There does not seem to be much of a consensus about this. Lots pf people still saying that the mRNA is altering our DNA. DNA is irrelevant but the processes which alter DNA can cause permanent and inheritable damage.
Damage seems to be done sometimes months after the shots and the body itself is building spike protein or white clots or something bad elsewhere
Stefan Lanka is saying that the RNA does no damage as it breaks down quickly in the body and it cannot be an inorganic toxin as it would either get expelled or have an immediate toxic effect. So he doesn’t seem to think that toxins are stored for a later detox and he is going for biological-conflict.
The technology used to produce particularly the RNA vaccines is very similar to that used to produce GMO. Toxins are introduced into biological material and this results in effects (usually bad) that can span several generations.
Injecting the blood of black chickens into white chickens gave offspring that had inherited a tendency to produce black feathers: https://library-of-atlantis.com/2023/06/10/telegony/
So ‘genetic’ information can be permanently transmitted by injection into the bloodstream but it has little to do with DNA. The active ‘ingredient’ is a piece of bio-field containing morphological information harmful to human health. This consists of a scalar-wave complex that is invisible and unmeasurable. Whatever its origins it is modified by the manufacturing process in a wholly unpredictable manner.
This information becomes integrated into the body bio-field and may cause trouble at any time, thereby explaining the delay between jab and effects. No lab test will be able to detect or characterise this information.
We don’t really know anything and there is no way of telling if the antipathetic field will or could ever be expelled or neutralised. We cannot therefore say if things will get better or worse for the jabbed or their children.
Did you know that the CDC has an adult vaccination schedule?1 It’s been around for 22 years, growing and changing.2 Promotion of routine adult immunization started around 1990 but wasn’t formalized into a schedule until 2002.
The federal government has embraced vaccination as “a lifespan approach, covering vaccination from before birth into old age,”3 basically, from womb to tomb. This is laid out in its National Vaccination Plans, which were mandated by U.S. Congress in 1987.
The Adult Immunization Schedule has been a bit of a sleeper, but in recent years, when listening to the CDC’s Advisory Council on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meetings, we hear about it more and more. What changed? Let’s start at the beginning.
What Is the Adult Schedule?
In 1991, the CDC acknowledged in its weekly public health report that vaccination in adults wasn’t typical.4
The very first time the CDC pulled all their immunization recommendations into one place was in their weekly publication “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report” (MMWR) in 1969.5 Those recommendations laid the foundation for what we now recognize as the “schedule.” This first publication included dosage recommendations for adults, but those dosages generally were for shots missed in childhood or special circumstances like travel. It was not until many years later that the idea of an adult schedule was independently promoted. Other than influenza, the shots were targeted toward common childhood illnesses, and there wasn’t much to promote for adults.
The face of public health, and thus immunization, changed in 1979 when the federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (the predecessor to Health and Human Services) released a report titled “Healthy People: The Surgeon General’s Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.”6 That publication marked the beginning of a new era of emphasis on population health. It was unique in its structured, data-driven approach to setting and surveilling health policy goals for our nation.7 This approach gave it longevity and flexibility and created the foundation for a new, decades-long infrastructure of setting health policy goals through identification of specific objectives with measurable targets, starting with “Healthy People 1990,” (launched in 1980) that continues to the latest “Healthy People 2030.”
The 1980s were tumultuous for vaccine policy. The expose “Vaccine Roulette” aired in 1982, helping parents across the country (and the globe) connect the dots on symptoms their children suddenly acquired after routine vaccination with DPT. The awareness congealed into a movement of parents who ignited a fire under U.S. Congress about the injustice of following the federally recommended childhood schedule only to find it was not safe for their babies. This outcry culminated in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, known by many as the “1986 Act,” which removed liability from manufacturers. (You can do a deep dive on DPT in our article, “Shining a light on Pertussis & DPT: the vaccine that shut the courthouse doors.”)
While the 1986 Act was being debated, 1985 saw two measles outbreaks on college campuses.8 With vaccines in mind, a joint resolution was adopted by Congress that was signed by Ronald Reagan into law, acknowledging the last week in October as “National Adult Immunization Awareness Week.”9 The intent behind the resolution was to prevent deaths from influenza and pneumonia in older adults, but the college measles outbreaks were mentioned as justification for needing to raise awareness of vaccination among adults.10 Baked into federal adult immunization policy was the intent that the awareness week was “only the beginning.”
Source: Congressional Record, Aug. 13, 1986; remarks by Sen. Orrin Hatch, sponsor of the joint resolution.
A National Coalition for Adult Immunization (NCAI) was formed shortly after, in 1988, to align “public and private resources to achieve Healthy People national goals.”
The 1979 report that inspired “Healthy People” only mentioned adult immunization in passing.
And the follow up report in 1980, “Promoting Health, Preventing Disease,” which came to be known as “Healthy People 1990,” provided 226 health policy goals with targets to be reached by 1990, but did not dive into adult vaccination.11
Regardless, the CDC fell in line with NCAI and started calling on doctors to include adult immunization as “a routine part of their practice.” In the 1991 publication where the CDC changed its tune on adult immunization, they reasoned that we couldn’t eliminate all illnesses because some adults were still “at risk” of getting sick from diseases on the childhood schedule if they were never vaccinated or weren’t sick in childhood. That said, there weren’t many action items because there weren’t many vaccines licensed to be marketed to adults.
After the 1986 Act, many vaccines were added to the childhood schedule. When the pneumococcal vaccine was added in 2001, it was licensed both for adolescents and adults. The promotion of adult vaccines picked up again for that moment in time. In 2002, the CDC unveiled its first official adult schedule. In short, healthy adults who had already been following the CDC’s childhood schedule were recommended annual flu shots, tetanus boosters every 10 years (generally at the time given in tandem with diphtheria as a TD shot), and the newly added pneumococcal recommendation for people who were 65 and over.
Note that right now COVID is recommended as “one or more doses,” which basically means there’s a blank check for how many shots will be recommended. The FDA and the CDC, along with their advisory committees (ACIP and VRBPAC respectively), have contemplated annual doses, but there’s also discussion of targeting strains. In other words, what will be recommended is yet to be seen.
One thing we can say for certain is that back in 2002 when the adult schedule table was first unveiled, the dose counts recommended were a lot lower.
Barriers to Success for the Adult Schedule
Simplification: The American Family Physician group says of the adult schedule, “The success of the childhood immunization program is partly because of the annual publication of the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule that summarizes the current recommendations and that it can be posted in the office for quick reference. We suggest that physicians post the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule in the office as a quick reference tool and that it be used as part of a larger office-based program to improve adult immunization rates.”
Access: A study published on February 4, 2014, in the Annals of Internal Medicinerecommended that physicians refer patients to get the vaccines they did not stock to a pharmacy or public health department to get vaccinated.12 The reason for referring patients outside their clinic was either “lack of insurance coverage for the vaccine (55% for general internists and 62% for family physicians) or inadequate reimbursement (36% for general internists and 41% for family physicians).” Dr. Laura Hurley, one of the authors of the paper,13 that improving the delivery of recommended vaccines to adults will require a concerted effort to resolve financial barriers, especially for smaller practices and for general internists who see more patients with Medicare Part D.
In short, access comes down to whether a doctor is going to be paid enough to go to the trouble of stocking a shot.
The current White House has been promoting increased uptake of immunizing agents in adults. And the CDC, the agency in charge of getting “shots in arms,” has increased both propaganda and financial incentives. The 2023 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), for example, was14
Conveniently, any American with Medicare or Medicaid can get any shot on the schedule at no cost to them. But some states did not require payment through their Medicaid for certain vaccines, and this federal law overrode their autonomy to decide how to spend taxpayer money. The new policy addresses that.
Biden’s policy follows the footsteps laid by Obama’s Affordable Care Act in 2010, which expanded access to vaccines with cost-sharing. The Healthy People plan was mentioned in the Affordable Care Act four times.15
The IRA law also highlights the importance of the schedule itself — insurance payments hinge on whether the vaccine is on the schedule, not simply whether it has been recommended. Not surprisingly, for the first time in history, the ACIP chose to update its annual schedule to a rolling schedule to keep up with all the anticipated changes and additional recommendations. For the first time in the history of the schedule, the ACIP left the last page blank so new recommendations could be quickly added through the year, rather than waiting for the annual update. This was done in the name of access.
You may have also been hearing of calls for financing called Vaccines for Adults. This will have to be legislated through the budget.
Why the Sudden Push for Vaccines for Adults?
A review of 100 vaccines in development by “Vaccines Today,” found a staggering 80% percent are aimed at adults.16 A survey of the vaccines and immunizing agents approved for use by the FDA over the past five years shows 11 of 15 can be marketed to adults, nine of which are only approved for those over 18 years of age.17 This is a shift from around the 1960s where we saw an explosion in new vaccines aimed at children, especially after the 1986 Act removed liability for injury from manufacturers and providers for shots on the childhoodschedule.
One of the goals of the plan is to simply increase demand. In other words, the federal government wants you to want these products. The plan was launched in 2015, a year after the CDC announced it was collaborating with Pfizer and a company called CECity to increase adult immunization rates.19 We know Pfizer makes vaccines (and “immunizing agents”); CECity is a company that specializes in electronic health records and was brought on board to implement a cloud-based “Adult Immunization Registry.” The initiative was released during the World Health Organization’s “Decade of Vaccines,” where their “Global Immunization Vision and Strategy 2006-2015” expanded the target group for routine immunizations to include adults.
The plan integrates health data transfer goals with calls for “interoperability” and “bidirectional exchange” of personal data between electronic health records (EHRs) and Immunization Information Systems (IIS’s).
Can adults injured by vaccines sue the manufacturer? It depends.
The 1986 Act and subsequent court cases removed liability from manufacturers and providers of vaccines if a person is injured or killed from vaccines. Does that apply to all vaccines? No, it only applies to shots that are on the childhood schedule. So if an adult takes a vaccine that is on the childhood schedule, like HPV or tetanus, they are bound by law to lose their right to a day in court and instead go through an administrative process many call “Vaccine Court,” which removes the right to a trial by jury. But if an adult takes the vaccine for shingles, which is not on the childhood schedule and therefore not under the umbrella of the VICP, an injured person can sue in court. It makes one wonder if those legal rights could be taken away and swept up into an amendment to the 1986 Act with a normalized Adult Immunization Schedule.
References:
“Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule.” CDC. February 28, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/adult/adult-combined-schedule.pdf.
“2020 National Vaccine Plan Development: Recommendations from the National Vaccine Advisory Committee.” Public Health Reports, 135(2):181–188. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12418546/.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep., (1991): 40(RR-12). v “ACIP Recommendations 1969: Collected Recommendations of the Public Health Service Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.” National Communicable Disease Center 18, no. 43. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/818.
“Healthy People: The Surgeon General’s Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.” Public Health Service 79-55071, U.S. Department of Health and Welfare (1979). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED186357.pdf.
“The Evolution of the Healthy People Initiative: A Look Through the Decades.” J Public Health Manag Pract, (2021): 27(6):S225–S234. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8478310/. ↩︎
“Current Trends Measles on College Campuses.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, (1985): 34(29);445-9. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000581.htm.
“Public Law 99-528.” Congressional Record, 99th Congress 132, (1986). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg3009.pdf.
Congressional Record, 99th Congress 132, part 15 (1986): 21399. https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1986/08/13/senate-section?p=1.
“Healthy People: The Surgeon General’s Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.” Public Health Service 79-55071, U.S. Department of Health and Welfare (1979). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED186357.pdf.
“Healthy People: The Surgeon General’s Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.” Public Health Service 79-55071, U.S. Department of Health and Welfare (1979). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED186357.pdf.
”US Physicians’ Perspective of Adult Vaccine Delivery. Annals of Internal Medicine. Volume 160. No. 3. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M13-2332?articleid=1819120
“National Adult Immunization Plan.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/nvpo/national-adult-immunization-plan/naip.pdf.
“Several Changes to Adult Vaccine Access Enacted Through IRA.” Avalere, (2022). https://avalere.com/insights/several-changes-to-adult-vaccine-access-enacted-through-ira.
“Compilation of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” U.S. House of Representatives, (2010). https://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf.
Future of Immunisation: 100 Vaccines in the Pipeline.” Vaccines Today, Gary Finnegan (2023). https://www.vaccinestoday.eu/stories/future-of-immunisation-100-vaccines-in-the-pipeline/.
“Biological Approvals by Year.” The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S.FDA (2024). https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/biological-approvals-year.
“Adult Immunization Plans.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (2019). https://www.hhs.gov/vaccines/national-adult-immunization-plan/index.html.
“American College of Physicians, CECity, and Pfizer Collaborate to Increase Adult Immunization Rates.” Pfizer, (2014). https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/american_college_of_physicians_cecity_and_pfizer_collaborate_to_increase_adult_immunization_rates
In the Covidian Era, science has moved on to a digital upgrade of itself called Scientism, the religion of science, where science is god, and part of a new global Technocracy.
Social engineering used to mean molding the minds of people to conform to new norms. This goes back to 1928, Ed Bernays, and his book Propaganda. However, in a Technocracy, not only minds, but bodies, too, can be molded. If you did not get the memo, Technocracy has brought humanity from Human to Posthuman and Transhuman.
In the 2022 Journal Global Trends, Russian scientists describe the difference between Posthuman and Transhuman:
The fundamental idea of posthumanism is the rejection of biological, ethical, and ontological anthropocentrism. Transhumanism focuses on changing and improving natural human characteristics through biological, technological, and cognitive modifications…Transhumanism has the potential to preserve man as an effective economic and cognizing agent.
In other words, man as an “economic agent” refers to the cybernetic human as a commodity in a modern world. This means the laws of the nations need to change to catch up.
The new law amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by authorizing sponsors of novel drugs to make use of “certain alternatives to animal testing, including cell-based assays and computer models, to obtain an exemption from the Food and Drug Administration to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a drug.
After decades of extrapolating animal studies to humans, suddenly animals are no longer scientifically valid. Does this transition make obsolete more than a century of animal-based research? In one sense, such a transition is long-awaited and frees innocent animals from needless torture. In another sense, it moves the mark to a new target.
Scientists now claim humans are diverse, and therefore require different models. They propose, “human cell-based models that more accurately reflect the diversity of human genetics may guide the development of treatments that are more reliable and successful in real-world applications.”
In Scientism, humans are considered commodities. Some Transhumanists propose transferring consciousness to a machine to create a brain-machine interface. The Russian Posthuman authors propose that consciousness may be a feature exclusive to humans. They appear not to know for sure. They state:
Accordingly, it is still possible that there is a fundamental difference between man and other objects of the world.
Digital IDs reflect a digital avatar in Precision Healthcare. “Precision Healthcare” refers to a remote medical model of healthcare. According to a 2021 study in the Journal of Personalized Medicine:
A digital twin is a virtual model of a physical entity, with dynamic, bi-directional links between the physical entity and its corresponding twin in the digital domain.
In March 2024, Dept. of Defense (DoD) officials testified on its own priorities before the House Armed Services Subcommittee. The digital ID is a natural progression from the trend toward non-binary humans who do not identify with a specific gender. This makes the transition, from human to digital Posthuman, effortless. All humans with a digital ID belong to an A.I., industrial (not biological) system—Transhumanism.
The rapid development of technology—in particular, artificial intelligence—accelerates the processes of industrial automation. This, in turn, raises the question of the role of man in the economy of the future: if artificial systems can more effectively perform the functions of man, then what place will man, as a potentially inefficient economic agent, take in the economy?
Studying humans in large-scale experiments has already happened. The deployment of COVID EUA medical countermeasures (MCMs), sometimes referred to as vaccines, was tested during the COVID pandemic. However, unlike vaccines, which are FDA-approved, MCMs are not. According to the CDC, MCMs include: biological products, drugs, and devices.
Testing humans in Real Time, as a digital Avatar, puts the Tele in Telehealth. It is a strategy of “emergent technology,” even though emergent technology, such as TeleMedicine, is already 10 years old. Further, this technology prevents the need for long-term genotoxicological and carcino-toxicological vaccine studies. Any adverse events (AEs) can be released later. Or not.
Without defining, ‘modernization 2.o,’ in human terms, science and government have paved the way for a new religion in a Posthuman synthetic, digital world. To maintain the inner human is to be aware of Technocracy, and turn toward the Natural world, and the heart center.
Overtreatment with drugs kills many people, and the death rate is increasing. It is therefore strange that we have allowed this long-lasting drug pandemic to continue, and even more so because most of the drug deaths are easily preventable.
In 2013, I estimated that our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer,1 and in 2015, that psychiatric drugs alone are also the third leading cause of death.2 However, in the US, it is commonly stated that our drugs are “only” the fourth leading cause of death.3,4 This estimate was derived from a 1998 meta-analysis of 39 US studies where monitors recorded all adverse drug reactions that occurred while the patients were in hospital, or which were the reason for hospital admission.5
This methodology clearly underestimates drug deaths. Most people who are killed by their drugs die outside hospitals, and the time people spent in hospitals was only 11 days on average in the meta-analysis.5 Moreover, the meta-analysis only included patients who died from drugs that were properly prescribed, not those who died as a result of errors in drug administration, noncompliance, overdose, or drug abuse, and not deaths where the adverse drug reaction was only possible.5
Many people die because of errors, e.g. simultaneous use of contraindicated drugs, and many possible drug deaths are real. Moreover, most of the included studies are very old, the median publication year being 1973, and drug deaths have increased dramatically over the last 50 years. As an example, 37,309 drug deaths were reported to the FDA in 2006 and 123,927 ten years later, which is 3.3 times as many.6
In hospital records and coroners’ reports, deaths linked to prescription drugs are often considered to be from natural or unknown causes. This misconception is particularly common for deaths caused by psychiatric drugs.2,7 Even when young patients with schizophrenia suddenly drop dead, it is called a natural death. But it is not natural to die young and it is well known that neuroleptics can cause lethal heart arrhythmias.
Many people die from the drugs they take without raising any suspicion that it could be an adverse drug effect. Depression drugs kill many people, mainly among the elderly, because they can cause orthostatic hypotension, sedation, confusion, and dizziness. The drugs double the risk of falls and hip fractures in a dose-dependent manner,8,9 and within one year after a hip fracture, about one-fifth of the patients will have died. As elderly people often fall anyway, it is not possible to know if such deaths are drug deaths.
Another example of unrecognised drug deaths is provided by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). They have killed hundreds of thousands of people,1 mainly through heart attacks and bleeding stomach ulcers, but these deaths are unlikely to be coded as adverse drug reactions, as such deaths also occur in patients who do not take the drugs.
The 1998 US meta-analysis estimated that 106,000 patients die every year in hospital because of adverse drug effects (a 0.32% death rate).5 A carefully done Norwegian study examined 732 deaths that occurred in a two-year period ending in 1995 at a department of internal medicine, and it found that there were 9.5 drug deaths per 1,000 patients (a 1% death rate).10 This is a much more reliable estimate, as drug deaths have increased markedly. If we apply this estimate to the US, we get 315,000 annual drug deaths in hospitals. A review of four newer studies, from 2008 to 2011, estimated that there were over 400,000 drug deaths in US hospitals.11
Drug usage is now so common that newborns in 2019 could be expected to take prescription drugs for roughly half their lives in the US.12 Moreover, polypharmacy has been increasing.12
How Many People Are Killed by Psychiatric Drugs?
If we want to estimate the death toll of psychiatric drugs, the most reliable evidence we have are the placebo-controlled randomised trials. But we need to consider their limitations.
First, they usually run for only a few weeks even though most patients take the drugs for many years.13,14
Second, polypharmacy is common in psychiatry, and this increases the risk of dying. As an example, the Danish Board of Health has warned that adding a benzodiazepine to a neuroleptic increases mortality by 50-65%.15
Third, half of all deaths are missing in published trial reports.16 For dementia, published data show that for every 100 people treated with a newer neuroleptic for ten weeks, one patient is killed.17 This is an extremely high death rate for a drug, but FDA data on the same trials show it is twice as high, namely two patients killed per 100 after ten weeks.18 And if we extend the observation period, the death toll becomes even higher. A Finnish study of 70,718 community-dwellers newly diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease reported that neuroleptics kill 4-5 people per 100 annually compared to patients who were not treated.19
Fourth, the design of psychiatric drug trials is biased. In almost all cases, patients were already in treatment before they entered the trial,2,7 and some of those randomised to placebo will therefore experience withdrawal effects that will increase their risk of dying, e.g. because of akathisia. It is not possible to use the placebo-controlled trials in schizophrenia to estimate the effect of neuroleptics on mortality because of the drug withdrawal design. The suicide rate in these unethical trials was 2-5 times higher than the norm.20,21 One in every 145 patients who entered the trials of risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, and sertindole died, but none of these deaths were mentioned in the scientific literature, and the FDA didn’t
require them to be mentioned.
Fifth, events after the trial is stopped are ignored. In Pfizer’s trials of sertraline in adults, the risk ratio for suicides and suicide attempts was 0.52 when the follow-up was only 24 hours, but 1.47 when the follow-up was 30 days, i.e. an increase in suicidal events.22 And when researchers reanalysed the FDA trial data on depression drugs and included harms occurring during followup, they found that the drugs double the number of suicides in adults compared to placebo.23,24
In 2013, I estimated that, in people aged 65 and above, neuroleptics, benzodiazepines, or similar, and depression drugs kill 209,000 people annually in the United States.2 I used rather conservative estimates, however, and usage data from Denmark, which are far lower than those in the US. I have therefore updated the analysis based on US usage data, again focusing on older age groups.
For neuroleptics, I used the estimate of 2% mortality from the FDA data.18
For benzodiazepines and similar drugs, a matched cohort study showed that the drugs doubled the death rate, although the average age of the patients was only 55.25 The excess death rate was about 1% per year. In another large, matched cohort study, the appendix to the study report shows that hypnotics quadrupled the death rate (hazard ratio 4.5).26 These authors estimated that sleeping pills kill between 320,000 and 507,000 Americans every year.26 A reasonable estimate of the annual death rate would therefore be 2%.
For SSRIs, a UK cohort study of 60,746 depressed patients older than 65 showed that they led to falls and that the drugs kill 3.6% of patients treated for one year.27 The study was done very well, e.g. the patients were their own control in one of the analyses, which is a good way to remove the effect of confounders. But the death rate is surprisingly high.
Another cohort study, of 136,293 American postmenopausal women (age 50-79) participating in the Women’s Health Initiative study, found that depression drugs were associated with a 32% increase in all-cause mortality after adjustment for confounding factors, which corresponded to 0.5% of women killed by SSRIs when treated for one year.28 The death rate was very likely underestimated. The authors warned that their results should be interpreted with great caution, as the way exposure to antidepressant drugs was ascertained carried a high risk of misclassification, which would make it more difficult to find an increase in mortality. Further, the patients were much younger than in the UK study, and the death rate increased markedly with age and was 1.4% for those aged 70-79. Finally, the exposed and unexposed women were different for many important risk factors for early death, whereas the people in the UK cohort were their own control.
For these reasons, I decided to use the average of the two estimates, a 2% annual death rate.
These are my results for the US for these three drug groups for people at least 65 years of age (58.2 million; usage is in outpatients only):29-32
A limitation in these estimates is that you can only die once, and many people receive polypharmacy. It is not clear how we should adjust for this. In the UK cohort study of depressed patients, 9% also took neuroleptics, and 24% took hypnotics/anxiolytics.27
On the other hand, the data on death rates come from studies where many patients were also on several psychiatric drugs in the comparison group, so this is not likely to be a major limitation considering also that polypharmacy increases mortality beyond what the individual drugs cause.
Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention list these four top causes of death:33
Heart disease: 695,547
Cancer: 605,213
Covid-19: 416,893
Accidents: 224,935
Covid-19 deaths are rapidly declining, and many such deaths are not caused by the virus but merely occurred in people who tested positive for it because the WHO advised that all deaths in people who tested positive should be called Covid deaths.
Young people have a much smaller death risk than the elderly, as they rarely fall and break their hip, which is why I have focused on the elderly. I have tried to be conservative. My estimate misses many drug deaths in those younger than 65 years; it only included three classes of psychiatric drugs; and it did not include hospital deaths.
I therefore do not doubt that psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
Other Drug Groups and Hospital Deaths
Analgesics are also major killers. In the US, about 70,000 people were killed in 2021 by an overdose of a synthetic opioid.34
The usage of NSAIDs is also high. In the US, 26% of adults use them regularly, 16% of which get them without a prescription35 (mostly ibuprofen and diclofenac).36
As there seems to be no major differences between the drugs in their capacity to cause thromboses,37 we may use data for rofecoxib. Merck and Pfizer underreported thrombotic events in their trials of rofecoxib and celecoxib, respectively, to such an extent that it constituted fraud,1 but in one trial, of colorectal adenomas, Merck assessed thrombotic events. There were 1.5 more cases of myocardial infarction, sudden cardiac death or stroke on rofecoxib than on placebo per 100 patients treated.38 About 10% of the thromboses are fatal, but heart attacks are rare in young people. Restricting the analysis to those aged at least 65, we get 87,300 annual deaths.
It has been estimated that 3,700 deaths occur each year in the UK due to peptic ulcer complications in NSAID users,39 corresponding to about 20,000 deaths each year in the US. Thus, the total estimate of NSAID deaths is about 107,000.
If we add the estimates above, 315,000 hospital deaths, 390,000 psychiatric drug deaths, 70,000 synthetic opioid deaths, and 107,000 NSAID deaths, we get 882,000 drug deaths in the United States annually.
Many commonly used drugs other than those mentioned above can cause dizziness and falls, e.g. anticholinergic drugs against urinary incontinence and dementia drugs, which are used by 1% and 0.5% of the Danish population, respectively, even though they do not have any clinically relevant effects.1,2
It is difficult to know what the exact death toll of our drugs is, but there can be no doubt that they are the leading cause of death. And the death toll would be much higher if we included people below 65 years of age. Moreover, from the official number of deaths from heart disease, we would need to subtract those caused by NSAIDs, and from accidents, deaths by falls caused by psychiatric drugs and many other drugs.
If such a hugely lethal pandemic had been caused by a microorganism, we would have done everything we could to get it under control. The tragedy is that we could easily get our drug pandemic under control, but when our politicians act, they usually make matters worse. They have been so heavily lobbied by the drug industry that drug regulation has become much more permissive than it was in the past.40
Most of the drug deaths are preventable,41 above all because most of the patients who died didn’t need the drug that killed them. In placebo-controlled trials, the effect of neuroleptics and depression drugs has been considerably below the least clinically relevant effect, also for very severe depression.2,7 And, despite their name, non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs do not have anti-inflammatory effects,1,42 and systematic reviews have shown that their analgesic effect is similar to that of paracetamol (acetaminophen). Yet, most patients with pain are recommended to take both paracetamol and an NSAID over the counter. This will not increase the effect, only the risk of dying.
Most tragically, leading psychiatrists all over the world do not realise how ineffective and dangerous their drugs are. A US psychiatrist, Roy Perlis, professor at Harvard, argued in April 2024 that depression pills should be sold over the counter because they are “safe and effective.”43 They are highly unsafe and ineffective. Perlis also claimed that depression drugs do not increase the risk of suicide in people older than 25, which is also wrong. They double suicides in adults.23,24
Perlis wrote, “Some still question the biological basis of this disorder, despite the identification of more than 100 genes that increase depression risk and neuroimaging studies showing differences in the brains of people with depression.” Both of these claims are plain wrong. Genetic association studies have come up empty-handed and so have brain imaging studies, which are generally highly flawed.44 People are depressed because they live depressing lives, not because of some brain disorder.
References
1 Gøtzsche PC. Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Health Care. London: Radcliffe Publishing; 2013.
4 Light DW, Lexchin J, Darrow JJ. Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. J Law Med Ethics 2013;41:590-600.
5 Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200–5.
7 Gøtzsche PC. Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal From Psychiatric Drugs. Ann Arbor: L H Press; 2022.
8 Hubbard R, Farrington P, Smith C, et al. Exposure to tricyclic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants and the risk of hip fracture. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:77-84.
9 Thapa PB, Gideon P, Cost TW, et al. Antidepressants and the risk of falls among nursing home residents. N Engl J Med 1998;339:875-82.
10 Ebbesen J, Buajordet I, Erikssen J, et al. Drug-related deaths in a department of internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:2317–23.
