” claiming that no such 5G test took place (although they did admit that one such test had taken place in that area in June of that year).
More interesting is Dr Farrell’s commentary on the incident. After outlining his thoughts regarding the use of microwave interferometry technologies, he goes on to offer his usual “high octane speculation”:
“It is a short step from that basic concept to a similar use of microwave technologies – perhaps again involving interferometry – to produce beat frequencies which could interfere with, or actually shut down, the electrical functioning of organisms’ nervous systems, including organs such as the heart. And that’s what is so alarming here: birds might be resonant to certain such frequencies, other organisms to other frequencies. All one needs to do, so to speak, is to “dial in” the right frequency, and one could eradicate a regional population of dogs, cats… or even humans.”
“Wildlife experts in New Mexico say birds in the region are dropping dead in alarming numbers, potentially in the “hundreds of thousands.””
NBC goes on to note that
“Multiple agencies are investigating the occurrences, including the Bureau of Land Management and the White Sands Missile Range, a military testing area.”
And here is Dr Farrell’s commentary (emphasis added):
“You don’t say… the military at the White Sands Missile Range is investigating? Well, it makes sense… if one suspected an unknown fast-acting pathogen, biowarfare, or some completely different cause, or maybe even some version of my bio-electromagnetically activated pathogen.”
And now for two more interesting cases that also occurred during the Covid scamdemic…
“As if we didn’t have enough weird things going on, now birds are suddenly dropping dead in large numbers all across the eastern half of the country. Before they die, a lot of these birds are exhibiting very strange symptoms… If scientists understood what was causing this to happen, that would be one thing. But at this point they have no idea why this is taking place, and that is quite alarming.”
Dr Farrell offers no speculation about what might be causing this round of mass bird deaths but finds the timing of the event, and the symptoms experienced by the birds, to be overly suspicious.
“What I do know is that birds going blind, or not being able to fly away from approaching humans, or shivering and shaking as if they’re having a seizure, is not normal… And what I strongly suspect is that someone knows why, and isn’t talking…”
“Hundreds of birds dropped dead from the sky in Wales on Thursday, after witnesses reported hearing a “’huge electrical-type bang’.”
“Ian Mccaffrey, who works in Waterston, reported hearing a large electrical-type bang as he left work on Thursday night. He says following the shocking noise, dozens of birds fell from the sky and landed on his car. Mccaffrey said the loud sound was similar to lightning.”
Here it is the reports of a “large electrical-type bang” that is most interesting as it seems to corroborate the idea of the existence of a powerful EMF weapons technology. Dr Farrell recognizes this too, offering the following commentary:
“When that flock of crows (I believe) first died in Tennessee many years ago, I’ve thought that this electro-magnetic “pressure field” was perhaps the best explanation. And now we have an odd video, and reports of “electrical bangs”, to go with it. And yes, that means in my opinion the case for that speculation just became a small bit stronger.”
It is to be noted that the cases of strange sudden bird deaths reviewed here constitute only a portion of the total reported incidents. It is also highly relevant that EMF signals can penetrate into a bird’s nervous system, disrupting its ability to navigate. I covered this in a previous article on environmental crises.
Let’s sum up:
Recent years have seen increasing reports of mass, sudden bird deaths.
In many of these cases, there is some sort of link to electromagnetic technology. In the Idaho case, one person complained of bluetooth interference around the time of the incident; in the Netherlands case, 5G tests were being carried out in the vicinity of the mass die-offs, and in the latest Wales case, a “huge electrical-type bang” was heard prior to the die-offs. In one case, even the military began investigating.
Dr Joseph Farrell, a scholar who has been tracking strange animal deaths has speculated that the cause may be due to some kind of “electromagnetic pressure field”.
And finally, a recent video posted online captured the apparent sudden death of a cyclist at the exact time there was a split-second glitch in the video recording. Some have argued that this points to an electromagnetic “pulse” of some sort, perhaps hinting at a similar technology as proposed above.
And with that, we are ready to conclude our investigation.
Conclusions
Although the Covid-19 death rate is more or less akin to seasonal flu, not warranting the need for special vaccines or preventatives, lurking beneath the fraudulent testing and dubious death reporting were the reports of strange symptoms resembling high altitude sickness.
The all-cause mortality data for certain areas, NYC in particular, also exhibited a highly anomalous “COVID peak”, certainly not explainable in terms of a novel respiratory pathogen.
A recent peer-reviewed study provided compelling evidence that many of the symptoms associated with “COVID-19” are also effects of EMF exposure. This, together with the compelling epidemiological data, suggests a link between the rollout of 5G and areas that exhibited a pronounced “COVID peak”.
Finally, in recent years there has been a flurry of mass sudden bird deaths in various places around the world. Many of these incidents exhibited some sort of connection to electromagnetic interference or radiofrequencies of some sort.
Spanish researchers from Quinta Columna have also analysed a video purported to show the sudden death of a cyclist that they believe occurred due to an EMF pulse of some kind.
They further maintain that “COVID peaks” occurred as a result of the excitation of graphene oxide by EMF bombardment which they believe can cause hypoxia (explaining the strange reports of “high altitude sickness” in NYC) and cardiac events (which have increased since the COVID vaccine roll out).
The volume of research linking EMF exposure with ill health is far too great to ignore, meaning that, regardless of the data put forth here, EMFs undoubtedly contributed to ill health during the COVID-19 “pandemic” and continue to do so. However, the evidence presented here may also point to the deliberate use of a covert, EMF-related weapons technology.
If that is the case, then, considering the massive effort to flood low earth orbit with EMF-beaming satellites and the ever-expanding 5G rollout, a lot more research is needed… and fast.
In an interview on “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” T.J. Coles, Ph.D., author of ‘Biofascism: The Tech-Pharma Complex and the End of Democracy,’ talked with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. about transhumanism, the billionaire class and the World Economic Forum.
Transhumanism and biofacism are becoming tools of the technological elite, according to T.J. Coles, Ph.D., author and researcher at Plymouth University’s Cognition Institute in the UK.
Coles is the author of many books, including “Your Brain in Quarantine: The Neuroscience of Human Isolation and Confinement” (2020), “Capitalism and Coronavirus: How Institutionalized Greed Turned a Crisis into a Catastrophe” (2020) and “Biofascism: The Tech-Pharma Complex and the End of Democracy” (2022).
During the interview, Kennedy played a recording of Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, whom Kennedy called the “ideological commissar” of the WEF.
He has been a featured speaker at the WEF’s meetings in Davos, Switzerland.
In the recording, Harari said:
“What scientists and engineers are telling us more and more is that if we only have enough data and enough computing power, we can create algorithms that understand humans and their feelings much better than humans can understand themselves.”
“Harari kind of laments that totalitarian regimes and oligarchies and plutocracies of the past have not been able to achieve this level of control over humans,” Kennedy said, “but the current technology gives those cohorts that exciting capacity.”
Coles agreed, stating “authoritarian vectors” began growing in power even before the pandemic: Out-of-control asset management companies, Big Tech monopolies, and Big Pharma run amok.
Kennedy acknowledged how this can sound “paranoid” to those who have not read for themselves what the global elite are actually writing and saying.
In fact, he said, it came as a shock to him as well.
“I think the first impediment is kind of persuading the listeners to this podcast that this is something real and not part of my ravings,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy asked Coles:
“The billionaire class themselves seem to see transhumanism as a way to kind of permanently extend their lives, or at least their consciousness. … How do you achieve a level of control that will allow informed and enlightened elites to manage global populations and the world?”
Coles commented, “These existing authoritarian vectors of Big Pharma regulatory capture, Big Tech — they really became what I and others call biofascist after the pandemic. They completely used their power to take over the media.”
The WEF is behind those efforts, Coles said.
“The World Economic Forum with all its so-called intellectuals … they provide the kind of ideological drive or the ideological cover that supports a lot of this agenda.”
Watch the podcast here:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
“‘Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”
“To obtain embryo cells [for research on vaccines and other pharma products], embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used, nor can those obtained by means of abortions performed via the vagina: in both cases, the embryo will be contaminated by micro-organisms.”
“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed.”
“In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive, in order to remove tissues to be placed in culture media.”
“Given these premises, we face the dilemma of whether the deliberate systematic destruction of a human creature to obtain cell material can be justified, when it is recognized that this is of great interest to fundamental research and for the diagnosis of some human diseases. Are research and diagnosis of such great value that they justify the destruction of human beings?”
“The Geneva Declaration affirms that the doctor has the duty to take the greatest care to safeguard the life of a human being from its conception and will not, even under threat, use his knowledge to infringe humanitarian laws.” (1986-04-26; Herranz, Gonzalo; Il Sabato, no.15…Professor Herranz was, at the time, president of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish Doctors and vice-president of the Permanent Committee of Medical Ethics of the European Community.)”
What exactly happened in 1972 or 1973, in the Netherlands, where an infant girl was aborted, and her kidneys used to make a cell line that would be used, going forward, in the testing of vaccines?
That cell line is called HEK 293, and it has been used to test COVID vaccines.
I have already presented evidence for concluding the abortion involved removing the living infant from her mother’s womb, and taking her kidneys, which of course killed her.
This evidence rests on the realization that, in order to extract viable and useful kidney tissue, the baby had to have a functioning blood supply, which meant she was alive.
But the evidence ALSO comes from knowing many other abortions have been carried out, in order to harvest tissue for medical research, by murdering living babies.
I have found a very informative article (2/9/2021) at the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK, by Christian Hacking, titled, “What the HEK?!” by Christian Hacking. Quoting from the article:
“HEK 293 is a human cell line created using a kidney from a dissected unborn baby in the Netherlands between 1972 and 1973. It is the second most common cell line and is used extensively in ‘pharmaceutical and biomedical research’. It is also used in vaccine creation and cancer research.”
“It was used, along with other human cell lines, to develop a genetically engineered spike protein (that the mRNA vaccine codes for) in the original development stage of the vaccine. The ‘new technology’ Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna Vaccine were tested on HEK 293 before they began human trials. This testing is ongoing for all new batches. Finally the ‘old technology’ Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine grew a weakened viral strain in HEK 293 cell culture…”
“The kidney in question was dissected from a healthy Dutch baby girl of unknown origin by the team at Leiden University in the Netherlands in 1972. Despite the inclusion of the term ‘embryonic’ in the title, the baby in question was probably 12-13 weeks old when she was killed so as to secure functioning kidney cells. The man in charge of the research was named Alex Jan Van der Eb; he is still alive and still based in Holland.”
“When questioned on the matter by the FDA in 2001, Dr Van der Eb confirmed it was an intentional abortion of a ‘fetus’ but gave hazy details of the exact experiments.”
“’So the kidney material, the fetal kidney material was as follows: the kidney of the fetus was, with an unknown family history, obtained in 1972 probably. The precise date is not known anymore. The fetus, as far as I can remember, was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at that time, but it got lost, all this information’.”
Author Hacking continues: “…extracting and growing living cells is incredibly difficult. In order to give oneself the best chance of success you need to ensure the child is healthy, fresh, intact and sterile. As one embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy confirms:”
“’In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion. Within an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimens useless’.”
[That statement was made by “Dr C Ward Kischer, embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy; specialist in Human Embryology, University of Arizona College of Medicine…”]
[My comment: This suggests the abortion, in the Netherlands, in 1972, was planned and technicians were standing by. I would say that, to ensure the viability of the tissue, the infant had a functioning blood supply and was alive when her kidneys were removed, killing her.]
Hacking:
“In order for the organs to be at ‘optimal viability’, the child needs to be dissected and organs extracted within 5 minutes of delivery. Anaesthetic also cannot be used so as to not change the cellular activity of the organs the researcher wants to obtain.”
“Acclaimed Doctor, Ian Donald, the pioneer of the ultrasound scanner, also claims to have witnessed the WI-38 [another cell-line] dissections [1962], conducted at the Karolinska Institute; he described them such:
“’Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”
“In his dense book ‘The Foetus As Transplant Donor the Scientific, Social, and Ethical Perspectives’, immunologist Dr Peter McCullagh relays detailed descriptions of the methods used on dozens of ‘fetal tissue donors’ from the 1970’s onward, including the deaths of babies between 7 and 26 weeks gestation by decapitations, exposure, dissection and drug testing. Gynaecologist and ex-abortionist Dr Bernard Nathanson, relaying his own understanding of abortion, and citing McCullagh’s book claims the Swedish experiments took place thus:
“’…in Sweden they have been puncturing the sac of a pregnant woman at let us say 14 to 16 weeks, and then they put a clamp on the head of the baby, pull the head down into the neck of the womb, drill a hole into the baby’s head, and then put a suction machine into the brain and suck out the brain cells….. Healthy human fetuses from 7 to 21 weeks from legal abortions were used. This is in Sweden. The conception age was estimated from crown rump length and so on. Fetal liver and kidney were rapidly removed and weighed. Now at 21 weeks, what they were doing, or 18 weeks, or 16 weeks, was what is called prostaglandin abortions. They would inject a substance into the womb. The woman would then go into mini-labor and pass this baby. 50% of the time, the baby would be born alive, but that didn’t stop them. They would just simply open up the abdomen of the baby with no anesthesia, and take out the liver and kidneys, etc.’”
“A research paper from the University of Toronto from June 1952 commenting on the method of their experiments suggests that these techniques were universal with researchers working in close proximity to the abortions.”
“’No macerated [softened after death] specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”
“According to Gonzalo Herranz, former head of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish doctors, the best way to prevent ‘contamination by microorganisms’ is to deliver the child by caesarean section or the removal of the uterus.”
“A 1982 review of a history of tissue donation affirms this, and much of the above evidence:”
“’Fetal tissue for transplantation must be “harvested” within a few minutes of delivery. Ideally this is by hysterectomy, with the fetus delivered in utero. Drugs which reduce fetal physiological activity need to be avoided. The fetus is therefore in as alive and aware a state as possible when being opened’.”
From Hacking’s article, it’s quite clear how the standard procedure of infant-murder is carried out.
It’s entirely reasonable to assume fetal cell line HEK 293—used for COVID vaccine testing—was originally produced, in 1972, by the murder of an infant. Refusal to take a COVID vaccine on the basis of conscience and religion is more than justified.
Given the weight of the circumstantial case, I would say that for all people of faith, refusal is essential.
Lunatic medical murderers and their allies will say anything to avoid blame and the application of true justice to themselves. They will invent “science” at the drop of a hat and couch it in humanitarian terms. They will claim the ends justify the means. They will commit gross forgery to pretend those ends are vital.
But we don’t have to stand by and passively believe them.
Billions of people of faith can stand against them.
If you are looking for one of the most masterful takedowns of virology to date, this presentation by Alec Zeck, Dr. Jordan Grant, Mike Donio,Jacob Diaz, and John Blaid is one of the best out there. When I first watched it a month ago, I was blown away and I had intended to share it here but, as often happens, I got sidetracked and sadly forgot to upload it. I hope you can take away a great deal of value from this presentation as the guys delve into the numerous fallacies and assumptions related to this fraudulent field.
In this presentation, you will find:
A break down of the ridiculous cell culture experiments
The lack of adhering to the scientific method
The foundational issues with virology from the very beginning
The inherent problems with and the limitations of electron microscopy imaging
The lack of any purified and isolated physical “viral” particles found directly in human samples
The issues related to the creation of the theoretical genome
The fabrication and lack of validation of the PCR test for “SARS-COV-2”
A thorough explanation of the Stefan Lanka control experiments
The myths of contagion and other possible explanations for dis-ease
The FOI requests and the burden of proof
As I said, a masterful takedown of the pseudoscience called virology!
Virology’s Unproven Assumptions
In this episode, Alec Zeck has a discussion with Mike Donio, Jacob Diaz, Dr. Jordan Grant MD, and John Blaid on the fallacious reasoning, unproven assumptions, and lack of proof for virus theory.
The implementation of a digital passport system is a crucial element in this plan, which would go on to enable the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) that eventually will be able strip you of your assets and turn them into a credit courtesy of governments led by authoritarian technocrats. You can not use money any longer unless someone “higher up” agrees to it. Together with plans to turn dissentic voices into “domestic terrorists” that would be the end of all of the freedoms our forefathers paid with their lives to defend.
One of these systems that could be turned into a didgital concentration camp is the Digital Green Certificate introduced by the European Union in June 2021 under the pretext of “enabling freedom of travel”. It turned out to be quite the opposite.
Consequently, brave parliamentarians such as Mr Roos have started an initiative to block the EU commission’s attempt to extend the “Covid Pass”/Green Certificate until at least 2023.
While CHD is not endorsing political platforms but focuses on advocacy for Children’s Health and Fundamental Human Rights, we kindly ask you to please take 90 seconds and listen to this video which Mr Roos has put out, and also follow the link to object to these plans of the EU Commission’s website:
“The European Commission, wants to extend the covid pass until June 2023. In one and a half minutes, I will explain to you why you should care, and what you can do to stop this.
The covid pass was introduced by the European Union in June 2021. They claimed it would make travel within the European Union easier. But that never worked. Countries still kept introducing their own restrictions. Within just a few months, member states transformed the covid pass into something much bigger. All of a sudden, you needed a QR code to enter a restaurant or even to go to work. But it was never introduced for that.
Now, Omicron is the dominant strain of the virus. To most people, it’s not dangerous anymore. The vaccine doesn’t stop the spread. Science shows that the QR system does not come with any health benefit anymore, while undermining fundamental rights.
This is the moment to abolish the covid pass once and for all.
But the European Commission wants to extend it until at least June 2023, an extremely bad idea.
Together with several colleagues in the Parliament, I will do everything I can to stop this. But we have to do it together.
We need your help, please follow this link to the European Commission website and tell them that you oppose this extension. Please do it as soon as possible, because conditional freedom is NO freedom!”
I wonder how far all this will go. By “all this”, I mean the headlong push, always in the same direction, always away from the world I recognise. To me it seems as though a pendulum is swinging, has been swinging for years now, but always and only one way – further and further from the point where I stand. I wonder too, how far that pendulum can swing before it must stop and, inevitably swing back the other way, and with a vengeance. Every action, after all, has an equal and opposite reaction.
To me there seems no avoiding the conclusion that, as a key part of all this, official misinformation and propaganda all over the world has been shaped to make reasonable people feel like they’re simply going mad, that they have lost the ability to understand and interpret events and make decisions for themselves. Many people have felt the only option was to toe the line – even when it seemed pointless, or counterproductive, even insane. The name of the game was avoiding the anger of those shouting loudest.
Last week US President Joe Biden spoke in front of millions about how: “there’s going to be a new world order out there”
New World Order: three words that have been floating around on social media like something unpleasant that just won’t flush. Hardly were the words out of the president’s mouth before commentators – on his side of the line, at least – were gleefully reporting his statement … while somehow simultaneously offering the opinion that only the tin-hat-wearing, swivel eyed loons (which includes people like me, apparently) had been triggered by his language.
The Independent website, for instance, reported the story under a headline reading: “Joe Biden said New World Order and conspiracy theorists lost it”
This is no more than a clumsy attempt at a verbal sleight of hand, yet another reminder that the official line has it that only crazy people ever suspect that something, somewhere might be amiss.
In a speech delivered to the Australian National University in Canberra, Sir Jeremy Fleming, director of GCHQ, told his audience that the pandemic, followed by war in Ukraine, added up to: “a period of generational upheaval.”
Both Biden and Sir Jeremy – to take just two prominent spokesmen speaking at the same moment in history – seeking to normalise the thought that every few generations, the world must change whether we want it to or not, as though the world has always changed every two or three generations, which it hasn’t.
New World Order, generational upheaval, always the pendulum swinging one way and one way only. Forget how things used to be, that’s over now, get ready for change, for something new, whether you want it or not. What’s a person – a person bedevilled, anyway, by a cost-of-living crisis, the dogged pursuit of Net Zero, a reawakened fear of nuclear war and still coming to terms with the will-they-won’t-they uncertainty of Covid rules left smouldering like embers that might reignite at any moment – to make of such unsettling prophesying?
More verbal gymnastics followed when Mr Biden said recently that Mr Putin should no longer be in power in Russia. The president had told his audience in Poland that Putin: “…cannot remain in power”. But yet more verbal contortions somehow enabled the White House to say that regime change in Russia was not US government policy.
How can both statements be true at the same time?
How can this inside out, upside down line of thinking do anything but leave the average reasonable person feeling they simply do not have a clue about what’s going on anymore?
I say the average reasonable person – which is how I still understand myself, even after all this time of madness – but clearly those on the other side of the debate from me, that viciously polarised debate, now regard me and millions of other reasonable people as wild-eyed extremists, politically to the right of Atilla the Hun.
And yet I look on at the la-la land of Hollywood, at actor Will Smith slapping comedian Chris Rock at the Oscars and then getting a standing ovation for winning the statuette for Best Actor. What does a reasonable person, or even a wild-eyed extremist even begin to do with such a sequence of events compressed into such a short space of time? If I hit someone at a work event I might expect to be fired, rather than given a standing ovation and the award for employee of the year. But that’s showbiz, apparently.
The Oscars have been growing increasingly unbearable for years, of course. Watching millionaires in receipt of goodie bags worth more than what 99 percent of the world’s population earns in a year, while speechifying and shedding crocodile tears about the plight of the poor and the oppressed, had long required a muscular suspension of disbelief. But now surely the pretence of the Oscars as moral spokesman for the world is finally over, and forever, the bubble well and truly burst. I can’t look at it anymore, not after metaphorically watching A-listers on the toilet all these years.
Everywhere you look there’s more to confuse and disorientate. Talk of white privilege, men in women’s sports, big tech censorship. Last week Florida passed a bill to prevent the sexualisation of children up to the age of seven or so. A large majority of Floridians – both Republican and Democrat – agreed it was common sense that children so young should not receive instruction in the classroom about “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”. You might think third graders and younger would do best to get to grips with “The Cat Sat on the Mat” in preparation for later learning what a pronoun actually is – maybe in the context of an English lesson – before being invited to pick pronouns to describe their own understanding of their genders.
Over in the Magic Kingdom, in California, Disney joined those taking strenuous exception to the Florida bill and pushing a blatant lie that it was about stopping teachers saying the word ‘Gay’. All at once the bill was, according to Disney, and other showbiz types, about: “Don’t say gay.”
In fact there was no use of the word gay anywhere in the bill, and in polling, the majority of people of all stripes agreed with it. But that didn’t stop Disney and others insisting that word was being banned in Florida schools and kindergartens.
At the same time, Disney announced it had done away with any and all references to “Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” at any of its theme parks. Never again, presumably, will a little girl be welcomed as a “princess” as had previously been a commonplace. How much money Disney had made selling princess dresses to uncounted millions of little children hardly bears thinking about. No more, we might assume.
Many parents have known a child insist on dressing as a princess one week, and superman the next. Most of those parents have understood those steps not as permanent life choices, but as the multicoloured stages of being a child growing up.
To be frank, I have never understood the pressure about pronouns, either. I was brought up never to refer to anyone – anyone actually in the room with me – via a pronoun. To point to someone and call them ‘she’ – referring to that person in the third person singular while that person was actually standing in front of me, was to invite, from a grown up, the withering putdown, “Who’s ‘she’, the cat’s mother?”
The use of ‘she’, ‘her’, ‘he’, ‘him’ in regard to a person who was RIGHT THERE, was simply rude, regardless of any other consideration. Good manners dictated that each person in the room was to be addressed and referred to by their name. If you experienced the small agony of forgetting the name of someone you’d been introduced to … too bad … you just had to apologise for the lapse and ask them to say their name a second time. Third person pronouns were for the mention of someone who was elsewhere, absent from the scene. In my world there should be no need for those pronouns while actually with a person. And so what sort of self-obsessed narcissist tries to dictate how others talk about them when they’re not even there?
And always, woven through the confusing madness like dry rot, is the sinister obsession with children and also with the family.
In my homeland of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish government has already seen to it that children as young as four can pick a different gender while in school – without the need for their parents to know anything about it. Previously the Scottish government pursued a so-called Named Persons bill – that would have seen a state sponsored stranger slipped between every child and parent in the land. That named person would have been able to establish a relationship with the child, have conversations with the child about anything and everything under the sun – again without the need for parents to be informed.
The Daily Mail had a story last week about a London-based psychologist reporting a sharp rise in the number of people calling his clinic to report symptoms of what he has called ‘Doomsday anxiety’ – which he describes as “fear of the end of the world or life as we know it.”
I know that feeling and I’m not surprised in the least that more and more people are burdened by hopeless, doom-laden thoughts. After all, the incessant pushing of the pendulum has left more and more people no other choice but to fear the worst.
What interests me more and more though, as I said at the top, is how much further away from me, and millions like me, the pendulum must swing. How much further CAN it swing? How much further away must we watch the pendulum pushed away – away from everything so many of us know to be common sense, decent, honourable and true? How much more will we watch them do to marginalise and then break up the family? How much longer will we let our youngest children watch and listen to lectures about sex, to be encouraged to contemplate things sexual instead of enjoying a handful of years being welcomed as boys and girls and pretending to be princesses one day and superheroes the next?
However far the pendulum swings, it must and will eventually swing back the other way, faster and faster. How far will it swing then, and where will it stop?
All scientific research is built on particular dogmas including, or perhaps especially, biomedicine. It’s easier for some “scientists” to perpetuate falsehoods than it is to admit they were wrong, abandon long standing ideas, and start again from scratch. Many scientists would rather pursue trendy research areas in order to win accolades and secure grant money than question long-held beliefs and dogmas.
This is exactly what has happened with modern medicine because too much money and too many reputations are at stake. If you’re not allowed to question it, then it’s not real science.
Erroneous theories in medicine have wasted billions and caused untold harm. Imagine if they had to admit that so many years of research and countless academic careers have been wasted pursuing ideas that have no basis in reality.
Thanks to the covid pseudo pandemic, the corrupt state of the medical establishment has never been more obvious to so many people.
See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil
It might be difficult for some to believe that the castle of medicine is built on foundations of sand. However, Stanford scientist John P. A. Ioannidis published a study in 2005 proving that most published research findings are false.
Marcia Angell the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine has extensively investigated the corruption of medicine by drug companies.
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that:
“The case against science is straightforward: 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.”
There are countless victims of iatrogenic disease in countless on-line support groups who once trusted their doctors to have their best interests at heart and to abide by the oath to “first do no harm”.
128,000 Americans die each year from correctly prescribed medications, making prescription drugs one of the leading causes of death.
Clearly, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Dr. Harold Hillman Goes Renegade
In his final paper, the notorious British biologist Harold Hillman claimed that “cell biology is in dire straits”. That paper was published in 2011 and summarises his life’s work which began in the 1970s. He warned biologists and cell physiologists that something is seriously wrong with their ideas about the human body.
In the 1970s this cytologist and neurobiologist began questioning mainstream cell biology and presented evidence that the accepted model of the cell was completely wrong. He suggested that the dire straits of cell biology was the reason medical research has failed to determine the cause and provide the cure for most diseases.
“During a research career lasting more than 50 years, I have concluded that the following procedures are unsuitable for studying the biology of living cells in intact animals and plants: subcellular fractionation; histology; histochemistry; electron microscopy; binding studies; use of ligands; immunocytochemistry; tissue slices; disruptive techniques; dehydration; deep freezing; freeze-drying; boiling; use of extracellular markers; receptor studies; patch clamp measurements; inadequate calibrations. The main objections to these procedures are: (i) they change the properties of the tissues being studied grossly and significantly; (ii) they ignore the second law of thermodynamics;(iii) they produce artefacts, many of which are two-dimensional; (iv) adequate control procedures have never been published for them.”
~ Dr. Harold Hillman
He challenged the fundamental principles of biology. He was a renegade who put the quest for truth above everything else.
Unsurprisingly his views were unpopular with many in the mainstream and this took a toll on his career and reputation. He had difficulty publishing his work. Mainstream scientific journals rejected his papers without reason and refused to review his books.
“The reason I’m so determined is because they [the mainstream] won’t engage. And if they won’t engage, then to my mind it proves that I’m likely to be right.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Many scientists agreed with Hillmans’ compelling ideas in private but wouldn’t support him publicly for fear of losing their funding or tarnishing their reputation. Many leading biologists would refuse to meet with him to discuss his research. His goal was to start a discussion and promote a productive debate to improve and further scientific knowledge. Instead of being given a platform to share his work, he was stifled and ridiculed. Sound familiar?
Real scientists value truth above reputation and financial gain. Real scientists are willing to risk everything to expose falsities and incorrect theories. Scientists who blatantly ignore unpopular views or refuse to debate are not true scientists.
“I should like to draw attention to the fact that I regard my views as unpopular, rather than heretical, as I do not believe that scientists should talk in terms of dogma and heresy. In the best of possible worlds, good scientists who hear challenges to their beliefs, assumptions, hypotheses, procedures or conclusions, should examine such criticism with due attention. They should respond by entering into civilised dialogue with their critics. They should be prepared to admit mistakes, if necessary, and change their views. Such reactions have not occurred.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Hillman claimed that the routine procedures used to study the characteristics and composition of cells are completely unfit for purpose. He was adamant that these procedures would change the properties of cells more than any differences being examined so any conclusions made on the basis of these procedures were invalid.
He claimed that electron microscopy is a “waste of time and money” which goes against the vast majority of the biomedical establishment who regard the invention of the electron microscope as a pivotal point in biomedical research. Only dead tissue can be examined under an electron microscope and not living cells. Are findings based on electron microscopy relevant to living organisms?
Hillman’s work includes compelling evidence to suggest that many of the subcellular organelles that some scientists have dedicated their lives to studying are just artifacts of preparation for histology and electron microscopy. This includes both the Golgi body and the Endoplasmic Reticulum.
He also claimed that cellular receptors and transmembrane protein channels do not exist in the mainstream accepted sense. One of the reasons for this is that these cell receptors cannot be seen under an electron microscope, despite their size being within the range of visibility.
He courageously stood up for what he believed to be the truth. Despite his career and reputation taking an enormous hit, he continued to publish his ideas right up until his death.
“If I am wrong, only my reputation has been damaged. If I am right, those colleagues proved wrong may well have been wasting their time and careers and using public or charitable resources naively. They might have used their time and resources to carry out more productive research.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
When considering the current state of medicine, it seems that “more productive research” is exactly what is needed. Research that doesn’t follow dogma and isn’t funded by the very pharma industry that has a vested interest in perpetuating erroneous ideas such as the “one germ, one disease” fallacy.
“It is absolutely remarkable how unsuccessful this sort of research has been. If one knew the basic mechanisms, whose disarray induced disease, one could then design logical interventions to prevent them developing.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
We’re led to believe that modern medicine is highly advanced but the cause of most diseases apparently remains “unknown”. Most Doctors have a mechanistic, reductionist view of disease often believing disease arises due to “genetics” or that the body is just prone to making mistakes.
“It is widely believed that medical research since the Second World War has been very successful…It is absolutely remarkable how unsuccessful this sort of research has been. If one knew the basic mechanisms, whose disarray induced disease, one could then design logical interventions to prevent them developing… it is true that the cost of failure so far has been high. The most paradoxical aspect of scientific research is that it is widely believed to be objective…”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Hillman also criticised the lack of sufficient control experiments performed in biomedical research. Proper control experiments are the cornerstone of good science ensuring that variables, other than the one being tested, do not influence the results of the experiment.
“Control experiments for the effects of reagents and manoeuvres used on the results of experiments have been grossly inadequate.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Hillman also questioned the use of tissue cultures for histological analysis with compelling logic. Cells in culture have significantly different morphology, biochemistry, and environment than the cells from which they came.
“Tissue cultures are similar to the tissue from which they come in some ways and very different in other ways. It is clear that although there are a few properties in common, there are substantial differences. This is one of the most important questions, in respect of the usefulness of tissue cultures as sources of information about cells in intact animals.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Virology: Voodoo Scientism
Hillman’s work challenges virology as much as it does cell biology and neurobiology. The world is slowly waking up to the pseudoscientific nature of virology because of the pseudo pandemic inflicted on all of us.
“Viruses” can only be seen under an electron microscope using procedures involving heavy metals, dehydration, low pressure, electron bombardment and X-ray irradiation. Are viruses real naturally occurring structures or are they artifacts of these harsh conditions?
The effects of “viruses” are studied on cell cultures and most cell cultures are grown from embryonic tissue, cancerous tissue, stem cells, or monkey cells whose properties are completely different from that of adult human tissue. Is any of this relevant to understanding virus infectivity in humans?
Coronaviruses are supposedly assembled at the endoplasmic reticulum-Golgi interface but if Hillman is right and the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi body are artefacts of histological preparation and electron microscopy is presumed understanding of virus assembly completely wrong?
Different cell cultures are prepared by different procedures in different chemical solutions to culture “viruses”. Could this explain why only some cells can grow “viruses” but others can’t? SARS-CoV2 cannot infect many human cell lines but can infected monkey kidney cells which is not what you would expect from a supposed human pathogen.
Viruses are supposed to bind to host cell receptors as the first step to entry but if Hillman is correct macromolecular cell receptors don’t really exist.
Adequate controls have not been performed to test the effects of lab conditions, body fluids, antibiotics, and other chemicals on cell cultures so how can virologists be sure that it is the “virus” causing any observed cytopathic effects and not the chemicals and conditions themselves?
The biomedical establishment has chosen to ignore all of these crucial questions. Sadly, Hillman’s level of critical thinking and radical questioning are rare and often completely absent in modern biomedical science.
His sharp intellect and critical thinking skills were a threat to the scientific establishment. He put his career and reputation on the line to expose the weaknesses of established biomedical knowledge.
But what if he was right? What if the castle of modern medicine really is built on foundations of sand? Will his work be forgotten, or will others be brave enough to pick up where he left off?
References
1) John P. A. Ioannidis “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Med. 2005 Aug; 2(8): e124.
2) Marcia Angell M.D “The Truth About the Drug Companies-How they deceive us and what to do about it.”
3) Richard Horton “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?” Lancet Comment| Volume 385, ISSUE 9976, P1380, April 11, 2015
4) Harold Hillman “Cell Biology is Currently in Dire Straits.”
5) Harold Hillman “A Career in Neurobiology.”
6) A Biomedical Scientist “Virology’s Voodoo Scientism is Not Real Science.” The Expose.
Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:
NWNW Flashback: “Gotta Keep Em Segregated” is the New Rallying Cry – “Punk” Band The Offspring Fires Drummer for Refusing to Take COVID Vaccine (Aug. 5, 2021)
Guests included Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum and Kristalina Georgieva of the International Monetary Fund.
While much of the “mainstream” world has spent the last few days obsessing over and debating the celebrity spectacle surrounding American actor Will Smith slapping American comedian Chris Rock, the international elitists were meeting in Dubai for the 2022 World Government Summit.
From March 28th to the 30th, corporate media journalists, heads of state, and CEOs of some of the most profitable companies in the world met for discussions on shaping the direction of the next decade and beyond. Anyone with a functioning brain should ignore the tabloids and instead pay attention to this little known gathering of globalist Technocrats.
Let’s take a look at the speakers and the panels, starting with Mr. Great Reset himself, Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum.
Schwab gave a talk entitled, Our World Today… Why Government Must Act Now?. “Thank you, to his excellency for enabling this initiative to define a longer-term narrative to make the world more resilient more inclusive and more sustainable,” Schwab stated during his address. The use of the term narrative is important because in January 2021, Klaus and the World Economic Forum announced the next phase of The Great Reset, The Great Narrative.
As with The Great Narrative event, the World Government Summit was also held in Dubai. As I wrote during the Great Narrative meeting:
“While the political leaders of the UAE and Klaus Schwab may promote themselves as the heroes of our times, we should judge them according to their actions and the company they keep, not the flowery language they use to distract us. The simple fact is the UAE has a horrible record on human rights. The nation is known for deporting those who renounce Islam, limited press freedoms, and enforcing elements of Sharia law.”
During Schwab’s short talk he also mentioned his pet project “the 4th Industrial Revolution“, which is essentially the digital panopticon of the future, where digital surveillance is omnipresent and humanity uses digital technology to alter our lives. Often associated with terms like the Internet of Things, the Internet of Bodies, the Internet of Humans, and the Internet of Senses, this world will be powered by 5G and 6G technology. Of course, for Schwab and other globalists, the 4IR also lends itself towards more central planning and top-down control. The goal is a track and trace society where all transactions are logged, every person has a digital ID that can be tracked, and social malcontents are locked out of society via social credit scores.
Immediately following Schwab was a panel which made no attempt to hide the goals of the globalists. The panel, Are We Ready for A New World Order?, featured Fred Kempe, president and CEO of the Atlantic Council since 2007, as well as an anchor for CNN and a former advisor to former US president George W. Bush. Before joining the Council, Kempe was a prize-winning editor and reporter at the Wall Street Journal for more than 25 years.
In fact, the Atlantic Council had a fairly large presence at the World Government Summit, including appearances by Defne Arslan, senior director of the Atlantic Council IN TURKEY program, and Olga Khakova, Deputy Director of Global Energy Center of Atlantic Council.
For those who are unfamiliar with the Atlantic Council, I first reported in May 2018 that Facebook had partnered with the thinktank connected to NATO. I wrote:
“The Atlantic Council of the United States was established in 1961 to bolster support for international relations. Although not officially connected to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Atlantic Council has spent decades promoting causes and issues which are beneficial to NATO member states. In addition, The Atlantic Council is a member of the Atlantic Treaty Organization, an umbrella organization which “acts as a network facilitator in the Euro-Atlantic and beyond.” The ATO works similarly to the Atlantic Council, bringing together political leaders, academics, military officials, journalists and diplomats to promote values that are favorable to the NATO member states. Officially, ATO is independent of NATO, but the line between the two is razor thin.