11 James JTA. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf 2013;9:122-8.
13 Gøtzsche PC. Long-term use of antipsychotics and antidepressants is not evidence-based. Int J Risk Saf Med 2020;31:37-42.
14 Gøtzsche PC. Long-Term Use of Benzodiazepines, Stimulants and Lithium is Not Evidence-Based. Clin Neuropsychiatry 2020;17:281-3.
15 Forbruget af antipsykotika blandt 18-64 årige patienter, med skizofreni, mani eller bipolar affektiv sindslidelse. København: Sundhedsstyrelsen; 2006.
16 Hughes S, Cohen D, Jaggi R. Differences in reporting serious adverse events in industry sponsored clinical trial registries and journal articles on antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005535.
17 Schneider LS, Dagerman KS, Insel P. Risk of death with atypical antipsychotic drug treatment for dementia: meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. JAMA 2005;294:1934–43.
18 FDA package insert for Risperdal (risperidone). Accessed 30 May 2022.
19 Koponen M, Taipale H, Lavikainen P, et al. Risk of Mortality Associated with Antipsychotic Monotherapy and Polypharmacy Among Community-Dwelling Persons with Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2017;56:107-18.
20 Whitaker R. Lure of Riches Fuels Testing. Boston Globe 1998; Nov 17.
21 Whitaker R. Mad in America: Bad science, Bad medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. Cambridge: Perseus Books Group; 2002:page 269.
22 Vanderburg DG, Batzar E, Fogel I, et al. A pooled analysis of suicidality in double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of sertraline in adults. J Clin Psychiatry 2009;70:674-83.
23 Hengartner MP, Plöderl M. Newer-Generation Antidepressants and Suicide Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials: a Re-Analysis of the FDA Database. Psychother Psychosom 2019;88:247-8.
24 Hengartner MP, Plöderl M. Reply to the Letter to the Editor: “Newer-Generation Antidepressants and Suicide Risk: Thoughts on Hengartner and Plöderl’s ReAnalysis.” Psychother Psychosom 2019;88:373-4.
25 Weich S, Pearce HL, Croft P, et al. Effect of anxiolytic and hypnotic drug prescriptions on mortality hazards: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2014;348:g1996.
26 Kripke DF, Langer RD, Kline LE. Hypnotics’ association with mortality or cancer: a matched cohort study. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000850.
27 Coupland C, Dhiman P, Morriss R, et al. Antidepressant use and risk of adverse outcomes in older people: population based cohort study. BMJ 2011;343:d4551.
28 Smoller JW, Allison M, Cochrane BB, et al. Antidepressant use and risk of incident cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative study. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2128-39.
38 Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, et al. Cardiovascular Events Associated with Rofecoxib in a Colorectal Adenoma Chemoprevention Trial. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1092-102.
39 Blower AL, Brooks A, Fenn GC, et al. Emergency admissions for upper gastrointestinal disease and their relation to NSAID use. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997;11:283–91.
40 Davis C, Lexchin J, Jefferson T, Gøtzsche P, McKee M. “Adaptive pathways” to drug authorisation: adapting to industry? BMJ 2016;354:i4437.
41 van der Hooft CS, Sturkenboom MC, van Grootheest K, et al. Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalisations: a nationwide study in The Netherlands. Drug Saf 2006;29:161-8.
44 Gøtzsche PC. Critical Psychiatry Textbook. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom; 2022. Freely available.
Dr. Peter Gøtzsche co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration, once considered the world’s preeminent independent medical research organization. In 2010 Gøtzsche was named Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen. Gøtzsche has published more than 97 papers in the “big five” medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine). Gøtzsche has also authored books on medical issues including Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime. Following many years of being an outspoken critic of the corruption of science by pharmaceutical companies, Gøtzsche’s membership on the governing board of Cochrane was terminated by its Board of Trustees in September, 2018. Four board resigned in protest.
Along with our allies we have spent the last four years dismantling every aspect of the virus model whether it concerns “isolation”, antibodies, genomics, PCR, proteomics, electron microscopy, or animal and human studies. In 2022, I published A Farewell to Virology, to date one of the only treatises that outlines a formal refutation of the entire virus model. This was inspired The Perth Group’s 2017 epic HIV – a virus like no other, the most comprehensive document refuting the existence of ‘HIV’ specifically.
In my recent webinars with Dr Tom Cowan we have been discussing the scientific method, along with the concepts of independent variables and controlled experiments. Clearly the virologists have resorted to anti-scientific practices to make their various claims including the foundational claim of virus existence.
It motivated me to write an essay specifically addressing the apical logical fallacy in the cell culture technique – something that has been noticed previously but perhaps not formally expressed. The virologists have claimed they perform control experiments and sometimes describe these as ‘mock-infected’ cultures. In recent months we have also been contacted by people in the ‘no virus’ community asking whether John Enders inadvertently performed a control experiment in his 1954 measles paper. Dr Stefan Lanka exposed the lack of a control experiment in this paper in the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in 2016 and I make some further comments expanding on this in note 20.
The pivotal issue is that the virologists do not have an independent variable and their experiments cannot make a hypothetical particle real. The ‘gold standard’ technique for “isolation” cannot possibly determine the presence (or existence) of viruses no matter how they attempt to control it. The paradigm that was created in the 1940s to keep virology alive was dead on arrival because the technique relies on a reification fallacy and logical errors that disqualify the entire process from being scientific.
We have had some feedback that although fairly brief, this paper is difficult to follow in some parts. (It helps to read all the endnotes.) If you have not already seen it, I would recommend watching Kate Sugak’s excellent presentation at the XXII Russian Scientific Conference: “The scientific vacuum: The scientific method and its absence in virology“. Kate covers the crucial scientific considerations articulated in my paper in an easy to follow format and shows that the virologists have nowhere left to hide.
The development since 1944, of American statutes and regulations governing US-Food and Drug Administration product licensing functions and non-functions, along with international Mutual Recognition Agreements and public health emergency/emergency use authorization/medical countermeasures law, support the conclusion that all biological products allegedly regulated by the FDA for compliance with manufacturing quality standards, distributed and used on the American population — and through MRAs, exported to countries around the world for use on populations worldwide — are in fact, unregulated.
Laws have been written to enable operators of biological product manufacturing facilities to legally make and distribute poisons. Legalized poisons are produced by US military-public health contractors working under black box conditions inside pharmaceutical factories in the US and in countries occupied by US financial, public health and military forces.
FDA, DoD and military-pharmaceutical manufacturing contractors don’t take every opportunity to adulterate every production run. They have vested interests in keeping the public in the dark about their legal access to production lines, and the availability of some harmless and/or beneficial products makes it more difficult for people to understand that the chemical and biological weapons emerging from the same factories are weapons.
The toxicity of vaccines and vaccine-related biological products has been incrementally increased over time.
Injuries and deaths caused by vaccines are falsely attributed to communicable disease, inherited genetic disorders and environmental exposures by the same public health, military and pharmaceutical manufacturing executives jointly running the intentional poisoning programs.
One of the most striking features of this almost-unimaginably vast military/public-health/pharmaceutical deception program is how the things that don’t happen matter as much as — and often more than — the things that do happen.
The records that can’t be located are as revealing as, and often more revealing than, the records that can be found.
One vivid example: blank pages enclosed as package inserts with Covid-19 vaccines.
Another example: if there had ever been any legal requirement for FDA to prevent Covid-19 vaccines from harming clinical trial subjects, and from later harming recipients in what many still irrationally insist is a consumer product market, FDA officials would have denied all of the Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers’ licensing applications submitted starting in February and March 2020.
FDA would have denied the applications based on evidence accrued since genetic engineering research began, about harms caused to animal and human recipients of cell- and gene-based compounds, lipid nanoparticles, and other components listed on and/or redacted from application documents.
FDA did not deny manufacturers legal access to human targets.
Instead, FDA authorized legal access to several thousand targets in spring, summer and fall 2020, and then authorized legal access to everyone else in the world in December 2020.
Following FDA’s failure to deny manufacturers’ authorization to conduct what have since been revealed as fake clinical trials, if FDA had held a legal obligation to protect the public from biological product poisons, FDA officials would have immediately halted the alleged clinical trials in mid-2020 upon the first reported adverse effects and deaths.
Failing that, a drug manufacturing regulator with a legal obligation to protect people from harm would have immediately recalled all Covid-19 vaccines as soon as general public recipients in December 2020 and early 2021 started having anaphylactic reactions, developing heart damage and turbo-cancers and dropping dead; as soon as women started shedding decidual casts and miscarrying babies in the womb; and as soon as all the other injuries, diseases and deaths became clearly observable worldwide. (See, for example, Pfizer 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports received through Feb. 28, 2021, Table 1 at p. 7)
FDA did not halt the pretend clinical trials, and has not recalled the vaccines, ordered the manufacturers to cease production, or ordered pharmacists, nurses and doctors to stop using them.
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
The “mandate for safer vaccines” section of the 1986 National Vaccine Act and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program offers another good example of events that should have taken place but didn’t, and records (recording those events) that should have been produced but weren’t.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act section of the act (Title III) amended the 1944 Public Health Service Act to establish and fund a National Vaccine Program; grant vaccine manufacturers legal immunity for injuries and deaths caused by their products; and establish and fund a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, all of which was codified at 42 USC 300aa et seq.
At 42 USC 300aa-27, Congress established a “mandate for safer vaccines.”
(a) General rule. In the administration of this part and other pertinent laws under the jurisdiction of the [HHS] Secretary, the Secretary shall—
(1) promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines on the market on December 22, 1987, and promote the refinement of such vaccines, and
(2) make or assure improvements in, and otherwise use the authorities of the Secretary with respect to, the licensing, manufacturing, processing, testing, labeling, warning, use instructions, distribution, storage, administration, field surveillance, adverse reaction reporting, and recall of reactogenic lots or batches, of vaccines, and research on vaccines, in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines.
(b) Task force
(1) The Secretary shall establish a task force on safer childhood vaccines which shall consist of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control.
(2) The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall serve as chairman of the task force.
(3) In consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, the task force shall prepare recommendations to the Secretary concerning implementation of the requirements of subsection (a).
(c) Report. Within 2 years after December 22, 1987, and periodically thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate a report describing the actions taken pursuant to subsection (a) during the preceding 2-year period.
The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act gave manufacturers immunity from liability for injuries and deaths caused by vaccines listed on the government-recommended childhood immunization schedule.
One of the justifications used to exempt manufacturers from liability was that the US government, through the Department of Health and Human Services, would monitor the childhood vaccine program, collect safety data, report the data to Congress to provide oversight, and take harmful vaccines off the market.
Safety monitoring and reporting as called for in the 1986 law did not occur.
In August 2017, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) filed a FOIA request with HHS, requesting copies of the biennial reports that should have been prepared and submitted to House and Senate committees between 1987 and 2018.
In June 2018, HHS responded to ICAN’s request:
“The [Department]’s searches for records did not locate any records responsive to your request. The [HHS] Immediate Office of the Secretary (IOS) conducted a thorough search of its document tracking systems. The Department also conducted a comprehensive review of all relevant indexes of HHS Secretarial Correspondence maintained at Federal Records Centers that remain in the custody of HHS. These searches did not locate records responsive to your request, or indications that records responsive to your request and in the custody of HHS are located at Federal Records Centers.”
Informed Consent Action Network v. US-HHS, (1:18-cv-03215-JMF), resulted in a July 9, 2018 stipulation signed by Attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The stipulation quoted the June 2018 acknowledgement, by HHS, that HHS had no record of any safety monitoring activity or public, Congressional reporting of the childhood vaccination program, under the 1986 law, between 1986 and 2018.
Later two reports were located, filed on May 4, 1988 and July 21, 1989 (partial, no appendices). The 1988 and 1989 reports addressed vaccine promotion, vaccine supply, vaccine research activity (see, for example, pp. 67-78 of 1988 report), and set-up of reporting and data analysis programs.
Since 1989: nothing.
HHS has never systematically collected or reported information from parents, pediatricians, toxicologists, manufacturers, or anyone else about harms caused by childhood vaccines administered in single doses, combined doses (i.e. measles-mumps-rubella), or cumulative doses (the childhood schedule), and HHS has never collected or reported information about the harmful effects of biological components, chemical adjuvants, preservatives or any other ingredients.
What would a true vaccine monitoring, reporting and product safety program have looked like?
It would have included detailed records of:
Date, time and location of vaccine administration, including the name of the nurse or other health care worker who administered the vaccine, and the doctor who ordered the vaccine.
Parent and doctor observations of symptoms of injury in the baby and child post-vaccination: what the symptoms were, when they occurred in relation to the vaccine, how long they lasted, how severe they were, whether they were transient or chronic, and whether the parent was subsequently advised to refrain from further vaccination of the child.
Serial number of the vaccine vial, identifying the manufacturing facility by name and address, lot number, batch number, date of manufacture, and names of production line workers who prepared the batch, separated out the lot, and filled the vial.
Dates, times and shipping methods through which the vaccine vial was shipped from the factory and received by the doctors’ office, hospital or pharmacy.
Storage and handling of the vaccine vial by the employees at the doctors’ office, hospital or pharmacy.
Each chemical and biological component listed or not listed on the vaccine label, including chemical and molecular structure, raw materials, cell lines, active ingredients, adjuvants, preservatives and all other components.
Each manufacturing protocol used at each step in the production process, fully describing the chemical and biological reactions, procedures and methods used to make each component of the vaccine, including the final, finished product.
Names of the suppliers of each chemical and biological ingredient; date and time at which each ingredient was delivered to the vaccine factory; name of the employee who received the delivery.
FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility during the period when the vaccine was manufactured, including date and time of inspections and names of the inspectors.
Samples and protocols from the lot, submitted by the manufacturers to the FDA Bureau of Biologics, including date, time, shipping method and name of the person who submitted the samples and protocols.
Samples and protocols from the lot, received by the FDA Bureau of Biologics, including date, time, shipping method and the name of the person who received the samples and protocols.
Results of sample and protocol testing, by FDA inspectors, validating that the sample contained the compounds listed on the label; did not contain any compounds (adulterations or contaminants) not listed on the label; and that the protocol the manufacturer reported using, in fact yielded a chemically and biologically identical final product when applied by an FDA inspector to the same ingredients in the same sequence using the same methods.
FDA written certification of each lot for release, distribution and use, including names of FDA inspectors, signatures and dates of lot-release.
The July 2018 ICAN-HHS stipulation supports the conclusion that none of those regulatory functions have been performed, no records of vaccine manufacturing regulation have been produced by FDA or regulated manufacturers, and no records have been collected, assessed or used by HHS.
No vaccine manufacturing safety regulation has been conducted by FDA, NIH, CDC or any other HHS department, at any time since Congress passed the 1986 “mandate for safer vaccines.”
Or, if such evidence has been collected, it’s been collected under classified military data collection systems, to confirm and refine national vaccination programs as an effective chemical and biological weapons production and distribution system capable of deniably inducing rapid death (i.e. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) and chronic diseases including asthma, allergies, neurological disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, autoimmune disorders, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer and other immune-mediated diseases.
Public health and regulatory systems have consistently hidden those truths behind false claims about the effects of vaccines, and behind legalized non-regulation of biological product manufacturing.
The US Food and Drug Administration and other drug manufacturing regulators claim that drug manufacturing regulation is about assessing product purity, sterility, potency, safety and efficacy to protect humans and animals from impure, adulterated, contaminated, impotent, harmful, and/or ineffective products.
Biological products can be defined as a subset of the larger category of drugs. Biological products are drugs manufactured through biological processes that take place within living organisms. Drugs that aren’t biological products are manufactured through chemical processes. Vaccines are included in the biological products class of drugs.
A defining characteristic of biological products, in legal terms, is their rule-governed exemption from regulatory oversight that applies to and is enforceable for drugs manufactured using chemical processes.
One of several defining characteristics of biological products as murder weapons, is their ability to biologically incorporate into the target’s body, such that weapons become indistinguishable from victims. Empty vials, syringes and other residual evidence disappears into garbage dumps and medical waste incinerators.
Eleanor McBean published a book in 1957 called Poisoned Needle.
She carefully documented the history of vaccination lies prior to and since Edward Jenner’s cow-pox and smallpox lies. She collected dozens of doctors’ observations throughout the 1700s, 1800s and early 1900s, supporting the conclusion that vaccines have always been nothing more than toxic slurries introduced into healthy people and animals for the purpose of making them weaker and sicker and dead, while enabling the poisoners to lie to themselves and to their victims about what they’re doing, how and why.
One example from Poisoned Needle:
Dr. J. W. Hodge had considerable experience with vaccination before he denounced it and wrote a book on his collected data. In his [1902] book The Vaccination Superstition (p. 41) he states:
“After a thorough investigation of the most authentic records and facts in harmony with the physician’s daily observations and experiences, the conclusion is drawn that instead of protecting its subjects from contagion of smallpox, vaccination actually renders them more susceptible to it.
“Vaccination is the implantation of disease — that is its admitted purpose. Health is the ideal state to be sought, not disease . . . Every pathogenic disturbance in the infected organism wastes and lowers the vital powers, and thus diminishes its natural resisting capacity.
“This fact is well known and so universally conceded that it seems superfluous to cite authorities. Nevertheless, I shall mention one. The International Textbook of Surgery – Vol. 1. p. 263, is authority for the following statement: ‘Persons weakened by disease or worn out by excessive labor yield more readily to infection than healthy individuals.’
“If this is true, it explains why, in various epidemics, smallpox always attacks the vaccinated first, and why these diseases continue to infest the civilized world while its allied (unvaccinated) ‘filth diseases’ have disappeared before the advance of civilization, through the good offices of sanitation, hygiene and improved nutrition.”
For the last few years, I’ve been documenting the development of American public health emergency anti-law as a distinct layer of statutes, regulations, executive orders and court cases that overrides and suspends good laws criminalizing (among other crimes) intentional use of poisons, including vaccines, to injure and kill people.
Public health emergency law as a tool to enable deniable, spatially-distant, time-shifted homicide became more visible because public health emergency law was used to start the Covid-19 killing programs and is still being used to maintain the Covid-19 killing programs.
Public health emergency statutes, regulations, executive orders and court cases govern, among other things, non-regulation of poisons (i.e. emergency use authorization/EUA countermeasures) during declared emergencies.
In December 2023, I located a Federal Register Notice of Final Rule through which then-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb shut the doors of all biological product manufacturing facilities to FDA inspections, effective May 2, 2019, eight months before public announcement of Covid-19, and more than a year and a half before the Covid-19 mass vaccination campaign got underway in December 2020.
This fact helps to answer the question: How could hundreds of millions of doses be manufactured, shipped and ready for use a few weeks after the FDA’s December 2020 “emergency use authorization” decisions? Manufacturing began well before Covid was announced, inside factories not subject to inspection. That’s how.
Reading Gottlieb’s rule-change a few months ago, I realized that non-regulation of biological product manufacturing under routine, non-emergency conditions, had been in effect — or, rather, non-effect — since long before Covid, and will still be in effect/non-effect even if emergency declarations about Covid and other fake communicable disease and public health threats are revoked someday.
So for the last couple of months, I’ve been thinking about and collecting more legal evidence that biological product anti-law under non-emergency conditions also suspends or overrides good laws criminalizing (among other crimes) intentional use of poisons to injure and kill people, just as effectively as public health emergency anti-laws do.
The legal history of routine non-regulation of all biological products can be assembled in the same way the legal history of emergency-predicated non-regulation of EUA countermeasures has been assembled.
Such a collection would document how, over time, built-in exemptions from otherwise applicable, enforceable manufacturing rules, along with rule changes, and explicit notices from FDA to manufacturers (called Guidance for Industry) that FDA would not, will not and does not enforce rules, have rendered biological product non-regulation more non-regulatory as each year has passed.
However, sifting through hundreds of rule changes to track each rule as it’s become increasingly inapplicable and unenforceable, is an exercise in grasping at smoke. So I’m not planning to pursue it further, unless an attorney contacts me with a credible proposal for a case that would be strengthened by detailed accounts of FDA Federal Register rule-making activities over the past half-century or so.
At 21 CFR 610.11, the 1973 FDA rules established that the only “general safety” test (GST) required to claim a biological product was safe, was to inject a sample into two mice and two guinea pigs. If the two mice and two guinea pigs didn’t get “significant symptoms” or die within seven days, “the product meets the requirements for general safety.”
FDA authorized “exceptions to this test…when more than one lot is processed each day” and “variations of this test…whenever required.” Manufacturers were directed to apply to the Bureau of Biologics (now the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research) for exemptions.
After a series of revisions, FDA eliminated general safety test requirements for biological products, effective Aug. 3, 2015 (80 FR 37971).
FDA has made dozens of similar rule changes, weakening and eliminating rules about samples, protocols and lot-by-lot release; establishment and product licensing applications; post-approval manufacturing process changes; mixing, diluting and repackaging and more, including the elimination of facility inspections Gottlieb put in place effective May 2, 2019.
It’s important to understand that the acts FDA officials have committed, to eliminate applicability and enforceability of drug manufacturing regulations for biological product manufacturing, have not been acts to eliminate actual regulation of medicines.
They have been acts to eliminate what has, from the start, been pretend-regulation to enable unimpeded manufacture, distribution and use of intentional poisons, so that their true character as poisons could be hidden from and invisible to the public.
A few weeks ago, I located Mutual Recognition Agreements. MRAs are international trade treaties. When signed and ratified by national governments, MRAs authorize national regulators — including drug regulators — to be “relieved of” their regulatory obligations and instead, recognize and rely on the regulatory decisions of other countries’ regulators, especially the US Food and Drug Administration.
The two systems interlock.
Under the legal terms of MRA treaties, US-FDA can be legally construed as the sole regulator for worldwide drug manufacturing and distribution systems.
Under the legal terms of the US-FDA drug regulation system, all biological product manufacturing can be legally conducted with no substantive disclosure, monitoring or enforcement of rules controlling purity, sterility, safety, potency, efficacy, raw materials, manufacturing processes, or chemical and biological composition of finished, packaged, distributed products.
Also note, the legal structure of Mutual Recognition Agreements plus FDA-non-regulation-of-biological-products, operates separate from and in addition to the UN-World Health Organization, International Health Regulations system.
National governments interested in shielding their populations from intentional poisoning must withdraw from the United Nations and WHO treaties; must withdraw from the IHR treaty; and also must withdraw from each Mutual Recognition Agreement treaty that subordinates their own federal drug regulation to other countries’ regulators, including the US-FDA non-regulation, poison-facilitation system.
It’s plausible that some simpler biological products (insulin, for example) may have historically been manufactured, and may still today be manufactured, to meet measurable, achievable standards of safety and batch-to-batch consistency, because doing that would help US-FDA and pharmaceutical companies maintain public confidence and reduce the likelihood that the public would begin to see and understand the biological-product-based intentional poisoning program.
It’s also plausible that biological products labeled as vaccines have had, for many decades and still today, a high degree of batch-to-batch variation ranging from low to high toxicity, because that also would be a sensible way for US-FDA and pharmaceutical companies to maintain high levels of public ignorance, complacency and compliance with vaccination programs.
March 5, 2024 – Four questions and four responses “…Due to changes in US law, acts that are crimes in other legal contexts, such as poisoning, battery, torture and homicide, if carried out by vaccines (and many other drugs, devices and biological products) are legal. Perpetrators cannot be held liable under civil tort law and cannot be prosecuted under criminal law. This intentional poisoning is much more visible to the public because of the Covid-19 events since 2020, so there are more possibilities for stopping the programs. One of the main methods to carry out the mass deception is false attribution of cause and effect…”
Isolation means the separation of one thing from everything else. This is the only way to scientifically identify a thing. This is done with everything from large organic material to the smallest nano-particles. It is done with Gold and Silver. And it is done in basic chemistry, but it has never been done with a virus. Several have claimed to have done so, but have since been exposed as frauds. And today, virologists claim that isolation is not possible because of the obligate intracellular nature of a virus. This means that they cannot exist outside of a living cell. But if this were true, then it would also be true that they can not spread from one person to another. The pseudo-science of virology is full of logical fallacies that any inquisitive person can recognize.
Scientific studies require a control group. Meaning that two samples are needed where every factor is the same except for the presence of the thing being studied. But this can not be done in virology because a virus has never been isolated. When virologists claim they are isolating it, they are lying. This is evident today with the latest so-called proofs that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated.
In both the “Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus” published by the Medical Journal of Australia. And in the “Viral isolation analysis of SARS-CoV-2” from Japan’s Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, the titles suggest that they isolated a virus. But they clearly did not.
They took material from the most contaminated source possible, the nose, which acts as a filter by capturing particulates inhaled from the environment. And at no point did they isolate a virus from this sample. What they did was run the entire mix of unknown material through a PCR test, and claimed that it tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. But we know that the PCR test is not capable of isolating a virus, and we know it’s been deliberately adjusted to give false positive results. So this is not science, it is fraud. They then inoculated a culture of cells with the entire mix of nose material, added in unspecified material, and the cells died. At no point in these experiments was a virus ever isolated. They in fact did the opposite of isolation by adding foreign material to a mix of unknown material from a person’s nose. So even if the cells died as a result, there is no way of knowing what killed them.
There is an alternative theory that does not have massive funding from spurious foundations and Nobel Peace prizes to convince the public of it’s validity.
Terrain theory tells us that most of what we are told is a disease, is nothing more than the symptoms of a natural bodily process of healing and repairing tissues damaged from stress and external toxins. Cells naturally die and break down in a way that is identical to how virologists claim a virus behaves. And the very same foundations pushing the theory of the virus, have been simultaneously creating a more toxic world with petrochemical drugs that earn billions in profits. There are far more so-called diseases today than existed before this pseudo science was unleashed on society.
In 1859 Florence Nightingale published, Notes on Nursing, where in she wrote that “all disease… is more or less a reparative process… an effort of nature to remedy a process of poisoning or of decay, which has taken place… sometimes years beforehand.” She is saying that what we are told today are symptoms of a disease, are actually natural processes of the body healing itself from damage.
Manly P Hall, known best for his 1928 publication, The Secret Teachings of All Ages, gave a lecture in 1989 called, Magnetic Fields of the Human Body. In this lecture he described this same sentiment.
He said that each human body is surrounded by its own magnetic field which provides tremendous protection. And as long as the individual takes proper care of this magnetic field, it will heal all wounds and recover all bodily functions and organs. He said that the law of the energy field is also the law of integrity. When we break the laws of nature, we damage this flow, which in turn damages the individual’s vitality. This magnetic field can be damaged by negative attitudes such as fear, and destructive attitudes towards others. It can be damaged by drugs and alcohol, toxic substances, and any action contrary to the common good.
He went on to say that in ancient times looking upon objects perfect and complete in structure was therapeutic because looking upon them inspired an acceptance of perfect symmetry that positively effects our energy field. And conversely, when we accept discord as inevitable, our energy field is damaged.
For the past hundred years the same families and foundations have created a world of chaos and discord. And perhaps Terrain theory is correct, and the ancients were right, and we have been given a perfect divine vessel that will protect us so long as we look after it and live in accordance with the common good.
A Discussion on Chlorine Dioxide, Ozone and Methylene Blue – 3/13/24
Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan Rumble & Odysee channels.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note:
Below you will find some excerpts from Tom Cowan’s presentation. For additional details on any of the protocols he mentions, listen to the full video. The first part of the video covers the recently renewed “no virus” challenge. At approximate 18 minutes in, he begins to discuss the protocols mentioned in the title. Emphasis (bold) is mine. ~ Kathleen
Excerpts:
So, a lot of people have asked, and they’ve heard me mention and talk about in the New Biology Clinic (practitioners), a number of medicines, or so-called medicines — and they are rightfully so, the people, wondering how these fit into New Biology principles, because some of them are so-called natural substances, but some of them are actually what you would call chemicals.
So the list includes chlorine dioxide, or chlorine dioxide solution, and methylene blue, ozone, turpentine, C-carbon, zeolite, and there’s probably others.
And so there’s a lot of controversy, I think, within our group as to, well, everything from ‘these are amazing healing substances which everyone should have in their therapeutic handbag’…
[…]
And another position is, ‘I would never use something like those, because they’re basically chemicals’ — or ‘Maybe they’re from natural things, but they can only repress symptoms and anyways aren’t they meant to kill organisms like viruses and bacteria and fungi? And I thought that we’re not about killing stuff, because all these organisms are really out there to help us.’