Essentially, the Atlantic Council is a think tank which can offer companies or nation states access to military officials, politicians, journalists, diplomats, etc. to help them develop a plan to implement their strategy or vision. These strategies often involve getting NATO governments or industry insiders to make decisions they might not have made without a visit from the Atlantic Council team. This allows individuals or nations to push forth their ideas under the cover of hiring what appears to be a public relations agency but is actually selling access to high-profile individuals with power to affect public policy. Indeed, everyone from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to the family of international agent of disorder Zbigniew Brzezinski have spoken at or attended council events.”
Less than 6 months after Facebook and The Atlantic Council announced their partnership, more than 500 FB pages were accused of being “Russian disinformation” and deleted. The pages largely consisted of anti-war, police accountability, and independent journalism outlets. These pages and journalists directly challenged the narratives spun by the Atlantic Council stooges.
Dissecting the World Government Summit: Ukraine, SDGs, ESG, Blockchain, and AI
While many of the names in attendance might be unfamiliar to a western audience, the speakers are men and women who absolutely play a vital role in international geopolitics.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict was also part of the discussions. Notably, Maxim Timchenko, CEO of DTEK, made an appearance. His bio states, “under his leadership, DTEK has evolved from a regional conventional energy company into Ukraine’s largest private investor as well as leading energy company.”
The appearance of Mr. Timchenko should not be overlooked, especially because he appears in a discussion called Post-Crisis Ukraine: New Energy for a New Europe, featuring Olga Khakova of the Atlantic Council, and Paula Dobriansk, Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School of Government of Atlantic Council. Again, the presence of the Atlantic Council should not be taken lightly. They are the representatives of the Western Bloc of the New World Order.
The World Government Summit also spent considerable time discussing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which form the core of the Agenda 2030, itself part of The Great Reset agenda. Some speakers discussing the SDGs include:
– María Sandoval, First Lady of Colombia of Government of Republic of Colombia, discussed “The Role of Women in Achieving the SDGs“. The first day of the summit was actually dedicated to the role women will play in rolling out the so-called New World Order and global governance schemes. Sandoval celebrated the fact that Colombian President Ivan Duque launched “the first national development plan that was directly aligned with the SDGs, and this of course was something that provided a wider spectrum for women to act react and participate in these achievements of the SDGs.”
– Catherine Russell, Executive Director of United Nations Children Fund, participated in a panel titled SDGs for Every Child
The Summit also addressed the Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria (ESG) promoted by the UN in a panel entitled, Where does ESG Go From Here?. ESG investing is also sometimes referred to as sustainable investing, responsible investing, or socially responsible investing (SRI). The practice has become an increasingly popular way to promote the SDGs. The panel featured Neil R. Brown, Managing Director, KKR Global Institute and KKR Infrastructure. KKR Global Institute is the same organization that former US Army General and former CIA Director David Petraeus joined in 2013.
Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence are a major piece of the Technocratic vision for 2030, so naturally there were several discussions on the use of blockchain, AI, and even 6G (the eventual successor to 5G technology).
There was also a panel focused on the introduction of Central Bank Digital Currencies entitled, CBDCs and Stablecoins: Can They Co-Exist?. The CBDCs schemes being rolled out in nations around the world are a crucial component of The Great Reset.
One panel focuses on a concept called Human Meta-Cities, which sound like a rebranding or updating of the so-called Smart Cities. The panel description states,
“in a world of change and rapid technological development, we shed light on a new vision for planning future cities centered around human needs and aspirations. This new framework will help governments refine their role in planning the new world taking advantage of the digital transformation opportunities that are taking place.”
“Technology is creating new possibilities as it simplifies processes, enables instant feedback, and ultimately improves customer experience. In the public sector, digitalization and artificial intelligence are creating a new model of governance – “invisible” governments that are more agile, responsive, human-centric, and data-driven. In this session, global policymakers and experts will share their bold vision and experience in utilizing technology to eliminate bureaucracy and innovate government services for the future.”
What goes unsaid in the panel description is that making the government “invisible” will actually lead to a world of no accountability for government and politicians. In reality, the Technocrats imagine a world where the tyrannical technological systems are invisible and the average person has zero recourse for preventing exclusion or punishment based on their social credit score.
This is the world these technocrats — many of whom are unelected — envision. The only way this vision will not come to pass is if the people of the world throw their televisions away, ignore the celebrity drama, and start exiting from these slavery systems.
Derrick Broze, a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers.
Senator Malcolm Roberts, Queensland, Australia: To All Who Perpetrated Covid Vaccine Injuries & Death — “We Won’t Let You Get Away With It. We Are Coming for You.”
The evidence continues to mount that these vaccines do not deserve the continuing provisional approval given to them by the TGA.
Concerns about possible adverse side effects are too big to ignore any longer, especially after my COVID Under Question inquiry which you can watch by clicking here.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, tonight I’m speaking on this parliament’s therapeutic response to COVID-19 and the horrific medical harm and loss of life in that response.
Last week, leading Australian parliamentarians came together in an event I organised called COVID Under Question to present documented evidence and victim testimony proving a catastrophic failure of Australia’s regulatory framework.
COVID vaccine injuries are hidden behind anonymous government data, while supposed COVID virus harm is splashed across prime time.
The very least we can do for the victims of COVID vaccines is to say their names—victims like Caitlin Georgia Gotze, a healthy and vibrant 23-year-old studying at Griffith University to become a vet while working as a horse strapper. Caitlin dropped dead at work of a heart attack following a second Pfizer shot. Her death was recorded as asthma, a condition Caitlin had never had.
Reginald Shearer, a formerly healthy fit and active man, quickly went downhill and passed away from effects that began after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Daniel Perkins, a 36-year-old healthy father from Albion Park, died of a heart attack in his sleep following his second Pfizer injection.
Douglas James Roberts died after taking AstraZeneca. His family are concerned that his GP didn’t warn him of the side-effects of the vaccine. In other words, no informed consent was obtained. Neurosurgeons at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital attributed his death to a stroke, despite no family history and a clean bill of health. They refused to report his death to the TGA—refused!
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency, Ahpra, has been bullying medical practitioners into not reporting or even for talking about the harm they’re seeing.
The TGA erased 98 per cent of the 800 vaccine deaths—98 per cent erased!—that physicians reported. The TGA did so without autopsy or suitable consideration of all the patient medical data.
TGA, ATAGI and Ahpra are the three monkeys of the pharmaceutical industry: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Section 22D(2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 requires the Secretary of the Department of Health to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of the vaccines were satisfactorily established for each cohort for which the provision of approval is being granted.
Data recently revealed in court papers in the United States clearly shows that vaccine harm was apparent in the clinical trials that Pfizer, BioNTech and others conducted. This information, if ATAGI had bothered to ask for it, should have resulted in a refusal of the application for provisional use.
No data was provided to the secretary regarding individual test subjects—technically, anonymized patient clinical data. No independent analysis of the fundamental issues surrounding novel mRNA vaccines was conducted in Australia—none in Australia!
Instead, the secretary took Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna’s word for it.
I will say that again: the secretary took pharmaceutical companies’ word for the safety of their products.
These are the same pharmaceutical companies that have been fined over and over for criminal behaviour.
AstraZeneca got a US$355 million fine for fraud and, separately, a $550 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy.
Pfizer got a $430 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy, and a $2.3 billion fine—that’s billion dollars—for making unfounded claims about efficacy and for paying kickbacks.
This is who the Liberal-Nationals, Labor and Greens—our very own pharmaceutical lobby—want to pay more money to. That’s not on the basis of extensive local testing and inquiry, it’s simply on the basis of taking pharmaceutical companies safety assurances. There’s no testing. It’s an assurance made easy by indemnity against any damage that the vaccines cause. What deceit! What criminal incompetence!
The Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party have accepted $1 million each from the pharmaceutical establishment in this election cycle alone. Billions more are being set aside in this week’s budget to pay the pharmaceutical companies to keep the COVID-19 gravy train going. What great value this parliament provides for those electoral donations.
Mention should be made of the TGA’s decision to ban safe, fully approved and widely accepted alternatives to COVID-19 vaccines. This includes hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; vitamins, minerals and natural antivirals; as well as proven messaging around healthy eating and lifestyles. The decision to ban proven, safe, affordable and accessible alternative treatments that are working around the world was taken to ensure the fastest and widest-possible adoption of the vaccines.
The TGA’s own customers fund the TGA. That means pharmaceutical companies fund their own product’s approval. That fails the pub test. Where are the checks and balances? There are none.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is culpable in this scandal and cover-up. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ annual budget is $400 million. The most recent mortality data they provide is from November last year, four months behind. The most recent breakdown of mortality by cause and age is from 2020.
The most recent data on live births is from 2020. Birth data used to be available six weeks after, not 15 months and counting. Are they hiding miscarriages?
At what point do we consider the actions of the TGA, ATAGI and the Australian Bureau of Statistics as interfering with the operation of the Senate? Peer-reviewed and soon-to-be-published data that must require the secretary to cancel the provisional approval of the vaccines has been released from outside of the government.
Let me review those quickly so the Senate fully understands the extent to which we have been misled.
Firstly, freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the reproductive toxicology of the COVID vaccines. Freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the impact of microRNA sequences and related molecular genetic issues on the human body.
Peer-reviewed and published in-vitro research shows gene based vaccine-generated spike proteins can migrate into human cell nuclei to disrupt DNA repair mechanisms. The TGA has dealt with this abysmally—murderously?
Vaccine-derived RNA can be reverse transcribed, leading to possible integration into the human genome, which the TGA denies, based only on pharmaceutical companies telling them to deny it.
Internal Pfizer data released in February indicate they accept 1,272 different adverse vaccine events, including paralysis and death.
German and US insurance actuarial data suggests the TGA’s database of adverse event notifications is underreporting side effects ninefold.
Freedom of information documents from 2018 show the TGA keeps two databases of adverse event notifications: one internal, showing all reports of harm; and one public, showing only a part of those.
This means vaccine harm is most likely significantly higher than reported.
Without honest and accurate data, the Senate has no way of deciding how much harm is too much harm.
German pathologists describe pathological aggregates of spike proteins and lymphocyte infiltrations in inflamed organs in autopsies related to death post vaccination.
In response, the TGA is failing to conduct autopsies on the 800 Australians the patients’ own doctors have reported as having died from the vaccines. What the hell is the TGA hiding?
Whistleblowers to the British Medical Journal provided reports of inadequacies, irregularities and possible fraudulent practices in the Pfizer vaccine trial—you know, the same trial for which the TGA took Pfizer’s word.
From a modern immunological perspective, two frequent vaccines for respiratory viruses run the risk of desensitising the immune responses to the virus, and that leads to hypoimmunity and worse illness than without the immunisation. To put that simply: repeated vaccination is doing more harm than good.
These are the matters I sought today to refer to the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 without success. I thank Senators Hanson, Abetz, Rennick and Antic for their support, integrity and courage.
The truth is the Select Committee on COVID-19 has been running a protection racket for the pharmaceutical industry, and today’s vote proves it.
This unprecedented betrayal of the Australian people must be referred immediately to a royal commission. To the Prime Minister, the health minister, the federal health department and all those in the Senate and the House of Representatives—all of you who have perpetrated this crime—I direct one question: how the hell do you expect to get away with it?
We’re not going to let you get away with it. We won’t let you get away with it. We are coming for you. We have the stamina to hound you down and we damn well will.
COVID UNDER QUESTION is a cross-party inquiry into the Government’s response to COVID held on 23rd March 2022. COVID Under Question was hosted by Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation Federal Senator for Queensland) and attended by Stephen Andrew (One Nation Queensland State MP for Mirani), George Christensen (Federal Nationals MP for Dawson), Gerard Rennick (Federal Liberal Senator for Queensland), Alex Antic (Federal Liberal Senator for South Australia) and Craig Kelly (Federal Palmer United Australia MP for Hughes).
Parliamentarians heard from a range of Doctors, experts, economists and everyday people about how the Government’s response to COVID has affected them and at times defied belief. The absurdity of Chief Health Officer dictates and power hungry politicians is all laid bare.
The full day’s proceedings were recorded and available for public viewing.
How can we heal our relationship with food in the age of artificial food? In response to the crises in our food system we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives.
Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world. Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change.
The notion that high-tech, “farm free” lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today – the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.
Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to “stuff” that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process both the planet’s health and our health has been nearly destroyed.
Industrial agriculture is re-inventing its future based on “fake farming” with “fake food”, with chemicals and GMOs, surveillance drones and spyware. Farming without farmers, farming without biodiversity, farming without soil, is the vision of those who have already brought us to the brink of catastrophe.
This is why artificial meat, invested in by the giant tycoons of factory farming, are not viable alternatives. They are just additional sources of profit for the same players and take political power away from regenerative farmers and local communities.
These modes deny the essential symbiotic relationships between humans, plants, animals and microorganisms and, in turn, deny their potential to maintain and regenerate the web of life. Food is the web of life and we cannot separate food from life. Similarly, we cannot separate ourselves from the Earth.
Solutions to our global crises already exist and they come from building cultures of interconnection and regeneration, as well as healing our relationships with food, nature and community. We need to become aware of the connections that hold the opportunity to regenerate the earth, our health, our food economies and food cultures through a real agriculture that cares for the earth and for people. Real food is not created in a laboratory, but comes from biodiverse farms that take care of the land by embracing a regenerative agriculture model.
We must therefore work actively to renew and regenerate the Planet by participating in ecological processes of reciprocity and restoring biodiversity. For this to happen, the act of eating must once again become an ecological act, so that the false solutions proposed by the advocates of artificial food, which do nothing to counter the profit-driven agri-food industry, do not create further crises.
Fully artificial food is an increasingly popular trend focused on developing a new line of synthetically produced, ultra-processed food products by using recent advances in synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology. These new products seek to imitate and replace animal products, food additives, and expensive, rare, or socially conflictive ingredients (such as palm oil). Biotech companies and agribusiness giants are seeing the opportunity to move into this promising market of “green” consumption and hence these products are marketed to a new generation of environmentally conscious consumers who are growing critical of the grim realities of industrial food production. As a result, meatless burgers and sausages, as well as imitations of cheese, dairy products, seafood, and others, have begun to flood the market, being found anywhere from fast food chains to local grocery stores.
Although these products market themselves as ‘eco-friendly’, ‘healthy’, and ‘sustainable’, they are no such thing as they do little to truly address the root problems of industrial agriculture and its environmental, and health consequences. Consequences that can be largely blamed on the same circle of businessmen who today finance the development of this biotech industry. These products instead represent the next generation of ultra-processed junk foods that work to further entrench industrial agriculture models due to their direct dependence on globalized commodity chains, agrochemicals, GMOs, monocultures, and even conventional animal production. In other words, synthetic foods are quickly becoming a next means to consolidate even more power and profit into the hands of a few food giants without facing the implications of ecological devastation, worsening human health, and exacerbated climate change.
One of the key differences between conventional junk food products and these new synthetic foods is the use of new technological innovations such as synthetic biology and genetic engineering. Synthetic biology is a new type of biotechnology which is now creating entirely new organisms and microorganisms through the genetic modification or engineering of an organism’s internal genetic parts to reconfigure them in new ways. By implanting pieces of other organisms’ DNA into microorganisms, or reconfiguring internal genetic information, these new technologies trigger microorganisms, cells, or other forms of genetic material to ‘ferment’ and reproduce in order to trigger them to create new, completely synthetic ingredients. The use of the word ‘fermentation’ in synthetic biology hence creates a false analogy between traditional forms of natural microbial fermentation and these new, completely artificial biotechnologies.
These new technologies are now being used by companies such as Beyond Meat, Motif Foodworks, Ginkgo Bioworks (custom-built microbes), BioMilq (lab-grown breast milk), Nature’s Fynd (fungi-grown meat and dairy alternatives), Eat Just (egg substitutes made from plant proteins), Perfect Day Food (lab-grown dairy products) or NotCo.
Companies such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods use a DNA coding sequence derived from soybeans or peas to create a product that looks and tastes like real meat. Imitations of cheese and dairy products are also starting to pop up. For instance, companies like Formo are using synthetic biology to synthesise milk proteins through fermentation for mozzarella and ricotta cheeses without cows.
Filler ingredients for these products also still rely heavily on the extensive processing of conventionally cultivated and mostly GMO crops. For instance, the Impossible Burger is made almost entirely from industrially produced wheat, maize, soya, coconut and potato, in addition to additional bioengineered ingredients. Proteins, carbohydrates from these conventional crops are chemically extracted, cooked and then extruded through machines that blend and shape them into strands resembling short muscle fibers, allowing manufacturers to convincingly imitate a range of processed meat products[1].
Cell-Cultured Synthetic Meat and Dairy
Lab-grown or cultured meat and dairy products are now also being marketed as yet another alternative to animal products, with many companies investing in cell-culturing or ‘fermentation’ of foods made from real animal cells. In the case of cell-based meat, tissue is taken from a living cow and combined with extracted stem cells to grow into muscle fibers in the lab. Once enough (over 20,000) have been obtained from this process they are colored, minced, mixed with fats, and shaped into burgers.
For instance, Upside Foods (previously known as Memphis Meats) produces meat through this method, by using self-reproducing animal cells. The rationale is that such an approach would eliminate the need to breed and slaughter a huge amount of animals, thus ironing out many ethical and ecological concerns along the supply chain. While lab-grown meat is not yet available to the public, companies like Upside Foods are heavily investing in research and development in order to make their products economically affordable over the long term to compete with commercial meat options. The Canadian company Better Milk, for instance, is also investing heavily in the production of cow’s milk using bovine mammary cells.
Yet, whether upscaling lab-grown food will one day be economically viable remains very doubtful. An article from the Counter reflects on the limits of the transformative potential of this emerging technology, with particular attention to the many obstacles faced by cultured meat companies. Through a rigorous review of scientific data, the article demonstrates that cultivated meat gives rise to a lot of inefficiencies and limitations in scalability, embodied by the need for intensive and sophisticated machinery, structural limitations on cell metabolisms and immunity to foreign contaminants, and a series of complex processes that all place a strict limit on the expansion of production. These factors contribute to a lack of cost competitiveness in comparison with the conventional meat products they wish to replace, as cultured meat production would amount to far less than conventional slaughterhouses. Especially when cell-culturing facilities at the scale needed have previously never been made viable.
Who is behind the surge of fake food and who benefits?
Over the last couple of years, and following the relentless emergence of new startups, the market for synthetic and plant-based alternatives has been rapidly expanding, with financial backing skyrocketing in 2020. The Good Food Institute, a lobby advocate group for the adoption of animal product alternatives, reports that in the United States, the plant-based market has already grown from 4.9 billion in 2018 to 7 billion in 2020, which represents an overall increase of 43% in dollar sales over the last two years. Similarly, the plant-based meat market is also booming, having reached a value of 1.4 billion and registered a growth of 72% by 2020. Beyond Meat has been one of the “hottest” stocks in 2019. The plant-based meat company’s shares grew a whooping 859% during its first three months.
The synthetic biology industry is also right behind. It has reached a value of $12 billion in the last decade and is expected to double by 2025, and to reach $85 billion in 2030. Companies specializing in this field have also grown six-fold in the last ten years.
Clearly it is agribusiness that stands to profit from this lucrative and quickly expanding market. Therefore, It should not come as a surprise that a lot of meat industry giants like Tyson foods, JBS, Cargill, Nestlé, and Maple Leaf Foods are investing in this blossoming market. Moreover, high profile big tech investors such as Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos have also joined in by providing substantial financial backup to startups and biotechnology companies pursuing innovations in the sector. In fact, Bill Gates alone has already invested 50 million dollars in Impossible Foods and actively finances Beyond Meat, Ginkgo Bioworks, BioMilq, Motif Foodworks, C16 Biosciences, and Memphis Meats (now Upside Foods) through his Breakthrough Energy Ventures investment fund.
Other prominent start-ups funded by this billionaire investment include- Eat Just (egg substitutes made from plant proteins), Perfect Day Food (lab-grown dairy products), and NotCo (plant-based animal products made through AI), to name a few.
Given the widespread success of the plant-based industry, it is not surprising that big plant-breeding companies like Bayer also see a great opportunity for investment and expansion in this market. As put by Bob Reiter, Bayer’s head of research and development at the company’s crop science division, in reference to plant based-meat companies: “They are sourcing different types of crops and that could also create opportunity for us, being a company that is a plant-breeding company”.
An ecological choice or a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
Many studies are questioning the alleged sustainability of this industry, which now comprises a constellation of new ‘green-conscious’ start-ups. It is not surprising that the tremendous rise of synthetic foods is happening at a time when ethical concerns linked to the meat and dairy industry are increasingly under the spotlight. As the industrial agrifood industry is threatened by consumer apathy, big companies that stand to lose significant profits are trying to tap into a new market of environmentally aware consumers looking for alternatives. Hence, the promotion of these synthetic foods is nothing more than a clever way to reorient profits back to the same old companies by re-purposing the destructive technologies of the Green Revolution combined with new biotechnologies as a well-disguised ‘sustainable alternative’.
This reinforcement of the industrial agriculture production model becomes evident when one looks at the ingredients that make up these synthetic foods. Primarily made up of conventionally grown peas, potatoes, soya, coconut, and maize, these products rely on heavy processing, monocultures, agrochemicals, GMOs, deforestation and a contaminating global-supply chain.
Yet, companies remain adamant in their claims that their plant-based meats require less water, less land, and produce less greenhouse gases than their counterparts, as well as simultaneously ironing out animal welfare concerns. In so doing, they deliberately sidestep the impacts of the toxic industrial supply chain their products depend on.
Most significantly, to run, these bioreactors require large amounts of nutrients for cells to grow and reproduce. Given the limited production of individual amino acid formulations suited for cell culture globally, one hope is to use soy to derive the full amino acid profile necessary for cell growth. This would work to only further entrench the already destructive cultivation of soy.
Gruesomely and ironically, other parts of the nutrient broth used to culture cells also directly derive from current industrial animal production, as some of them are made using fetal cow’s blood obtained from conventionally slaughtered pregnant cows. Stem cells necessary for cell reproduction during the cell culturing process also come from fetal cows. Without the mass abundance of slaughtered fetal cows, can cell-cultured meat scale up? And so, can lab-grown meat be considered to solve the problem of animal welfare and environmental degradation if it is completely dependent on ingredients that derive from industrial beef production? This gruesome reality says otherwise.
Meat analogs and cell-based meats are also much more carbon intensive than we are led to believe. A recent study has shown that the fossil fuel energy required for the production of lab meat is not sustainable and could by far surpass the output of livestock like pigs and poultry.
Vast amounts of energy are required for the production of synthetic foods. These include several energy intensive steps such as the operation of the bioreactors, temperature controls, aeration, and mixing processes. Thus, on the basis of these indicators, the sector is in no position to claim that synthetic meat production is inherently more sustainable than traditional production systems. Studies like these further point to how upscaling synthetic meat production is not the way towards a carbon free society, especially when we consider the scaling needed to match current consumption levels of the products this industry is trying to replace.
Are plant-based foods healthier? Not if they are ultra-processed
It is now widely known how industrial processing can make food less nutritious and thus harmful to human health, and according to a recent report, the latest generation of junk synthetic foods is no exception. In order to make their products, chemically extracted protein isolates from commodity crops such as soy, peas and potatoes are used and mixed in with added flavorings, food additives, and now, perhaps most dangerously, genetically engineered artificial ingredients to try to approximate the taste and texture of real animal products. As a result, these ultra-processed foods typically contain high levels of sodium, fats and artificial food enhancers in order to be palatable, placing them under the same categories as junk foods.
Moreover, ultra processed foods are made from refined ingredients which means that they lack many of the nutrients found in traditional animal products such as zinc, iron and vitamin B-12. These nutrients and fortifiers thus need to be added as separate ingredients in synthetic meat, but cannot be absorbed as effectively as they would from whole foods, and can cause harmful interference with other nutrients. As a result our bodies may derive less health benefits from them and therefore they should not be part of a nutritious and environmentally friendly diet.
The safety of new ingredients and additives used is also a cause for concern. For example, to make the Impossible Burger appear to “bleed” like real meat, a synthetically produced “heme” molecule is added which comes from soy leghemoglobin, a colorant produced in genetically engineered yeast. The adoption of this patented new ingredient has been nothing short of controversial. According to the Center for Food Safety, the FDA did not conduct adequate long-term testing before approving the additive in 2019, and after a short-term rat trial, several potential adverse effects were detected like changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate inflammation or kidney disease, disruptions in the reproductive cycle and possible signs of anemia. Despite the lack of evidence that the additive is safe, Impossible Foods’ products containing genetically engineered heme are now being sold in supermarkets across the United States, exemplifying the lack of testing and regulation for these new products and technologies.
Highly toxic glyphosate has also been found in the Impossible Burger with amounts being more than enough to have a variety of negative health effects.This is also not mentioning synergistic effects this might have with the variety of toxic food additives these companies mix in to mask flavors, and the unknown health effects of synbio-produced additives.
Profitable Patents
Synthetic foods symbolize yet another profit-making machine used by billionaires and big corporations to capitalize on proprietary technology and increase their control over the world’s resources. This is reflected in companies’ ceaseless pursuit of patents for anything from novel processes of synthetic biology, genetically engineered ingredients like soy leghemoglobin, protein texturizing processing and even the patenting of genetic materials used as raw materials. As was shown in the Navdanya International Gates to a Global Empire report, 27 patents have been assigned to Impossible Foods, with over 100 additional patents pending for other fake meat proxies, from chicken to fish.
The patenting logic that underlies the synthetic food movement, sees animals and nature as disposable elements that can simply be replaced by more efficient technologies such as lab-engineered products. This dangerous way of thinking reduces animals to mere inputs in a production system, thus completely ignoring our relationship with nature and further creating a rift separating humans from nature and food from life.
Handing over control of our food to a handful of multinational companies does not only make us increasingly dependent on them, it can also have detrimental consequences on local food systems and erode the food sovereignty of organic farmers.
International appetites for ultra-processed foods
In addition to conquering our plates and diets, synthetic food is slowly starting to take over multi-level governance arenas. This was most apparent in last years’ UN Food Systems Summit, as well as the COP26. Both serving as forums to showcase the true intentions of agribusiness and food giants– namely, to keep the system unchanged. As anticipated, both summits marked yet another failed attempt at addressing power imbalances in the food system, with sustainable farming practices like agroecology only playing a marginal role. The summits were thus met with resounding backlash from environmental associations and civil society organizations.
Reflected in the themes and proposals of both international events was the willingness to keep business as usual and continuing to rely on the failed industrial agricultural model by allowing big actors to dictate terms. For instance, during both the UNFSS and the COP26 there was explicit promotion of artificial and ultra processed plant-based foods, under the language of achieving ‘protein diversification’ and ‘sustainable diets’. During the COP26 the “Plant-Based Treaty” was promoted and backed by all the above-mentioned actors, and during the UNFSS under similar initiatives were promoted in Action Track 2 led by Nestlé, Danone and the controversial EAT organization.
There are many dangers associated with the above discourses of these ultra-processed, synthetic foods being cornerstones of ‘sustainable diets’ entering the global governance arena. This is especially true if they are further consolidated into policies that shift attention and resources away from organic farmers and local markets toward a handful of biotech companies. Despite food advocates’ claims that the proliferation of synthetic alternatives to animal products can resolve animal welfare concerns and solve many of our ongoing crises, the ‘plant-based’ label means very little if it is based on industrial models, monocultures, GMOs, pesticides, and other chemically intensive agricultural practices that lead to biodiversity loss and ecological degradation.
Which future for our food?
There are many dangers associated with the above discourses entering the global governance arena. Especially if they mean a further consolidation of policies that shift attention and resources away from organic farmers and local markets toward a handful of biotech companies. Despite food advocates’ claims that the proliferation of synthetic alternatives to animal products can resolve animal welfare concerns and solve many of our ongoing crises, the ‘plant-based’ label means very little if it is based on industrial models, monocultures, GMOs, pesticides, and other destructive agricultural practices that lead to biodiversity loss, ecological degradation and worsening health.
Synthetic food is thus nothing more than a fake solution that aims to replace products without challenging the power structures that underlie the corporate agricultural model. Moreover, it completely ignores the solutions offered by the growing regenerative agriculture movement and completely disregards the role of small producers and food communities in shaping our food systems. This mindset explains why we will soon see Beyond Meat burgers in McDonald’s plant-based menus when we should instead focus on the necessity for real regenerative agriculture and systemic change to protect nature and people’s health.
What We Need is Real Food
In the end, these artificial, synthetic foods dismantle our connection with nature and in doing so, they completely disregard the role of natural processes and the laws of ecology that are at the heart of real food production. By promoting the illusion that we live outside of nature’s ecological processes, this new technology will only serve to increase corporate control over food and health, accelerate the collapse of local food economies and further destroy food democracy. The real solution to the environmental, and health crises should be based on an active rejuvenation and regeneration of the planet by working with ecological processes through agroecological and regenerative farming practices.
Contrary to the claims of the agro-industry and food tech companies, food cannot be reduced to a commodity to be put together mechanically and artificially in labs and factories. Food is the currency of life and it holds the contribution of all beings involved at all stages of production. Claiming otherwise would be a negation of local indigenous knowledge and pastoralist cultures that have evolved alongside diverse ecosystems over the centuries to regenerate biodiversity and contribute to the diversity of farming systems.
Animals, humans, and nature have always lived in interconnected, symbiotic relationships which in turn regenerate all systems that support life. This synergy is vital to the renewal of soil fertility, the creation of habitat for biodiversity, and the rejuvenation of Earth’s water, carbon, and nutrient cycles. While concerns about the meat industry are legitimate, animals integrated into a biodiverse, agroecological system can provide a viable alternative to an agricultural system based on exploitation and environmental destruction. Animals have always held a central function in agroecological systems, since when they feed on grass, pests, and weeds, they, in turn, fertilize the soil, improve biodiversity at all levels, and help sequester carbon back into the earth. Animals in symbiotic and balanced relationships with plants, soils, and humans have also formed central parts of cultural and agricultural reproduction for millennia, contributing to much more than just meat production.
On the other hand, the industrial raising of animals through CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Farm Operations) who are force-fed industrially grown grains and soy, contribute to the expansion of GHG-emitting industrial agriculture, causing a greater release of methane and the pollution of air and water sources. It is important to emphasize how these two systems are not at all alike, as meat consumption per se is not the problem, rather it is the industrial meat production model hand in hand with the industrial agriculture model that is responsible for the majority of GHG emissions, animal suffering, and environmental degradation. Therefore, the real solution does not lie in creating substitutes for food, it lies in understanding the needs of the ecosystems we are embedded in and healing our connection with nature.
Real food made through real farming is the direct result of a process of care for the land, animals, and fellow humans that celebrates the connection between food and life. It protects the life of all beings on Earth while also nourishing our health and wellbeing. Artificial food is a direct manifestation of years of food imperialism and colonization that has denied our diverse food knowledge, food cultures, and disregarded the biodiversity of the earth and its ecosystems.
Hope does not lie in pursuing technological innovations such as lab-grown synthetic foods that see nature as a dead and unimprovable technology, but in participating and rejuvenating the earth’s natural processes. The question of what we eat, how we grow the food we eat, and how we distribute it has become a survival imperative for the human species and all beings that make up the web of life. When we farm with real knowledge of how to care for the Earth and her biodiversity, when we eat real food which nourishes the biodiversity of the Earth, our cultures, and our gut microbiome, we are then participating in real and living economies that regenerate the well-being of all. All over the world, small farmers and gardeners are already preserving and developing their soils and their seeds through the practice of agroecology. They are feeding their communities with healthy and nutritious food while also rejuvenating the planet.
[1] Kyriakopoulou, Konstantina, et al. “Plant-Based Meat Analogues.” Sustainable Meat Production and Processing, edited by Charis Galanakis, Academic Press, 2019, pp. 103–126. Science Direct. doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814874-7.00006-7.
“To harvest a viable embryonic kidney for this purpose, sufficiently healthy children old enough
to have adequately-developed kidneys must be removed from the womb, alive, typically by cesarean section, and have their kidneys cut out.
This must take place without anesthesia for the child, which [anesthesia] would lessen the viability of the organs.
Instead of being held, rocked, and comforted in the time intervening between their birth and
their death, they have organs cut out of them alive.”
With the release of COVID vaccines, and then the mandates, we’ve seen a new resurgence of people attempting to gain religious exemptions.
Many of these attempts focus on fetal tissue obtained through abortion.
On January 19, 2021, AnnaMaria Cardinalli published an explosive article in Crisis Magazine, headlined, “Catholic Conscience and the COVID-19 Vaccine.”
Cardinalli details the collection of fetal tissue for the cell line named HEK 293.
The tissue was taken from an aborted infant in the Netherlands in 1972-3.
This cell line was used for “testing” the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
Cardinalli writes: “We know that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines do not use any cells derived from abortion in the production process. That is, we know that we are not being directly injected with fetal cells or their engineered descendants (though this fact differs with other manufacturers). We hear that the abortion-derived cell lines were only used in testing, which should somehow comfort us, though it still means that the vaccines from which we seek to benefit depend on the involvement of abortion. We are told that the cell line used in testing came from one abortion, which took place decades ago. These things are all true, but they do not serve to inform us fully.”
“What we may not know follows. The most prominent cell line, called HEK 293, comes from an abortion performed in the 1970’s…”
“HEK stands for human embryonic kidney. To harvest a viable embryonic kidney for this purpose, sufficiently healthy children old enough to have adequately-developed kidneys must be removed from the womb, alive, typically by cesarean section, and have their kidneys cut out. This must take place without anesthesia for the child, which [anesthesia] would lessen the viability of the organs. Instead of being held, rocked, and comforted in the time intervening between their birth and their death, they have organs cut out of them alive.”
“There is no way that a spontaneous abortion could result in the cell line (as the kidneys cannot remain viable past the brief window in which they must be harvested) or that some brilliant researcher found a way for great good to come out of a rare tragedy by making use of a child’s body donated to science after it was aborted. The deliberate killing of an unwanted child (a little girl, in the case of HEK 293) took place in the tortuous manner it did precisely to obtain her organs for research. The harvest of her organs was the direct cause of her death, prior to which, she was a living child, outside the womb.”
“I fear that Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict may not have had this information when they received the vaccines. If we re-examine the Vatican statement that ‘it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and productions process,’ we see that it does not apply here. It does not imagine this scenario. To approve of the currently-available vaccines, it would have to read ‘it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from living persons, killed by the harvest of their organs for use in medical research and productions processes,’ but the Church’s moral teachings could never truly bend so far.
Similar to the human rights abuses exposed by international tribunal in today’s China, where unwanted individuals such as religious and political dissidents are executed by the harvest of their organs for profit, the little girl whose cells gave rise to the COVID-19 vaccines was brutally sacrificed for the purpose, as were all the children whose cell lines failed before her.”
After reading Cardinalli’s analysis—not only should the granting of religious exemptions from vaccination be a foregone conclusion; the whole field of fetal tissue research, going back many years and involving many pharmaceutical products, should be put on trial.
The people who have been carrying out the murders, the people who have been using the harvested tissue, the companies—all of them—on trial.
I hope many medical professionals will take Cardinalli’s article as a springboard, and weigh in on what she is very clearly stating.
And not just doctors. All people who are shocked by her conclusions.
So far, I see one counter-claim to Cardinalli’s assertions:
The notion that the kidneys of the aborted baby must be harvested very quickly is false. The kidneys can survive for a longer period.
On that score, I refer you to a devastating video interview conducted by Robert Kennedy Jr. His guest was SOUND CHOICE PHARMACEUTICAL INSTITUTE “President and Founder, Dr. Theresa Deisher Ph.D., [with] over 30 years of pharmaceutical research and leadership experience. She discovered adult cardiac derived stem cells, has worked on their therapeutic uses as an alternative to human fetal DNA, and leads a team of scientists at AVM Biotechnology dedicated to changing what a diagnosis of cancer, autoimmunity, or chronic infectious disease means to patients and their loved ones. As a result of this work, Dr. Deisher is named as an inventor on over 47 patents.”
In the first 15 minutes of the interview, Deisher makes it quite clear that infants in the womb are taken out alive, with their blood supply functioning (essential) and then killed by cutting out their hearts or their brains. This is what is done in order to obtain tissue that will be turned into fetal cell lines.
Since this act of murder is standard practice, it would appear it was committed against the live baby whose kidney cells became cell line HEK 293, used in testing the COVID vaccines.
At the top of the interview, Kennedy said he didn’t want to get into the moral aspect of fetal cell lines. But after listening to Deisher, he was quite shaken. He said so. He said they would have to cover the moral aspect.
The whole world has to.
Here is the basic ramification: THERE IS A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FOR THE WHOLE WORLD.
For all people of faith. Every faith.
“According to my religious belief, the murder of an undeniably live infant for any reason is unconscionable and evil, and I refuse the vaccine.”
Here is a Force against which no government, no establishment, no secret society, no wealth can stand.