So I thought I would take a look at that and give us a certain point of view that hopefully will make this question easier to understand and maybe hope give us some guidance on this…
[…]
So, let’s look at the first one which was chlorine dioxide. And not so long ago we had a conversation with Andreas Kalcker who I would say probably knows more about the use of chlorine dioxide than anybody else alive right now.
[Here Tom reads descriptions of what chlorine dioxide is and shares one of several protocols available for preparing and using it.]
So, what is it doing?
So if we, (and I would say this was more or less in agreement with what Andreas was telling us in our our conversation with him) that basically chlorine dioxide is a charge, or what he would call electron donor.
Now, that already is a little bit problematic in a sense… because we’re taught, and we’ve gone through what does it mean to be an oxygen donor. So we talked about Gerald Pollock’s very interesting research that we don’t actually absorb oxygen from the air. What we absorb and in his view were electrons.
I would actually change the word of electrons, since as I’ve been over, if you look at the model of the atom that we’re told, which is that the atom has a nucleus with protons and neutrons and then has electrons circling around it. So, basically a make-believe model…
[…]
And I think the word calling something a negative charge is an inappropriate terminology. So it’s not a negative charge, but it’s a certain kind of charge, which is opposite or different than other kinds of charge, which we call positive charge.
And that gets into a little bit of semantics. So let’s just say that the reason we need oxygen is because oxygen is a strong donor of the charge, which is what we need to produce energy and to create actually life.
So now we’re talking about a fundamentally different view of what a living system is, or even what substance is.
And I think what I’m talking about is at the end of the day, and the bottom line is, we have a very unclear and primitive and unformed, and I would even use the word ‘incorrect’. about what physical substance actually is.
So we know, for instance, with very clear experiments and accurate measurements. that if you shine a coherent beam of light into a very thin layer of some solid object like gold or silver or something, that 99% of the volume of that silver sheet or gold sheet, the light will go through unimpeded as if there is nothing there.
In other words, 99% of the area of a solid substance like a sheet of gold, there’s nothing there.
Now that led them to create the model that there’s these atoms linked together and they have nuclei. And what’s circling around them is electrons. And then there’s other people who dispute that. I’ve gone over that. And they say that that little part, that less than 1% that actually scatters the light (that’s the only part that scatters the light) that is the whole atom.
Now, whichever those two it is, you’re still left with the question of how come this chair or this desk or this sheet of very thin gold feels, seems, appears, and by every sensory observation appears to be a solid structure.
It’s not made of 99% of nothing. So even if it’s a nucleus that’s less than 1% of the mass, or even if it’s the whole atom that’s less than 1% of the mass, either way, you’re left with the dilemma of: So what is it made of?
And that includes us. So what are we made of? It appears that we’re not made of substance, because that doesn’t make any sense at all.
So we’re essentially made of charge. We’re like a battery. And we use certain processes to recharge our battery.
Interestingly, if you look at the work of Wilhelm Reich and others, you know, the whole phenomena of sexual activity and orgasm is a simply a way to recharge your battery. It’s an interesting way of looking at it. And connecting with the sun and the earth is another fundamental polarity that recharges our battery. And breathing in the air is a way of absorbing the some charge that we erroneously or (some other word) call oxygen.
So we’re actually absorbing charge from the sort of plasma or ether field around us. And that is what gives us life.
As well as exposure to the sun and the earth, which creates a fundamental polarity of the earth donating so-called negative charges, which again isn’t really a negative charge, and the sun donating a sort of positive charge. This is the male/female polarity, which also comes to a sort of fruition, like I said, in this sexual act.
So it’s possible, and I think the real way to understand what chlorine dioxide does, is it’s simply a molecule that has been somehow configured to be a very strong donor of this so-called electronegative or polar charge.
And since, in a sense, the root of all disease is a loss of the charge and your battery is running down and becoming dead, you can understand why giving somebody a very strongly donating substance, like chlorine dioxide, which is exactly how Andreas Kalcker described it to us — it has a very strong ability to donate this electronegative so-called charge, and therefore promote healing.
Now, it looks like that it kills bacteria or viruses or fungi, but that itself is an illusion because it’s not killing anything.
What it’s doing, like Florence Nightingale said, this decay process is a function of your battery running out. So if you allow — if you donate this charge and sort of recharge your battery, then the tissue stops decaying, and your decay process, once it stops, then the bacteria don’t have to come to feed off the decay.
And that which we erroneously call viruses which are just a misunderstanding of these decaying particles that are coming from your tissue, they obviously stop or are lessened.
And so you think you’ve killed the virus or killed the bacteria when you’ve done no such thing. You’ve actually restored the health of the tissue. And then the bacteria don’t need to feed off the decaying tissue, and there’s no viruses that are produced.
They’re not actually viruses anywhere. There’s only decaying tissue.
The fungi go away because they don’t have to eat up your decaying tissue to help you out, and then you seem a whole lot better.
Now, I think if you frame it like that, then you have a realistic understanding.
I’m not saying that I or anybody else knows… I mean, we still have this fundamental sort of dilemma of how electromagnetic phenomena, waves, frequencies, create a solid stuff called ‘you’.
I don’t know how that happens, but I know that that seems to be all we’re actually made of or all anything is made of, because the particles have been shown not to exist, and the electromagnetic waves and frequencies have.
So that’s what this world, this universe that we’re living in is made of, so we might as well accept that, and we might as well work with it.
Now, here’s the bottom line. If you think like this and understand the world in this way, and then you don’t want to end up having to use a chemical substance like chlorine dioxide, you would understand that a better strategy is to reserve your charge through eating living food, and through regular constant movement (not constant, but regular movement) in the outdoors, in the sunshine with bare feet or somehow connected to the earth, and to avoid toxic radiation fields or electromagnetic fields as much as possible.
Use other grounding devices and other tools like seawater and other plants and other extracts and other things, breathing better to do harmonious breathing or the breathing that we’re teaching in the clinic, or the Wim Hof breathing.
All these are regular normal ways that you can preserve your health so that you don’t need to get into the position of ‘now I have this horrible, quote, urine infection, and I need to do something right away’.
Now, having said that, and having worked almost four decades as a doctor, I don’t particularly have a problem with using a very safe substance, which is what all these appear to be, like chlorine dioxide solution, to temporarily relieve somebody suffering who’s got urinary tract infection, or a whole lot worse.
I mean, every illness, so-called, is a manifestation of decay and poisoning and a loss of charge, and in particular this loss of charge due to exposure to electropositive toxic substances in our world.
And so, if you can, in addition, and I would be very clear, in addition or on top of doing all the other things, like the food and the movement and the sunshine, and the, you know, not succumbing to repeated negative thought pattern and all the other things, and using, you know, other breathing techniques that help you put you in a state where you’re charged and working on your intimate relationships so you can recharge your battery, all these things, that should be first.
But again, I have no problem with somebody using chlorine dioxide solution in the way that I just described to help them out, because I see very little downside reported or something that I’ve observed…
[…]
I think the more important principle is to understand what it’s doing, which I think I have just described. Then you can see how it fits in, and that it is a wonderful and appropriate tool to help us out, as we’re also doing all the things to regain our charge.
Now, interestingly, if we go to the next one, which is methylene blue, which I never even heard of until maybe a few months ago, you find almost the same thing…
[…]
So when you realize that this substance has been effectively used to treat this and works in a reductive sort of way similar to how oxygen works, you start realizing…that this is a oxygen, i.e. a charge donor.
And it just happens to be a different chemical, which happens to, for whatever kind of molecular (it’s the wrong word, probably) reason, able to donate charge more effectively than most other things, you could see why it has become an interesting treatment for all sorts of degenerative neurodegenerative disease, particularly memory problems, depression, Parkinson’s pain, Alzheimer’s, all these things, which are basically just a losing of the of the electrical charge in the deepest, most profound area where the charge has to work, which is our nervous system.
It does this in the same way that oxygen would, but in this case, as they say, the oxygen therapy isn’t strong enough. So there happens to be this chemical, which seems to have very low or almost no toxicity that is able to strongly donate a negative charge and make a seemingly dramatic difference in people suffering from these sorts of conditions.
Now, again, I haven’t used it and maybe somebody will convince me that there is some negative effects from this. There may be that I couldn’t find any documentation of this so far…
[…]
One of the places I think we need to be sure I know they use methylene blue also widely with animal medicine with good effects. And there is some concern that some of the methylene blue that’s sold over the Internet is not really methylene blue. And so I would be careful about that. One place that I know you can get it that claims that it’s exactly the same chemical and they put it in structured water and they put some so-called healing frequencies is a website onlyresultscount.com. And they have a fairly inexpensive product, which you can easily get and they have a lot of directions on how to use it…
[…]
So I have some other things here like ozone, but I think you can start to see that there’s a pattern here. So ozone is just adding extra oxygen, which is adding another form of delivering this that oxygen provides to us, which is this so-called electronegative charge, which is the reason we’re sick in the first place…
[…]
Turpentine, we’ve been over a fair amount, and I would refer you to the interview that I did with our friend Andy Kaufman and the work of Jennifer Daniels…
I’m not aware of any analogy you could make with restoring the charge. But my guess is if you really looked into it, you would find something like that as well….
Zeolite and Carbon C60 seem to be things that have negative charge or a certain structure that helps to bind with these positively charged so-called toxins. You know, Andreas Kalker essentially made the comment that every toxic substance is basically a positively charged molecule. I’m not sure if that’s true, but Carbon C60 is these sort of buckyball things which is loaded with these negative charges which attracts this toxic stuff and essentially captures them inside the carbon structure and allows your body to eliminate them. The same thing with zeolite. There’s of course many arguments about what form of zeolite and how to use it…
[…]
I think all these things are interesting and positive approaches to the question of what it all boils down to is how can we help detoxify and how can we help prevent our tissues from decaying.
And that has all goes back to we’re essentially like a living battery. And our living battery is charged through the food and through the way we think and through connection with movement and through connection with the sun and the earth…
In the interest of answering questions generated by the article, ”Pretending to be Alternative,” I am expanding on nano delivery systems. Buckle your seatbelts!
There are many formulations of Ivermectin on the market. If Ivermectin is used ‘off-label’ then it can be prescribed for unapproved uses. Ivermectin was intended as an anti-parasitic medication, for repeated use, since it only kills adult parasites, not the eggs.
Several pharmaceutical companies manufacture and supply Ivermectin on a global scale. Unless you, as a patient, request the package insert of the drug, you will not necessarily know the specific lot# or ingredients to ask questions of the medical doctors who dispense them.
Today, as an ‘off-label’ drug, Ivermectin is sold for many different symptoms. In Australia, since June 2023, the prescribing of oral ivermectin for ‘off-label’ uses will no longer be limited to specialists such as dermatologists, gastroenterologists and infectious diseases specialists. In the U.S., Ivermectin is still not FDA-approved to treat COVID.
Most people who choose to take Ivermectin, do so because it is marketed as “alternative” and is “not FDA-approved.” These phrases seem to hold special powers to some people, even though Ivermectin is still a pharmaceutical drug.
At the same time, pharmaceuticals have been upgraded to keep up with “advances” in technology.
Do All Ivermectin drugs contain Nano Lipid Particles (NLPs)?
Little is known about when lipid nanocarriers first appeared on the Ivermectin scene, but lipid and nano-drug delivery systems have been used in pharma-drugs since at least 1995. A 2017 study used nano lipid carriers as an Ivermectin delivery system for head lice.
Ivermectin was not well publicized before doctors began prescribing it ‘off-label,’ as an “alternative” treatment for COVID-19.
To assess the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin for COVID, a 2021 study reported: “Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.” The study concluded:
Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.
Generally, if scientists are writing about a protocol in their research, it implies it is used in practice as an industry standard. How else are these drugs delivered to the right part of the body? A 1995 study described the Nano Lipid Carrier delivery method:
Nano lipid carriers are a delivery system composed of a solid matrix that contains liquid nano-fatty particles. These nanoparticles are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and possess a controlled and continuous release capability, have a cellular dimension and are compatible with tissues and cells
Did Ivermectin, in 2021, contain NanoLipid Carrier (NPC) Delivery Systems?
It is confusing to know for sure whether Ivermectin, or other “alternative” pharmaceutical drugs, of 2021 or earlier, used lipid nanoparticles as a drug delivery system. From the the 2019 study featured in my earlier article on Ivermectin, this statement is noted under “Methods:”
To overcome the limitations observed in some drug formulations and resistance, we used nano lipid carriers (NLCs) as a targeted and sustained drug delivery system for IVM.
This statement does not make known whether NLCs are standard practice in the market, or typical for this drug. However, we can assume this methodology is standard practice at least in the last few decades. According to this 2023 study:
Over the past several decades, liposomes have been extensively developed and used for various clinical applications such as in pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and dietetic fields, due to its versatility, biocompatibility, and biodegradability, as well as the ability to enhance the therapeutic index of free drugs.
To be clear, my article on Pretender Alternatives focused on nanotechnology in general not only on NLCs. Whether products are lipid-based-nano or Beeswax-based-nano, it is still “nano.”
The doctors who prescribe nano-drugs are not trained in nanomedicine or their delivery systems. By plausible deniability, doctors can deny any knowledge of nanotech in their drugs. Thus, they are not responsible for disclosing known health effects of nanobots to patients.
Nano-electric Delivery Systems
Nano-medicine implies electronics.
In the 1990s, research conducted in the microelectronics industry was applied to the design of immunoassays, and since then the applications for immunoassays have expanded using nanotechnology.
This movement has been dubbed as microfluidic and lab-on-a-chip technology. Research in LOC systems is expected to extend towards downscaling of fluid handling structures as well, by using nanotechnology.
In 2024, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), celebrates 25 years of nanotechnology. That suggests 25 years in products, medicines, and food. It is also floats in the air as Smart Dust and microplastic rain. Cloudy with a chance of plastics? The purpose of Smart Dust Smart rain, and Smart Healthcare is for wireless monitoring and surveillance.
Smart dust is a system of tiny electromechanical sensors that detect and wirelessly transmit real-time data from their environment. Measured at one cubic millimeter or less, these devices are dispersed in large quantities as a networked cluster suspended in mid-air.
There is no reason to look for chip technology as RFID chips, or implantable chips. In a digital-nano world chips are invisible. Biosensors are now wireless and non-invasive, used in Point of Care applications to monitor people in biomedical healthcare settings such as Telehealth and Biotelemetry.
What about binders, such as zeolites?
Zeolites are advertised to remove toxic metals by binding to them for removal from the body. Would zeolite be of assistance when it comes to nanotech?
Growth formation of material from the Comirnaty Pfizer injectable under certain conditions (using a reptile incubator).
After 96 hours of exposure at 37 degrees Celsius (simulating human body temperature) and constant ultraviolet light stimulation, we proceed to analyze the result again by optical microscopy.
Haxon Achilles II Microscope, bright field
Magnification: 120 X – 1800 X.
Growth formation of the material from the Comirnaty Pfizer injectable after being subjected to certain conditions (using a reptile incubator).
After 48 hours of exposure to 37 degrees Celsius (simulating human body temperature) and constant ultraviolet light stimulation, we proceeded to analyse the result again by optical microscopy.
Haxon Achilles II microscope, bright field.
Magnification: 120 X – 1800 X
Video, translated from Spanish to English by La Quinta Columna, is available at La Quinta Columna Rumble & Odysee channels.
Based on what we know about the contents of the so-called vaccines, the COVID vaccines, they contain graphene and nanotechnology.
Here we have some images obtained via optical microscopy.
Well, we’re seeing formations that you’re used to seeing with not a lot of magnification, around a hundred magnification. And showing you points under the light of the condensator, we can see that these are little crystals that Dr. Roger Leir called orthorhombic crystal structures that are radio-modulable in a scalar manner via 5G.
In scientific literature, they correspond to graphene nanostructures, plasma, micro antennae. We have microfilaments, strands, and you’re used to seeing all of this, of course.
This is before putting the sample through the incubation process.
We’ll give it a little bit more magnification so that you can see those quadrangular patterns over here. We’ve got some over here. You can see that they’re those little squares.
Here’s a big piece of a graphene microfoil, and we’ve got hundreds in a single drop in just one centimeter squared, with about 800 magnification.
This is more graphene. Here you can see those quadrangular patterns. This is in profile. Sometimes they turn on the sample, and they even assemble themselves. Later on you’ll see some examples of those that have already assembled. And unfortunately, we’re quite used to seeing all of this.
This is another quadrangular pattern. This is a micro, almost nanoparticle, and we’ve got about a 1000 something magnification. And this is all normal, which shouldn’t be normal, based on what we know.
This is more graphene.
This is very characteristic, isn’t it?
Take note here. It is true that we’ve got around a 1000 magnification.
We’re just taking a look at a single drop here.
Here we go back to 100-120 magnification only. What we’re trying to do is find those ovoid shape structures.
We’re used to seeing this type of filament and strands, even the quadrangular patterns that you can see on the left.
It’s incredible that all of this is in a single injectable, as you can see here. And that metallic junk is in everybody — that everybody can see and that nobody says anything.
Now they’re talking about microplastics. But don’t worry because the video will be uploaded onto La Quinta Columna info’s website. It’s the Incubus Project.
Here what we’re seeing is another assembled structure of graphene. You’ve got a quadrangular pattern here.
And for those that said these were salt crystals (you remember that) or sugar crystals, it’s incredible all of this. This is such a determined attack against the whole of humankind. And this is in plain sight of everybody.
And nevertheless, all this is still going forward. There are still people that talk about vaccine, about RNA.
Here we have another assembled structure, a little bit more elaborate. Obviously none of this is normal. None of this should be in any injectable. but now that we have acquired this knowledge since 2021, none of this surprises us. Although unfortunately, most of the planet is not aware of this. They think that we’re talking in terms of vaccines still.
Now the good things come along. We’re going to place the sample of two drops of Comirnaty Pfizer in an incubator for reptiles.
The new environmental conditions are 37 degrees centigrade with a constant temperature and ultraviolet light. After 48 hours, we analyze the sample again via optical microscopy. And these are the results that we have obtained.
First of all, what we can see is that the graphene is kind of like more diluted. That’s the feeling we get. But this is not what draws our attention.
Here we can see a formation that you’ll see in just a second. Take note of this.
This is new. I’m just going to stop there. And this is what has appeared after exposure to ultraviolet radiation, to constant heat.
And you’ll see this with a greater magnification later. But one gets the feeling that there’s a kind of generation of a tree. And you can see a series of nodules or nodes. And you’ll see that from each nodule or node, there are three strands that come out.
It’s similar to what Franc Zalewski, electron microscopy found with an electron microscopy.
We’re going to do the same with the similar system with 25 — this is 25 microns, which is about 25,000 nanometers. And there’s just two days that have gone by, 48 hours. And the day after tomorrow, that will make four days, which are 96 hours. And we’ll have a look at it again then.
I’m not sure whether these are neural networks. The carbon nanotubes are, but these aren’t nanotubes. So anyhow, we’ll see this later. Let’s continue.
One gets the feeling that there’s a hatching or eclosion happening.
A little bit more magnification now.
Somebody said that if the sample dries up, there’ll be no evolution, but it doesn’t dry up because there’s hydrogel.
Let’s have a look at it now with a clear or light field.
This is what I want you to observe now. There’s a nucleus that looks metallic in nature, and each node has three limbs or extremities.
There’s the third one. Can you see it?
And this coincides exactly with what Dr. Franc Zalewski said. And we’re going to do everything possible to get in touch with him. Let’s remember what he said.
“I marked the vials numbers one, two and three. Only the third one was that thing inside. And it grew and developed for four days. And then I put it into a sputtering chamber. There the temperature is high so that the graphite is sputtered or pulverized…”
Similar to the habitat we have created inside the incubator.
Another thing is that we don’t know whether inside the incubator we’re going to be able to recreate the conditions inside the human body in terms of temperature and exposure to ultraviolet light. I think though we will be able to.
And about the intake of insects, not sure there.
“There’s another one. If there were only one, but here we can see another one. We can see the head and legs coming out of it. The scale is 30 microns.
‘The thing’ has found fertile ground. And here we have ‘the thing’. That thing is smiling at us.”
From La Quinta Coluna, we are studying the evolution of the sample submitted to the new incubation environmental conditions.
We suggest as a starting hypothesis that there will be a transformation during the exposure of the content of the Comirnaty Pfizer vial.
The sample will be submitted to evaluation via optical microscopy every 48 hours. So that’s the video. This is what we have.
And this is based on what we can get to know from what we’ve done. And we will not hide this information. We will make this information public.
And as and when we get more samples and as and when more time goes by, this will hopefully give us the key to what is evolving in that.
The question, not the conclusion we’ve reached, far from it, but the question is, are they using human bodies as incubators?
And is that why they don’t want to get rid of our bodies and biologies or human beings in general?
When they obtain biomedical or biometric data from individuals, is it really to monitor human beings or is it rather to monitor the conditions of the human beings as incubators?
These are just questions I’m asking.
In order to incubate, if anything is being incubated or if something is germinating, what is it incubating? Those are the questions that I’m asking.
Why do they want human beings to eat insects? Is it to normalize the feeding of insects so that they can survive or is it to feed something that they have introduced previously?
Why heat? They’re clearly generating artificial heat via geoengineering to everybody’s surprise. Because they precisely need that heat.
They need blue ultraviolet light and at the same time as this technological implementation of ultraviolet light is being implemented all over the world. There are many casualties or things that just seem to be there by chance.
So these are just questions.
And so we’re using the descriptive format just as they do based on everything we observe. The day after tomorrow we’ll have further images.
Since the onset of the Covidan Era in 2019, the “alternative media” and its alternative media celebrities, have occupied a greater percentage of center stage. They didn’t have to push their way into the spotlight since they own part of it, a section further upstage.
The “alternative media” has upstaged the mainstream media in the promotion, and selling, of “alternative remedies ” for COVID-19. Among the many options is Ivermectin.
In 2020, I wrote an article on the dangers of Ivermectin in the article, The Rise of Ivermectin, found here. Additional information was published by Vaccine Impact here. Why bring up yesterday’s news?
Old news is new again when new information becomes available. What the many “alternative” faces did not reveal about their “alternative” products is that they were not alternative at all. They contain the same materials as the standard issue EUA injectables and pills. They only come packaged with a less inflammatory script.
But what about the stories of people Ivermectin has helped?
Pharmaceuticals may help the body, before they hurt it. Ivermectin is a known anti-parasitic. If it helps people, then they have parasites. And these days, who doesn’t have parasites? Especially when there are parasites among us, parasites in high places. However, Ivermectin studied in randomized, controlled trials showed no clinical benefit in the prevention or treatment of Covid-19.Toxic effects include: severe confusion, ataxia, seizures, and hypotension.
How much help “alternative” products offer depends upon the individual ingredients, and whether they are injected (vaccine), ingested (pill), or inhaled (airborne). The most immediate and potentially dangerous delivery system is by injection, since the materials bypass the body’s innate immune system to be delivered directly into the bloodstream. From the blood, electromagnetic nanomaterials (lipdnanoparticles, graphene, and hydrogels), are carried to organs, tissues and cells, where they take up residence and become embedded into tissue.
Nanobots are self-assembling and self-replicating. They have artificial intelligence (A.I.). They take orders and commands, military-style. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has been around for 25 years. NNI is the new supplement to the president’s 2024 budget called for under the provisions of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 USC §7501). If the president is supplementing with A.I. as a budget item, then Americans should be aware of the updated national diet.
The “Alternative” Pharma Products
Ivermectin is not only an off-label, anti-parasitic medication, but a novel drug delivery system with nanostructured lipid carriers.
Oral Antibodies marketed as “natural food antibodies,” these are the new oral vaccines. Same ingredients, different form. “Guaranteed Titre Levels” means synthetic.
Monoclonal antibody vaccines (mAB) are chimeric injections made of mice and men- “a combination of part mouse and part human.” In 2022, an Emergency Task Force warned that monoclonal antibodies are not effective. Then again, the meaning of “effective” may depend upon one’s point of view.
Ascorbic acid (GMO product) with graphene nanocomposites.
Choosing an “alternative” medication is still a medication. Thus, it is important to read the labels and do the research.
The REAL McCoy
With definitions ever-changing under a NanoNarrative, we need to return to “REAL.” “Real” is eating clean with organic, grass fed meat and milk, pastured eggs, locally-grown vegetables and fruits, eating with the seasons. “Real” is connecting to Nature and the world of plants and herbs as medicine. “Real” does not require a label.
Food is the main fuel of the body. Still, in today’s world, food as fuel is not enough due to our many toxic exposures.
It is important to supplement with “real” ingredients, not “alternatives.” Supplementing foods should be food-based, such as fruit freshly harvested, nutrient-rich broths, and herbal preparations, such as teas and tinctures. For example, when sourcing vitamin C, choose food-based C over ascorbic acid.
Real foods resemble body parts. Citrus fruits have a similar appearance to female mammals’ mammary glands. These fruits support breast health and lymphatic flow into and out of the breasts.
In a world of nanotech, it takes an effort to be natural. Get to know your local ‘small farmer’ as someone not small in stature, but small in commercial operation. The Weston A. Price Foundation connects people to local small farmers to source real foods. Find a local chapter here.
The farther from nature, the closer to synthetic A.I., the door to Cyborgs, and the realm of Transhumanism.
Drs. Tom Cowan and Mark Bailey have issued a new “virus” challenge (here).
“Please note that the requirements for submission can be found at the following timecodes in this video: 2:16-11:20.”
Tom published a 5 minute follow up the next day: You can do it, send us your videos (here).
Please share this challenge with any/all prominent virus-pushers! Below is the email address for submissions:
“If you or someone you know believe that viruses have been isolated and have a rebuttal or scientific study to show us, please submit a short paper or a short video to conversationswithdrcowan@gmail.com and we will review & address these in a future webinar. Please note that the requirements for submission can be found in this video.”
Background:
Scientific thinking applied to “virus” isolation – Tom and Mark, February 29, 2024 (here).
“virologist who presents scientific proof of the existence of a corona virus, including documented control experiments of all steps taken in the proof”
And we still have theSettling The Virus Debate Challenge from Tom, Mark and 18 additional signatories including Professor Timothy Noakes and former Pfizer respiratory division VP, Michael Yeadon, issued in July 2022.
Tip: Don’t disqualify yourself as “scientist” Kevin McCairn did, by publicly insisting that your lab participate in a challenge where the labs must be blinded to each other’s identities!
3000+ pages of “virus” FOIs (updated as of December 31, 2022) in 8 compilation pdfs, and my notarized declaration re the anti-scientific nature of virology: https://tinyurl.com/IsolationFOIs
Because “they” (HIV, influenza virus, HPV, measles virus, etc., etc., etc.) have never been shown to exist, clearlydon’t exist and virology isn’t a science.
I think that the microscopic findings of hydrogel and structures, the macroscopic finding from a sample of live blood that shows an abnormal protein ‘gel/plastic’ and the rubbery white clots that have been found by embalmers for over two years are all showing the same pathology.
They all showed up at the same time, although the gel/plastic was not recognised until later I bet it would have been there if anybody had looked earlier.
In all three situations I believe we are dealing with proteins that were soluble within hydrogels but have become insoluble and ‘drop’ out of solution.
We are all familiar with adding hot water to a sheet of gelatin and forming jelly.
Simplistically we are adding heat and forming a hydrogel. Imagine if we extracted heat and produced bits of gelatin sheet.
I think this, or something similar, is what we are observing microscopically. I don’t think the structure below is in the blood in the finger but it develops from the time of the finger prick to the time of viewing. This is a darkfield image, photo-stitch, with 40x objective. I have seen structures with this texture on a few occasions but not often. Clearly there are large amounts of nanoparticles present. I had to turn the gain down which has meant the surrounding red blood cells have largely disappeared.
Macroscopically, the identified abnormal protein that was identified and investigated by Prof Arne Burkhart we have call ‘gel/plastic’, clearly it is not a gel or plastic but this name serves as a place sitter. Ron Norris and Michael Merrick and more recently Bill from Missouri have led the way with drawing their own blood and centrifuging it as per Ron (please see Ron’s Substack). I have trialled successfully (and this is ongoing) Mike Merrick’s protocol for the oral use of thieves’ oil (LAC microscopy on Telegram). Unfortunately have not made time to write this up but will do so asap, promise!
Lastly, thoughts on the rubbery clots. I think these are mainly protein and form from the hydrogels after death, at least in the main part and I don’t think that they are what is causing death per se. But clearly they are associated with what’s going on.