I fully understand all sorts of professionals will spout language that purports to show “the aborted infant was not alive, the lab followed all the legal guidelines, this is an old argument that has been debunked…”
But this is not just an old argument. This is the equivalent of an opening statement in a murder trial. Nothing less.
If religious leaders will read AnnaMaria Cardinalli’s article, they will see how important her charge is.
The question isn’t “will people of faith wake up and do what they should”; the question is “how can any person of faith NOT do what they should”.
If they will make a stand; if all people of faith will; the entire dire situation we are facing changes in the blink of an eye.
Solomon to God: “You have made Your servant king instead of my father David, but I am a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in…Therefore give to Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil.”
Gautama Buddha: “To cease from evil, to do good, and to purify the mind yourself, this is the teaching of all the Buddhas.”
John 10:10: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”
Would any church, any religion in the world say that God wants the killing of live infants for the purpose of medical research?
In the midst of this COVID tyranny, haven’t we all been looking for a truth that will galvanize huge numbers of people?
And not as some kind of stunt. But rather as an inevitable outcome of deep faith.
Faith and justice come from the same everlasting tree.
Yesterday I had the privilege and the honor to speak with Alec Zeck, John Blaid, Mike Donio, and Jacob Diaz about the claims made regarding the isolation and existence of “SARS-COV-2” by Dr.’s Malone, McCullough, and Cole. In this video, we address specific points they made such as whether or not:
Cultivation in cell culture is “isolation” of a “virus?”
Koch’s Postulates had been satisfied for “SARS-COV-2?”
The effect a drug has can be considered proof of the existence of a “virus?”
The electron microscopy images taken from unpurified cell cultures are proof of “virus” particles?
The particles assumed to be “viruses” are purified and isolated directly from the samples of a sick patient?
It was a pleasure to be a part of this conversation! I hope that you are able to come away with a better understanding as to why the evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2,” or any “virus” for the matter, is entirely lacking and unscientific.
Video available at The Truth Seeker (John Blaid) BitChute and Odysee channels.
Mike Donio, John Blaid, Jacob Diaz, Mike Stone, and Alec Zeck filmed a response to claims made by Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Ryan Cole regarding virus isolation and the existence of SARS-CoV-2 during an episode of The StreetMD Show hosted by Dr. Jo Yi on the Ickonic platform. The overall stance held by the speakers is simple: the claims made by these three gentlemen lack both in context and in substantial evidence to support the notion that SARS-CoV-2 exists as a pathogenic disease causing agent.
The first tweet I saw when I checked my timeline this morning was from foreign policy analyst Clint Ehlirch, pointing out that the Russian ruble has already started recovering from the dip created by Western sanctions, and is almost at pre-war levels:
The Russian Ruble is nearing its pre-invasion value.
Ehrlich states, “sanctions were designed to collapse the value of the Ruble, they have failed”.
…to which I can only respond, well “were they?”
…and perhaps more importantly, “have they?”
Because it doesn’t really look like it, does it?
If anything, the sanctions seem to be at best rather impotent, and at worst amazingly counterproductive.
It’s not like the US/EU/NATO don’t know how to cripple economies. They have had years of practice starving the people of Cuba, Iraq, Venezuela and too many others to list.
Now, you could argue that Russia is a larger, more developed economy than those countries, and that’s true, but the US and its allies have previously managed to hurt the Russian economy quite drastically.
As recently as 2014, following the “annexation” of Crimea, Western sanctions were tame compared to the recent unprecedented measures, but crucially the US massively increased its own oil production, then later that year (following a visit by US Secretary of State John Kerry) Saudi Arabia did the same.
Despite objections from other members of OPEC – Venezuela and Iran chiefly – the Saudis flooded the market with oil.
This kicked Russia into a full recession and saw Russia’s GDP shrink for the first time under Putin’s leadership.
Again, just two years ago, allegedly as part of competing with Russia for a share of the oil market, Saudi Arabia once more flooded the market with cheap oil.
So, the West does know how to hurt Russia if it really wants to – by increasing oil production, flooding the market and tanking the price.
But has the US increased its oil production this time round? Have they leant on their Gulf allies to do the same?
Not at all.
In fact, in a point of beautiful narrative synchronicity, the US claims it’s “unable” to increase its oil production due to “staff shortages” caused by that gift that keeps on giving – Covid.
Similarly, Saudi Arabia is not tanking the oil market, but deliberately increasing prices.
Yes, right now, with the Western allies locked in an alleged economic war with Russia the price of oil is soaring, and may continue to do so.
This is good news for the Russian economy, to the point it may even make up for the damage done by the brutal sanctions.
Those Western sanctions are targeting other Russian exports too, including grains and food in general.
Russia is a net exporter of food, meaning they export more food than they import. Conversely, many countries in Western Europe rely on imported food, including the UK which imports over 48% of its food supply.
If Europe refuses to buy Russian food, the net effect is that Russia has food…and the West doesn’t.
And, just as with oil, increasing food prices will help rather than hinder the Russian economy.
Take wheat for example, of which Russia is the biggest exporter in the world. The vast majority of this wheat is not even sold to Western countries – but instead to China, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Nigeria and Pakistan – and so is not even subject to sanctions.
Nevertheless, the sanctions, and the war, have actually driven the price of wheat up almost 30%.
This is good for the Russian economy.
Meanwhile, according to CNN, the US is likely to enter a full-blown recession by 2023, France is considering food vouchers and countries all over the world are expected to begin rationing fuel.
So, the sweeping sanctions imposed against Russia by the West, allegedly in response to the invasion of Ukraine, are not having their stated aim – tanking the Russian economy – but they are driving up the price of oil, creating potential energy and food shortages in the West and exacerbating the “cost of living” crisis created by the “pandemic”.
You should always be wary of anybody – individual or institution – whose actions accidentally achieve the exact opposite of their stated aim. That’s a simple rule to live by.
Remember how Orwell described the evolution of the concept of war in 1984:
War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.
Likewise, we were due to experience Covid-related energy disruptions and power cuts. Short of the UK’s damp squib of a “petrol crisis”, they never really arrived.
But now they are heading our way after all – because war and sanctions
Increased food prices, decreased use of fossil fuels, lowering standards of living, public money poured into “renewables”. This is all part of a very familiar agenda, isn’t it?
Regardless of what you feel about Putin, Zelensky, the war in general or Ukrainian Nazis, it’s time to confront the elephant in room.
We need to be asking: What exactly is the real aim of these sanctions? And how come they align so perfectly with the great reset?
Biden has warned that there is going to be a New World Order. Putin and Xi are writing joint statements about the creation of a New World Order. In fact, all of the globalists are interested in a New World Order. Today, Iain Davis of In-This-Together.com joins us to discuss the history of the “International Rules-Based Order,” reveal its “operating system” (technocracy), and discuss how we can fruitfully oppose it.
Jim Gale is the founder & CEO of Food Forest Abundance, a company & movement that is revolutionizing gardening & food independence by bringing a simple but effective solution for our most complex problems.
Climate engineering researcher Dane Wigington contends the coming food shortage that President Biden recently mentioned is not because of the Ukraine/Russia conflict. Wigington explains, “The bottom line is we have crops collapsing all over the globe. Although the causes are many . . . climate engineering must be considered a core causal factor at this point. The assault against food producing regions has been relentless. . . . We can only consider it an assault against food production at this time.”
Wigington says time is short and predicts, “Based on the current rate of UV (ultraviolet) increase, it appears we may have a functional Ozone layer collapse in as little as 18 months. Nothing grows then. The heat in California is relentless, as well, because climate engineers are keeping a high pressure heat dome over the western U.S. For photosynthesis, as we approach 104 degrees, photosynthesis tapers off, and at 104 degrees, it stops completely. To blame the food shortages coming on the Russia/Ukraine scenario is to simply scapegoat it. . . . Climate engineering is the single biggest factor in the equation for the destruction of food production.”
It’s not just food production that is going to take a hit, but coastal communities and cities could be facing massively rising sea levels in a relatively short amount of time. Wigington says, “As we lose the Cryosphere, there is enough ice in Antarctica to raise sea levels 197 feet. In Greenland, there is enough ice to raise it another 21 to 24 feet. As the ice slides off these land masses, the land begins to rise up out of the ocean. That is called ‘glacial rebound,’ and that can raise the seal levels even further. . . . When the power structure cannot hide the severity of what is unfolding, you just can’t shut off this kind of thermal inertia. When they just can’t hide it and people panic, that’s when the law of the jungle will truly prevail. We are perilously close to that point.”
The planet is in total meltdown right now. It is melting down at a rate of seven Hiroshima bombs per second. It’s not just crops collapsing, but oceans are collapsing. We have ocean ecosystems all over the globe collapsing. . . . If you watch the mainstream media, it is a total distraction, and people are totally missing the point. Who cares about the price of gas if you have nothing to eat, and we are almost there. . . . We simply have to stop geoengineering very soon or we are not going to have anything to salvage. . . . If everyone can work together to reach a critical mass awareness, we can wake up our military brothers and sisters and those participating with private defense contractors. We have a chance of stopping these programs from the inside out. Then, we can allow the planet to respond on its own. We need to convey that blaming Russia on the coming food collapse is not reality. . . . If we can pull back the curtain . . . we may have a chance to salvage at least part of what remains of the planet’s life support system.”
Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with climate researcher Dane Wigington, founder of GeoEngineeringWatch.org for 3.29.22. (There is much more in the 41 min. interview.)
The People’s Convoy will head back to California on Mar. 31 to protest “10 objectionable COVID-19 bills” being debated in the CA state legislature. They are leaving just a few days short of a month-long stay at the Hagerstown Speedway in Maryland. Prior to its Mar. 4 arrival in Hagerstown, the Convoy embarked on a 10-day cross-country slow roll from Adelanto, CA, beginning Feb. 23. The Convoy plans to return to the D.C. area after the protest in Sacramento.
The follow-up convoy will first stop on Apr. 10 for a Defeat the Mandates Rally with the Convoy’s partner, The Unity Project, in the Los Angeles area. They will then head to Sacramento for their protest against the proposed COVID-19 bills.
California Legislature COVID-19 Bills/The People’s Convoy/The Unity Project
The Unity Project
Contrary to some reporting, the Defeat the Mandates Rallies led by The Unity Project are not anti-vax rallies. Rather, the rallies are meant to reinforce the belief that “mandates are government overreach and that getting a vaccine should be a personal choice.”
The Unity Project/Statement of IntentionSpearheaded by several physicians and scientists, including well-respected, experienced physicians like Dr. Malone, Dr. McCullough, and Dr. Harvey Risch, the Unity Project has spoken forcefully against the vaccine mandates. Quoting Pfizer and Moderna, who state that the shots are “gene therapy” and are experimental, the participating doctors and scientists believe receiving the shots should be left to personal choice. They also think that handling the COVID-19 pandemic has subjected citizens worldwide to egregious measures that were completely unnecessary in many instances. Drs. Paul Alexander and Pierre Kory have often traveled with the Convoy and spoken at several of its rallies. Dr. Malone spoke at a Mar. 26 event in Hagerstown.
The Unity Project is now sponsoring a canvassing campaign powered by volunteers to educate Californians on the dangers of the COVID-19 bills that are currently on the floor. The website also features a series of videos to educate Californians about what is in the bills and why Californians should beware. The flier for the canvassing campaign is available in both English and Spanish. If passed, the bills will, among other things, add COVID-19 shots to the childhood immunization list for public and private schools and will classify “anti-COVID medical opinion as ‘unprofessional conduct.’”
Information on The People’s Convoy website contends that passing the bills is not only dangerous but would “set the stage for other states to introduce similar laws.”
These universally dangerous bills are about to be voted on in the California legislature! If passed, these bills will change everything for people who want to Live, Work or Learn in the State of CA while exercising their right to medical freedom.
If passed, these bills set the stage for other states to introduce similar laws. We know that what starts in CA, spreads to other blue and purple states and potentially at a federal level. This affects everyone!
The Route
A Mar. 28 press release from the Convoy explains that the trip to California represents a continuation of their mission to end emergency orders and mandates—The People’s Convoy “is in this for the long haul,” said one of its organizers, Marcus Sommers.
The truckers’ website has posted a tentative route for the Convoy. Still, specific stops and rally points will be withheld until the day of travel, just as was the protocol for their earlier cross-country trip for the safety and security of its participants. The Convoy will begin its journey on I-81 heading south, picking up I-40 to head West and then to I-20 and I-10 into California. It will then travel I-5 up to Sacramento after a brief stop in the Los Angeles area.
Map/Hagerstown to Sacramento/The People’s ConvoyPublicity for The People’s Convoy has been disappointingly scarce, and their rolls of the beltway have, at times, been met with significant resistance from authorities. However, the truckers and their allies have been undeterred. The Convoy rolled the beltway almost daily, and leadership members managed to secure meetings with Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and other government officials. Senator Ted Cruz also made the trip to the Speedway on Mar. 10 to speak with the Convoy, and he then joined lead organizers Mike Landis and Brian Brase for a roll on the beltway before they delivered him to his press conference in D.C. later in the day. Several truckers were also able to make it into D.C. proper on several occasions, despite the blockades on exits to the Capitol and surrounding areas.
UncoverDC traveled with the Convoy on its initial trip. Conversations with several original truckers indicate that many in that group have had to leave to go back to work. Several truckers who have left the Convoy told UncoverDC that their “savings have been depleted,” and they have to make up for time lost; however, they will continue to work locally to ensure they are better represented in the future. Trucker Bonnie Kelly says she hopes that the convoy “will pick up steam again” along the way, just as it did with the original trip.
A compilation of videos and stills from the February/March trip shows consistent and massive support for the truckers’ mission on overpasses, highways, and cities—big and small—along the way.
The following two articles about the connection between the current misery in the Ukraine, Hunter Biden and the biolabs, were sent by S.D. and V.T., and they raise a question. We’ll get back to that question, but first the articles:
I could have posted, and indeed was minded to post this blog under the “In The News” category, were it not for the question that occurred to me while reading them. The question these articles provoked was this: why, after deliberately dismissing the significance of Hunter Biden’s laptop during the last (s)election cycle with all its allegations of rampant election fraud, does the New York Times and other major propotainment media outlets basically reverse its position now, and acknowledge its veracity?
The articles above, while certainly newsworthy, are really not all that new; for anyone paying attention, the connections of the Bidenenko famdamnly to the Ukraine go back to the Obama era (as the articles point out), and Hunter’s role as a go-between were well known. No surprise. We have video of Bidenenko himself boasting about how he “fixed” a Ukrainian prosecutorial investigation by using US federal funds as the bait, telling his Ukrainian counterpart to just pick up the phone and call President Obama. The Ukraine was also a test bed, you’ll recall, for the introduction of GMOs into slavic Europe, during a time period that Russia was rejecting them for Russian agriculture.
Now we have these articles linking Hunter Biden’s interest to the biolabs controversy, to the Covid planscamdemic, and so on.
And in the midst of all of this, the reversal by some of America’s propotainment media on the laptop. Why now?
In looking back on the media behavior in this country of the past five to ten years, I’m amazed. During the 2016 election campaign, as most regular readers here know, I was a reluctant supporter of Donald Trump. In fact, I had come out of election “retirement” to vote for the first time since my disgust with the whole process with the campaign and election of G.H.W. Bush. During the Trump campaign, I maintained that in essence we were watching an election contest between two very deeply entrenched factions within the USA, the globalist-business-as-normal faction represented by Hillary Clinton (and, it should be added, the Republicans who crossed party lines to support her, like G.W. Bush), and that behind Donald Trump, a faction which was all but totally ignored by the media, which promptly dubbed his campaign and painted it as merely another “populist” revolt, and to be rejected by the cognoscenti for that reason alone.
What mystified me then, and what still mystifies me, was the almost total absence in the media of any coverage of Mr. Trump’s close connection to Roy Cohn, one time chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy, and a regular feature of New York City and Washington DC power politics including deep Mafia connections on top of everything else, and right up to the end of his life. One of my colleagues with whom I regularly interview, Dark Journalist a.k.a. Daniel Liszt, during one of our interviews referred to Cohn as “the original swamp creature,” and the epithet has stuck in my thinking ever since, because essentially it’s a very apt description. The silence of the media on this connection was deafening. It still is.
So again, why the sudden shift from a similar “silence” or rather, refusal to investigate the laptop in favor of dismissive stories about it being a Russian hoax, to one of authenticity. The change in narrative is nothing new for a media that has been consistently since the end of World War Two the “Mighty Wurlitzer” theater organ for the American intelligence community to disseminate its favored narratives. That is not the question, though sudden switches like this indicate why the lamestream propotainment media is losing what little credibility it had, and losing it quickly.
Again, the question is, why now, and why in the context of the emergence of articles like the ones linked above, drawing unpleasant connections between the Ukraine, Biolabs, Hunter Biden, bioweapons, and, of course, the president himself?
I suspect there’s at least two scenarios operating behind the scenes, and probably many more, but the two that spring immediately to mind, are (1) blackmail, and (2) “the B” team. Let’s take scenario (1) first. In my opinion there can be no doubt that the leadership class of the West has lost its collective (and collectivist) mind with their attempts to ratchet up war hysteria and to escalate the situation in The Ukraine. Mr. Globaloney would like nothing better than to embroil Russia in a kind of “Ukrainian Vietnam” or “Ukrainian Afghanistan”, an unending guerilla war that will eventually cripple the country and weaken the Putin government. Initially, of course, Mr. Biden showed some residual remaining shards of sanity in his tangled demented noodle of a brain by nixing the idea of no fly zones and avoiding war with Russia, always a bad idea (just ask N. Bonaparte or A. Hitler). Kaisers W. Hohenzollern and K. Hapsburg got away with it, but not for very long, so that’s not very encouraging either. Even the Mongol Khans had to pay the piper eventually. Lesson: leave Russia alone, let them go about their business, you go about yours, and everything will be more or less fine.
Rather suddenly the Bidenenko regime appears to be changing its tune, and more willing to entertain the “escalation” meme, and I strongly suspect Hunter’s laptop has a lot to do with it. “Escalate, or we reveal all,” and given the Bidenenko famdamnly’s history and associations, that could be quite a lot spread out for a very long time. Think of them as the Clintons, Lite version, just as the Clintons are the Lite version of the Bush famdamnly, all of the flavorful taste of rancid entitled corruption, but only two thirds the calories. It’s one big happy plutocratic oligarchical swamp in case you haven’t noticed, and they’re not above blackmailing even a president of the United States (which makes one wonder just how they talked Mr. Trump into backing the coved injections and why he carefully avoids any mention of adverse reactions from them).
And that brings us to scenario (2), “the B team.” In my opinion it’s fairly obvious that Mr. Biden is a disaster. He’s been a disaster for a very long time, ever since he thought it was ok to borrow whole swaths of a speech by the former British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, and mouth the statements without attribution. It wasn’t the last time a little fraud, deception, and theft were involved. But now, if the polls are any indicator, Mr. Biden is even more unpopular than Millard Fillmore or John Tyler, and they at least were Presidents who had the good tact to realize they weren’t up for the job and were inherently incompetent, and thus who tried to do as little as possible, thus demonstrating in the final analysis, some competence after all. In short, he’s pretty unpopular among Democrats, Republicans, and independents, and this means that his party is facing a bloodbath, so much has he damaged it by his associations with its radical left and advocacy of kooky globalist policies the party may not recover for several election cycles. Thus there is already talk of getting rid of him by forcing him to resign. We can predict the hidden reason: “Resign or we expose your whole history, and your famdamnly’s too. Resign, and we’ll just call it a health crisis.” Of course, the problem is “they” have also to somehow get rid of the Ayatollah Kamala, which leaves – hold on to your adult beverage – Nancy Piglosi, speakerette of the House of Misrepresentatives, as next in line for the throne, and who is showing – if not signs of her own looming dementia – at least some signs of difficulty keeping her dentures in place while she speaks.
Otherwise, everything is great in the exceptional nation…
The Scenario? Seems like another way to argue for that “football committee”. Mean while, the demented sock puppet can be counted on to go full nuclear if Mr. Globaloney orders him to do so…
Moderna’s co-founder created a quantum dot tattoo to track the vaxxed. The company is now using AI to generate endless mRNA jabs. Welcome to Transhumanism, Inc.
We’re living out a sci-fi thriller where unaccountable corporations openly force advanced tech into our bodies. Capitalizing on the current germaphobic frenzy, Moderna’s co-founder, Dr. Robert Langer, saw his experimental mRNA vaccines pushed on the American public. Riding that dark wave of corporate and government mandates, Langer became an instant billionaire. But this isn’t the only fanged rabbit in his magic top hat.
In 2018, the MIT scientist had developed a quantum dot tattoo—an under-skin nanoparticle QR code, to be scanned by smartphones—in order to track the vaccinated masses and ensure compliance. Like many undignified experiments, this was to begin in the Third World—cuz social justice.
This vaxx & track technology drew the intense personal interest of Bill Gates. That interest naturally translated into millions of dollars in funding. This is in addition to $20 million given to Moderna by the Gates Foundation back in 2016 to develop a new type of vaccine—where bits of injected genetic code would hijack the cell’s machinery to produce reams of pathogenic proteins.
Three technologies drive the plot of this horrific story—mRNA gene therapy, quantum dot tattoos, and artificial intelligence. Advanced machine learning, used to predict the effects of mRNA mutations in silico, allows for lightning fast vaccine development—including regulatory approval. Additionally, embedded subdermal tracking systems can ensure that every person on planet Earth is up-to-date on their shots.
Taken together, these innovations are rapidly converging on a long sought after goal—an inescapable surveillance state, controlled by corporations, in which the global population is subject to continual medical experimentation.
This is not a new story. Many argue it was first written down by St. John on the island of Patmos, some two thousand years ago. In recent decades, sci-fi pulp novels and paranoid tracts on the subject have piled up to the ceiling. The Internet is flooded with cartoonish depictions of evil, chip-implanting globalists—many of which are remarkably accurate.
Today, in the wake of what appears to be a leaked bioweapon, a subsequent global pandemic, the cynical declaration of a Great Reset, a laughable disinformation campaign by every major media outlet, and the imposition of total digitalization—in which even the human body requires regular genetic software updates to remain viable—we now behold a pale horse. That sick beast is poised to trample every liberty we once enjoyed.
Connecting the Quantum Dots
The “spiky patch” quantum dot tattoo was developed by MIT scientists Dr. Robert Langer and Dr. Ana Jaklenec. Their research was published in the prestigious Science Translational Medicine. I first wrote about this insidious project for ColdType in an article entitled “Bill Gates: Chipping the Hand of God,” published May of 2020, and again last year in my piece “Reaching for the Mark of the Beast.”
The quantum dot tattoo is to be administered using a microneedle patch in tandem with any given vaccination. Fluorescent nanoparticles are placed in a specific configuration—a sort of QR code embedded in the flesh—which can be scanned with infrared light on a modified smartphone. Experimentation on lab mice indicates the quantum dot tattoo will last for up to five years. The project’s leader openly stated that their goal is “widespread adoption” in humans.
Aside from the quantum vaxx tattoos, Microsoft recently patented a different system wherein wearable (or implanted) biosensors will monitor a person’s behavior, including eye movements, brain waves, bodily fluids, and attention. In this system, desired activities are to be rewarded with cryptocurrency, like some digital stick-and-carrot routine. By chance, the patent application received the publication number WO/2020/060606.
“Fact-checkers” assure us only a “conspiracy theorist” would notice something so ominous. Apparently, the $319 million that Gates paid out to corporate media outlets was money well spent.
In order to market their quantum dot tattoo, Langer and Jaklenec founded the company Particles For Humanity—in partnership with Dr. Boris Nikolic of Biomatics Capital—with $5 million from the Gates Foundation. Previously, Nikolic served as Bill Gates’s chief science advisor, and by pure coincidence, was named as a successor executor in Jeffery Epstein’s will. It’s also worth noting that both Langer and Nikolic have profiles on the World Economic Forum’s website—but of course, anybody who’s anybody does.
At a JP Morgan conference in January of 2019, Particles for Humanity presented a bleeding heart case for tagging hapless hut-dwellers with under-skin implants. The implicit rationale is that these societies will never achieve sufficient organization to keep proper vaccine records. Across the Third World, mass vaccination is the white man’s burden.
Because technocrats have to know all—and because the unvaxxed in Africa and South Asia hide in the heart of darkness, concealed from the All-Seeing Eye—the MIT scientists proposed “on-patient medical record embedding vaccination information into skin…invisible data only readable by custom, low-cost, mobile technology.” In other words, quantum dot tattoos to be scanned with modified smartphones.
As with any vaguely satanic experiment conducted by Ahriman-possessed technocrats, “experts” are sorting out the “ethical concerns.” In December of 2019, the MIT team was ready to send interviewers to Malawi, Benin, Kenya, and Bangladesh to survey acceptance in each population. The researchers would ask these simple folk—who still cling to their Bibles and Qur’ans—if they’d be open to getting fluorescent nanotech QR codes tattooed onto their and their children’s bodies.
Due to the pandemic, this survey was cut short. Does that mean Particles For Humanity and the Gates Foundation will just go for it?
Here at home, many Americans were adamantly opposed to being lab rats in a mandated mRNA vaxx experiment. And look at us now—trembling test subjects in a TV cage.
Jab 2.0 for Humanity 2.0
This global mRNA vaxx experiment is about to ramp up dramatically. Pulling ahead of the pack, Moderna is currently developing mRNA vaccines for fifteen different diseases, from HIV and tuberculosis to malaria and the common flu. That means an endless array of experimental, barely tested vaccines will soon flood the market. If recent history is any guide, institutional mandates and digital vaxxport updates will follow close behind.
This potential for rapid production and near-instant regulatory approval, reckless as it may be, was celebrated by the transhumanists at Singularity Hub:
[mRNA is] faster, simpler, and more adaptable than any previous vaccine technology. Because they no longer rely on physical target proteins from a virus—rather, just the genetic code for those proteins—designing a vaccine just requires a laptop and some ingenuity. “The era of the digital vaccine is here,” wrote a team from GlaxoSmithKline.
This is the Jab 2.0 for Humanity 2.0—where our immune systems require constant software updates by way of alien genetic codes regularly injected into our bodies. Machine learning makes all this possible. The article “Designing Vaccines: The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Health,” published by BioProcess International in October of 2021, is equally celebratory:
According to the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, the fourth industrial revolution…is characterized by an unprecedented development and exponential growth of a high-technology industry transforming society at every level. In particular, healthcare systems are evolving rapidly to adapt to the new reality. [T]he main technologies currently shifting the paradigm of medical research are artificial intelligence and machine learning. …
From a marketing perspective, experts predict that the global AI healthcare market will grow from US$4.9 billion in 2020 to reach $45.2 billion by 2026.
When citizens are forced to buy a company’s potentially dangerous products, either directly or through tax dollars, such staggering wealth accumulation is all but assured. The role of AI in this gold rush is quite simple—machine learning systems can rapidly identify useful molecules before actual testing moves to the biolab. Beginning from basic principles—physics, chemistry, microbiology—a deep learning system can generate and virtually test an enormous variety of drug compounds or mRNA vaccines in silico.
Machine learning enables the creation of models that learn and generalize the patterns within the available data and can make inferences from previously unseen data. With the advent of deep learning, the learning procedure can also include automatic feature extraction from raw data. … Taking this work together, it is clear that spike protein has been the most popular candidate for virtual vaccine discovery.
Moderna has fully embraced this method. The Big Pharma corporation—co-founded by the creator of the quantum dot vaxx & track technology—is now using AI to generate possible vaccines at incomprehensible speeds. Bits of genetic code can be “dreamed up” by purely digital minds. That bio-information will then be injected in human populations and translated into swarms of novel proteins.
Moderna headquarters | Cambridge, Mass.
Last summer, Moderna’s chief data and artificial intelligence officer, Dave Johnson, told MIT Sloan Management Review:
[W]hat we’re really trying to do is accelerate the pace of research so that we can get as many drugs in the clinic as quickly as possible. One of the big bottlenecks is having this mRNA for the scientist to run tests on. So, what we did is we put in place a ton of robotic automation, put in place a lot of digital systems and process automation and AI algorithms as well. And we went from maybe about thirty mRNAs manually produced in a given month to a capacity of about a thousand in a month.
Because advanced AI is a black box whose inner workings are mostly unknown, even to its creators, the process of generating entirely new gene sequences unfolds like magic:
We can integrate those into these live systems that we have, so that scientists just press a button and the work is done for them. And they don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes, but then – poof! – out comes this better sequence for them.
Back in Africa, where quantum dot tattoos may or may not be getting implanted as I type this, Moderna just announced plans for a new mRNA vaccine manufacturing plant. The company is putting up $500 million to build the factory in Kenya, beyond the reach of nosy Western regulators.
Where scrutiny can’t be avoided, artificial intelligence will soon be used to speed up the regulatory process—not that it was a huge hurdle to begin with. Adding insult to vaccine injury, Pfizer’s vice president and head of information management explains how they’ll game the system:
In the future, we believe that AI may help us predict what queries regulators are likely to come back with. We may then be able to improve our submissions by predicting in advance what regulators are likely to ask, and coming prepared with those answers ahead of time.
Welcome to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where machines create vaccines that are regulated by machines and injected into biomechanoid humans who are tracked by machines.
No End in Sight—Unless We End It
When exploring the otherworldly ideas of transhumanism—and its megalomaniacal counterpart, technocracy—I always ask three questions:
1) What are their stated ambitions?
2) Is the technology even feasible?
3) Will corporations actually sell these products (or alternatively, will governments be able to mandate them)?
First, it’s clear that Big Pharma has an open ambition to generate endless mRNA vaccines using artificial intelligence. Going further, technocratic elites like Bill Gates and Robert Langer want human cattle to be tattooed with fluorescent nanoparticles to track their vaxx status, starting with the Third World. It’s easy to imagine that the rest of us are next.
What’s worse, similar ambitions are held by numerous partners (and competitors) at the World Economic Forum, Silicon Valley, the Chinese Communist Party, and elsewhere. This is not a global conspiracy—these are publicly declared plans.
Second, AI-generated vaccines and subdermal tracking tech already exist, and they are rapidly improving.
Third, the germaphobic masses are now conditioned to submit to any technology deemed “safe and effective.” This terrified horde is also primed to insist that you submit, too.
Somehow, against all odds, the human spirit has not been broken. There’s a swelling movement to peel back vaccine mandates in the Western world. Unbowed souls have taken to the streets in mass protests. As hard evidence of vaccine injury accumulates, we can expect this battle to move into the courts as well. Schools, private companies, and various governments are yielding to public will and dropping their mandates and restrictions. But this pressure must be relentless if we are to stem the tide.
The transhumanist ambition, implemented through technocratic policies, is to transform humanity through technology. It’s a delusional quest for perfection, however approximate—perfect health, perfect cognition, perfect machines. This ambition will never vanish. But like a devil chained up in the underworld, it can be contained.
The first step is public awareness. The second is a bold personal stance. The third is community action. The last, and most enduring, is the institutional protection of our rights, our privacy, and our bodily autonomy.
This struggle against the machine won’t end until the last battery fizzles out. Prepare yourself for perpetual warfare. There can be no wishful thinking, but there’s only one attitude to take—we will win this.
In an appearance on “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., a reporter for The Defender, explained how the two global asset giants pushing for vaccine passports also stand to profit greatly from orchestrating them.
Financial houses BlackRock and The Vanguard Group, two of the world’s “Big Three” asset managers, have profited “enormously” from the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
On the March 23 episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” Kennedy interviewed Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., a reporter for The Defender, about what Nevradakis uncovered about the far-reaching influence of these two corporations.
In an article he wrote last month for The Defender, Nevradakis exposed BlackRock and Vanguard as two of the top three shareholders in COVID vaccine makers Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson.
Kennedy pointed out that BlackRock and Vanguard are the two biggest financial houses in the world. “They control a huge part of the world economy,” Kennedy said.
In 2020, Bloomberg called BlackRock “the fourth branch of government,” said Nevradakis.
He added:
“There’s this very strange cross-ownership where Vanguard is the biggest shareholder in BlackRock and BlackRock is the biggest shareholder in Vanguard … regardless of how some people may try to spin it, it’s obvious that these two companies are closely linked and their fortunes are closely linked.”
The two firms own many major and influential U.S. companies, including American Express, T-Mobile, Twitter and Disney, as well as Big Food and Big Pharma interests.
Nevradakis and Kennedy discussed the connection between BlackRock or Vanguard ownership and vaccine passports.
“[BlackRock and Vanguard] own companies that are at the speartip of pushing for vaccine passports, and also that stand to profit greatly from making and controlling and orchestrating the vaccine passports,” said Kennedy.
In his article, Nevradakis listed major U.S. employers that, as of Feb. 16, mandated COVID vaccines for their employers, and quantified these companies’ relationships with BlackRock and/or Vanguard.
Most of these companies are owned in large part by one or both of the firms. They include pharmaceutical company Abbvie, grocery store Albertsons, health insurer Anthem, Chevron, Delta Airlines and Cigna, among many others.
The “sinister aspect” of these revelations is the idea that competitive capitalism may be an illusion in the U.S., Kennedy pointed out.
Nevradakis agreed. He said:
“The original idea in theory behind [capitalism] is that of competition. And I think that we’re not seeing that in reality. We have very, very large companies, and those large companies are owned by even larger asset management companies. And then … the two largest ones of all also happen to own each other. So I don’t think there’s any way that that could be spun as a competitive situation.”
Watch the podcast here:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
Below you will find a video presentation by Dr. Tom Cowan. The questions Dr. Cowan raises, the facts he presents, and the clarity he brings to the discussion of “viruses” and the field of virology are essential to our global conversation and quest to understand the truth. Truth Comes to Light has provided a basic transcript and added links to references for added clarity.
Over the past few years, we have shared many articles on this site related to this inquiry into the truth about “viruses” and the whole field of virology, including information on terrain theory vs germ theory. Find links here: Viruses, Vaccines & the History of Modern Medicine. At the end of this post you will find a selected list of related articles.
A few quotes from Dr. Cowan’s video:
“Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?”
“They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.
“Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.”
“So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.
“So I ask myself how did they do that?”
“What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?”
“Do we really know if mRNA is in these vaccines?
“Where is the paper? Where is the evidence that there actually is mRNA in these injections?”
Okay, so before I get into talking about the question that so many people keep asking me: What about gain of function, lab-created viruses, bio labs now allegedly in the Ukraine?
So what is the science behind that?
So we’ll get into that in a minute. And before that I have a very short, little clip to play.
So that clip pretty much sums it up. That was from our friend Dr. Sam Bailey and our other good friend Stefan Lanka.
So on that note, the reason I wanted to talk about this subject is there was a recent paper that was put out by Dr. Mercola…
So let’s just read the first couple paragraphs there. So this is a summary:
“A study published February 21, 2022, (so very recently) in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mRNA) sequence patented by Moderna in 2016.
The genetic sequence patented by Moderna is part of a human DNA repair gene called MSH3. This patented sequence is found in SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein — the part that gives the virus such easy access into human cells.
According to Moderna’s patent application, the gene sequence was modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research.
According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.”
Okay, so why is this important? So obviously, there’s been a lot of attention in the political sphere and in the anti-vax community. There have been movies written about this.
There are many lectures, many prominent people in the “freedom” or “anti-vax” community who are investigating these patents, and saying that these patents — and as Dr. Mercola said, this study in Frontiers in Virology is literally the smoking gun proving that Moderna patented a sequence, which ended up in SARS-CoV-2, “the virus”, and the only way it could have gotten there is, not through natural evolution (that is a one in three trillion chance) but if it was introduced into the virus by some laboratory technique.
This theory is crucial to our understanding, not only of whether there were crimes committed, but the whole theory of virology and gain-of-function research and all that.
So, obviously, and this should go without saying, that the most important part of this is: Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?
The rest of the article goes on to talk about what we know about this MSH3 sequence and the protein that it allegedly codes for.
But I want to emphasize again and again and again — the whole point of this is: This sequence which was patented by Moderna in 2016 is identical to the sequence found in SARS-CoV-2.
That is the point.
If we can demonstrate that there is no SARS-CoV-2 and this is not the genome of this alleged virus, then none of the rest of this has any validity or is of any use at all.
It’s all just a sort of smokescreen or a way to throw us off the track about finding out what really is going on.
I cannot emphasize how important this is.
So for the next few minutes we’re going to actually look at how the authors of the article in Frontiers of Virology — what were they claiming was the SARS-CoV-2 genome?
What were they claiming was the evidence that there is a SARS-CoV-2 virus that they could then compare the patent to?
Again, if there’s no virus and there’s no genome then they can’t possibly have put this sequence into a virus or a genome. And it can’t possibly be the thing that’s affecting the world.
So, now let’s be clear about the next step. There is no mention in this story by Dr. Mercola of how the Frontiers in Virology authors found the genome or found the virus.
[…]
In other words, there is no information in here of how Dr. Mercola actually knows there’s a SARS-CoV-2 genome.
But the authors of the Frontiers in Virology paper said that they were comparing the sequence, the mRNA sequence patented by Moderna in 2016, to the genome found in our old friend paper by Chinese virologist Fan Wu.
So it isn’t that we picked this paper by random. It isn’t that I picked this paper to investigate how they found the genome or what their evidence for the virus was. This is the paper that the authors of the Frontiers in Virology use to compare the Moderna patent to.
So we’re using their information and this is their evidence, their proof that the virus exists.
So this is about: Did the paper by Fan Wu prove that the virus existed — the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists — and that this is the genome of the virus?