So what do we do? Minimise EMF exposure. Avoid processed food. Ensure that drinking water is either distilled (then restructured and re-mineralised) or been through a reverse osmosis filter or is from a trusted non-contaminated source. Take regular activated charcoal, sodium citrate and follow the discussions with regard to gel/plastic. Consider other supplements from trusted sources. Consider flu-like symptoms as signs of toxicity. Don’t stick anything up your nose. Masks don’t help.
A new class of “encrypted RNA” vaccines are being developed where the RNA would piggyback onto an existing wild virus and spread from person to person without any person’s knowledge or consent.
This so-called “therapy” uses a technology called TIPs (Therapeutic Interfering Particles), which are described as “engineered molecular parasites” that piggyback on a wild virus. If you get the virus, you also get these parasites. Once inside an infected person, the TIPs are supposed to rapidly multiply, hijacking the resources the wild virus needs to multiply and therefore stopping the virus.
Supporters of this technology claim it will “solve” several problems with traditional vaccine delivery, including “behavior barriers” like noncompliance. Meaning everyone gets vaccinated—whether they like it or not.
Let me try to disentangle this.
Some naturally circulating virus (which doesn’t exist) will be captured and outfitted with lab-created molecular parasites.
The virus (which doesn’t exist) plus its attached parasites will enter the body, where the parasites will “hijack the resources” the virus (which doesn’t exist) needs to survive and multiply.
What resources would these be? The bloodstream? The nervous system? The brain? The anus?
And what does “hijack” mean? Destroy? Disable? Wall off from the rest of the body?
The virus (which doesn’t exist) stops multiplying and dies. Then that person is immune from further infection by that type of virus (which doesn’t exist).
I assume, when the wild virus plus the parasites enter the body, even though the virus doesn’t exist it’s a tiny blob of SOMETHING, rather than just an idea.
What would that something be? No idea.
Whatever the parasites are actually doing in the body, we know they’re not aiding in destroying the virus, because the virus doesn’t exist.
SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors) are a common class of antidepressants used to treat depression, anxiety and other mental health problems. Popular SSRIs include Fluoxetine (Prozac), Escitalopram (Lexapro), and Sertraline (Zoloft). Something well established about these drugs is that they have sexual side-effects. In fact, between 40 and 65% of people who take an SSRI are thought to experience some form of sexual dysfunction. What few people know, though, is these side effects can persist even after coming off of the drugs—a condition called Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD).
This is more than just low libido. It can be a total loss of libido, genital numbness, erectile dysfunction, an inability to orgasm and complete lack of sexual attraction. Emotional blunting is also common, with sufferers describing a numbing of positive emotions, no romantic feelings, and difficulty connecting with others…
In the UK, 1 in 3 teenagers aged 12 to 18 has been prescribed antidepressants. In 2022 alone, the number of children aged 13 to 19 taking antidepressants rose by 6,000 to 173,000…
And increasingly before puberty! In the UK, antidepressant prescriptions for children aged five to 12 years increased by more than 40% between 2015 and 2021. Aged five! Before they’ve even had the chance to develop normally! Online forums are already full of people sharing their experiences of puberty on SSRIs and now dealing with sexual dysfunction as adults. Stories of starting Zoloft at age 11 and never developing normal sexual sensation. Of being prescribed Prozac at 14 and not knowing what it’s like to have a libido. Of taking Lexapro for less than a month and still having genital numbness six years on.
Loss of sexual feeling, desire, interest.
And on top of that, tons of assurances from the Woke mob that having no sexuality is just fine. It’s a gender identity.
As opposed to a CHEMICAL DISASTER.
I went to Google and typed in “SSRIs loss of sexual feeling.” Here are the entries that sprang up:
NIH: “Sexual dysfunction in [SSRIs].”
Harvard Health: “Some people taking SSRIs aren’t able to have an orgasm at all. These symptoms tend to become more common with age…”
Mayo Clinic: “Effects on sexual function can include: A change in your desire for sex; Erectile problems; Orgasm problems; Problems with arousal, comfort and satisfaction.”
New York Times: “Doctors and patients have long known that antidepressants can cause sexual problems. No libido. Pleasureless orgasms. Numb genitals…”
So it’s no secret.
Except—how many doctors who are about to prescribe antidepressants to children tell their parents, “The drug can have serious sexual side effects”?
So there’s that. Widespread ignorance, because doctors keep their mouths shut about what they know.
And when all sexual feeling shuts down, a child is told, “Non-binary…asexual…gender…trans…it’s all fine…no problem…”
The kid thinks he’s on the cutting edge of a new society, a new culture, a new way of seeing male and female, a revolution.
One new study, supporting the “millions” assertion, claims the most common long COVID symptom people report is tiredness after light physical or mental exercise.
Aha.
As we all know, feeling tired can only be caused by THE VIRUS.
“Doctor, six months ago, I was fine. But since then, I’ve been fatigued.”
“Right, Ms. Jones. You have long COVID.”
“Say what?”
“I diagnosed you with COVID six months ago. The disease is persisting.”
“Oh. Come to think of it, I started feeling tired right after you diagnosed me.”
“A coincidence.”
“I don’t think so. I left your office. I was depressed by the diagnosis, and when I got home I couldn’t run my usual nine miles for the day.”
“Are you saying I made you tired?”
“Yes, I believe I am.”
“I’ll write a note to Homeland Security. Expect a visit to your house. Open the door carefully and assure the agents you have no weapons and no dogs.”
Long COVID is long money. For doctors.
And of course, the virus doesn’t exist. So there’s that.
I’ve felt tired since 1952. I’ve successfully fought it off by limiting my conversations with long idiots.
If I were the predatory CEO of a pharmaceutical company, I’d establish studies proving every disease under the sun can have a long component, which must be treated with drugs and prevented by vaccines. For years.
Long flu, long colds, long eyestrain, long ass ache, etc.
Doctors received special training in medical school so they could make absurd diagnoses with a straight face.
Otherwise, this would happen:
“Doctor, when you just told me I have long COVID, you smiled. Why?”
“Sorry, I was keeping myself from laughing.”
“What?”
“Sometimes it gets to be too much.”
“You lost me.”
“Have you ever said something so stupid you busted out laughing?”
“I’m not sure.”
“Ha-ha. Sorry. I’m trying to be serious, but long COVID? I mean, come on. When I first read about it, I cracked up. I had to go home from the office. Everything started to seem funny. I couldn’t control myself.”
Someday, somebody will come up with Long Pregnancy. Women can remain pregnant for up to three years. But at the end, they don’t give birth. The baby they’ve been carrying is only a few cells. However, this is a serious condition and must be treated for the full duration of the pregnancy. Treated with very expensive drugs. Otherwise the patient could develop Chronic Fatigue, Mononucleosis, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, etc.
Some of these women, when untreated, also develop Tourette’s, even speak in tongues—which can be quite embarrassing in social situations. Like Thanksgiving dinner.
There is also a condition known as Long Sermons. People are exposed to it during church services. Some houses of worship may have to be closed down, in order to curb contagion out in the community. Psychiatrists can treat the disorder, with anti-psychotic drugs.
All of these long illnesses can be avoided if we start diagnosing doctors. You don’t need a license to participate. Invent your own disease and disorder labels. Offer the doctors help—at a price. No insurance, no Medicare or Medicaid. Straight cash for your services.
For every diagnosis you make, be sure to attach the word “long.”
You’ll be correct. What these doctors are suffering from, they’ve had for a long time. Possibly since college. Maybe even earlier.
Hell, tell them it’s genetic. Doing that lets you get away with anything.
Remind them of the story about Jesus and the Money Changers. Tell them they’re suffering from Long Money Changing. That’ll hit them where they live.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Many readers of this site (myself included) have long avoided pharmaceuticals. However, many of us have spent a lot of money on supplements over the years as we attempt to understand the cause of body imbalances. Below you will find a series of posts (translated from German) by Next Level taking a close look at the science behind “vitamins” and the production of supplements. As we are constantly being reminded these days, we must question everything. ~ Kathleen
The Vitamin Fraud – When Toxic Brew Is Sold as Effective
by Next Level translated from German via Telegram translate
February 11, 2024
Preface
The concept of vitamins is a purely human invention. There are no published, controlled experiments in the scientific literature that confirm their natural existence. In fact, no “vitamin” has ever been directly observed in food. The only places where they are “detectable” are the results of laboratory processes (the bottom of a test tube) after a witch’s brew of poisonous chemicals is mixed, leaving a dregs of the substance.
False idea of proof
Vitamins, whose size is estimated to be around 1 to 2 nanometers, are probably 50 to 100 times smaller than the claimed SARS-CoV-2 virus, which has not been isolated and detected to date. If one were to enlarge a vitamin molecule to the size of a tennis ball, at the same scale this would correspond to a tennis ball that would be more than three times the diameter of the Earth. However, the presumed separate structures of these molecules have never been clearly isolated and clearly separated from other components.
There is no real gold standard
There is no single study that documents the clean isolation and biochemical characterization of a vitamin molecule to establish it as a pure, isolated standard for comparison. Instead, it analyzes the dregs of a byproduct of food that has been broken down by numerous harsh and toxic chemicals.
The extraction process (“isolation”) of a vitamin molecule
To isolate vitamin C from lemon juice, you start with a simple glass of juice and take it through an alchemical odyssey: first it is charged with lead, only to laboriously remove the lead later. Then you juggle with ammonia, acetic acid and a parade of solvents – from butyl to ethyl alcohol, to acetone to petroleum ether. After it has been heated, dried, reheated and dried again, the whole thing is served to the animals. If they don’t get scurvy, you’ve got it: ascorbic acid, better known as vitamin C, extracted through an impressive party of chemicals. Voila, science!
Synthetic production of vitamin supplements – a toxic chemical cocktail
The synthetic vitamins are made from petrochemicals (chemical products obtained from petroleum and natural gas), heavy metals and other toxic substances!
Professor Goran Nicolic and Dr. In 2015, Dragana Markovic explained some of the ingredients in commercially available vitamin pills.
Vitamin A = methanol, benzene, petroleum sulfonates; Acetylene; refined oils
Vitamin B-12 = Cobalamin reacts with cyanide (salt of hydrogen cyanide)
Vitamin D = Irradiated animal fat/bovine brain or solvent extracted
etc
Reasons for a positive experience?
Some experience positive effects when taking vitamin supplements, in part because of the placebo effect, which is reinforced by the expectation of a positive effect. But the variety and type of chemicals in the manufacturing process result in a complex mixture, not a pure vitamin molecule. This mixture contains harsh chemicals and byproducts that the body must neutralize. A state of high alert. This sympathicotonic state can interrupt other regenerative processes, where symptoms are present through the recovery phase (see UniversalBiology), often resembling a feeling of exhaustion. Taking vitamin supplements can lead to a short-term feeling of improvement, similar to taking antibiotics. However, in the long term, exposure to these substances can be harmful.
The vitamin fraud – a billion dollar business without evidence
by Next Level translated from German via Telegram translate
February 11, 2024
Cochrane Collaboration: No positive effect from taking specific “vitamins”
Critics in particular like to cite the renowned Cochrane Collaboration in other cases to support their statements. You must have missed this extensive meta-study on antioxidants & vitamins.
The results of the Cochrane Collaboration study on antioxidant supplements is further evidence and deserves special attention, not only because of its size, but also because of the quality and methodology of the research included. With 78 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and a total of 296,707 participants, it is one of the most comprehensive analyzes on this topic. Its particular value lies in its exclusive consideration of RCTs , the gold standard of clinical research , all of which were conducted with control groups . This guarantees high reliability and accuracy of the results.
Another notable highlight of this study is the finding that antioxidant supplements, including beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium , had no positive effect on health. On the contrary, the results suggested that certain antioxidants such as beta-carotene and vitamin E may even significantly increase mortality . These findings are particularly important because they challenge the common assumption that antioxidants are beneficial to health.
The term “vitamin” is misleading. It suggests the idea of a specific, single molecule that is about 1 to 2 nanometers in size. However, the assumption that these molecules exist in an isolated form and occur precisely in nature is a misinterpretation forced by the concept of molecules.
In reality, natural foods like apples, cucumbers, fish, etc. work in their entirety – not through the idea of isolated molecules like “vitamins”. The idea that vitamins act as single, isolated molecules is a simplistic and therefore misleading concept.
What is sold as “vitamins” is actually a newly created product. It is created through a manufacturing process that uses numerous toxic and aggressive chemicals and is based on a raw material.
The artificial product “Vitamin”
A key problem in the current debate is that many people’s molecular understanding is not sufficiently developed. There is often a misconception that the end product – actually a completely new product that has never existed in natural food – is a single, pure molecule. This molecule, so the misconception goes, was isolated from a food source through extensive purification procedures, and its effects have been unequivocally proven in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In reality, the final product is the result of a complex, multi-stage manufacturing process. The result is a new product or even a by-product that is created through many complex processes with toxic chemicals and through processes such as cooking, steaming and drying – in short, a kind of “substance residue.
by Next Level translated from German via Telegram translate
February 14, 2024
Misconception of a vitamin product
Many users of vitamin supplements mistakenly assume that the extraction process is very simple: they imagine that specific “vitamin molecules” – similar to the seeds of a watermelon – are gently isolated from a fruit and then collected together to form a pure concentrate. In their imagination, these molecules then exist in an unmixed form in the end product and, detached from any other fruit tissue, have the same effect as in their natural state.
But this assumption is far from reality!
What is really the final product?
When people talk about “vitamins” and talk about individual molecules that are only 1 to 2 nanometers in size, it is more of a theoretical idea.
Let’s take the production of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) for dietary supplements as an example: In the laboratory, a process called the Reichstein process is often used, which involves several complex steps:
1. First, D-glucose , obtained from genetically modified corn (properly created through breeding), is converted into D-sorbitol using nickel as a catalyst.
2. This D-sorbitol is converted into L-sorbose by the bacterium Acetobacter .
3. L-sorbose is then converted into diacetone L-sorbose using acetone (known from nail polish remover) and an acid .
4. In the next step , potassium permanganate converts the diacetone-L-sorbose into diprogulic acid.
5. The diprogulic acid is converted into gulonic acid by heating and adding water .
6. This gulonic acid is ultimately converted into ascorbic acid via a reaction catalyzed by platinum .
7. The resulting ascorbic acid is then mixed with other excipients to produce vitamin C powder and tablets.
In short: The end product does not represent the pure isolation of individual molecules – comparable to the seeds of a watermelon – but is a completely new product or a by-product. It is a mixture (substance) that is created from a raw material through numerous processing steps with sometimes toxic and aggressive chemicals – basically the residue in a test tube.
Synthetically produced ascorbic acid cannot possibly resemble the postulated model of a “vitamin” of natural origin in an organism. Therefore, eating real food is the best choice.
To think about:
While formaldehyde in vaccines is rightly criticized, it is accepted completely uncritically in the production of “vitamins”.
The vitamin fraud – How safe are the supplements really?
by Next Level translated from German via Telegram translate
February 16, 2024
Why “Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol)” is also known as rat poison (source)
Did you know that “Vitamin D3” – an often praised “miracle cure” for health and well-being – can have an extremely toxic effect in quantities of just 1.5 ml (equivalent to around 300,000 IU)? In comparison, ibuprofen, an everyday painkiller that no one would claim is good for the body in small amounts daily, seems almost harmless.
Imagine: For a rat, a dose of just 8 drops of a “vitamin D3 supplement” containing 10,000 IU per drop can be fatal . In humans, 30 drops, i.e. just 1.5 ml, can lead to dangerous toxicity. But with ibuprofen we are talking about more than 2400 mg that is needed to be potentially dangerous – an amount that is the equivalent of 320 times higher!
How can it be that we talk so lightly about the health benefits of “vitamin D3” when the line to toxicity is so narrow?
Isn’t it paradoxical that we are cautious about the dosage of a drug like ibuprofen, but often consider uncritically high doses of “vitamin D3” to be harmless or even healthy?
To think about
The creation of a synthetic substance “Vitamin D3” is obtained by irradiating animal fat using toxic solvents such as hexane, acetone, ethanol and aggressive catalysts such as palladium, a process that does not mimic the reality in the biological organism, but that of the natural one The body’s balance with questionable chemicals is disrupted.
There is a saying: “The dose makes the poison.” But the fact is that poison always remains poison – even in smaller doses. The only thing that varies is the damage caused and the amount of effort the body has to clean. From a health perspective, it is definitely not advisable to take a toxic substance.
The vitamin fraud – A critical look at the irony of the health market
by Next Level translated from German via Telegram translate
February 19, 2024
In today’s society, where distrust of the pharmaceutical industry is growing, many tend to turn to alternative health products in the hope of making a more natural choice. Ironically, however, many of these alternatives, including vitamin supplements, are in the hands of the same pharmaceutical companies that have come under increasing criticism.
The irony of consumer behavior
There is a remarkable discrepancy between the desire to understand the machinations of the big pharmaceutical companies and purchasing behavior. Many consumers invest in vitamin pills that are manufactured by the same corporations they believe they are against. The belief that just because a product is labeled ‘natural’ or ‘organic’ it is automatically better or healthier often overlooks the reality of the manufacturing processes. These products are not manufactured in an idyllic natural landscape, but in laboratories – the same ones that work for pharmaceutical companies.
What is really in vitamin supplements?
The production of vitamins uses a variety of chemicals, including those used in the production of military chemical weapons or known as industrial toxicants – formaldehyde, cyanide (hydrocyanic acid), sulfuric acid, ammonia, acetone, palladium, to name a few. This information is publicly available and can be found in scientific publications on the synthesis or extraction process of these substances.
The intertwining of pharmaceuticals and nutritional supplements
It is a fallacy to believe that all companies operate exclusively under the name of the group to which they belong. Reality shows that large pharmaceutical companies play a significant role in the nutritional supplements market:
– Pfizer and Wyeth : With the acquisition of Wyeth, Pfizer has expanded its portfolio to include the Centrum brand, a leading multivitamin brand worldwide.
– BASF and Cognis : By purchasing Cognis, BASF specialized in specialty chemicals for health products, including nutritional supplements.
– Nestlé Health Science : Nestlé has invested in the medical nutrition and dietary supplements market through its Nestlé Health Science division, including through the acquisition of Atrium Innovations, whose brands include Garden of Life and Pure Encapsulations.
These examples illustrate how closely pharmaceutical companies and the nutritional supplement market are intertwined. It shows that the search for a more “natural” alternative often leads to the same actors from whom many want to distance themselves.
Conclusion
The decision for health products and nutritional supplements should be based on sound knowledge and a critical assessment of the origin and production of these products. The irony of opposing the pharmaceutical industry while remaining loyal to its products underscores the need for informed choice and a deeper exploration of health and wellness.
When it’s Children’s Mental Health Week, it’s ironic that attention isn’t actually focused on children’s mental health. Instead the focus is on mental illness and the host of psychiatric ‘disorders’ being used to label various aspects of childhood.
It would be more accurate to call it children’s mental illness week. Rather than label children mentally healthy, psychiatrists have for decades been unscientifically labelling them as mentally ill.
Through the redefinition of difficulties associated with the early years, psychiatrists have been editing childhood and adolescence out of existence. Challenging behaviour has gone under the psychiatric microscope, redefined, before being categorised as criteria for so-called mental ‘disorders.’
It’s an obsessive habit resulting in the regular use of meaningless and stigmatising psychiatric labels that can create even more difficulties for young people. Nothing appears to be off limits for editing psychiatrists.
Reading, writing and maths have been included in diagnostic manuals. They have been unscientifically classified as “impairment in reading,” “impairment in written expression” and “impairment in mathematics.”
The habit, which includes the use of labels like “ADHD” and “conduct disorder,” lead a young person down the road of mind-altering prescribed drugs. It demonstrates a focus on mental illness, not on mental health.
Children and adolescents are being chemically restrained, some for lengthy periods of time. Consequently, they experience the debilitating effects that go hand-in-hand with the drugs. The saddest and most tragic aspect of it all is some children don’t make it. They take their own lives after taking antidepressants known to cause suicidal thoughts and suicidal behaviour.
If psychiatric solutions worked, we wouldn’t keep hearing the psychiatric mantra that more and more children are suffering with mental illness. They fall into the category of having mental difficulties on the basis that boisterous or argumentative childhood behaviour has been redefined.
Parents who have lost their children have said they would never have let their children take the psychiatric drugs if they had been fully informed and knew the truth. It’s therefore vital we keep on beating the drum to expose damaging psychiatric habits.
In Children’s Mental Health Week, we must be reminded that children are not experimental animals. They are human beings who have every youthful right to expect protection, care, love and the chance to reach their full potential in life.
by Next Level (Knowledge Rethought) translated from German via Telegram translate
February 4, 2024
The claimed existence of graphene oxide in vaccines has been mainly reported by La Quinta Columna (Campra) and Dr. Noack spread. From razor blades to antennas for a global cloud in the style of the fourth industrial revolution à la Klaus Schwab.
Introduction
Claim: Graphene is theoretically composed of an invisibly thin, 0.1 nanometer-thick layer of carbon atoms in a hexagonal pattern, making it a two-dimensional material. If the number of layers exceeds nine, graphite with different properties is created instead.
Graphene vs. graphite
The debate surrounding graphene tends to mistakenly confuse it with graphite. While graphite, known from pencils, is a fragile, natural structure with no special properties, graphene is described as being 200 times stronger than steel and harder than diamond. However, studies have never clearly identified graphene; observed materials are often just thin layers of graphite, incorrectly interpreted as graphene.
La Quinta Columna (Campra) Missing evidence
1. Conflicting interpretations : In one place it is said that larger peaks in micro-Raman spectroscopy indicate graphite, in another place the opposite (narrower peaks).
2. Subjective selection of data: Out of 110 objects, only 28 were selected based on the contradictory peaks of micro-Raman spectroscopy, which showed inconsistency, without performing further biochemical analysis.
3. Impossible distribution of graphene in vaccines: The statement that graphene was present selectively in certain aliquots of vaccines contradicts the understanding of solution behavior and distribution in liquids and suggests measurement errors.
Scientific contradictions
High-resolution TEM images of materials claimed to be graphene reveal significant defects in the structure. Instead of a perfect hexagonal arrangement of carbon atoms, as should be characteristic of graphene, one observes large holes and a distortion of the hexagonal structure towards round or even heptagonal patterns. These observations directly contradict theoretical assumptions about graphene as extremely hard and resilient. If graphene were actually 200 times stronger than steel and harder than diamond, such structural changes and defects should not occur under the influence of an electron beam.
The invisibility of graphene and atoms
The idea of isolating and manipulating “graphene” has no basis when the 3D representation of molecules such as “proteins” is an impossible task and even much larger structures such as SARS-COV-2 (1200 times larger) were never isolated. Considering that atoms, estimated at 0.1 nanometers, have never been seen directly and their “solid” part, the proton, is still tens of thousands of times smaller, and electron spins are said to be so tiny that they cannot even be considered “solid” particles can be viewed in the traditional sense, but rather as quantum states, the use of graphene appears to be pure fiction.
Conclusion
In our three-dimensional world, the idea of a two-dimensional layer, as assumed in graphene, is more of a theoretical construct than a physical reality. The idea that two-dimensional structures exist outside of mathematical models represents a logical stretch. Categorizing graphene as a “two-dimensional semimetal” therefore stretches the boundaries of what can exist in our real, three-dimensional environment.
To date, there is no method that makes it possible to specifically reconstruct a large piece of graphite in the sense of a macroscopic, three-dimensional block from the claimed isolated graphene layers smaller than 1 nanometer.
The bright new dawn of genetic engineering of life has a few problems. My, my.
Of course, the engineering companies pitching investors for money downplay the problems, and so do governments. Remember when Biden issued a release glorifying “overwriting cells of the body” (*) to achieve new breakthroughs in…something or other?
From Gene Watch UK, here are documented cases of genetic editing screw-ups. The language is technical, but you can grasp the essentials. Scientists are playing with fire.
“Petri et al. (2022) reported unintended genetic insertions and deletions in zebrafish following prime editing…Prime editing does not induce double stranded breaks and thus is often proposed to be safer than standard CRISPR/Cas systems. Nonetheless, integration of guide RNA derived DNA sequences was detected, showing that even using a technique without introducing foreign DNA, or double-stranded breaks, the technique does not rule out the potential for unintended insertion of exogenous DNA.”
“Tao et al. (2022) reported insertions of transposable elements in human cells in vitro following both standard CRISPR/Cas9 and prime editing systems, though these unintended changes were more common with CRISPR/Cas9 systems. Moreover, hundreds of integrated copies of vector plasmid DNA used to deliver the prime editing machinery were also detected…Moreover, insertions occurred at induced DNA breaks where CRISPR/Cas9 has been applied for controversial therapeutic editing…”
“Weiss et al. (2022) reported that in Arabidopsis plants, the DNA repair pathway chosen by the plant cells to repair the CRISPR-induced DNA breaks was influenced by the epigenetic status of the genome, including DNA methylation status… This in turn, influences the final mutational outcomes. This paper highlights limitations in relying on predictive tools that only take into consideration sequence information when trying to predict efficiency, specificity and mutational outcomes of genome editing. Bigger complexities beyond the level of the genome are also involved.”
“Höijer et al. (2022) reported large structural unintended on-target changes, including 4.8kb deletions to 1.4kn insertions, in zebrafish. This study showed the passing down of these mutations to the next generation.”
“Huang et al. (2022) reported that following CRISPR/Cas12 editing in fungal species, doublestranded breaks are repaired with multiple DNA repair pathways, each with different mutational profiles. This study highlights the lack of current understanding around the various DNA pathways that exist in various species, and how they may impact editing outcomes. Rather than being able to predict or even control CRISPR mutations outcomes as is often presented by GMO proponents, this study instead shows how CRISPR is being used in research to try to understand the basic mechanisms and complexities of DNA repair. Without a full understanding of the underlying science, assertions of precision and thus safety are unfounded.”
“Park et al. (2022) reported high levels of on-target unintended changes, when assessed using a new analytical tool that can sequence larger segments of the target site. Long range sequencing was able to detect a variety of changes including large deletions, highlighting the need for detailed analytical tools to assess on-target impacts.”
“Geng et al. (2022) report on-target unintended changes including genomic inversions, duplications, rearrangements and integration of exogenous DNA at the target-site in human cells, resulting in alterations in cell proliferation. This study highlights the potential impacts of unintended changes on target cell function, with implications for both edited plants and animals.”
But don’t worry, be happy. These genetic engineers all over the world may be bulls charging through shops shattering objects…but I’m sure they’ll eventually fix all their mistakes. Right?
For a final note—I’m not confident these genetic madmen even know what they’re playing with in the first place. When they see their errors, what are they really looking at? They make so many basic assumptions and guesses about DNA and genes, they could be operating in the dark, clueless and lost.
“Here’s a break in DNA where the repair after the cut failed.”
“Really? Are you sure that’s DNA?”
“It has to be.”
“Why?”
“Because if it isn’t, we have no idea what we’re doing.”
You know, THAT kind of thing.
The same kind of thing that happens when biologists trying to alter a virus fail to realize there isn’t any virus there…
These awesome problems can only be ignored in one way: by deciding that the 8 billion people on planet Earth are merely subjects in a vast ongoing experiment. And therefore have no reason to complain.
— Jon Rappoport
(*) FURTHER READING:
The Biden White House Executive Order: “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy” (September 12, 2022). The link to this EO is here. My comments on this EOare here—as a “breaking news” update—at the very beginning of this podcast.
See also this podcast: “DARPA/Pentagon research projects to create future humans,”here.
And so here we are again with yet another ‘health scare’ story hitting the headlines. This time it’s measles.
Although this is a UK storyline, I would point out that the WHO published a News Release dated 16 November 2023 entitled Global measles threat continues to grow as another year passes with millions of children unvaccinated.
So I suppose it shouldn’t be at all surprising to see reports about an upsurge in measles cases in the UK, such as the BBC article entitled Measles: Why are cases rising and what are the symptoms?
The article gets straight to the point in the opening sentence,
“Measles cases are likely to spread rapidly unless more people are vaccinated, the UK Health Security Agency has warned.”
The next sentence states,
“Pop-up clinics are being opened to get more children vaccinated.”
Another BBC article, entitled Get measles vaccine to avoid rapid spread, says UK health boss, refers to Helen Bedford, professor of children’s health at University College London, and states, under the heading What is causing the drop in vaccinations?
“The pandemic also had an impact, with “some parents afraid to attend clinics for fear of catching Covid or because they were not clear that vaccination services were continuing”, Prof Bedford adds.”