Again, in order to say that the patented sequence matches 100% to the genome of the virus, obviously, obviously, you have to know that this is actually a virus.
So, this is an old friend, we’ve been through this many times, but let’s see what they say.
So here is the paper, published in the prestigious journal, I believe, Nature — February 3, 2020.
So this is the paper, again, that was cited by the authors of Frontiers in Virology paper that is used as the reference genome.
So how did they do it?
So first we have a summary.
So how did they identify the “virus”? So I’m gonna run down the steps that they used and then we will show the clips, the actual wording from the paper, so that you know that this is actually the facts.
Okay, so we’re looking to find a virus and then find the genome of that virus — a virus that had never been found before.
So first thing they take lung fluid from one person. That’s a huge sample size (that’s a little tongue-in-cheek). That’s obviously just one person. That is a kind of ridiculous experiment to find a new virus.
Then they isolated the RNA, which is a genetic material, from the fluid in that person’s lung. They did not attempt to purify any particles that they could say you were a virus. They did not do any pictures of any virus. They did not do any maceration, filtration, ultracentrifugation to see if they had any such particles. None of that.
They took RNA from the lung fluid, of which we have many possible sources. We have bacterial sources, fungal sources, human sources, possibly viral sources, exosome sources, multivesicular body sources — many sources of RNA. We have no idea the source of that RNA.
Then they create what’s called an mRNA library, which is a catalog of all of the RNA pieces that are in that lung fluid.
This requires that they amplify these pieces of RNA with the process called RT-PCR. And, as we have demonstrated over and over again. and is completely substantiated in the literature, doing PCR amplification of RNA cycles inevitably creates new sequences of RNA which weren’t there in the original sample.
In some cases, if you do enough amplification cycles — up to even 80% of the sequences — after 45 cycles are made de novo, or anew, by the actual PCR process itself.
So now we have yet another source of our RNA. Not only do we have potential viruses, exosomes, multivesicular bodies, apoptotic bodies, human lung tissue, human epithelial lung tissue…, fungal RNA, bacterial RNA — we also have new pieces of RNA generated by the test itself.
Then they performed pair and sequencing that generates 150 base pair reads. That means they matched the sequence by pairing the ends. And you end up with sequences that are basically 150 base pairs long. That’s a fairly small amount. And this results in 56.5 million of these 150 base pair sequences known as reads.
So to be clear, they take this mass, not knowing any idea the origin of these mRNA, they chopped them up into sequences that are 150 base pairs (that’s fairly short) long by pairing the ends. They have 56.5 million of these reads. And then they start doing what’s called de novo assemble.
So there is no sequencing here. There is assembly. And, as it says, you can make a lot of genomes with that many reads.
So they put these 56 million, 150 base pair, reads in aa assembly computer program and… they actually put it in two different computer programs. And one of the computer programs generated 384,000 different sequences. The other one generated over a million sequences.
So now these sequences — all 384,000 of them — are meant to be the possible genomes of this virus. For some reason, they threw away the program that made over a million of these sequences and said the one that made 384,000 — I think that was Megahit — one of those must be the right sequence, the actual sequence of the virus.
Just to be clear, at no point did they ever find a particle. At no point did they purify or isolate a particle.
At no point did they find in any particle… an entire string of RNA, which they then sequenced one by one to find out the sequence of the genetic material of this particle.
None of that was done. All they did was chop up RNA from many different possible sources, put that in a computer program, generate 384,000 and a million in another, and then they went hunting for infectious agents and performed a search of those sequences.
The two longest sequences were a close match to a bat SARS-like coronavirus genome, found 15 years ago or so, that was made in exactly the same way — never having isolated or purified a particle, never having found an intact genome, never having sequenced the genome.
They just did the same sort of assembly, no sequencing of RNA from God knows where. And, this one, the longest one was a 89% match to the previous SARS coronavirus that they did in the same way.
And, as we say: Boom! There is the new novel human coronavirus — even though, as we’ve said over and over again, humans and chimpanzees are about a 96% match. So to say it was an 89% match is essentially like saying there’s no way this could have been anywhere similar to the previous bat SARS-like coronavirus.
In other words, they never found a virus. They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.
Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.
This is a manuscript draft and I don’t know when it will be published.
When I read this, just remember that all these articles that go into The Lancet have to pay homage to the virus god. But I will explain what they mean here.
So this is the interpretation of the entire article. I won’t go through their methods.
“The RNA code counted in PCR tests, previously attributed to SARS-CoV-2, belongs instead to a respiratory-virus-induced immune system response by human cells that liberate exosomes, and that vitiate PCR test results. PCR tests have zero specificity in vivo due to the exosome RNA.”
[…]
And they go on in this article, just as we’re saying — the reality is all of these RNA sequences, all of these reads which were assembled into a viral genome, actually when you do careful analysis, come from human epithelial lung cells.
In other words, just as we’ve been saying all along, these are not viruses. These are breakdown products of our own tissue. And the misconception in calling them a virus needs to stop.
And this idea that they put this patented sequence into a virus can’t possibly be true because, simply, there is no virus.
And all the rest of the article is for not — because nobody put a RNA sequence, patented or otherwise, into a virus.
Now just to show you that we got this from the article — so here is the one patient presenting with cough, etc. So that’s the evidence that we were correct about the one patient.
Here is the evidence that the paired and 150 base pair reads sequencing of the RNA library was performed on this computer platform. So the sequencing yields reads of only 150 base pairs. The whole SARS-CoV-2 genome is supposed to be 30,000.
That means they had to stitch it together using a computer program. This was an assembled genome, out of little bits from God knows where.
And here we see the 56.5 million reads were assembled using Megahit and Trinity. Trinity, they got over a million. They generated a total of 384,000 contigs (that’s sequences).
Trinity generated 1.3 million. They don’t like those because they weren’t long enough. They compared those with the database and compared and found that it was somewhat, although not really similar to a previous bat coronavirus. So, as he says, sequencing results in more than 56 million reads.
How can you possibly differentiate what is from a potential virus from everything else? The answer is you can’t.
And finally… The longest contig is generated by Megahits. The longest one by Trinity is 11,000. How come they didn’t use this one?
Both showed similarity to bat coronavirus. They were found at high abundance. It was only 89 percent similar. That means 11 percent didn’t match. That is a huge amount.
Then they just moved on to develop primers all from this one assay without isolating anything, and from one patient.
And, my friends, that is not science; that is propaganda, as is the entire story of a lab engineered virus.
Now, the real issue here and one of the reasons why this, to me, is so important, is if you go by this unscientific theory that there’s a lab-created virus, you actually miss what I would say are the three most important questions to be asked, and then answered, about this situation.
And so now I’m talking — I would say theory. Where everything else was what I would call simply facts.
So the question that should be asked (and it would be nice to have answers for, and which I don’t have the answers for, but I have some theories) is, to me, the most interesting thing is —
So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.
So I ask myself how did they do that? How did they make — like there’s two theories, there’s two ways of looking at this.
One is: They don’t want that to happen and so it was a mistake.
But, if we think, which I’m inclined to do, that “they” (meaning Moderna and other people) wanted this to happen so that they could throw people off and essentially create a kind of patsy out there, how did they do it?
So I have three possible theories as to how they did it.
Now, let me be clear.
What I’m trying to figure out is these guys Fan Wu and others, Chinese virologists, having, I don’t think, any connection with Moderna, come up with a bogus, anti-scientific genome and for some unbelievable coincidence — let’s say for now — it actually matches exactly one of the patented sequences from the Moderna patent of four years prior. How did that happen?
So possibility number one: It was dumb luck. They just made this sequence and it just so happened to match the Moderna patent. And, frankly, I don’t think that’s actually the right answer.
The second possibility: … Somebody from Moderna or somebody — I don’t know who — calls up Fan Wu and says ‘I want you to make a genome out of nothing and I want it to have this particular sequence in it so some day people will find this out and say “you see, they genetically engineered this sequence”‘. Got it? In other words, there was collusion between the patenters (that’s Moderna) and Fan Wu and his team.
Now I gotta tell you, I actually don’t think that’s true. I would actually love to find out if it is true and if there is a phone call from doctor head of Moderna saying, you know, ‘Hey Wu, would you put this sequence in there so that we can — people find out that it was a genetically engineered sequence?’ But I just don’t think that happens.
And then I came up with a third possibility which is: Once I discovered all these people who are looking into all these patents, that there was at least 70 different patents taken out, of different sequences of RNA, that could end up in a genome. Now, my guess is … I would think it’s a good possibility that one of those sequences may end up in the final genome. And then you would then implant the story that this was a genetically engineered organism and there you go.
So you wouldn’t have to rely on luck, you wouldn’t have to actually have collusion, you could just patent a whole lot of different sequences, for instance, that came in the SARS-1 genome. You could patent all kinds of sequences knowing that, at the end of the day, when somebody makes up this new fraudulent genome it’s bound to have one of them in there. Somebody will find it some day, say it’s the smoking gun and you then implanted the story of the century which does nothing but throws people off.
So those are my three options. I’d be happy to hear about any other possible options. But those were the only three that I could come up with.
Now, the final question then is: What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?
And, I must say, I don’t know what they’re doing in the labs and I don’t think really anybody knows — including in the Chinese labs or Ukrainian labs or North Carolina labs or any other labs.
So again, I have some possibilities.
One is the following …
Screenshot image from BrandNewTube video (specific video source unknown)
They’re doing this.
In other words, what the virologists do is they dress up in hazmat suits and they go on to their computer and start making sequences. And the hazmat suits are crucial, because, as we all know, it’s very possible for the sequences to jump from the computer into their eyes. So it’s very important, as you can see, that they wear goggles and protective head gear to prevent the computer sequences from jumping directly in their eyes.
In other words, they may be just doing nothing and it may be just a whole lot of hooey to get people to worry about things. And to implant in their minds that there is this horrible engineered virus, that we should all be scared of viruses, etc. So that’s one possibility.
Another one is they’re making some sort of proteins or genetic material which can be injected into people. In other words, they’re making toxins. And that is certainly possible.
So those are the two main categories that I came up with. Either they’re just doing nothing and they’re just a front, or a smoke screen, or they’re actually making stuff which isn’t good for people.
And that gets into my final thing that I want to point out.
… This section right here. this is something I’ve been very interested. So this is again from the Mercola article:
“For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. (I’m not going to get into that.) The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein. 11“
Now, I have been asking the question now for months: Where is the paper? Where is the evidence (a) that there actually is mRNA in these injections? They say there is. That’s the whole point. But when people look there either seems to be not there or in variable amounts depending on which injection and which batch.
So it could be that even the whole mRNA in the jab is a actual smokescreen or cover for what’s really in these injections –which is a lot worse stuff like self assembling nanoparticles which we’ve heard about a lot.
So I was very interested to see that this was… stated as fact, because I can’t find a paper, and my friends can’t find a paper, that confirms that abundant copies of this protein are actually made when you inject this sequence.
And this would be like saying — if I wanted to get investors for my new pencil factory, my investors might ask me to see the pencils that we make. And so it would be natural for me to produce copies of the pencils — maybe tens or hundreds or thousands or millions of them — to show that my technology for making pencils actually works.
One would think that if the whole point of these jabs is to make you make spike proteins that, therefore, “confer immunity”, there would be scores, hundreds, thousands of papers showing here’s the amount of spike proteins in an unjabbed person. And then you jab them and then 10 minutes, half an hour, three hours, two weeks, six months, 12 years later, here’s the amount of spike protein. That would prove that the concept is real and that you can actually genetically alter a human being.
Because I have my doubts. So I’m looking for a reference to show this is true. And, lo and behold, here is the reference. Number 11. [see page 3 of Mercola article] So where is the reference from? CBS News.
Now, I could say — I would say if it was from Fox or MSNBC then I would be skeptical. But the fact it’s from CBS, that must mean it’s true. And obviously I’m kidding. Let’s see the reference.
If the whole point of this is to put RNA into injections, make you make a spike protein which is allegedly from the virus, let’s actually see that it works. And here’s a quote saying there’s at least 73 patents.
My guess is one of them was bound to show up in the imaginary sequence. Bingo! We’ve got proof that it’s there, that it was a genetically engineered virus.
And the whole thing, hopefully you now see, comes crashing down like a house of cards if, as we showed, there was no virus genetically engineered or otherwise in the first place.
[At this point in the video, Tom takes questions from the viewers.]
Question: So this one is related, but it has to do with Dr. Bush‘s reference to 10 to the 30th power of viruses within our blood, as well as in the oceans, in the soil. His purpose is to provide constant flow of updated genomic information that we need to in order to adapt and survive. And they’re not pathogens. That we need not fear, etc., etc.
Answer: So he also has said that, of course, viruses are pathogens. The real issue here is how did they find these 10 to the 30th power viruses? And I’ve gone over this, especially in reference to a paper, and I don’t remember the name, but it’s called the ….something to do with the renaming or the re-evaluating of viral…virome…viral world or something like that.
The reason people say this is because they don’t realize that they’re not talking about actual organisms or particles called viruses. They’re talking about liberated pieces of either RNA or DNA — little snippets of RNA or DNA which then get amplified in what’s called metagenomics sequencing and so there are billions and billions and billions of these breakdown products. None of them have anything to do with a virus. They’re simply little bits of genetic garbage that are coming off of our cells and tissues all the time. They have no particular meaning or function that anybody has been able to prove. They’re just little bits of garbage. And the misconception that they’re somehow actual particles and could possibly hurt you or could possibly help you is just a misunderstanding of how they found viruses in the first place.
They don’t find particles. They don’t purify particles. There haven’t been 10 to the 30th purified particles. We’re talking about little pieces of DNA or RNA that get amplified, called viruses, which is a misconception big time.
[Additional questions include speculation about the patent links to the Fan Wu team “discovery” as well as a question about allergies.]
Articles mentioned in this video presentation:
Moderna Patented Key COVID Spike Protein Sequence in 2016 by Dr. Joseph Mercola [originally published March 7, 2022 at this link — https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/07/moderna-patented-spike-protein.aspx — and was mirrored around the web. It can still be found at Dr. Mercola’s paid archive membership.] Dr. Cowan has provided a pdf file of the article here: https://brandfolder.com/s/fv2q4h7fp84bm5vb3ppn37
As the battle lines are drawn in the new cold war, a digital iron curtain is descending across the internet. Governments are increasingly cracking down on the net and attempting to limit what websites you can access. Today James walks you through some basic steps you can take to draw back the curtain and peek at the information that the censors don’t want you to see.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Below you will find a brief article by journalist Vanessa Beeley and a video discussion of the prank by UK Column News hosts Mike Robinson and Patrick Henningsen.
British Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, was pranked by Russian duo Vovan and Lexus – what Wallace reveals, believing he is in conversation with Ukraine’s PM, is shocking. NATOTube is trying to limit damage by removing the video, unfortunately too many have now uploaded to alternative platforms.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Conclusion of UK Column News with Mike Robinson and Patrick Henningsen: Ministers have committed the UK and electorate to a war with Russia.
In the video below, discussion of the Vovan and Lexus prank on British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace begins at approximately 33:05 timestamp. The prank segment from this UK Column episode has been mirrored at TCTL Odysee,BitChute and Brighteon channels.
Below is an excerpt from The Anarchist Revelation. It’s taken from the chapter called Anarchy is Life. Pictured here, from left, are anarchist thinkers Peter Kropotkin, Michael Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Gustav Landauer and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
For an anarchist, the tender green shoot of each new-born child, the precious potential of each wonderfully unique and beautiful human being, is blocked, crushed, destroyed by the steel toe-capped boots of capitalism.
Emma Goldman says that the health of society could be measured by a person’s “individuality and the extent to which it is free to have its being, to grow and expand unhindered by invasive and coercive authority”, and Gustav Landauer writes that “anarchism’s lone objective is to end the fight of men against men and to unite humanity so that each individual can unfold his natural potential without obstruction”.
This, ultimately, is what anarchists mean by freedom. The freedom to be what we are meant to be, to become what we were born and destined by nature to become, if our ontogeny had not been thwarted and distorted.
Left to our own devices, freed from the control of the slave-masters, we individuals would co-operate and combine in the way that we were intended to, in the same way as our fellow creatures, plants, insects, fungi and microbes.
This is the basis of Peter Kropotkin’s classic argument for a society free of state, the harmonious natural order of which humans – and their relations with each other – form part: “The mutual-aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that it has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history”.
As Michael Bakunin says: “Nature, notwithstanding the inexhaustible wealth and variety of beings of which it is constituted, does not by any means present chaos, but instead a magnificently organized world wherein every part is logically correlated to all the other parts”.
Natural laws – these are the basis of the anarchist vision of a proper society and the reason why we reject the man-made variety as imposters and destroyers of all that is good and true and real.
Bakunin, that fiery messiah of disobedience, explains how these natural laws are of a kind he has no hesitation in bowing to: “Yes, we are unconditionally the slaves of these laws. But in such slavery there is no humiliation, or rather it is not slavery at all. For slavery presupposes the existence of an external master, a legislator standing above those whom he commands, while those laws are not extrinsic in relation to us: they are inherent in us, they constitute our nature, our whole being, physically, intellectually and morally. And it is only through those laws that we live, breathe, act, think and will. Without them we would be nothing, we simply would not exist”.
Natural laws are the interwoven and infinitely complex limbs of a living community, a vital entity that is the only form of “authority” that anarchists can respect, with the difference between a governmental society and an anarchic society being, as George Woodcock says, “the difference between a structure and an organism”.
Rejecting the pitiful idea that we come into this world devoid of purpose and principle, helplessly amoral blank sheets of living paper on which the state, in its wisdom, must write down the rules by which it demands we should live, anarchists know that inherent laws have already laid down a sense of justice in our souls.
“An integral part of the collective existence, man feels his dignity at the same time in himself and in others, and thus carries in his heart the principle of a morality superior to himself,” writes Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
“This principle does not come to him from outside; it is secreted within him, it is immanent. It constitutes his essence, the essence of society itself. It is the true form of the human spirit, a form which takes shape and grows towards perfection only by the relationship that every day gives birth to social life. Justice, in other words, exists in us like love, like notions of beauty, of utility, of truth, like all our powers and faculties”.
It is precisely because we already know true justice – in our blood, in our bones, in our guts, in our dreams – that anarchists are so revolted by the sick parody that is served up to us by the bigwigs of the state. Our innate sense of right and wrong is mortally offended and the pressure of a true justice re-pressed, of a natural authority denied, of inherent laws smothered, builds up in our spirits – individually and en masse, consciously and unconsciously – and becomes the force behind the need for revolution.
This force becomes a living entity itself – not the passive, patient entity that would animate human societies in times when all was going as it should, but an active, dynamic entity that has formed itself with the one purpose of breaking through the obstruction to life that it finds blocking nature’s path.