Could it also be that some parents have actually started to earnestly research the real nature of vaccines and have decided not to subject their precious babies to that procedure?
Both BBC articles describe measles as ‘highly contagious’ and state that,
“It normally clears up after seven to 10 days.”
This raises the obvious question of why the alleged increase in cases is of such concern if it is a condition that is self-limiting and only lasts about a week or so?
The first cited article professes to address this issue by claiming that,
“…it can lead to serious problems if it infects other parts of the body, such as the lungs or brain.”
This is followed by the claim that,
“Complications can include pneumonia, meningitis, blindness and seizures.”
Although the article claims that ‘measles can be fatal’, it recognises that ‘this is rare’.
So why is this being reported as a serious problem when the number of deaths from ‘measles or related infections’ between 2000 and 2022 was 23? I am not denying that children and adults experience illness, and I would add that a single death is one too many. What I am contending is that claims that any death is caused by an ‘infection’, whether measles or something else, is grossly misleading, which is putting it mildly, because there is no evidence for the existence of any ‘infectious virus’.
I would point out that, by comparison, almost nothing is reported about the very real information relating to the much greater numbers of adults and children who have died as the result of the Covid-19 injections.
Nevertheless, the following claim is found under the heading Why are measles cases rising and where are outbreaks?
“Some 85% of children in 2022-23 had received two MMR doses by the time they were five years old, the lowest level since 2010-11. The goal is 95%.”
The idea of a required ‘target’ percentage of vaccination coverage is based on the concept of ‘herd immunity’. In order for ‘herd immunity’ to be valid, there needs to be evidence that the disease in question fulfils certain criteria, which are: that it is caused by a virus; that it can be prevented by a vaccine; and that one person’s ‘immunity’ – which really means their health status – affects another person’s health status.
These criteria have never been proven in reality. Herd immunity is a fallacy.
The advice, under the heading What should you do if you get measles? includes,
“rest and drink plenty of fluids.”
This is actually sound advice – although I must add that I am not providing anything that should be construed as ‘medical advice’.
The symptoms that are labelled ‘measles’ are part of the body’s normal processes of self-healing.
Unfortunately, the core message of both articles is to promote the MMR vaccine using propaganda rather than actual evidence of its efficacy, because there is none. No vaccine has ever been proven to prevent any ‘disease’ and all vaccines produce side effects, which the article claims to address under the healing What are the side effects of the MMR jab? with the comment that,
“Most side effects are mild and do not last long.”
The propaganda continues within the statement that Andrew Wakefield ‘wrongly’ claimed that the MMR vaccine was associated with autism. Although he was struck off the register as the result of his work, which was the discovery of a link between autism and gut issues, Andrew Wakefield was never against the use of vaccines, he merely questioned the use of multiple vaccines, like MMR, instead of single ones.
What IS conspicuous by its absence in either of these articles, is any reference to the Stefan Lanka court case in 2016, the result of which was a clear demonstration that the study papers that are used as ‘proof’ that measles is caused by a virus, do not actually provide that proof. In other words, it has never been proven that measles is caused by a virus.
It is obvious that this is another case of fear-mongering aimed mainly at parents of young children with the objective of increasing vaccine uptake and thereby boosting the profits of Big Pharma.
The question is: How many will comply?
I would also ask: Have enough people seen through the lies regarding the claims of safety and effectiveness of vaccines? Is that why the vaccination uptake has reduced?
I suppose only time will tell.
I am ever hopeful that there is an increasing number of people who are awakening to the truth about the so-called ‘healthcare system’ we are supposed to follow; and learning how they really can take back control of their own health and the health of their family, especially their babies.
The CDC withheld an “alert on myocarditis and mRNA vaccines” warning of the connection between heart inflammation and Covid-19 shots in May 2021, the Epoch Times has revealed.
The agency never published the alert; instead, its authors pushed vaccines on all age groups across the country.
Dr. Demetre Daskalakis was the author of the draft. He gained minor celebrity status during the response to Covid and Monkeypox, appearing on magazine covers dressed in bondage and posting shirtless photos demanding Americans wear masks.
The proposed alert came in response to two fatal post-Pfizer vaccination myocarditis deaths in Israel and repeated warnings from the Department of Defense.
Despite voicing private concern, Daskalakis publicly promoted the products. In the same month he sent the warning, he wrote, “Data over dogma. Vaccines Work,” in response to a CDC tweet allowing “fully vaccinated” Americans to “resume activities without wearing a mask or staying 6 feet apart.” He then posted, “Highly effective prevention means fewer barriers, physical or social. #Covidvaccine.”
At the time, the overwhelming majority of American teenagers had not received Covid shots. No state had a vaccination rate above 20% for 12- to 17-year-olds. In California, 90% of that age cohort remained unvaccinated. Indeed, the age gradient of risk was so steep – medically significant outcomes from the virus centered on the age and infirm – there was never a reason to push them on the general population.
Over the following two years, Dr. Daskalakis and his colleagues pushed the shots on every age group and deliberately withheld publishing its alert on myocarditis. Instead, the CDC sent repeated alerts encouraging Covid-19 vaccination for everyone.
Two months after the unpublished warning, the CDC sent an alert to doctors to “remind patients that vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 12 years of age and older, even for those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
The propaganda efforts, in conjunction with President Biden’s mandates, succeeded. By May 2023, a large majority of American teenagers had received at least one dose of a Covid vaccine. The vaccination rate for 12 to 17-year-olds in California skyrocketed from 10% to 84%, with one in five receiving an additional booster, according to CDC data.
The rate of vaccination for 12 to 17-year-olds went from 3% to 47% in Mississippi, 15% to 87% in Virginia, and 19% to 94% in Vermont from May 2021 to May 2023.
During that time period, Dr. Daskalakis repeatedly avoided voicing concerns over the risk of myocarditis. “I am so excited for my #Covid19 booster on Monday! I love vaccines!” he posted on Twitter in September 2022. In October 2023, he posted a photo of him receiving another Covid shot.
Daskalakis sent the draft alert to Henry Walke and John Brooks, both senior officials at the CDC. Their social media accounts do not share the same penchant for nudity and mRNA shots as Dr. Demetre’s, but, like Daskalakis, they continued to promote the shots without mentioning the discarded myocarditis alert.
In January 2022, Walke joined Dr. Rochelle Walensky in a CDC telebriefing that recommended a “safe and effective vaccine” for “all children five and older.” Brooks blamed “people who are not vaccinated” as “the source of new emerging [Covid] variants” in March 2022.
To this day, the CDC recommends children begin receiving Covid vaccines once they are six months old. It is not possible for immigrants to obtain legal permission to work in the US without one.
Fifty years ago, the most incisive questions from the Watergate hearings came from Senator Howard Baker: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” The inquiry, ostensibly simple, encompassed the entire scandal.
The corruption of our public health apparati demands a similar probe. What did they know, and when did they know it? As the Covid regime demands “a pandemic amnesty,” the report from the Epoch Times adds to the plethora of evidence that their misdeeds were not mere mistakes; they were deliberate acts of fraud and deceit.
They knew of the risks, and they withheld the information from the American people. Stripped of informed consent, millions of citizens took the shots while doctors like Demetre Daskalakis denied them the right to know the risks of the product.
In spite of the mention of “spike protein” which seems to have a mythology all of its own within medical freedom groups, Greg Reese’s latest work is worth watching.
Here Reese shares the important work of Denis Rancourt wherein Rancourt analyzes death data during “covid” and demonstrates clearly how the cures for this made-up disease, along with cruel external force and mind control, were the actual cause of increased deaths.
Humanity historically has been bewitched and held spellbound by political and religious leaders, faux science and fear-based beliefs into cooperating with its own enslavement, self-harm and death.
As so many great researchers continue to look at what the so-called mRNA vaccines are about, what the actual contents are, and how they affect our biology, we do know that ALL vaccines have always been toxic and that NO virus has ever been isolated. All vaccines are forced upon us via lies and are all part of an incredibly ignorant (and nefarious) agenda.
Greg Reese has a unique way of writing and producing short impactful videos as he continues expanding his own awareness. This one is worth sharing.
~ Kathleen]
17 Million Murdered by COVID Vaccines and Voodoo Death
Denis Rancourt has a PhD in Physics, he is a former tenured Full Professor, and has published over one hundred articles in leading science journals. Rancourt and his team have used all-cause-mortality data to prove there have been about seventeen million deaths as a result of official COVID-19 measures, but not from Covid, which was a lie.
As far as I can tell, from the all cause mortality data that we’ve been studying extensively for a long time, there’s no such thing as a viral respiratory pandemic. (Denis Rancourt)
There was no pandemic in the sense that there was not a particularly virulent new pathogen that was spreading and causing death. That is not what happened. What happened was huge assaults against vulnerable people by many different methods. And every time you did that, you caused excess mortality. In all the countries where they were not doing that, there was absolutely no excess mortality, even if it was a jurisdiction that was right beside the one that was doing this. (Denis Rancourt)
Rancourt explains a science of psychological murder that has been officially studied and documented for well over a century. It wasn’t just the spike protein that killed us, it was the whole damn thing.
Psychological stress and social isolation are dominant determinants of an individual’s health that causes a suppression of your immune system. And you’re going to get some kind of infection, cancer, heart disease. And very often the lungs are very exposed to the environments and they’re subjected to all the bacteria that you live with all the time. You get bacterial pneumonia and it’s a huge killer when a society is stressed, meaning all of its individuals are stressed. The kind of psychological stress that kills you is when you’re entire world is turned upside down. Your whole life you thought you had a place in the world and it’s gone. That will kill you within a very short time.
We always occupy a dominance hierarchy, a social dominance hierarchy. That is how we organize our societies because we are social animals. It is a fundamental truth of how we organize societies. The stress that is intended to keep you in your place within that dominance hierarchy is an everyday chronic stress, and the stressors have to keep changing how they’re going to stress you because you get habituated to the stress. So they have to randomly hit you with hard things every once in a while to really make sure you understand what your place is. That stress is one of the biggest determinants of health.
But we have to admit that medicine itself is a massive killer. It’s a massive cause of premature death of individuals. (Denis Rancourt)
Modern Western medicine is officially recognized as the third highest cause of death. It was designed to be a way of controlling the population.
It was designed to be a way of controlling the population. The role of medicine as an institution in our society is to maintain the dominance hierarchy, is to keep people sick and to put them in their place. It’s just part of that institutionally. (Denis Rancourt)
Financed by the Carnegie Foundation and published in 1910, the Flexner report was used to outlaw natural medicine practices in America. The Rockefeller foundation then funded a new kind of medicine. An inverted form of heath care that utilized petrochemical drugs and experimental surgery to keep people sick, and in many cases, kill the patient. As Denis Rancourt has pointed out, this is how societies have been run for centuries.
A de-classified document entitled, “Geomagnetic Factors In Spontaneous Subjective Telepathic, Precognitive And Postmortem Experiences”, as well as decades of Trauma Based Mind Control research, shows us that the CIA and our governments are well aware of the deadly effects that traumatizing a population can induce. They are killing us with fear and trauma.
This is known as psychogenic death or psychosomatic death, It is the phenomenon of sudden death brought about by strong emotional shock. Chairman of the Department of Physiology at Harvard Medical School, Walter Cannon, called it Voodoo death because mind control is the main method used in Voodoo rituals. Which is well understood by our world leaders. Bill and Hillary Clinton spent their honeymoon in Haiti at a Voodoo ritual which Bill claims inspired him to run for political office.
I was particularly intrigued by the Voodoo religion.
Voodoo’s central ritual is a dance during which spirits possessed believers. On the most interesting day of the trip, I got the chance to observe voodoo in practice. After several minutes of rhythmic dancing to pounding drums, the spirits arrived, seizing a woman and a man. The man proceeded to rub a burning torch all over his body and walk on hot coals without being burned. The woman in a frenzy, screamed repeatedly, then grabbed a live chicken and bit its head off.
By the time we got back from Haiti, I had determined to run for attorney general.
On January 7, 2024, my research uncovered an official Department of Defense publication (DoD) from May 15, 2020, describing the masterplan for Operation WARP Speed, confirming DoD’s unprecedented role in running Warp Speed as a military operation:(1)
U.S. Department of Defense
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Trump Administration Announces Framework
and Leadership for ‘Operation Warp Speed’
May 15, 2020 |The opening paragraph of the release places the U.S. military at the center of developing and controlling WARP Speed:(2)
On Friday, the Trump Administration announced the appointment of Moncef Slaoui as chief advisor and General Gustave F. Perna as chief operating officer of Operation Warp Speed (OWS), the administration’s national program to accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics (medical countermeasures).
Dr. Slaoui is a venture capitalist and, formerly, Chairman of Global Research and Development and Chairman of Global Vaccines at GlaxoSmithKline, where he led the development of five major novel vaccines. As the four-star general in charge of the U.S. Army Materiel Command, General Perna oversees the global supply chain and installation and materiel readiness for the U.S. Army, including more than 190,000 military, civilian, and contract employees.
From the start, Warp Speed was a Great Reset operation with the chief advisor, a “venture capitalist,” and the man in charge was a four-star general in the U.S. Army. This is an extraordinary example of the military-industrial complex at work, this time directing and organizing the greatest assault ever made on the lives of Americans and the U.S. Constitution. It is the U.S. Army acting as the assault troops for the global predators.
The DoD release describes how the heart of the defense establishment is fully geared up for Warp Speed:
“In addition to deploying 62,000 military service members in direct support of fighting COVID-19 on frontlines across the globe, the Department of Defense is racing towards a vaccine,” said Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper. “Through our research and development labs, such as DARPA and the Defense Health Agency, and our massive logistical knowledge and capacity, we are committed to achieving the goal of Operation Warp Speed for the American people.”
DoD Controls the Entire “Approval” Process for Safety and Effectiveness
The DoD press release makes clear that the FDA, which supervises and evaluates pharmaceutical industry studies for safety and effectiveness, is no longer in charge of vaccine development. The entire process is in the hands of the “government,” meaning the military:
The protocols for the trials will be overseen and set by the federal government, as opposed to traditional public-private partnerships, in which pharmaceutical companies decide on their own protocols.
The “protocols” for the trials are the entire basis of how and by what standards the clinical trials will be performed if they are performed at all. The “government,” in this case, is the DoD with some advisory input from HHS, neither of which has the legal right or the capacity to take this role.
Meanwhile, when discussing the organization of WARP Speed in 2020, Paul Mango, HHS deputy chief of staff for policy, disavowed any government role for testing the vaccines, stating, “Quite honestly, we are not conducting any science whatsoever inside the government to support Operation Warp Speed, none.”(3,4)
So, from the start, the government was completely in charge of the protocols for drug company research, removing the drug approval process from the hands of the FDA and the drug companies; but the “government” itself was doing none of the scientific work. That made a catastrophe inevitable because no one was authorized to conduct a scientific evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the mRNA platform injections that are causing so much death and destruction—and none has ever been done!
As we demonstrated in our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey, and elsewhere,(5) it was well-known in the scientific community by 2020 that efforts to make vaccines for SARS-CoVs in animal experiments had such deadly results they were too lethal to the animals to ever attempt to test on human beings.
Proving the lethality of the mRNA platform and the “vaccines,” the death toll has been climbing since the opening day of the jabs, now with 20,000 reports to the VAERS reporting system monitored by both the CDC and FDA, with most of the deaths occurring in the first three days of the injection. For reasons I’ve already analyzed, based on scientific research and my forensic research experience, fewer than 1 in 100 serious adverse vaccine reactions are reported. Thus, 20,000 reports of death to VAERS indicate a real death toll of 2,000,000 or more.(6) Not only did they fail to do the preliminary scientific evaluation on humans, but they then also ignored and denied the death toll that continues to grow in the U.S. and around the world.
The Military Masterplan Chart Gets Leaked
In September 2020, the journal STAT published an article by Nicholas Florko, which displayed a leaked organization in July 2020 elaborate schematic for Operation Warp Speed, further documenting the vast military involvement. The chart divides responsibility for Warp Speed between “HHS” and “Defense.” The print is too small for a legible reproduction in this column but can be easily found at this link.(7) STAT reported:
The labyrinthine chart, dated July 30, shows that roughly 60 military officials — including at least four generals — are involved in the leadership of Operation Warp Speed, many of whom have never worked in health care or vaccine development. Just 29 of the roughly 90 leaders on the chart aren’t employed by the Department of Defense; most of them work for the Department of Health and Human Services and its subagencies.
Confirming the Groundbreaking Work of Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt
Although we just located this May 2020 DOD Press Release, the role of the DoD in Operation Warp Speed has been under diligent examination for some time by brilliant researchers in the health freedom movement, including Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt.
Sasha Latypova has recently published her “Summary of Everything and Quick Links, Updated –Year End 2023,” which covers research on the militarization of Warp Speed, including her work as well as Katherine Watt’s.(8)
Katherine Watt recently cut to the heart of the matter in regard to the sham role played by the drug companies:
All FDA activity that appeared to be license-related, pertaining to all biological products manufactured since May 2019, has been fraudulent, performative, charade, pretextual, and any other word or phrase that means not real, not substantive, not legally relevant.(9)
Implications for Robert Malone’s Role
Among the Deep State organizations described in the DoD press release as collaborators was “NIH’s ACTIV partnership for vaccine and therapeutic development.” ACTIV is essentially a Great Reset Center in the federal government for these collaborations between government and outside sources of wealth of power. Representatives on NIH ACTIV include The Gates Foundation, many top drug companies, and key government agencies.
In a sworn statement for a legal case dated October 21, 2021, Robert Malone, MD declared himself an “active member of NIH ACTIV” (p. 4 ) and further listed his participation in “Accelerated COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines: ACTIV Therapeutics Clinical Working Group, NIH. Invited Participant. June, 2020-present” (p. 16).(10)
We were the first to make public Dr. Malone’s participation in NIH ACTIV, and more recently Dr. Malone has declared he is no longer a member. It seems probable that his role on ACTIV made him aware from early on that Operation Warp Speed was, in fact, a DoD operation and the drug companies had a sham role, but we are not aware of his bringing that information to the health freedom movement when he arrived.
As documented in his same sworn statement dated October 21, 2021, Malone also has a long and very active business and professional involvement with the Department of Defense, including managing large contracts and sitting on important committees at DoD and DTRA, The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, a defense and a combat support agency within DoD. Malone also denies any more recent or current involvements with DoD and DTRA.
Our earlier disclosures about Malone’s background were among his reasons for bringing a $25 million defamation lawsuit against us and against Dr. Jane Ruby, on whose show I discussed related issues. The judge has recently dismissed Malone’s defamation suit against all of us. The judge has also warned Malone that he might declare his lawsuit “frivolous,” and he has ordered Malone to explain why he should not be forced to pay the legal expenses of the Breggins and Dr. Ruby.(11)
Overall Implications of DoD Running WARP Speed
The implications of the DoD’s role in Operation WARP Speed are complex and require continuing unraveling. But these investigations may not substantially change the big picture because the ultimate villains are higher up the totalitarian totem pole and remain the same: the international governance being imposed upon the world by the global predators, including many multi-billionaires and the institutions they have captured from the UN and the World Health Organization (WHO) to the global banking system and the military-industrial complex—all of which we thoroughly document in our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey.
4 There is a fascinating Government Accounting Office (GAO) memo from January 2022, stating that HHS took over control from the defense department in early 2022 and that GAO found that HHS itself did not have the ability to manage Operation WARP speed. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104453
by Next Level (New Medicine) translated from German via telegram translate
January 6, 2024
Harmful effects of toxic adjuvants and preservatives in vaccines
Since the poisons in the vaccine mixture are defined as auxiliary substances, as an adjuvant to the protein component of the vaccine, they are considered harmless substances and are not subject to strict pharmaceutical law.
The known and typical effects of these poisons are systematically ignored when assessing vaccine damage because the vaccine is only considered to have an immunological effect. The actual vaccine, the little protein in the vaccination mixtures, actually has no toxic potential.
Allergies to the “protein” components in the vaccination mixtures
All protein components in all vaccines are misinterpreted as parts of pathogens or as weakened viruses. In reality, the proteins in the vaccination mixtures are components of completely normal and harmless bacteria and their “waste products” that occur in every human being.
Also included are components of chicken embryos, human and animal tissues/cells and their cell organelles. Under certain circumstances, allergies to these proteins can be triggered in anyone. Allergies can cause processes called autoimmune reactions.
Brain psychosomatic processes through the personal feelings accompanying the act of vaccination
These processes — originally designed as meaningful biological special programs — are triggered when the act of vaccination is perceived as existentially threatening and overwhelming. The brain-psychosomatic triggers and processes were determined by Dr. Hamer discovered and described.
The allergic and toxic reactions of the vaccine mixtures can chronicle the brain psychosomatic programs, intensify them and make therapy more difficult. Typical examples of these brain psychosomatic programs triggered by vaccinations are autism, depression, mania, epilepsy, convulsions and others.
When people, including “experts,” describe science, they usually mean “medical science,” which is a nonexistent or imaginary thing like viruses, but imply they are referring to actual science (chemistry, physics, and mathematics, mainly chemistry). Generally, they cannot talk directly about the actual science because they have not studied or practiced it significantly. In most cases, they lack understanding, even at the basic level.
So, when reading articles and comments about science from such “expert” or their “research,” make sure to know which science is referred to, the fake one (like medicine, virology, etc) or the actual one.
There is hardly any critique from knowledgeable people about the well-established and well-understood principles and practices of the actual science.
Viruses, variants, PCR testing, sequencing, RNA, mRNA, spike protein, vaccines, gain of function research, etc., are all fake science inventions. They can ONLY be resolved, and quickly, by applying the well-understood and well-established principles and techniques of actual science.
Fake science and its promoters are confusing and hindering resolving the issues – be cautious and seek help from actual science experts or scientists (link).
If someone has not studied and practiced chemistry, physics and/or mathematics in exhaustive detail and does not have hands-on experience but claims to be a science expert or scientist, in that case, they are fake and must be ignored. (link)
Viruses and their existence and isolation, RNA, spike protein, sequencing, PCR testing, and developing vaccines resulted from fake science/scientists. The science (chemistry) does not support any of these claims. There should not be any debate or argumentation about it.
Furthermore, whenever you see the word “study” or “research,” including those published in peer-reviewed “scientific” journals concerning the virus and its RNA, spike protein, mRNA and/or vaccine, consider that you are presented with false and fraudulent information.
Nobody can do such studies or research as none of the above items are available. No study has ever been done or can be done until they are available in physical form and pure from somewhere. It is not an opinion but a scientific fact.
You are not a fool, but fake scientists have fooled and tricked you with scientific-sounding jargon.
Medical experts, particularly physicians, are often presented as science experts or scientists, which is categorically a false and invalid claim. It is not just my claim or observation; anyone can form this opinion by studying the curriculum of any medical/medicine (M.D.) degree program. (link, link)
You will quickly observe an absence of science teaching and training. The medical degree emphasizes memorizing some physiological and chemical terms to associate with the patient’s symptoms to prescribe well-established allopathic medicines (mostly pure chemicals and non-physiological). There is no actual science or its research anywhere.
Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that medical experts can not follow the concepts and practices of isolation, purification, and characterization of viruses, RNA, spike protein, and vaccines. These are chemistry-based substances or molecules. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that they do not even try to understand the shortcomings (link) but demean the others, the genuine and actual scientists. The real tragedy!
Unfortunately, the public suffers from fake and false science propaganda, and so do the countries. The tragic mindset needs to be addressed – and quickly.
Information on my training, expertise, and experience is provided here.
Each of these supposed (fake) viruses traveled. In each case, they traveled from a foreign country to the US.
Name several viruses that, during the past 65 years, traveled from the US to foreign nations caused epidemics there.
No?
Can’t?
Why not?
Purported viruses can originate anywhere. They can travel anywhere. What’s the problem?
On top of all this, we have the “Hot Zone” theory/prediction of emerging deadly viruses:
They come from jungles and rainforests far away, and because modern travel is so frequent, they come to America, and…
Because our immune systems have no previous history of encountering these viruses, the germs sweep through our population and create pandemics.
Given that description, why haven’t the proponents of the theory cited viruses that originate in the US and travel to jungles and rainforests in other nations and cause deadly epidemics there? The people in those remote places have no experience with OUR viruses.
What’s the problem?
What’s going on is really quite simple. STORIES are being told about supposed viruses. The stories inevitably feature origins in foreign lands, and the germs travel to the US.
By any measure, we should have heard press reports, over the past 65 years, of the Chicago or New York or Miami or San Francisco or Des Moines Flu showing up in Germany, France, Brazil, West Africa, China, India…
But we haven’t.
And the reason is, those aren’t the STORIES. That’s all. This has nothing to do with science.
Nothing at all.
Therefore, all the stories of foreign viruses landing here are on the level of man in the moon and Cinderella and Snow White.
If these US outbreaks of illness in the US were caused by foreign viruses, we would have witnessed similar viral outbreaks in other countries that originated here.
Last night, as an unpaid subscriber, I received an email from Dr. Meryl Nass Substack titled “The “No Viruses exist” cult has been out in force lately.” (link)
After reading it, I am confused about whether to cry with the absurd logic presented or laugh at the arguments (hilarious science). I could not decide, so in my frustration, I am leaving it to you to decide – my thoughts or questions are highlighted in bold.
@ “I told Christine Massey over and over that her FOIAs were answered by all countries in the same manner because a) the countries lie about everything related to COVID, …”
So, why is it difficult to accept that they lied about the virus existence as well?
@ “These people want everything to be isolated the way they decide it should be isolated.”
No, the question is where this (the virus) has been isolated as claimed. The result of an isolation step is an isolated item, in this case, the virus – where is it?
@ “Some things require indirect measurements.”
True, but those things have to exist first. Where is that thing (the virus)? Please provide (scientific) evidence of its existence. Moreover, the measuring instrument must be calibrated/validated independently to show that it can measure lengths or distances. Where is the (“indirect”) test/method independently calibrated/validated to measure the viruses? There is none, and it is a fact.
@ “But here is the kicker. Have none of these pseudo-scientists ever had a cold? Have they never had flu? No cold sores? No genital herpes? No warts? All these are due to viruses.”
That is the question. How have these observations been linked to the viruses? Where are these viruses? Who has them (samples or specimens of the isolated viruses)?
Please bring these questions/thoughts to Dr. Meryl Nass’s attention.
Former Italian Health Minister Roberto Speranza is under investigation for homicide after emails reveal that, from the very start of the vaccinations, he knew the shots were killing people and gave orders to local health authorities to conceal deaths and serious side effects in order to reassure Italian citizens of their safety and to not jeopardize the vaccination campaign.
The story has been reported on both German and Italian news networks.
I will now provide an English translation.
The Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office is investigating Roberto Speranza, the Italian government’s health minister, during the time of COVID measures. He was responsible for the vaccination campaign.
The investigations are the result of complaints related to the so-called AIFA emails from the Italian Medicines Agency. The former director of AIFA, Nicola Magrini, is also under investigation.
The publication of these internal emails revealed that they had been aware of the dangers of the COVID vaccination from the start.
The accusation is that the responsible minister and the head of the drug authority knowingly and deliberately exposed the unsuspecting Italian population to this risk. Yes, they encouraged Italians to get vaccinated.
Vaccination was even made mandatory for certain professional groups. Consequently, many side effects, including fatal ones, came to light.
The investigations are for murder, serious bodily harm, and more, because Speranza and Magrini evidently gave instructions to the local health authorities to conceal the deaths and serious side effects that occurred immediately after the vaccinations began, in order not to jeopardize the vaccination campaign and to reassure the citizens about their safety.
The responsible minister and the head of AIFA are now expected to answer for these actions.
According to the complaints from the police unions and the financial police, as well as from the private organization Listen to Me, which represents 4,200 people damaged by vaccines.
In Italy, police officers and teachers were subjected to mandatory COVID vaccination.
Here is the former health minister, Roberto Speranza, proudly announcing vaccination statistics in Italy.
“We have now reached a massively significant percentage of vaccinated people in Italy, 89.41%. Therefore, currently in Italy, just over 10% of the population remains unvaccinated.”
Well, today Roberto Speranza is under investigation for lies he allegedly told about vaccines.
Among the crimes he is accused of are ideological falsehood and murder.
“Look, this is the document we are showing you tonight exclusively. It states the former minister Roberto Speranza, along with Nicola Magrini, the former general manager of AIFA, are both registered in the investigative records of the Rome Prosecutor’s Office.”
Last week, the House of Representatives of the Philippines passed a resolution to investigate over 260,000 unexplained excess deaths in 2021 and 67,000 unexplained excess deaths in 2022.
The next day, they were hit by a 7.6 magnitude earthquake.
“Oh, you can’t come in here, are you kidding? This is a high-security lab. Only certified professionals can enter. We’re dealing with viruses. Off limits to you and all civilians. WE tell you what we discover. YOU accept our findings. Now shut up and get lost…”
That’s the attitude of elite researchers who claim to be discovering and isolating new viruses…
When, in fact, as many of us have detailed…
They’re doing no such thing.
They’re faking it, in multiple ways.
They’re in charge of faking it.
A reader, in a comment, mentioned that WE should be able to go into those labs WITH VIDEO CAMERAS and record everything going on in there.
BANG.
BOOM.
Exactly.
We should be able to get in there with a pro video crew and cameras that record every single action these bozo researchers perform.
Many cameras catching the action from every possible angle. Up very close, medium range, ceiling angles, angles from the floor.
With sound. And send a few people in there who have previously detailed how the virus fakery is accomplished. They stand close to the researchers and stop them at any moment and ask questions.
“Why did you just do that?” “What’s in that dish?” “You claim you just proved WHAT? Explain how you proved it.” And so on.
Every single step of the so-called isolation of new viruses is questioned and criticized—and recorded on video, with sound—until there are no more secrets, no more proprietary information, no more missing pieces in the process. To OUR satisfaction.
Otherwise, there is no reason under the sun to accept what these weasels are telling us.
“Doctor, you just SAID you separated the virus from the solution in this dish of soup. You SAID it but you didn’t show it. We all know that. When are you going to SHOW the isolation?”
“Why did you just dip that instrument in the soup? What are you doing? You’re measuring something? Prove it. What are you measuring?”
“You SAY you just removed a virus from this soup you created, and you’re purifying it, and then you’re going to put a sample under an electron microscope, and then you’re going to say the particles that show up are viruses. So we’ll have to go over all these steps very carefully and slowly, because we’ll have many questions. Many pointed questions you’ll need to answer.”
All this is happening live, on camera, with sound.
In the moment.
Then we’ll see what these elite researchers know and don’t know.
It is important to note that physicians are taught and trained to write prescriptions for well-established pharmaceuticals (aka potent chemicals and mostly physiologically irrelevant) – no more, no less.
For this purpose, they must memorize some physiology, biology, and chemistry words during the training/education.
Furthermore, they do not study or get training to invent or identify new diseases or develop new treatments (pharmaceuticals/chemicals) – scientifically.
It is unclear how they consider and promote themselves to be scientists and practitioners of science. It is hard to find the basis for their claims. There is practically none. Wrong? Prove it!
Using the vocabulary from the subjects mentioned above, without relevant laboratory work and with the help of computer drawing software, they declared the existence of the viruses, their RNAs, and spike proteins. It is purely a fictional story without any scientific evidence. No physical specimens of these things are available anywhere. Everything is illusionary or mythical. Wrong? Prove it!
On top of that, mysterious vaccines have been developed for the imaginary virus or illness. Sketchy details describing the vial’s content have been provided. There is a strong possibility that these vials may contain some unknown content, potentially harmful (microbial) gunk, without usual and standard scientific characterization. Wrong? Prove it!
Every claim is based on peer/buddy-reviewed articles/”research” from journals labeled “scientific” without accreditation by any independent third party, but primarily by self or news media-proclaimed experts.
In short, the claims about the virus, RNA, spike protein, vaccines, and so-called medical science, in general, are textbook cases of quackery and science fraud. Wrong? Prove it!
It should not, then, be surprising to note that medical/pharmaceutical experts sell/promote vaccines through authorities’ sponsorship and mandates and with the highest levels of immunity. It indicates that they may be aware of the uselessness and harmfulness of the products; otherwise, they would sell directly to consumers/patients like other safe and effective products. Use caution in accepting these experts’ claims. In most cases, they are factually false or not science-based.
The above views are based on my working experience (30 years) as a research scientist at Health Canada for the assessment and evaluation of pharmaceutical products. Further information about related work may be found here: Helpful Notes and the Book by (Dr. Qureshi, co-author), who has extensive experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing, among other specialties.
Pascal Najadi, son of World Economic Forum (WEF) cofounder Hussain Najadi, is calling on the Swiss authorities to arrest the leaders of the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization and GAVI, all of which are headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, as well as Big Tech and Big Pharma executives, for injecting a bioweapon into 5.7 billion people
In 2022, Najadi filed criminal charges against Swiss president Alain Berset for misleading the Swiss people about the COVID shots
Najadi has also filed a civil case against Pfizer at the New York Supreme Court for harm done to him by the Pfizer COVID injection
GAVI, founded by Bill Gates, has diplomatic immunity in Switzerland, and its immunity clauses go beyond even that of diplomats. GAVI’s immunity covers all aspects of engagement, including criminal business dealings. They can do whatever they want without repercussions. GAVI is also completely tax exempt
Another Gates-founded and funded organization headquartered in Geneva — the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria — also has diplomatic immunity
“Everything evil in the world, related to democide … comes from Geneva.” That’s a quote from Pascal Najadi, a former banker and son of World Economic Forum (WEF) cofounder Hussain Najadi, who claims his father left the WEF “out of disgust” in the early ‘80s.1 Hussain, founder of AmBank, one of the largest banks in Malaysia, was assassinated in Ceylon in 2013.2,3
According to Najadi, “evil” organizations engaged in democide — the murder of people by government — include the World Health Organization, the Global Alliance for Vaccine Immunization (GAVI) and the WEF, all of which are headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
This is why he calls Geneva “the head of the snake.” Najadi is now calling on the Swiss authorities to arrest the leaders of these organizations, along with Big Tech and Big Pharma executives, because:
“… the WEF, WHO, GAVI, Big Pharma, Big Tech [and] Bill Gates all advocated for a global humanity injection [with] a bioweapon — injecting nanolipids [which are classified as toxic4] into 5.7 billion people. And we Swiss are hosting them? That’s terrible. We cannot tolerate any entity that promotes poison to be injected into humanity.”
One of the reasons Najadi is so adamant about holding these organizations accountable is because he trusted the information given, got three doses of Pfizer’s mRNA shot in 2021, and is now dying from the effects. “It’s a democide, and you’ll be judged,” he says. “It will be corrected in the name of humanity.”
Najadi Goes After Swiss Government and Pfizer
In December 2022, Najadi filed criminal charges against Swiss President Alain Berset (formerly the Swiss minister of health) for misleading the Swiss people about the COVID shots.5
Among the false statements highlighted by Najadi was Berset’s claim that vaccinated people were not contagious and could not spread the virus6 — a claim he must have known was untrue at the time he said it, October 27, 2021.
First of all, Pfizer never conducted any tests to determine transmissibility among the jabbed, so they had no data. Moreover, three months earlier, August 3, 2021, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) had announced findings showing “Vaccinated people can spread the coronavirus just as frequently as unvaccinated people.”7
Criminal charges include assault, bodily harm and abuse of office. The charges are reportedly still under investigation. He discusses this case with Rebel News in the video above.
In March 2023, he also filed a civil case against Pfizer and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration at the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan for harm done to him by the Pfizer COVID shot.8,9,10 That case is discussed in the video below. Charges were also filed against the two doctors who “injected him with a toxic substance.”11
The Geneva Syndrome
According to her bio,12,13 Astrid Stuckelberger “is an internationally recognized expert on issues related to evaluating scientific research for policymakers, in particular in health and innovation assessment, pandemic and emergency management training and in optimizing individual and population health and well-being.”
She’s also a published author, with a dozen books to her credit, as well as more than 180 scientific articles, policy papers and governmental and international reports.
Between 2010 and 2020, Stuckelberger was also a professor at the Universities of Applied Science in Switzerland, and a senior lecturer at the University of Lausanne. When she started speaking out against the COVID-19 narrative, her university positions were canceled.
Stuckelberger refers to what she calls “the Geneva syndrome.” What she means is that most of the people who work in these Geneva-based organizations do not understand what they’re working toward, and those who do understand are too afraid to speak out because the power wielded by these entities is so great.
Instead, they speak in code or try to wake people up to the reality of what’s planned in indirect ways. What’s planned, of course, is a one world government ruled by an unelected cadre of technocrats.
The agenda that has become apparent over the past three years has been in the works for decades, but there was always some semblance of law and order, some checks and balances. What we’re seeing now is that the individuals involved have become so emboldened they don’t even care that people can see them flouting the rules and changing them to fit their own aims.
The WHO, for example, does not have the authority to dictate orders to the world, yet that’s what they did. Now, they’re simply trying to “legalize” and make permanent their power grab through the implementation of a new pandemic treaty, amendments to the international health regulations and One Health — none of which can be voted on by the public.
Why Do Gates’ Organizations Enjoy Diplomatic Immunity?
Stuckelberger was the first to publicly point out that GAVI, the vaccine alliance founded by Bill Gates, has diplomatic immunity in Switzerland.14,15 More specifically, GAVI has “qualified diplomatic immunity,” which is odd, considering the organization has no political power that would warrant it.
Odder still is that GAVI’s immunity clauses go beyond even that of diplomats. GAVI’s immunity covers all aspects of engagement, including criminal business dealings.
They can do whatever they want, without repercussions. Equally strange, GAVI is completely tax exempt. So, to summarize, GAVI is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) that is allowed to operate in Switzerland without paying any taxes, while also having total immunity for anything they do wrong, willfully or otherwise.
Another Gates-founded and funded organization headquartered in Geneva — the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria — also has diplomatic immunity.16,17 Like that of GAVI, the agreement between the Swiss Federal Council and the Global Fund includes articles specifying the “inviolability” of their premises and archives.
No agent of the Swiss public authority can enter or search them without express consent of the executive director of the organization. Their archives may not be searched, regardless of their location, and “in the conduct of its business,” the organizations “enjoy immunity from every form of legal process and enforcement.”
The only person who can waive this immunity is the executive director himself, or an authorized representative. But if you’re engaged in criminal activity, would you waive your immunity to search, seizure and prosecution?
The inclusion of that article alone reveals volumes. It’s what you’d want if you knew that what you were doing could get you in legal trouble, sooner or later. One of the few exceptions to the ironclad immunity clause is the civil liability for damages caused by a vehicle belonging to the operation.
The Nation-State of Gates
In her 2021 testimony to the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, Stuckelberger also detailed the highly unusual agreement between the WHO, Gates and Swissmedic (the Food and Drug Administration of Switzerland).
According to Stuckelberger, Gates requested to be part of the WHO’s executive board in 2017, ostensibly because he’s one of its largest funders. Essentially, he, as an individual, sought to gain the status of a member state. There’s no evidence that Gates was ever granted this status, but he may still have more power over the WHO than his funding already grants him.
Essentially, it appears that when he did not get voted in as a one-man nation state, Gates created three-party contracts with member states and the WHO instead, essentially placing himself on par with the WHO. According to Stuckelberger, on one of those three-way contracts is between Gates, the WHO and Swissmedic.
This arrangement is yet another piece of evidence that private-public partnerships have been hijacked by private interests, which also happen to enjoy the same or even greater liability protections than nation states!
Building a Global ‘We the People’ Movement
Najadi insists that Switzerland must return to its neutral roots. “Swiss neutrality has to be restored,” he says, and once restored, the country must never again allow institutions like the WEF, WHO and GAVI to gain foothold.
“The snake head is in Geneva,” Najadi says. “I call it a direct, clear and present danger to the Swiss population. But I can tell you, it is being cut off. If you have a house of cards … of a criminal [entity]… one card pulled by justice and the whole card house collapses.
But from hope alone it is not done. Everybody must now change the spirit. All the vaccinated, the injected, knowing that they are poisoned — we are the masses. We are billions of people. Let’s just stand up and say ‘Stop. We will not comply.’ Because we are the guardians of humanity and our light obliterates the darkness of evil.”
This is the THIRD Proclamation of Arikinui Ripekatangi of many tribes and subtribes of our Supreme Sovereign Nation of New Zealand, Leader and Prime Minister of the Wakaminenga Maori Government of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Notice to members of the World Health Organisation & United Nations/WEF and their representatives acting as the NZ Crown government
You are directed to cease and desist any and all actions taken to implement measures of depopulation
And those associated with the WHO pandemic prevention treaty against the people of the sovereign independent nation of Aotearoa Nu Tireni New Zealand
Mass murder. A massacre. It is the only description that is worthy of the bombshell evidence from a NZ government whistleblower in Liz Gunn’s M.O.A.R (Mother Of All Revelations). It is a tragedy of unthinkable magnitude. The evidence that has now come forward from this whistleblower, and others, shows us that the NZ government’s roll out of the COVID vaccine was not just a crime, it was a massacre. The evidence and implications are inescapable and difficult to comprehend. But what is even more disturbing is that this was no accident. It was, and continues to be, willful mass murder.
The scale of the death and injury for the people of NZ from the COVID-19 vaccine that has now been proven beyond any doubt is challenging to think about. It is devastating confirmation of what so many people in NZ and around the world have been shouting from the rooftops for so long, but who have been ignored and ridiculed by the mainstream media and the government. It is a sad and sorry vindication for those 18,000 Kiwis who set up camp in their tents and cars in front of Parliament in February 2022, who were ignored, demonized, and labelled a ‘river of filth’ by those who are culpable for this terrible crime.
When Liz Gunn forwarded me her interview with the whistleblower and his evidence in advance of the M.O.A.R drop to get an ‘emotional reality check’ on what was coming, I thought I was ready for it. But as a patriotic Kiwi who loves his country it was difficult to mentally and emotionally process what Liz and the whistleblower were showing me. To put the scale of this massacre in some sort of perspective, the number of COVID-19 vaccine deaths in NZ now shown by this evidence is thirteen times the number of NZ deaths at Gallipoli. Gallipoli x 13. From the time the vaccine was rolled out in NZ it has been the equivalent of the Christchurch massacre nearly every single day since. Expert statisticians here in NZ and abroad have studied the data and concluded that the probability of these deaths not being from the COVID-19 vaccine are 100 billion to one.
In just one particular vaccination centre in Invercargill, 51 people were vaccinated within the space of just two hours. All 51 are now dead. Out of the 837 people who were vaccinated at another vaccination centre, 253 of them are now dead. 30% of everyone who was vaccinated at that centre are now dead. At another vaccination centre, of the 923 people vaccinated there, 276 are now dead. There were numerous vaccination centres around the country that had mortality rates at this sort of level of 30%. This is compared to the normal average mortality rate of just 0.75%, which is what we should be seeing. The data also shows how many fatalities were linked to each individual vaccinator. One vaccinator had a mortality rate of 25%. One in four people that got the vaccine from that vaccinator is now dead. Other vaccinators were similar. Their vaccine batches were literally death batches. These numbers are simply off the scale and impossible to interpret any other way than a vaccine massacre.
Then there is the huge bias of number of deaths in the South Island versus the North Island. Of the top 20 most deadly vaccination centres in the country, 10 out of those 20 were in Christchurch alone, and two of them (10% of the national total) were in tiny little Gore. Meanwhile only 2 out of 20 were in Auckland where one third of the total population is. This should be statistically impossible by population unless specific vaccine batches were a whole lot more deadly than other batches. This is exactly what the data shows. The data shows a very clear picture of certain vaccine batches being ‘death batches’, with other batches much less so. This should not happen unless something very strange and very abnormal is occurring with this vaccine. It requires extremely serious investigation.
The whistleblower has unique access to the data in question. He designed and built the database for the NZ government, specifically for the COVID-19 vaccine. It is official government data and it includes extremely detailed COVID-19 vaccine data for 2.2 million Kiwis. The whistleblower watched in horror over a two-year period as the death data escalated in front of his eyes, until he felt he had to step forward to expose it. For that, NZ must wholeheartedly applaud and thank him for his courage and morality. It is no small thing that he has done coming forward like this. Sadly, being a whistleblower is a very dangerous thing to do in today’s world of Deep State corruption and criminality. But what the whistleblower was looking at in front of him on a daily basis was not just faceless numbers and statistics. He was looking at enormous lists of names in certain places and certain times. Names of people who are not here anymore. Names of real people with real families. Human lives, not numbers. It was too much. He says there are just two words for why he had to come forward. Never Again.
As horrendous as this is, the most devastating point that the people of NZ need to understand is that this enormous number of deaths were not due to a very unfortunate and unforeseen outcome of a well-intentioned government health strategy. No, these deaths were the result of willful complicity in mass murder. These are very difficult words for people to hear, but the evidence is unfortunately incontrovertible. The NZ government had full foreknowledge of what the outcome would be of the COVID-19 vaccine. They had all the information and data well in advance of their massive nationwide roll out of the COVID-19 vaccine. They had clear evidence showing them exactly what would happen if they went ahead. They knew that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine would cause huge numbers of injury and death. They were also advised by both the NZ Justice Department and NZ Medsafe that their proposed vaccine mandates could not be legally justified. They went ahead anyway. They signed their contract with Pfizer, they trumpeted the COVID-19 vaccine to the whole country as ‘safe and effective’, and then they forced it onto the population through their illegitimate, brutal mandates that deliberately split NZ society in two through medical apartheid.
Through an OIA (Official Information Act) request from a doctor in NZ, there is confirmation in writing from NZ Medsafe that they had possession of the initial Pfizer safety data for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine months before the government began their nationwide roll out of the COVID-19 vaccine in mid-2021. That initial Pfizer data showed absolutely devastating outcomes in terms of numbers of serious injury and fatalities. That data was so bad that the FDA (Food and Drug Agency), who had given the official authorization for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, attempted to have it legally concealed from the public for 75 years. Yet despite having this horrific safety data, the NZ government not only told the NZ public that the COVID-19 vaccine was absolutely safe and effective, but they went ahead with the mandates and vaccine passports to effectively force the vaccine onto as many of the NZ population as possible. All done with full knowledge of what the deadly impact would be.
As part of this process, the NZ government signed a contract with Pfizer for the provision and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine in NZ. We know that in the same contract that Pfizer signed with the South African government (now been made public), Pfizer clearly stated that they could not confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine, and therefore they required to be legally indemnified against all liability for any injury or death from the vaccine. It is an almost certainty that exactly the same statement was in Pfizer’s contract with the NZ government, and yet the mantra of ‘safe and effective’ was pumped out day after day from the government’s ‘single source of truth’. Quite incredibly, the government’s ‘safe and effective’ message is still being vigorously pushed out across the country even now. Even with all the deadly evidence to the contrary clear for people to see. It would seem they simply don’t care.
In addition to this, during the roll out of the COVID-19 vaccine, the NZ government, and associated agencies, actively prevented NZ doctors and health practitioners across the country from raising their very valid concerns about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine to their patients in order for them to be able to fulfil their Hippocratic Oath of informed consent and ‘do no harm’. Any doctors or health practitioners who attempted to raise concerns or ask questions about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine were threatened with loss of medical license and/or loss of job. In some cases, those threats were implemented. A climate of fear was deliberately created for doctors and health practitioners across NZ to prevent any push back against the mass roll out of the vaccine. This led to the formation of the organization NZDSOS (NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science).
This new evidence from the whistleblower also shows a disturbing pattern of basic medical ethics and medical processes being abandoned, with vaccine clinics pushing through patients like a McDonald’s drive through in a ‘dash for cash’. Informed consent is one of the most important aspects of the Hippocratic Oath and ‘first do no harm’. With this data showing patients being rushed through vaccine clinics at rates of sometimes 30 people per hour, where were the conversations with each patient outlining risk factors and personal medical history that could make a person more at risk from the vaccine? When these people were rolling up their sleeves were they being informed that the official Pfizer safety data had lists of adverse reaction covering 9 pages, and that there were 1,223 deaths from the initial trials? This is information that the NZ government had months before the vaccine roll out began. This is not negligence, it is criminal.
As well as the evidence of tens of thousands of deaths that this new whistleblower evidence is now showing us, there is also much additional evidence of the huge scale of injury and death caused in NZ. We have confirmation through Stats NZ of an enormous increase in excess deaths beginning from the time the vaccine campaign began. We also have a huge and historically unprecedented number of serious vaccine injuries registered on the NZ Medsafe database, and we have extremely alarming evidence brought forward from multiple Funeral Directors in NZ in relation to the numbers of deaths, the causes of death, and the horrific symptoms being seen in many of those deaths. It is not only the huge number of deaths that we now know about. The massive number of serious and life changing injuries is also difficult to comprehend. As a minimum it is in the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders.
Now we can see why our hospitals, emergency services, and Funeral Directors across the country have been beyond bursting point the last two years.
In February 2022, the NZ public stood up against this crime against humanity with the largest public protest in NZ history. With 18,000 people camped in their tents and cars in front of NZ Parliament, all 120 sitting MPs signed a joint agreement that no MP would engage with or speak with those protestors. Instead, the protestors were labelled by the government as a ‘river of filth’ and demonized by mainstream media.
Both the NZ Bill of Rights and the 1947 Nuremberg Code make it a crime to force or coerce a medical procedure onto a person. Not only were the people of NZ forced or coerced into taking this experimental medical procedure, but the NZ government knew full well that this particular medical procedure had deadly and horrific outcomes on a very large scale. The NZ government went to great lengths to make sure the people of NZ were not able to be made aware of that known danger, and they went to even greater lengths to force as many of the NZ public as possible to take it. While at the same time they made themselves exempt from having to take it.
It doesn’t seem possible that this could have happened in the country that I grew up in. This is NZ’s darkest hour. But we have to face up to it together with strength and unity, which has always been the bedrock of our country. NZ was brutally and intentionally split apart through medical apartheid and medical tyranny. NZ now must come together as Kiwis united around what we now know. We are all victims of this crime.
This mass killing by the NZ government, and others, was willful. It wasn’t an unfortunate accident. ‘Two shots for summer’ was the shot that will be heard around the world. The enormity of the crime against the people of NZ cannot be overstated. It was a massacre.
Cover image credit: Kiwi128
A sign advertising a drop-in vaccination centre for COVID-19 in Christchurch, New Zealand. This particular vaccination centre was near the Christchurch Airport.
I watched a recent interview (link) of Prof. Syed Sattar (Retired Professor of Virology from the University of OTTAWA, Canada), who is still active in the area. He is a great friend, and I greatly admire his academic credentials and achievements. I have known him personally and professionally, at least for twenty years.
I find the interview informative, describing the fundamental concepts of virology, notably virus isolation. That is, how the virus isolation concepts are illustrated in virology literature, which Prof. Sattar emphasized as well-established practices and routines in virology laboratories.
However, issues and confusion arise when virologists, including Prof. Sattar, describe isolation as “culturing or its part” as a virus. It is essentially their critical misunderstanding, i.e., considering “culture” and the “virus” as the same thing. In reality and scientifically, they have to be and are two separate entities. I often describe the difference between the two as being chicken (“virus”) and “soup,” which may or may not contain the chicken/virus.
To show the presence or existence of a virus, the virus (if there) must be isolated or separated from the culture. The separation of the virus from culture and its content is called the “isolation” step, which has never been done. This is the confusion or misunderstanding virologists and microbiologists have and are unwilling to take the time to consider or evaluate.
They often defend their position by arguing that viruses (particles) are minute in size and number and cannot be seen or isolated (separated) from cells (culture) to observe. Therefore, viruses and culture have to go together and side by side. Hence, it resulted in considering/calling culturing or culture a “virus.”
It is to be noted that there is no objection to the culturing step, which, in reality, is a fermentation step for growing or multiplying the viruses. However, once the viruses are sufficiently multiplied, they MUST be isolated or separated to evaluate their identity and characteristics, such as structure, RNA/DNA proteins, etc. This step is missing.
So, effectively, virologists work with cultures but make claims about them as “viruses.” It is like working with debris from a forest but selling it as novel and rare wood dust particles.
Seeing the photographs with low or high-resolution microscopes does not establish the presence of something, just like seeing small yellow particles would not confirm the presence of gold in the sample. The particles must be isolated/separated to characterize them.
It is an invalid argument that viruses are small (in size and number), so they cannot be seen without culturing or separating from cells. Smaller items like carbon, hydrogen atoms, and molecules are commonly available in isolated and purified forms with full characterization or certifications.
If the claim is that there are viruses, then these entities, considered particles, must be available in, isolated, purified, and fully characterized. Nothing of this nature is available, including for the coronaviruses. Calling or considering cultures/isolates as viruses is an incorrect understanding that needs to be abandoned.
Links to some articles for further information on the topic:
An unexplained pneumonia-like sickness is reportedly swiftly spreading through schools in China, leading to a surge of hospitalizations of children.
Over the past few weeks, numerous schools in China, predominantly in Beijing and Liaoning province, have reported a rapid increase in children presenting with severe symptoms. These symptoms, including high fever and lung inflammation, are eerily similar to those of pneumonia, Daily Mail reported.
However, what sets this illness apart is the lack of common respiratory symptoms like coughing. This unique symptom profile has led health professionals to label this as an “undiagnosed pneumonia.”
Note that this peculiar symptomatology has reportedly baffled health professionals, who are struggling to categorize and understand this new illness.
Mystery? Baffling? Eerie?
I don’t think so. They always give you: “This has no explanation”—just before they magically announce they’ve found a new virus.
Of course, they never actually isolate that new virus. They never discover it. They just invent a fairy tale.
As far as “mysterious” is concerned in China right now, here is a definitive statement from the American Thoracic Society: “It is possible to have pneumonia without a cough or fever.”
Oops.
For years, doctors have been diagnosing patients with pneumonia when there is no cough present. It’s not baffling. It’s not ultra-strange. So forget about that.
Which leaves the question: what IS making all these children in China sick? Hmm. Let’s see. Could it be changes in the moon’s orbit? Sun spots? Lasers fired from UFOs? Infected bats imported from Mars?
No?
Well, how about THIS?
US Embassy in China, October 30, 2023:
EVENT: This is a notification that the Beijing City Government has issued an ‘orange’ alert for air pollution effective from 12:00 Monday, October 30 until 24:00 Thursday, November 2. An ‘orange’ alert means that official forecasts indicate Beijing’s Air Quality Index (AQI) will exceed 200 for two consecutive days or 150 for three consecutive days. The alert may be extended if air pollution levels persist.
During an “orange” alert, some businesses may reduce operations.
ACTIONS TO TAKE: The U.S. EPA recommends people with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and teenagers limit or avoid outdoor physical activity when the AQI level exceeds 200. It recommends everyone avoid outdoor exertion if the AQI level exceeds 300.
Reuters, October 31, 2023:
Authorities issued their highest warnings for fog and haze on Tuesday as smog enveloped major cities in northern China, warning the public that visibility could drop to less than 50 metres (164 feet).
Northern province Hebei launched an anti-pollution emergency response, listing traffic safety controls for when necessary including suspending flight takeoffs and landings, temporarily closing highways and suspending ferries, China’s meteorological bureau said in a notice.
As air pollution levels in the wider Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei area and northern part of Henan province reached moderate to severe, pollution control experts said increased industrial activities, heavy trucking and crop fires had contributed to the haze, state media CCTV reported.
Crisis 24, a “global security platform,” reports that heavy pollution is occurring in Northern China provinces, including Beijing and Liaoning, the two areas reporting the “mystery illness” in children.
I see. Pollution causing lung problems. Wow. I just fell off my chair. What a revelation. Who ever heard of that?
Yeah. I went through all this—reported on all this—in 2020—with “COVID.” That was a mysterious pneumonia, too. Except for the heavy air pollution. Every year in China, about 300,000 people die from pneumonia (lung problems). That means there are millions of cases.
Psychiatrists used to not put much effort into diagnosing. Instead, they focused on getting to and working on the issues in their clients’ lives that were upsetting them. But all that changed when the 1980 DSM came out. Since then, diagnosing mental disorders has been one of their main focuses (prescribing medicine being the other). People pay huge sums of money for psychiatrists’ expert opinions, and their diagnostic evaluations carry great weight in court, school, the workplace, and disability determinations. But is this truly warranted? Is a doctor really needed to make a psychiatric diagnosis, or can anyone do it?
Here are three points which support the idea that anyone can make a psychiatric diagnosis:
1. All the diagnostic criteria that psychiatrists learn in their training can be easily found on various websites. Therefore anyone can look up the criteria for diagnosing any mental illness and then conduct a do-it-yourself diagnostic evaluation.