For Landauer, this revolutionary entity becomes a source of cohesion, purpose and love – “a spiritual pool” – for a humanity stranded in a desolate and despotic age: “It is in revolution’s fire, in its enthusiasm, its brotherhood, its aggressiveness that the image and the feeling of positive unification awakens; a unification that comes through a connecting quality: love as force”.
We’ve seen the unbelievable microscopy images of the experimental jabs from other investigators around the world, but we wanted to see it for ourselves! There are now 4 teams working on this in New Zealand and Dr Robin Wakeling has agreed to go public with his findings.
He compares the Pfizer jab to other vaccines and discusses the startling findings with Dr Mark Bailey.
For the past two years humanity has been under attack. And entire populations have been put under draconian restrictions under the claim that there is a pandemic.
For those of us that can see there is no evidence of a virus, the war on humanity is even more egregious.
However, within the wider circle of those questioning the covid narrative, a common theme is that something is badly wrong with the offered solution in the form of experimental vaccines.
By early 2020 globalist organizations were indicating the rollout of their touted universal vaccines and an injection in every arm.
In 2021 citizen scientists began examining the injections under the microscope and the revelations was startling.
At the forefront of the research has been the La Quinta Columna team who have produced many light and electron micrograph images, as well as detailed analysis of self-assembling particles, graphene components and potential nanotechnology.
Here in New Zealand we also have several teams who have backed up these findings.
Of course, there have been dismissals that we are just seeing artifacts or, in a sense, crystals.
That’s why we asked Dr. Robin Wakeling, a senior microbiologist and nano-emulsion delivery technology expert, to perform his own analysis of the Pfizer BioNtech product.
He joined my husband, Dr Mike Bailey, to explain the behavior of the product under the microscope. Over time and under the influence of various environmental factors, he compares his findings to known colloidal structures and other vaccines.
And, as the other investigators around the world, reaches some disturbing conclusions.
Dr. Mark Bailey
Welcome everyone. I’m doctor Mark Bailey in Christchurch, New Zealand, and it’s my pleasure to be speaking with Dr Robin Wakeling, coming in from Wellington, New Zealand.
Robin is a microbiologist, PhD and world expert in decay and mold forensics. He’s supervised polymerase chain reaction research and been a vocal critic of the pseudoscience taking place in the alleged covid pandemic.
Robin has thousands of hours of microscopy experience and has previously been involved in the development of patented nano- emulsion delivery technologies. So what better person to take a look at the Pfizer BioNTech products up close?
Now we’ve seen from some of the electromicroscopy images, coming in from other countries such as Spain and Germany, which have demonstrated that the injections contain what appear to be undeclared constituents including graphene oxide, and what could be interpreted as being nanotechnology.
Today we’re gonna take a look at the Pfizer products under the light microscope for ourselves and see how it behaves on a slightly larger scale and how perhaps that coheres to the overseas proceeds findings.
So Robin I’ll hand over to you and perhaps you can stop by telling the audience what kind of microscope you’re using and the grades of magnification we’re looking at.
Dr. Robin Wakeling
Okay, thanks Mark. Yes I use a compound light microscope with a basic magnification of 650 although the software that puts it on the computer screen sort of doubles that approximately.
I use phase contrast most of the time. A couple of the images are using bright field and polarized light.
And then I included a few images of other workers which were dark field. But most of my work was with phase contrast. And the magnification and scale, I’ll remind the audience of as we go through.
Okay, so the overarching theme of this presentation is what …. are the undisclosed ingredients in Comirnaty. We know that there are at least two declared undisclosed ingredients.
In other words they’re just coded. We don’t know what they are on the basis that they are proprietary excipients. So we know that there are some unknowns and possibly some undeclared unknowns also.
So that’s really the overarching question that we’re addressing.
[…]
There are three main findings of the microscopic images that we’re producing or suggesting — the key findings.
So the first one is that the lipid nanoparticles that are contained in Comirnaty — and I’ll explain what LNPs are in a moment — but it appears that they are continuing to self assemble in a way that forms much larger colloidal structures of some highly varied and somewhat rarefied forms.
The second main key finding was that these colloidal structures then seem to change their form in response to collision with interfaces like the glass surfaces of the microscope, preparations, or air bubbles, or other interfaces — whereby they start to take on a much more structured and unnatural formation with a lot of straight lines and right angles — sort of things that don’t usually occur in nature outside of crystallography.
And what we’re going to be showing most of the time has some profound differences to crystal structure. So we’ll cover that too.
And so the third finding, which is where the other two kind of lead to, and it’s where other workers have sort of jumped into the deep end with some of the dark field work that’s been done.
These right-angled sheets and wires seem to form colloidal structures… in some situations, where it appears that some environmental triggers are involved….
They seem to order themselves in a highly-ordered complex way — a way that is quite unusual. Certainly not something that the people who are looking at this have seen before. And these are people who should be familiar with this sort of thing…
Because some human beings care about their children, VAERS was established in 1990 as an early warning system to identify negative reactions and side effects of vaccination, which makes sense.
But there are major problems. It is managed by the FDA and the CDC, which explains why the VAERS database requires a class to learn how to find anything.
Taking the time to actually file a report is voluntary. And out of fear of losing their jobs or being considered an anti-vaxxer, nobody wants to speak ill of the all-holy vaccine, let alone make an official report.
It is estimated that only one percent of vaccine injuries ever get reported to VAERS. So that means when VAERS reports over 44,000 adverse reactions and 90 deaths, one can expect it to be as much as 4.4 million adverse reactions and 9,000 deaths.
And these numbers are only from the age 5 to 17 group.
Conservative numbers put it at 10 percent, which is half a million children that have been wounded and killed from an unneeded, unwanted, experimental gene therapy shot that we were lied to about every step of the way.
Thanks to the OpenVAERS project, which is built upon the VAERS data, the public can easily search these reports and see for themselves.
People are reporting adverse reactions such as chronic pain, loss of hearing and taste, talking gibberish, and acting out aggressively. And these are the mild cases.
There is a tsunami of major brain damage, heart disease and fatalities. Edward Dowd has analyzed the data and has reported an 84 percent increase in deaths among ages 25 through 40, which is the same amount of lives lost to the Vietnam War.
Toby Rogers estimates that Big Pharma kills twice as many people that died in World War II every single year.
The press ignores this because it’s not enough.
They want your newborn babies as well.
Pfizer is pushing to have children as young as 6 months old given a shot that we know is potentially fatal, even though children were never at risk and are still not at risk.
The United States has been force-injecting infants and children with experimental vaccines for years. And now they want to add the infamous ‘clot shot’.
Thanks to virtue-signaling mothers, some children have already been getting it in the womb which is resulting in miscarriages, still births, and deaths from breast feeding on toxic genetically-modified mother’s milk.
Pfizer is planning on submitting another application for emergency use authorization in early April.
That’s about 18 million children under five who could be sacrificed to the altar of Big Pharma and political correctness.
If Pfizer can achieve permanent liability protection from the FDA, who they control, then they can add the mRNA gene therapy shot to the childhood vaccine schedule where it will enjoy permanent liability protection under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
These same crooks are putting a judge on the Supreme Court who openly defends leniency towards crimes that involve child rape.
They’re coming for your children and they will not stop.
If you still care about the human race and are looking for something you can do right now, you can go to Toby Rogers at substack and read his urgent call to action for more info.
While U.S. media decries the ‘brutal Russian invasion’ of Ukraine—yet an intrepid reporter finds that the Russians were welcomed as liberators in the southern Ukrainian city of Henichesk along the Sea of Azov.
[This is a report from Sonja Vandenende, a Dutch journalist who was embedded with Russian troops in southeastern Ukraine. Previously, Sonja reported on the ground in Syria for CAM. Her reporting substantiates that of Patrick Lancaster, a Russian-speaking U.S. Navy veteran whose reporting on the war in Donbass for eight years is respected by investigative journalists. CAM’s mission is to bring to your attention alternative narratives gleaned by eyewitness accounts—even if they could be misconstrued as pro-Russian.—Editors]
Last week I was embedded with the Russian army and visited two towns in southeastern Ukraine. The first town was called Henichesk, a port city along the Sea of Azov in Kherson Oblast (province) of southern Ukraine, bordering on Crimea.
The Russian army, patrolling the city, went with us—the embedded journalists—for protection. But actually the protection was not really needed; the people in Henichesk, at least the majority with whom I spoke, were very happy that the Russian army was there.
The people that I spoke to all said the same thing: They felt protected from the criminal gangs, with their Nazi ideology, who raged the towns. They in turn hoped that Ukraine will prosper again.
Since the coup d’état of 2014, the economy of Ukraine has become very bad, according to many citizens in Henichesk.
I could see that people were standing in line to get money from ATM machines outside the banks, money which was barely there.
At the market, the food was scarce. The Russian army is providing humanitarian aid, which they do in every village and town, liberated from these criminal gangs. This is how many Ukrainians call them.
Numerous villagers in Henichesk told me that, as the Russians entered their town, they left everything intact. I heard this stated many times. No damage, no dead, no wounded. Most people, they said, are happy that the Russians were there…
Dr. David Martin recently filed the first in a series of lawsuits in Federal Court “to get the truth out” about COVID-19 gene therapy injections and “take back America from the COVID pandemic scare.” In what he calls a “multi-step process,” Martin explains the first lawsuit will put into the public record “that the COVID vaccine is not a vaccine.” Instead, Martin explains the Injections are experimental gene therapies “known to kill people, known to actually stay inside of the human body for over 60 days producing pathogens that are scheduled toxins.”
The lawsuit, Griner v. Biden et al., was filed on Mar. 4, 2022, in the U.S. District Court in Utah on behalf of Devan Griner, MD, a double-board certified surgeon and widely published author who has transformed the lives of hundreds of children in Utah and beyond. Besides naming Joe Biden, defendants include Xavier Becerra of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and its leaders.
Martin maintains we need to stop forcing and bribing people to get the shot, stating, “Those are illegal acts in the United States and cannot be done.” Martin explains that the first lawsuit is in part litigation for discovery—revealing the criminal conspiracy Martin has talked about for years—as much as it is a litigation for the facts, as both are equally important. Martin is confident the disclosures that will have to be filed by the Federal Government in response to the first case “are, in fact, going to be incriminating for our next case.” Looking forward to obtaining evidence of the felony, Martin explained:
“We wrote this case so that the immunity shield falls away from the manufacturers and all of the injuries and deaths become civil liabilities to the manufacturers.”
Martin, who indicated that Utah is the perfect jurisdiction to begin his campaign, pointed out that when a term like “vaccination” is used, the public believes they are getting something that will keep them from getting sick or transmitting sickness. Instead, Martin asserts that after receiving the COVID-19 injection(s), individuals turn into a biological weapons factory. Explaining further, he declares:
“And [vaccination] is actually defined in the statute exactly that it’s the ability to put something into the body that stimulates the immune system. It turns out that the mRNA that’s being injected into people is not that. In fact, specifically, what it does is take a little computer-simulated strand of mRNA, it sends it into the body, and the body becomes a biological weapons factory. It manufacturers spike proteins. The injection does not stimulate any immunity.
[Instead], it is the instructions to make a scheduled pathogen. And the scheduled pathogen is defined under three different parts of the code, but it specifically includes genetic sequences derived from—are you ready for this—SARS coronavirus. That’s actually a scheduled, known toxin on the scheduled list of biological weapons in the United States code.”
The 32-page lawsuit, with 171 pages of Exhibits, begins by highlighting that the CMS mandate requires almost every employee of any healthcare facility receiving Medicaid or Medicaid funding to “receive one of the three Injections authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration as COVID-19 vaccines (the “Injections”).”
CMS Mandate Must Be Struck Down
The suit further explains that Plaintiff, Dr. Griner—who has natural immunity and refuses to take one of the injections—is a “highly skilled and well-known plastic surgeon licensed to practice in Utah whose passion is healing children who suffer from cleft palates and other congenital defects.” The doctor has traveled the world on more than twenty medical missions, donating his time to help unfortunate children. However, the lawsuit asserts that the CMS Mandate prevents Dr. Griner from continuing to heal children—unless he takes one of the Injections. Noting that Dr. Griner enjoys robust and durable natural immunity after having recovered from COVID-19, the lawsuit explains:
Dr. Griner is subject to the CMS Mandate because the hospitals in which he has the right to practice receive CMS funding. Thus, Dr. Griner must choose not just between his “job and the jab,” as the Fifth Circuit has phrased it, he must also choose between pursuing his passion for healing children with congenital defects and taking the Injection. This despite the fact that the only justification for forcing Dr. Griner to take the injection is the assertion that doing so will prevent Dr. Griner from transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to his patients and other health care workers with whom he comes in contact, something the CDC readily admits the Injection simply does not do.
The lawsuit insists the CMS Mandate must be “struck down” because overwhelming evidence—along with admission by the CDC Director—shows that the injections do not prevent transmission, infection, or reinfection in those who receive them. And despite the windfall profits being made by the big pharma giants making the Injections, the CDC has admitted that both the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread COVID-19.
Regardless of CDC Definition Change, Injections Are Treatments, Not Vaccines
Furthermore, the lawsuit states the Injections fail to confer immunity “but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2.” With this in mind, Plaintiff argues the shots are instead treatments and not vaccines, as that term has already been defined in the law. Displaying the CDC’s changing narrative connected to COVID “vaccines” in the brief, and the fact the CMS Mandate rests squarely on the basis that the Injection prevents transmission, the suit reveals:
In fact, the CDC has actually changed its definitions of “vaccine” and “vaccination” so that the Injections would fit within the new definition. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control defined a “Vaccine” as: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.
The CDC also previously defined “Vaccination” as: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
Both prior definitions fit the common understanding of those terms. To be vaccinated meant that the recipient should have lasting, robust immunity to the disease targeted by the vaccine.
But on Sept. 1, 2021, the CDC quietly rewrote these definitions. It changed the definition of a “Vaccine” to: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” It changed the definition of “Vaccination” to: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to protection from a specific disease.”
Thus, the CDC has eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” Upon information and belief, the CDC did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19.
This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which Dr. Griner has the fundamental human right to refuse.
In great detail, the lawsuit expands on the conviction held by numerous experts that the Injections are treatments, not vaccines. The claim reminds us that the FDA categorizes the shots as “CBER-Regulated Biologics,” otherwise known as “therapeutics,” which falls under the “Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program.”
Indeed, among the eight professional examples offered in the suit to corroborate that the Injections do not create an immunity that prevents the transmission of COVID-19 to others, the case quoted NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci’s declaration to NPR on July 27, 2021, when he stated, “We know now as a fact that [vaccinated people with COVID-19] are capable of transmitting the infection to someone else.” Additionally, the head of the Oxford vaccine team Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, is quoted in the case as saying on Oct. 8, 2021:
“We don’t have anything that will stop transmission, so I think we are in a situation where herd immunity is not a possibility, and I suspect the virus will throw up a new variant that is even better at infecting vaccinated individuals.”
Martin Insists Injections are Gene Therapy Medical Devices
Furthermore, Plaintiff declares that with rapidly waning effects, the Injections are not “vaccines,” but are instead “gene therapy medical devices” and should be appropriately classified as such. As illustrated in the screenshot below, Moderna (Pfizer uses the same technology) recognizes that its mRNA platform is not a vaccine. Instead, it is “gene therapy in the form of biological “software” developed to genetically “hack” the machinery of human cells to construct a specific protein.
Elaborating further on the role the mRNA plays in the Injections, the lawsuit summarizes that the specific protein that human cells are “hacked” to create is the spiked protein of the disease. Essentially, the Injections genetically modify human cells to make the same toxic protein that the disease itself creates—the spiked protein. With no known method to reverse the detrimental effects of the Injections, the lawsuit continues, explaining:
These spiked proteins adhere to the endothelial cells of humans, the very cells that line the entire cardiovascular system. The spike proteins adhere to the interior of the cardiovascular system like thorns on a rose bush, causing a variety of detrimental effects, the short- and long-term impact of which are currently unknown and unknowable.
According to a June 01, 2021, bio-distribution study from the Japanese Regulator Agency, the spike protein of the “…coronavirus gets into the blood where it circulates for several days post-vaccination…” and that it concentrates “…in spleen, liver, adrenals, and ovaries in high concentrations…”
Causes of Action As Campaign Gets Underway
The lawsuit lays out three Causes of Action against Defendants, the first being the “Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process.” According to Plaintiff, the CMS Mandates violates the liberty protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, including “rights of personal autonomy, self-determination, bodily integrity and the right to reject medical treatment.” With no compelling interest available to Defendants to prove the necessity of mandating the shots, Plaintiff again reminds that the Injections “are simply ineffective against the current variant” and were only somewhat effective against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain.
The Second Cause of Action explains Defendant’s Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments related to the Equal Protection Clause, which “prohibits classifications that affect some groups of citizens differently than others.” By creating two classes of healthcare workers—the injected and uninjected—the CMS Mandate dictates the members of one class (the uninjected) get terminated. These unvaccinated employees cannot advance their careers, provide for their families, or pay their mortgages. On the other hand, the injected get to keep their jobs, advance their careers, and pay their bills. Yet, the situations of these two classes are indistinguishable because vaccinated healthcare workers can become infected and reinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and can transmit the disease to fellow workers, patients, and visitors. The lawsuit asserts:
Discriminating against the uninjected controverts the goals of the Equal Protection Clause—i.e., to abolish barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit.
Pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiff is entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the CMS Mandate.
The Third Cause of Action insists that by issuing the CMS Mandate, Defendants are violating the Constitution of the United States “in that they invade and encroach upon sovereign powers that reside solely in the States and have never been relinquished by the States to the Federal Government.” According to the lawsuit, the CMS Mandate rests upon a general police power asserted by the Federal Government—a power it does not have. Therefore, the CMS Mandate is an ultra vires act taken by the Federal Government because the powers the Federal Government claims to assert belong to and are retained by the States.
With the filing of Griner v. Biden, Dr. Martin’s campaign to expose the illegal corruption behind the pandemic “vaccine” narrative is underway. Emphatically, Martin states that without hesitation, the vaccine needs to be called what it is—a gene therapy injection. Noting a desperate need for “truth in advertising,” he explains:
“If we start calling [the “vaccine”] the “gene therapy injection,” a lot less people will roll up their sleeves—and roll up the sleeves of their children—to actually get the shot. And by the way, if you decide to roll up your own sleeve for an experimental gene therapy, have at it, I don’t care. What I do care about is forcing other people to do it, and coercing other people to do it. And holding their jobs or their livelihoods at gunpoint to get them to do it.”
Del Bigtree: “Less than a third of the total population of the United States of America [has received a booster shot]. [The CDC] boasts that it’s about 44% of the vaccinated… That means, at the very best, there’s a 60% group of people, even that are vaccinated, that don’t listen to the CDC any longer!”
Screenshot / 