2. It’s true that only trained doctors can perform physical exams and order lab tests, x-rays/scans, biopsies, etc.. And it’s true that only doctors are qualified to interpret their results. But these medical workups are only ever done to verify physical illness diagnoses, like cancer or diabetes. They are never done to diagnose mental illnesses. If a medical workup is ever done during a mental illness evaluation, it’s only to rule out a real (physical) illness.
3. If one examines the criteria for all the mental illness diagnoses, it becomes clear that identifying them doesn’t require any medical background or skill. For example, here are some criteria for diagnosing depression: diminished interest/pleasure in activities, indecisiveness, and feelings of worthlessness. First of all, these are not terms/concepts that only doctors are privy to. Secondly, they’re vague, subjective perceptions rather than objective, scientific facts. They’re in the eye of the beholder. Thus, any human could offer an opinion as to whether or not someone is experiencing them. Who’s to say which is the “right” opinion?
These are all excellent points.
But if a regular human such as you dares to take it upon yourself to perform a psychiatric diagnostic evaluation, you’ll be laughed at for your brazenness. You need a doctor’s official stamp of approval to make the diagnosis appear legitimate and valid. Doctors are greatly revered and trusted. Only if you tell others that a learned doctor diagnosed you with your mental illness, will it be viewed as a proven fact rather than a mere opinion. So even though psychiatrists don’t use any medical knowledge when making diagnoses, they do have MD degrees, and that’s enough.
Furthermore, for centuries psychiatrists have been designated by society to be the supreme authorities over several key areas: They decide who is insane and should be involuntarily committed and forcibly sedated. They also determine who is mentally unfit and should lose their right to manage their own lives. Perhaps these longstanding power roles have culturally imbued psychiatrists with an aura of superhuman capabilities which makes all their opinions far more important than a regular person’s. The common belief that psychiatrists have the intimidating ability to read and manipulate people’s minds may enhance this aura. Without necessarily being consciously aware of the aura, people may sense it, fear it, and be awed by it. They may thus be particularly likely to unquestioningly, submissively accept whatever their omniscient psychiatrist diagnoses and commands.
Psychiatry’s aura of superiority may be what enabled it to convince people that mental illnesses are real physical illnesses, even though they’re opposites: First psychiatry constructed a fantasy about emotional distress being a medically-treatable disease caused by a chemical imbalance or brain anomaly.Then it turned it into a reality just by proclaiming it to be true. It didn’t matter that 50 years of intensive research never found any chemical imbalances or brain anomalies. Nor did it matter that antidepressants were proven to be mere placebos(1). When psychiatry says something is true, that makes it true, no matter how illogical. And this isn’t the first time this was done: The diagnosis of hysteria was taken seriously for many centuries. It was another example of emotional distress being unfoundedly declared to be a medical condition. This time it was said to be caused by a wandering uterus, and the treatment was to coax it back into place(2).
Psychiatry would lose its power over people if its aura was removed, because nothing would be left but smoke and mirrors. People would lose faith in it (just as happened to the Wizard of Oz when his curtain was removed, revealing that he wasn’t a higher being but just a regular human). Psychiatry’s customers would then realize that they’re not defective and helpless as their doctor oppressively insists. They’d see that they’re actually capable of thinking for themselves in order to devise adaptive ways to solve their own problems. (The tin man, scarecrow, and lion made the same realization after their wizard was shown to be a fraud.) If this ever happens, then people will no longer feel compelled to follow the yellow brick road to a doctor’s office to have their painful feelings medicalized.
1. Kirsch, I. “The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding The Antidepressant Myth”, Basic Books, New York, 2010.
2. Wellesley, M “A Load Of Ballokis” London Review of Books, 23 April 2018.
Lawrence Kelmenson has practiced psychiatry for 32 years, working with children, adults, and families. He graduated medical school from State University of New York, and completed psychiatric residency training at Cornell. He then became staff psychiatrist, and later medical director, of Craig House Hospital in Beacon, New York until 2000, and has since conducted a psychotherapy-based private practice in Cold Spring, New York.
The narrative of an Anthrax bioweapons attack is again in the “news cycle” and remains prominent on the CDC website.
A November 15, 2023 CDC news brief updated advice for healthcare providers in preventing and treating anthrax should a “wide-area aerosol release of B. anthracis” occur.
CDC has classified B. anthracis as a “category A” organism of concern because an attack with B. anthracis would happen via aerosolized exposure. How does the CDC know that any attack would be in an aerosolized form? Does the CDC have a crystal ball? The CDC did seem to know the problems of the COVID19 vaccines before they were distributed:
Americans need to be prepared for the possibility that they may feel a little unwell after they get a coronavirus vaccine, if one is authorized. – CDC Prevention Advisory Committee, November 23, 2020.
Appearance of small welts or sores that are itchy.
Confusion or dizziness
Cough
The sore developing into a blister that turns into a skin ulcer.
Nausea and loss of appetite ( if the infection is through ingestion).
Swelling in the neck area.
Headache & fatigue
Sweats
Shortness of breath
Diarrhea accompanied by severe abdominal pain.
If exposed to the CDC anthrax antigen, the CDC recommends Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), suggesting immediate vaccination and antimicrobial therapy (Ciprofloxacin and Doxycycline are first-line options). The CDC says a new and improved anthrax vaccine became available in 2019. However, on July 20, 2023, the U.S. FDA approved a neweranthrax adjuvanted vaccine, Cyfendus for use in adults 18-65 exposed to anthrax as a countermeasure. Where there is one countermeasure there are always more.
A 2000 report published in Experimental and Molecular Pathology titled, “Antibodies to Squalene in Gulf War Syndrome,” described symptoms including severe headaches, nausea, muscular pain, joint swelling, short term memory loss, night sweats, depression. Autoimmune conditions ranged from fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, autoimmune thyroid disease, chronic fatigue syndrome to malar rashes, chronic headaches, non-healing skin lesions, musculoskeletal disorders (ALS), among others.
US District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that it was illegal for the federal government to mandate anthrax vaccinations. Judge Sullivan banned the Pentagon from forcing military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, and part of Asia and Africa to get the anthrax shots without their prior consent. The military could not require the vaccine until the FDA approved it for the specific use of inhaled anthrax. – Hill & Ponton Disability Attorneys, Dec. 2020, updated
In general, adjuvants, such as squalene are added to vaccines (flu shots) to hyper-stimulate the immune system. They are designed to stimulate antibody creation and remain in the body for a prolonged reaction. The new class of adjuvants are comprised of phospholipids (surfactants), which also happen to make up the membrane of every human cell. Using recombinant DNA technology, phospholipids are combined with recombinant proteins and engineered in a way to be structurally and functionally identical to their natural counterparts. As such, the body can create antibodies to its own tissues in an attack of the Self.
A Little Anthrax History
B. anthracis (anthrax) was discovered in 1875 by the German physician and one of the founders of microbiology, Robert Koch (1843-1910) who developed Koch’s Postulates. He also discovered the deadly toxins cholera and tuberculosis, then was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1905.
Anthrax had also been produced in a Russian lab since before the 1920s. In May 1926, the first report of a new anthrax strain with enhanced virulence was filed, resulting in a 100% increase in mortality. By 1930, Germany had a bioweapons facility. By 1935, the Russians had developed a human anthrax vaccine.
Today, many countries have developed weaponized anthrax through genetic manipulation using bacteria and insects. According to the NIH, Russia created anthrax by introducing an “alien gene” into the highly toxic Baccillus Anthracis bacteria. The new NIH version of anthrax is resistant to antibiotics.
They used an alien gene and genetically altered bacterial immunological properties to produce a deadly pathogen to Humans. Where did they get an alien gene from? A UFO crash perhaps? Negotiations with other beings? Your guess is as good as mine….I found a patent with a method for removing plasma (DNA) from Bacillus anthracis bacteria using CRISPR/Cas9 system and it’s owned by China. This is how they get Mycoplasmas.
— Ariana Love, ND Nov. 23, 2021
The process that began before 1950 is called Cross-Species-Genomics. Its purpose? “To generate disease models.” In other words, to produce the deadly biowarfare agent for use in vaccines. The science reveals that deadly agents do not cross the species barrier unless genetic modification is used in a lab setting. A 2002 study in the Journal Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology states:
The assessment of species barriers has relied on the development of a clinical disease in inoculated animals. On this basis there is a highly efficient barrier limiting transmission…
After 1979, the Soviet’s preferred a bioweapon of inhaled anthraxdue to undifferentiated symptoms that resemble a cold or flu. This version was genetically attenuated sometime before 2006 by the NIH.
British SIS intelligence reports from 1924 confirmed the use of anthrax shells (with a capacity of 2 liters/shell), bombs, and mortars.
In the April 2021 Journal Nature, the study, “Adjuvantng a subunit COVID-19 vaccine to induce protective immunity,” the reference to Alhydrogel is listed under Adjuvant Formulations and immunization:
Alum (Alhydrogel 2%) was purchased from Croda Healthcare (batch 0001610348)
According to a 2021 study in Molecular Cell, Anthrax is developed to “regulate gene expression by binding to DNA sequences and modulating transcriptional activity through their effector domains.” So Anthrax has more than one function.
The reason to be aware of any possible aerosolized anthrax bacterium spore release is to know the natural remedies that exist so you have a choice between consenting to an experimental vaccines and prescribed pharmaceuticals or natural options.
As a disclaimer, nothing suggested in this article is intended to replace consulting with a medical expert if you have a medical problem. Everyone should take responsibility for his or her own health and do your own research. That said, the following herbs and foods are commonly known remedies to help enhance the immune system, your built-in defense system, and can be incorporated in or with meals.
Garlic displays potent anti- anthracis activity, according to the 2021 Journal of Ethnopharmacology. So start thinking of your favorite garlic dishes to create in the kitchen. Alternatively, you can make a tea. Peel and crush into a fine paste with water. Mix paste in two glasses of warm water. Drink in two doses: morning, before bedtime. Continue for 10 days.
Oil of Oregano
Homeopathic anthracinum – super-diluted and potentized extracts of the anthrax bacteria itself to boost immunity on a nanoscale.
Herbs:
Wintergreen essential oil – for discomfort in bones, muscles and joints. Add a few drops to olive oil and apply to the soles of the feet. You can also add 3-5 drops to a bath.
White Fir – oxygenates with antiseptic properties known for us in disease caused by bacteria. Mix essential oil with olive oil or use essential oil as aromatherapy.
Thyme and Melissa (lemon balm) – Fill a capsule with 12 drops of Thyme and 1 drop of Melissa.
Spruce – essential oil has oxygenating properties with support to the nervous and respiratory systems.
Idaho Tansy – stimulates the immune system. Can be applied topically against infection or on wounds.
Savory and Oregano oil – both herbs are potent anti-microbials.
Astragalus root powder Chaparral power Tea – Mix 2 teaspoons of each herb in 2 glasses of warm water. Strain and add organic honey. Drink twice during the day.
Echinacea – boil 2 tsp. root powder in two glasses of water. Strain. Drink twice daily for a week or more.
An investigation by The BMJ into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, found multiple deficiencies in the system, including the revelation that the government runs two systems — one for the public, and a private back-end system that contains all of the corrections and updates, including deaths that occurred after an initial injury.
When Dr. Robert Sullivan collapsed on his treadmill three weeks after his second COVID-19 vaccine in early 2021, he fell into a “nightmare” ordeal that he said exposed glaring deficiencies in the nation’s vaccine safety monitoring system.
But like others interviewed in a recent investigation by The BMJ, Sullivan hit barrier after barrier when trying to submit and update his report.
Almost three years later, still grappling with debilitating symptoms, Sullivan’s experience highlights the systemic problems with the U.S. adverse events monitoring system run jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
From doctors unable to file reports to disappearing data, limits on transparency and lack of resources to follow up on concerning vaccine reactions, experts warn VAERS is failing to detect critical safety signals.
According to one of those experts — VAERS researcher Albert Benavides, whose experience includes HMO claims auditing, data analytics and revenue cycle management — VAERS’ failure isn’t accidental.
Like others interviewed by The BMJ, Sullivan experienced limited follow-up after submitting his VAERS report. He received only a temporary report number months after his initial submission.
A physician named “Helen” (pseudonym) told The BMJ that fewer than 20% of concerning reports get follow-up, including many deaths she reported.
In consultation with Benavides, an audit by React19 found that 1 in 3 COVID-19 vaccine adverse events reports in VAERS were either not posted publicly or were deleted. React19 is a nonprofit that collects stories of people injured by the mRNA vaccines.
According to The BMJ, of those queried by React19, “22% had never been given a permanent VAERS ID number and 12% had disappeared from the system entirely.”
Benavides, who publishes the VAERSAware dashboards documenting many of the problems with VAERS, said there is even deeper dysfunction in the VAERS system — from inventing symptoms to deleting reports.
“VAERS does not publish all legitimate reports received,” Benavides told The Defender. “They throttle publication of reports. They even delete legitimate reports.”
For a system dependent on voluntary engagement, these restrictive policies keep critical data hidden, according to Benavides.
In 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contracted with Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) to review the VAERS system. In 2010, HPHC filed its r report, which determined that 1 in 39 people experienced vaccine injuries and that only around 1% of vaccine-related injuries or deaths are ever reported to VAERS.
The CDC, which operates under HHS, scuttled the study, refused to take calls from the researchers and declined to upgrade the VAERS system when a new, much more effective system was developed.
‘Blind spots are self-created’
VAERS “collects reports of symptoms, diagnoses, hospital admissions, and deaths after vaccination for the purpose of capturing post-market safety signals,” according to The BMJ.
But the limited transparency of VAERS data presents barriers to proper analysis, according to The BMJ’s investigation and researchers like Benavides.
The public — including doctors and other report submitters — can access only incomplete initial reports, not updates with vital details.
This means outcomes like death are often excluded if the initial report was for an injury and a subsequent death report was filed.
“I made the false assumption that my conversation [with VAERS] would result in an adjustment to the publicly reported case,” Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D., told The BMJ.
Whelan, a rheumatologist and researcher at the University of California Los Angeles, in 2022 filed a report of a cardiac arrest in a 7-year-old male patient after COVID-19 vaccination.
“I assumed that, since it was a catastrophic event, the safety committee would want to hear about it right away,” Whelan said. But nobody called him or requested an update after his submission.
“There was no mechanism for [updating] it,” Whelan told The BMJ. “The only option I had was to make a new VAERS report.” Without updates, the VAERS data showed that the boy was still hospitalized.
Whelan is one the authors of a recent critique of the Cochrane Review that concluded the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were not dangerous.
The problem with VAERS is not limited to a lack of adequate follow-up but to the incomplete and often inaccurate information found there.
“VAERS in effect allows typos, truncated lot #’s, UNK [unknown] ages, UNK vax dates, UNK death dates, etc. to pass through into publication,” Benavides said.
Benavides said specific data — including ethnicity, hospital names, attending physicians, submitter’s relationship to the patient, patient and submitter addresses, telephone numbers and emails — collected by VAERS are not published,
“Any blind spots are self-created, in my opinion,” he said.
Agencies maintain two separate VAERS databases — public gets to see only one
“There’s two parts to VAERS, the front end and back end,” stated Narayan Nair, division director for the FDA’s Division of Pharmacovigilance at a December 2022 meeting with advocates, according to The BMJ. “Anything from medical records by law can’t be posted on the public-facing system,” he said.
The BMJ investigation discovered that the FDA and CDC maintain two separate VAERS databases, one available to the public that contains only initial reports, and a private back-end system containing all of the updates and corrections.
“Anything derived from medical records by law” cannot be posted on the public-facing system, Nair told the advocates, according to The BMJ.
In an apparent contradiction to this claim, The BMJ noted the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), which collects post-marketing information on drug reactions, posts its updates publicly.
Sullivan, who met Nair years before COVID-19 and considers him a friend, told The Defender that if this “very bright, kind and caring person” could not fix VAERS, “I don’t think it’s fixable.”
CDC says it reviewed 20,000 reports of deaths — none were related to COVID shots
Withholding outcome data like deaths obscures critical safety signals, experts contend.
James Gill, a medical examiner, reported the death of a 15-year-old patient after vaccination, but the case was dismissed by the CDC despite autopsy evidence, according to the BMJ investigation.
Physician “Helen” told The BMJ that after filing reports on her medical patients, including six who had died, she received only a single request for medical records on the death and two for hospital-admitted patients.
The standard operating procedure for COVID-19 vaccine reports in VAERS, according to The BMJ, is for reports to be processed quickly and for “serious reports” to receive special review by CDC staff.
However, while some other countries have acknowledged the probable connection between the mRNA vaccines and death, the CDC, while claiming to have reviewed nearly 20,000 death reports, has yet to acknowledge a single death linked to the COVID-19 vaccines, The BMJ said.
Benavides provided The Defender examples of VAERS “deleting legitimate reports,” not just duplicates or false claims.
“VAERS even deleted dead Pfizer Trial patients,” he said, claiming that this report, for example, was not a “duplicate” and did not appear to be fake.
Benavides said:
“There are currently about 50 deaths that are not counted as deaths because the correct box is not checked off.
“There are thousands of reports and about 100 deaths in ‘UNKNOWN VAX TYPE’ in VAERS. Read the narrative to see these are clearly C19 jab-related deaths.
“There are over a thousand cardiac arrests where they are not marked as dead, and I question if they actually survived because there is no mention of ROSC [return of spontaneous circulation].”
“Why couldn’t VAERS populate the ages of these dead kids before publication?” Benavides said, pointing to this report on his website.
Physicians report only FDA-recognized adverse events
Ralph Edwards, former director of the Uppsala Monitoring Centre and until recently editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, told The BMJ the regulators may be relying too heavily on past epidemiological data, especially for new types of adverse events. “If something hasn’t been heard of before, it tends to be ignored,” he said.
Without guidance to report potential risks, doctors also face barriers. “Physicians are only willing to talk about FDA-recognized vaccine adverse events,” stated physician “Helen” in a 2021 meeting between the FDA and physicians and advocates, according to The BMJ.
Svetlana Blitshteyn, a neurologist and researcher at the University at Buffalo, New York, told The BMJ if physicians are not educated to look for a specific condition, they’re unlikely to test for it or know how to treat it.
Sullivan told The Defender he believes his experience of developing pulmonary hypertension after taking the mRNA vaccine is one such safety signal the CDC and FDA are overlooking — a condition he believes many athletes have unknowingly developed.
Sullivan co-authored a paper of his and one other similar case of post-vaccine pulmonary hypertension. According to the paper:
“Pulmonary hypertension is a serious disease characterized by damage to lung vasculature and restricted blood flow through narrowed arteries from the right to left heart. The onset of symptoms is typically insidious, progressive and incurable, leading to right heart failure and premature death.”
“Athletes are canaries in the coal mine,” Sullivan told The Defender, speaking of the unusual numbers of athlete deaths since the rollout of the vaccine. Sullivan thinks that those with superior physical conditioning, like him, stand a better chance of survival with early detection.
However, he said, “Athletes will get echocardiography, and it will be essentially normal. The only way to tell for sure is to do a right-heart catheterization” that can identify the anomaly.
Sullivan believes the lives of many athletes could still be saved if the reporting system recognized and investigated the signal — and said he would be happy to join a project dedicated to this goal.
He also told The Defender he believes many of the sudden deaths reported in the 25- to 44-year-old age group are a result of this hidden condition.
‘The buck stops with the CDC for reforms’
Critics point to choices by the CDC as compounding VAERS’ passive design and understaffing issues.
Despite over 1.7 million reports since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, staffing was not boosted accordingly, according to statements the CDC made to The BMJ.
A Freedom of Information Act request by The BMJ revealed Pfizer has nearly 1,000 more full-time employees working on vaccine surveillance than the CDC. Records showed in 2021, Pfizer on-boarded 600 additional full-time employees to handle the volume of adverse reports and planned to hire 200 more.
Physician “Helen” in The BMJ article called for an end to the “negative feedback loop” whereby the FDA fails to list adverse reactions because passive surveillance systems like the FDA’s don’t display them, while at the same time, because of that lack of disclosure, “physicians are blinded to the adverse reactions in their patients, and thus aren’t reporting them.”
“The buck stops with the CDC for reforms needed to open up data,” Benavides told The Defender, adding several suggestions that could immediately improve VAERS:
“Revert back to pre-January 2011 when VAERS did append initial reports with follow-up data, including death. Take off the arbitrary 30-minute time limit to file a report before getting kicked off. Make the process easier to submit follow-up data.”
When asked why the incompetence of VAERS had been allowed to continue for so long, Sullivan told The Defender, “Because of the lack of product liability” for the vaccines “and the surge to defend economic interests.”
Sullivan said he’d like to see the following changes to the system:
Pharmaceutical advertising banned.
Pharmaceutical company revenues devoted to advertising instead be spent on R&D.
The tax money collected on pharma profits be directly sent to victim injury funds.
Yale cardiologist takes on study of COVID vaccine injuries
Benavides said he spoke with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) Monday and is also in discussion with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to address the concerns with VAERS, including the under-publishing of reports.
“That’s a long overdue prospect and it would be incredible to actually get some analysis by that committee,” he said.
Another bright spot comes from news reported in The BMJ’s investigation that Dr. Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist and researcher at Yale University, has been recruiting members of React19 to study their vaccine injuries.
“We are working hard to understand the experience, clinical course, and potential mechanisms of the ailments reported by those who have had severe symptoms arise soon after the vaccination,” Krumholz told The BMJ.
Sullivan told The Defender that medical science is “just beginning to catalog the damage to the heart” from the vaccines but that “in order to treat something, you have to diagnose it” — and that, because of the shortcomings with VAERS, “we have yet to scratch the surface of that.”
Sullivan, now almost three years into his ordeal, is outliving his initial prognosis.
“I have a grim diagnosis hanging over me, but I’m optimistic because I’m still here,” he said. “I had something bad happen to me, but I’ve met so many amazing, wonderful people along the way who are just interested in truth.”
“I’m going to live the best and most productive life I can with the time I have left,” Sullivan said, helping others who “have this cloud hanging over their future.”
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
When I discovered this study several years ago and wrote the following extensive piece on it, the study was a bolt from the blue, a complete devastating shocker.
It still is.
It is more than enough to topple the whole vaccine empire.
Honoring the work of the study co-author, Dr. Antonietta Gatti, Catherine Austin Fitts wrote, “Not long after the publication of this revolutionary study, tax authorities raided and investigated Dr. Gatti’s and [her husband] Dr. Montanari’s laboratory and private home—an all too usual method of intimidation.”
THAT was the “scientific follow-up.”
In a nutshell, Dr. Gatti’s 2017 study showed an incredible amount of contamination, in a whole host of traditional vaccines. The contamination was in the form of tiny nanoparticles, mostly metallic, and obviously highly harmful and dangerous.
Before reading my summary and analysis of that study—here is an updated communication from Dr. Gatti I received a few days ago. It describes, in a stark and disturbing fashion, what has been happening to her, her work, and her laboratory. This is chilling:
“At the end of last year, our laboratory no longer had the financial capacity to continue its research. The proceeds from the few analyzes requested by private individuals yielded enormously less than what the research cost us. Then, there were two possibilities: close everything or set up a foundation by giving away everything that belonged to us, hoping to find some sponsors. After all, all initiatives, even the most bizarre, find someone willing to contribute financially. Why not a foundation that does fundamental research on health? So, we opted for the latter choice, and the Nanodiagnostics Foundation was born.”
“But, after almost a year, not a cent has arrived. In short, no company, no private citizen, no institution is willing to contribute.”
“Many people continue to demand results and ask questions to which they have no answers from the institutions or their doctors, but, if it is a question of parting from some money, the silence is absolute.”
“It is clear that our work is a threat to billion-dollar businesses that are not exactly clear, at least for most people. For this reason, the most absurd and incredible slanders are invented to our detriment.
Not being able to dispute our scientific results, there are those who publish, usually anonymously, that we earn enormous sums of money, even giving the impression that the Foundation belongs to us, when it should be known that foundations do not belong to anyone, and no one can profit from them. And this is when we have donated everything that belonged to us, and we work for free.”
“Another tactic is trying to isolate and discredit us with lies. What the University of Bologna did a few days ago, the university where I graduated, then specialized and taught, is a small example.”
“A few months ago, that university asked us if we were willing to accept [a] student… who would prepare her graduation thesis with us. We agreed and agreed with the student on how to proceed. A few months passed, then, a couple of weeks ago, when the University authorities realized that the student would work with us, they sent us a message of a few lines in which they informed us that what we do (and which I had taught at that university) was of no interest to them (which, in a way, is true, although very far from the mission of the University). Needless to say, my letter to the Rector asking for explanations remained unanswered.”
“And it is also useless to say how difficult it is to publish the results that we continue to obtain, and which are not liked by those who financially maintain the medical journals, on whose scientific nature I prefer not to comment. For twice the Editor after the publication of an article (on vaccines and on SIDS) asked to retreat [sic] them. Only the work of the Robert Kennedy Jr lawyers stopped the request.”
“[Paper:] Novel chemical-physical autopsy investigation in sudden infant death and sudden intrauterine unexplained death syndromes” (click here)
“Just for your information, in spite of all difficulties, we are now dealing with very critical topics: spontaneously aborted babies, analysis of the brains of infants who died in cots (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, aka SIDS), analysis of what falls from the sky (e.g., recently hail never seen before), food, etc. All this can only be fought with personal discredit.”
“We haven’t had any visits from the regime for a long time. For them it is enough to monitor our computers and phones. The rest is done by ‘volunteers’. As for other scientists, no one deals with our topics in full. It must be realized that doing so represents a risk that is obviously preferable not to take.”
“As long as we can manage, we will continue to work. If, however, no sponsor materializes (idle chatter and empty promises are not only useless: they are a waste of time,) we will have no other option than to declare defeat, a defeat that belongs to the whole world and, above all, to the children who do not deserve the fate they are suffering.”
“…I give some details of our Foundation Nanodiagnostics (click here)…”
IF YOU CAN, PLEASE DONATE TO Dr. Gatti’s vital work at the above website.
Here is my original article on Dr. Gatti’s vaccine-contamination study:
Dangerous nano-particles contaminating many vaccines: groundbreaking study
“The Lung,” Second Edition: “Nanoparticles [are] comparable in size to subcellular structures…enabling their ready incorporation into biological systems.”
A 2017 study of 44 types of 15 traditional vaccines, manufactured by leading global companies, has uncovered a very troubling and previously unreported fact:
The vaccines are heavily contaminated with a variety of nanoparticles.
Many of the particles are metals.
We’re talking about traditional vaccines, such as HPV, flu, Swine Flu, Hepatitis B, MMR, DPT, tetanus, etc.
To begin to understand some of the destructive effects of contaminating nanoparticles in vaccines, here is the groundbreaking 2017 study:
International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination
Volume 4 Issue 1
January 23 2017
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination
Antonietta M Gatti and Stefano Montanari
(Paper archived here and here)
“The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines…”
Are the study authors leaving the door open to the possibility that the contamination is intentional?
“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity…they induce an inflammatory reaction.”
“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas…But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect…due to a nano-bio-interaction…can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way…It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA…”
“In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues…”
“Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles…could heavily impair the muscle functionality…”
“We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.”
This 2017 study opens up a whole new field: the investigation of nanoparticles in vaccines where none were expected.
Such particles are not medicine in any sense of the word.
Many legal and scientific “experts” assert the State has a right to mandate vaccines and force them on the population. But these contaminating nanoparticles are not vaccines or medicines. Only a lunatic would defend the right of the State to inject them.
Here is another section from the 2017 study. Trade names of vaccines, and compositions of the nanoparticle contaminants are indicated. Take a deep breath and buckle up:
“…further presence of micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases [all 44 vaccines], whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product…”
“…single particles, cluster of micro- and nanoparticles (less than 100nm) and aggregates…debris of Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium and Titanium; of Iron, Chromium, Silicon and Calcium particles…arranged in a cluster, and Aluminum-Copper debris…in an aggregate.”
“…the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro).”
“…particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).”
“…singular debris found in Repevax (Silicon, Gold, Silver) and Gardasil (Zirconium).”
“Some metallic particles made of Tungsten or stainless steel were also identified. Other particles containing Zirconium, Hafnium, Strontium and Aluminum (Vivotif, Meningetec); Tungsten, Nickel, Iron (Priorix, Meningetec); Antimony (Menjugate kit); Chromium (Meningetec); Gold or Gold, Zinc (Infarix Hexa, Repevax), or Platinum, Silver, Bismuth, Iron, Chromium (MMRvaxPro) or Lead,Bismuth (Gardasil) or Cerium (Agrippal S1) were also found. The only Tungsten appears in 8/44 vaccines, while Chromium (alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel) in 25/44. The investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria. As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction…occurs and a ‘protein corona’ is formed…The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since it is not recognized as self by the body.”
“…examples of these nano-bio-interactions. Aggregates can be seen (stable composite entities) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec… of stainless steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel…) and of Copper, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix…Similar aggregates, though in different situations (patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia), have already been described in literature.”
I’m sure you’ve read official assurances that vaccine-manufacturing problems are “rare.” You can file those pronouncements along with other medical lies.
“I’d like the heavy metal sandwich on rye, please. And instead of serving it on a plate, can you inject it?”
Several vital questions demanding answers spring from the findings of this 2017 study:
Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally placed in vaccines?
Does the standard manufacturing process for traditional vaccines INEVITABLY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?
New nano-technology is already being employed to create several vaccines—supposedly “improving effectiveness.” In fact, the RNA COVID-19 vaccine are a nano-type. Does this manufacturing process carry with it the unavoidable effect of unleashing a hurricane of nanoparticle contaminants?
How many cases of childhood brain damage and autism can be laid at the door of nanoparticle contamination?
And finally, where are these contaminated vaccines manufactured? The above study did not attempt to discover this. It was outside the scope of the research. It’s common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the US, vaccines or their components, are, in many instances, not produced domestically. Where does this put control of safety? In, say, China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals connected to contamination of products?
The vaccine establishment does not show the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending the questions don’t exist.
“Why is it so difficult for virologists to simply explain basic questions about a ‘virus’ such as whether the ‘virus’ is living or dead? Why must the concept of what a ‘virus’ is change depending upon the researchers and technology of the time? What physical organism changes in concept after over a century of supposed study? The answer to all of these questions is actually fairly easy to grasp. As the researchers have never actually had any physical entities on hand in order to study, the concept of what the assumed invisible entities are was allowed to constantly change in order to suit the needs and evidence of the researchers of the time. There was no solid foundation for virology to stand upon from the very beginning in order to definitively state what the nature of a ‘virus’ truly is.”
For the greater part of the first 50 years of the 20th century, there was no agreed upon definition for what the invisible entities labelled as a “virus” actually were nor how these agents looked, formed and functioned. Some researchers believed that these entities were endogenous processes produced within the host while others envisioned them as exogenous invaders that came from outside and attacked from within. There were arguments over whether “viruses” were corpuscular in nature or whether they were a soluble liquid. Debates centered around whether these agents were alive or if they were simply inanimate and non-living. While there were researchers who believed “viruses” were a ferment or a chemical molecule of some kind, the majority believed that these invisible entities were just smaller unseen bacterium. According to biochemist and historian of science Ton van Helvoort’s 1996 paper When Did Virology Start?, the “virus” concept lacked clarity and certainty over the first half of the 20th century. However, the link between bacteriology and “viruses” was so strong at this time that these unseen entities were not considered conceptually distinct from bacteria:
“I have come to believe that, despite its widespread appearance in textbooks and journals of that era, the early concept of the “filterable virus” lacked clarity and certainty. More importantly, I also believe that during the 1930s and 194Os, the links between the study of filterable viruses and bacteriology were so strong that viruses were still considered merely another form of bacteria-not conceptually distinct, as they now are.”
The reason for these many contradictory ideas about the nature of the “virus” was a direct result of the fact that the researchers never had a physical entity on hand in order to study. The “virus” was nothing more than a fluid concept that was open to the interpretation of those who claimed to be working with them. Most of these researchers came from a bacteriological or chemistry background, and thus, they viewed the “virus” concept through their own lens and paradigms. Regardless, there was no way to actually determine the true nature of something that could not be seen or studied in reality and that only existed within the realm of the imagination.
Thus, it shouldn’t be hard to understand why virologists often have a difficult time answering simple questions such as “What is a virus?” or “Is it alive or dead?” This is exactly the argument made in the appropriately titled 2014 article Inventing Virusesby William Summers, a retired Professor of Therapeutic Radiology, Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry, and History of Medicine. While being able to define what a “virus” is should be an easy task for any virologist, simple questions about the nature of a “virus” are not ones that are simple for them to answer. In the opening of his paper, Summers asked a more subtle question about the invention of the “virus” category:
“…how generations of microbiologists arrived at the idea that some of the entities they dealt with fell into a category that differed in fundamental ways from others. In other words, how did they invent the category of “virus” as we now know it?”
Summers looked to investigate how the idea that “viruses” are a separate entity that requires its own category away from bacteriology came to be. In doing so, he admitted that our beliefs, understandings, and conceptions of what a “virus” is changes over time. This is because “viruses” are whatever a virologist tells us that they are. The concept and the nature of the “virus” was invented, and continually reinvented, by virologists as part of the normal progress of their (pseudo) science. In other words, the idea of the “virus” is able to change at any time based upon whatever a virologist wants a “virus” to be at any given moment:
“Even so, how did the category “virus” come to be recognized, and what are its essential, defining qualities? Viruses are natural objects, but our beliefs, understanding, and conceptions of them change over time on the basis of new information, new points of view, and new scientific values and standards. In a very real way, a virus is what virologists say it is. It is a product of the way virologists talk about viruses—that is, the way facts about viruses are organized in their discourse. It can be said that virologists invent (and continually reinvent) the concept of a virus as part of the normal progress of their science.”
The deliberate ever-changing concept of the “virus” shifted away from its original invention as an agent of disease transmission to its modern day concept as a genetic assembly that sometimes causes disease when it integrates into its host in order to survive. This reinvention of the concept happened in 1957 when French microbiologist Andre Lwoff took many competing and contradictory ideas and mashed them together into the modern definition of a “virus” based upon work done with bacteriophages. Prior to his reinvention of the concept, in 1953, Lwoff actually questioned whether a bacteriophage was a “virus” and wanted to know exactly what a “virus” was. He even noted that “viruses” are defined to be exogenous (coming from outside of the body) while bacteriophages are “always formed inside its host” and “could therefore be described as endogenous,” i.e. originating from within the host. In fact, Lwoff stated that “if prophage is phylogenetically endogenous, the temperate phage produced by a lysogenic bacterium must be described as endogenous,” meaning that the phage is from within the host, thus negating it as an exogenous entity in line with the definition of a “virus.” Ironically, after redefining the “virus” as a genetic code in 1957, Lwoff would ultimately warn in 1991 that virology was “in danger of losing its soul, since viruses now show a strong tendency to become sequences.” He also argued that the abundance of discoveries was causing “the very concept of virus” to waver “on its foundations,” noting that the “problem today and in future is to keep abreast of its whereabouts.”
Regardless, Summers stated that his paper was not about the “triumphant accumulation of knowledge by the heroic scientists” of the past. Rather, it was an examination of the “continual struggle to understand and organize observations.” This struggle was showcased by Lwoff’s own attempts to rationalize and combine contradictory evidence in order to create the modern genetic concept of the “virus” from an entity that did not meet the necessary requirements:
“Nobelist Andre Lwoff, perhaps in a Gertrude Stein frame of mind, famously answered “viruses are viruses” (9), but the question “What is virus?” has been notoriously fraught since the role of virus in late nineteenth-century germ theories became central to medicine, and later, in the midtwentieth-century, to biology in general. The evolution, or perhaps deliberate and continuous reformulation, of the meaning of “virus” from an agent of disease transmission in the nineteenth century to a molecular assembly with remarkable properties by the end of the twentieth century is the subject of this article. This is not a story of the triumphant accumulation of knowledge by the heroic scientists of the past so much as it is an examination of the continual struggle to understand and organize observations that challenged and made obsolete the comfortable certainties of the often recent past. This examination requires consideration of past science on its own terms, without judgment in light of present-day understanding, and it requires consideration of the context and extent of background knowledge of the particular period considered.”
This struggle to answer the question “What is a virus?” was ongoing, even in the so-called “modern age” of virology. There was no consensus as to the true nature of a “virus.” Summers shared a quote by Joseph Beard that stated that the “virus” was a fabric of concepts that had been “woven of a plethora of woof and a paucity of warp.” In weaving terms, this makes for an unstable foundation upon which to weave. Another example was of plant virologist N.W. Pirie who was considered “agnostic” (impossible to know one way or the other) on whether a “virus” was a molecule or a microbe. However, he seemed to argue that the variability in the chemical composition of the same “virus” went against the modern molecular hypothesis. Thus, we can see that there was no agreement on the nature of the “virus:”
“The construction of the virus as a living molecule in the middle decades of the twentieth century generated wide debate as to the correct answer to the question, “What is a virus?” Having rejected filterability, negative growth properties, and size as defining characteristics, microbiologists searched for new ways to think about viruses. Even at the beginning of what might be called the modern era, there was remarkably little consensus on this subject. Joseph Beard, in 1945, famously remarked, “Viruses are said to be living molecules and autocatalytic enzymes and are likened to genes and mitochondria—in short, a fabric of concepts has been woven of a plethora of woof with a paucity of warp” (quoted in 47, p. 332). N.W. Pirie, one of the pioneers in the study of plant viruses, even in 1949 was agnostic as to whether viruses were microbes or molecules. In a long review of the problem in the British Medical Bulletin (47), he argued that the variation in chemical composition reported for the same virus suggested a level of heterogeneity not compatible with the molecular hypothesis. He noted that “all the viruses purified so far have contained nucleoprotein, but this generalization may lack significance because the viruses that have been studied are a group selected to some extent on a chemical basis.”
Summers ultimately concluded that each generation of virologists will look at “viruses” in their own way and will alter the concept of the “virus” based upon the “science” of the time. Thus, the “virus” is left to be a concept that is allowed to be continually reinvented at the whims of the researchers:
“Although “viruses are viruses,” each generation of scientists looks anew at these fascinating entities in its own way, endowing them with properties, relationships, and capacities that reflect the science of the time. Truly, they are microbes being continually reinvented by their most ardent admirers.”
In his summary, Summers laid out 5 very revealing points to end his paper on. Sharing similar sentiments as van Helvoort, he stated that the “virus” concept is an unstable one that “evolved,” not due to an accumulation of facts, but rather due to an ongoing reformulation of the “virus” concept on the basis of “scientific” focus at a given time. This reinvention was determined by technological advances rather than scientific understanding. Thus, the answer as to what a “virus” is will depend upon the discourse at the time more so than the “known” characteristics of “viruses:”
The concept of a virus has not been stable and has evolved since its introduction in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
This evolution has been not a linear accumulation of facts but rather an ongoing reformulation of the virus concept on the basis of scientific focus at a given time, e.g., growth, metabolism, chemical composition, genetics, or physical structure.
The concept of a virus has particularly been determined by technological advances ratherthan scientific understanding.
The answer to the question “What is a virus?” is one that depends on the particular scientific discourse at a given time.
The discourse with respect to the physical object “virus” is based on the particular concerns and problems of interest at a given time more than on any one set of intrinsic characteristics known about viruses.
Why is it so difficult for virologists to simply explain basic questions about a “virus” such as whether the “virus” is living or dead? Why must the concept of what a “virus” is change depending upon the researchers and technology of the time? What physical organism changes in concept after over a century of supposed study? The answer to all of these questions is actually fairly easy to grasp. As the researchers have never actually had any physical entities on hand in order to study, the concept of what the assumed invisible entities are was allowed to constantly change in order to suit the needs and evidence of the researchers of the time. There was no solid foundation for virology to stand upon from the very beginning in order to definitively state what the nature of a “virus” truly is.
While Summers paper on the invention of the “virus” offers some great modern insight into the problems related to defining the nature of the invisible beast, there is a much earlier paper by prominent virologist Thomas Rivers from 1932 that details the many issues with trying to give life to the imaginary shortly after its conception. You may know Rivers due to his 1937 proclamation that “It is obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases.” This shockingly honest admittance that the essential logical criteria considered necessary in order to prove a microbe causes disease remains unfulfilled for “viruses” and continues to haunt virology to this day. As it is a rather long 18 pages that I have reproduced here, I will try to keep my commentary throughout brief. However, what Rivers highlighted as key problems in 1932 during the formative years of virology compliments Summers 2014 paper on why virologists needed to invent, and then continually reinvent, the concept of the “virus” that was dreamt up in the late 1800s.
Thomas Rivers immediately began his 1932 paper on the nature of “viruses” by admitting that, up to 1932, “viruses” were defined solely based upon their absence as well as for what they were not. “Viruses” were defined in negative terms as they were:
Invisible to ordinary microscopic methods.
Unable to be obtained via filtration.
Unable to propagate in the absence of susceptible cells.
Interestingly, things did not progress away from defining “viruses” in negative terms even with Andre Lwoff’s 1957 modern reinvention of the concept as noted by Professor Milton W. Taylor, teacher of virology and world-renowned historian from Indiana University. In a 2014 paper examining what a “virus” is, Taylor explained that Lwoff’s reinvention of the “virus” concept was also a “negative definition” that “stresses the non-cellular nature of viruses.” By Lwoff’s own words from his 1971 paper From Protozoa to Bacteria and Viruses. Fifty Years with Microbes, he defined “viruses” by the “inability to grow and to divide, absence of metabolism, absence of the information for the enzymes of energy metabolism…the absence of transfer RNA and of ribosomes and also of the corresponding information.” In other words, even by the modern definition, “viruses” were still defined by what they were not.
While Rivers attempted to define “viruses” in what he felt were positive terms of what was “definitely known” about these invisible agents, he admitted that the biological nature was still a moot question, i.e. one open to debate and challenges with no foreseeable solution or answer. Perhaps this was due to his feelings that, while there was plenty of data concerning the nature of “viruses,” the accumulated data was “distinctly lacking in quality,” and that “enough reliable data have not been acquired to establish the nature of the viruses.”
The Nature of Viruses
Thomas M. Rivers
The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York
Viruses are usually characterized by three negative properties, namely, invisibility by ordinary microscopic methods, failure to be retained by filters impervious to well-known bacteria, and inability to propagate themselves in the absence of susceptible cells. I prefer a positive characterization of the viruses, one emphasizing the intimate relation that exists between them and their host cells. The multiplication of viruses only in the presence of susceptible cells, their regeneration and production of disease in many instances in only one species of host, the marked stimulation and destruction of cells induced by their activity which on the one hand gives rise to tumors, such as Rous’ sarcoma, and on the other to vesicular lesions, as fever blisters, the intracellular pathology frequently evidenced in virus diseases by inclusion bodies, and, finally, the lasting immunity that follows the majority of virus maladies, are essential phenomena that serve to stress the intimate type of parasitism encountered in working with these active agents. Such a characterization of viruses implies much, not only as concerns their biological nature which is still a moot question, but as regards their activities about which something is definitely known.
Data concerning the nature of viruses are sufficiently adequate in quantity but distinctly lacking in quality. According to reports, some of which have come from eminent investigators, most of these active agents have been seen and have been cultivated on lifeless media. If such statements are correct, viruses are autonomous living agents, and further discussion of their biological nature should deal with their place in the scale of living entities and their relation to other forms of life. Reports of work in this field are confusing, however, particularly to the uninitiated, and critical investigators are of the opinion that enough reliable data have not been acquired to establish the nature of the viruses. Inasmuch as this is a subject of fundamental biological importance, I shall review some of the recently accumulated data regarding the size, electrical charge, purification, spontaneous generation, adaptations, elementary bodies, metabolism, immunological phenomena and cultivation of viruses that might be of assistance in the elucidation of the origin and constitution of these peculiar incitants of disease.
One of the only indirect means which early virologists could use to conclude that a “virus” was “present” in a sample was by claiming that the invisible entities passed through filters of a certain size that retained all known bacteria, thus allowing them to guess as to the size of the unseen particles. Rivers noted that a “virus” was generally accepted as “an object less than 0.2 p or 200 ppl in diameter” and that it was not capable of being seen under light microscopy. In other words, “viruses” were too small to be seen and were defined by their absence. He noted that figures regarding the size of “viruses” derived from stained preparations were apt to be inaccurate and misleading. This lines up with his 1927 statement on filtration in his paper Filterable Viruses: A Critical Review, claiming that the methods were “crude and inaccurate.”
Rivers then presented evidence for the size of eight “viruses,” which were contradictory depending upon the researchers cited. He utilized hemoglobin as a comparison and stated that if the figure for hemoglobin is incorrect (which had contradictory estimates as to its size as well), many statements concerning the size of “viruses” were also inaccurate. Rivers was dismayed that certain researchers did not account for the possibility that they might have been estimating the size of particles of degraded cells to which the “viruses” were attached. He noted that other researchers took this into consideration and that they were unable to be assured that they had been successful in obtaining the correct figures for the size of the different “viruses.” Rivers concluded that none of the figures could be accepted without reservations and that the exact size of any “virus” was unknown. The numerous contradictory results stemmed from “inadequate experimentation, careless thinking, prejudice, imperfect experimental methods, and the difficult nature of the problems.”
SIZE. The size of minute particles may be determined in several ways, namely, by direct mensuration provided the objects are capable of resolution under the microscope; by filtration and ultrafiltration if the factors that influence the passage of the particles through pores of graded diameters are known and controlled; by diffusion, and, finally, by centrifugation. All of these methods have been employed in the study of the magnitude of viruses and the results obtained will be discussed.
It is generally accepted that an object less than 0.2 p or 200 ppl in diameter is not capable of resolution under the microscope when ordinary light is used. Furthermore, it is understood that mordants and stains usually increase the magnitude of small particles. Some of the “larger” viruses, e.g., those of fowl-pox (log), smallpox, vaccinia (122, 123), and rabies, are said to be just visible after treatment with certain mordants and dyes. Consequently, one is justified in concluding that most of the viruses have a diameter of less than 200 pp and in an unstained state are not mensurable by means of ordinary light. Moreover, figures regarding their size derived from stained preparations are apt to be inaccurate and misleading. The use of light of short wave lengths makes possible the mensuration of particles smaller than 0.2 p in diameter. So far, however, this method of investigation has yielded no convincing evidence concerning the magnitude of viruses. It appears, therefore, that direct methods of mensuration only indicate that the active agents are considerably smaller than ordinary bacteria.
The sizes of at least eight viruses have been estimated by means of ultrafiltration, diffusion, or centrifugation. The results obtained for these active agents together with figures for the diameter of the hemoglobin molecule for comparison are given below.
Hemoglobin. For a number of years the molecule of hemoglobin was thought to be 30 uu in diameter. Recently, however, figures (34) derived from the results of Svedberg and Nichol’s (33) centrifugation experiments and Northrop and Anson’s (30) diffusion experiments with hemoglobin indicate that its diameter is approximately 5.5 uu. Many estimations regarding the magnitude of viruses have been based on the former figure for the diameter of the hemoglobin molecule, 30 uu. If this figure is incorrect, many statements concerning the size of viruses are also inaccurateMosaic virus. Duggar and Karrer (17) by means of ultrafiltration found the infectious particles of mosaic virus to be of the same order of magnitude as hemoglobin molecules, namely, 30 uu in diameter. Vinson (34), however, says that Duggar’s experiments interpreted in the light of recent work regarding the size of hemoglobin molecules indicates that the diameter of mosaic virus is about 5.5 uu.
Herpetic virus. Zinsser and Tang (38) by means of ultrafiltration estimated the diameter of herpetic virus to be 20-100 uu. Levaditi and Nicolau (27) in the same way found that the virus passed through membranes which retained toxins, hemolysins, complement, and serum globulins. Bedson (13), however, unable to confirm Levaditi and Nicolau’s (27) results, obtained evidence by centrifugation that herpetic virus is probably of sufficient size to be visible.
Foot-and-mouth disease virus. Olitsky and Boez (31), using ultrafiltration, found that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is 20-100 uu in diameter. Elford by means of his special membranes estimated it to be 8-12 uu.
Poliomyelitic virus. By means of ultrafiltration, Krueger and Schultz (25), in 1929, found that the virus of poliomyelitis possesses a magnitude not greater than 300 uu. In 1931, by the same means, Clifton, Schultz, and Gebhardt (16) obtained results indicating that the diameter of the virus lies below 50 uu.
Fowl plague virus. By means of ultrafiltration Andriewsky (8) secured a figure of 2.5 uu for the diameter of fowl plaguevirus, while Bechhold and Schlesinger (11) by centrifugation found it to be 120-130 uu.
Bacteriophage. According to d’Herelle (22) and Elford (19), both of whom used ultrafiltration, the diameter of the bacteriophage is approximately 30 uu. Kruger and Tamada (26) by means of purified bacteriophage preparations and ultrafiltration found it to be 5 uu, and Hetler and Bronfenbrenner (24) by means of a diffusion method estimated it to be 1.2-22.8 uu.
Rous virus. According to Zinsser and Tang (38), the Rous virus is 20-100 uu; according to Mendelsohn, Clifton and Lewis (29), 50 uu; according to Frankel (20), 10 uu. All these workers obtained their figures by means of ultrafiltration.
Vaccine virus. Levaditi and Nicolau (27) reported that vaccine virus passes through membranes impervious to toxins, hemolysins, complement, and serum globulins. Bland (15), however, from the results of his centrifugation experiments not only concluded that Levaditi and Nicolau’s findings are incorrect but that vaccine virus is probably large enough to be seen. Bechhold and Schlesinger (11) by means of centrifugation estimated that the active agent is 210-230 uu in diameter, while Yaoi and Kasai (37) working with “purified” virus found that it diffused at the rate of fuchsin particles and is, therefore, not capable of being seen.
One cannot consider the results cited above without being amused and dismayed. Many of the workers seemed in no way concerned about the possibility that they might have been estimating not the magnitude of viruses, but the size of particles of degraded cells to which the viruses were attached. Other investigators, cognizant of the difficulties of the problem! attempted to remove the viruses from such carriers. They were unable, however, to be assured that they had been successful and that they had obtained the correct figures for the size of the different viruses.
From the results of indirect methods of mensuration it is safe to conclude that viruses are small and that some of them may be exceedingly minute. If the figure of 210 uu for the diameter of vaccine virus is accurate, there is no reason as far as size is concerned to suppose that the virus is not a living organism. On the other hand, if the figures of 1.2 uu, 5.5 uu, and 8 uu for the bacteriophage, mosaic virus, and foot-and-mouth disease virus, respectively, are correct, it is obvious that these agents cannot be highly organised, because it is impossible that with such a magnitude they can consist of more than one, or at most several, molecules of protein. Unfortunately, none of the figures can be accepted without reservations. At present the exact size of
The numerous discordant results encountered in the literature dealing with the filterability, size, and visibility of viruses are probably due to inadequate experimentation, careless thinking, prejudice, imperfect experimental methods, and the difficult nature of the problems. One of the great needs at present is improvement in methods of microscopy, filtration, and purification of viruses in order that results obtained will approximate the true size of viruses and not the size of particles of other sorts on which the agents are adsorbed. It must be remembered, however, that the determination of the size of one virus will not establish the magnitude of another, because no more uniformity of dimensions should be expected among these agents than is found among bacteria and protozoa. Furthermore, it is not possible to derive proof of the animate or inanimate nature of viruses even from a correct estimation of their diameters, for, within limits as yet undetermined, life and death are not functions of size.
In this next section on electrical charges, take note once again of the range in estimates and contradictory conclusions made by the researchers. Rivers pointed out that “virus” preparations consisted principally of proteins and bits of degraded cells from the host. This meant that the electrical charge results might not be those of the “virus” particles themselves but of the other materials present within the sample. This inability to distinguish the assumed “virus” from the remaining host and foreign constituents present in the sample is the reason why complete purification and isolation of the assumed “viral” particles from the host components, which has never been achieved, is absolutely necessary. Rivers admitted that there were few experiments that were performed with “protein-free” preparations of “viruses,” and that the methods of purification did not convince him that such purified “viruses” had ever been completely separated from their carriers (i.e. host materials). Even with the modern advances in technology, this inability to completely separate “viruses” from host components was noted in a May 2020 article that stated that “to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.” Rivers concluded that the lack of purity meant that it was impossible to state definitely what electrical charge is carried by the “viruses.”
ELECTRICAL CHARGE. Most bacteria and proteins under ordinary biological conditions of hydrogen ion concentration carry a negative electrical charge. When the nature of the viruses became a question of interest, attempts were made to ascertain their behavior in an electrical field in order that it might be compared with the action of proteins and bacteria under similar circumstances.
Bacteriophage. Kligler and his co-workers (41) using a so-called “protein-free” bacteriophage found that the active agent was amphoteric in acid and decidedly alkaline solutions and chiefly negatively charged in neutral and mildly alkaline solutions. Krueger and his associates (42) stated that the bacteriophage is negatively charged between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 9.0-3.4, and positively charged at pH 3.35. Todd (48) found that the active agent carried a negative charge between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 3.36-7.6. The results of Natarajan and Hyde’s (43) experiments indicate (1) that bacteriophages for typhoid bacilli and Flexner’s dysentery bacilli are only electronegative between pH 4.9-9.3 and 5.4-9.3 respectively, (2) that small plaque coliphage is electronegative below pH 8.3, but with greater alkalinity moves to both poles, and (3) that large plaque coliphage is electronegative over a range of pH 5.4-6.1, while at a higher alkalinity it wanders to both poles.
Rabic virus. According to Glusman (40) and his associates fixed rabic virus is negatively charged over a range of pH 6.0-9.3.
Vaccine virus. Douglas and Smith (39) found that vaccine virus carried a negative charge between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 5.5-8.4. The experiments of Yaoi and Kasai (49) revealed that between pH 6-7 more virus collected at the positive than at the negative pole, and between pH 8-9 the active agent was demonstrable only at the anode.
Fowl-pox virus. Kligler and his co-workers (41) found fowl-pox virus in “protein-free” preparations to be positively charged on the acid side, amphoteric in neutral solutions, and negatively charged in alkaline solutions. According to Natarajan and Hyde (43), the active agent is amphoteric over a range of pH 6.4-9.3.
Foot-and-mouth disease virus. Olitsky and Bo& (44) believe that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is positively charged, while Sichert-Modrow (47) is of the opinion that the active agent carries a negative charge over a range of pH 7.0-8.1.
Pcliomyelitic virus. According to Olitsky, Rhoads, and Long (45) poliomyelitic virus wanders to the anode.
Rous virus. Pulcher (46) found that the Rous virus was adsorbed on electropositive and not on electronegative hemoglobins and concluded that the active agent is negatively charged.
Virus of infectious myxomatosis of rabbits. According to Natarajan and Hyde (43), the virus of infectious myxomatosis of rabbits is electronegative over a range of pH 4.9-9.3.
Herpetic virus. Natarajan and Hyde (43) found herpetic virus to be electronegatively charged only between the hydrogen ion concentrations of 7.0-8.9.
From the results of the work cited above it is obvious that most workers have found that under ordinary biological conditions of hydrogen ion concentration certain viruses in an electrical field wander to the anode. Moreover, many investigators have stated that the viruses under these conditions are negatively charged and in this respect are similar to bacteria, cells, and numerous proteins. Others, however, aware of the fact that virus preparations usually consist principally of proteins and bits of degraded cells from the host, realize that the electrical charges determined might not be those of the virus particles themselves but of their carriers, i.e., material on which the virus particles are adsorbed. It is true that a few experiments have been performed with “protein-free” preparations of viruses. But an examination of the methods of purification fails to convince one that such purified viruses had been completely separated from their carriers. Therefore, at present it is impossible to state definitely what electrical charge is carried by the viruses.
This next section is probably my favorite of the entire paper as Rivers sums up the purification problem perfectly. He started off by admitting that “virus-containing” emulsions consisted chiefly of substances unrelated to the “virus.” Thus, he stated that researchers needed to attempt to obtain the “viruses” either in a pure or in a relatively pure state as it was realized that purified “viruses” are essential for the proper study of problems in the field. These problems related to the aforementioned estimation of the size of “viruses” and the determination of the electrical charge, as well as any investigation into the “immunological” responses attributed to “viruses.” He shared a quote by Murphy who, in working to purify the Rous sarcoma “virus” through various manipulative purification processes, stated that it was “hardly conceivable that the active fraction” obtained after these processes could “carry with it through all these manipulations any living organism or virus.” Murphy felt that he was dealing with an enzyme rather than a “virus.” Rivers then backed up his own assertion from five years earlier in 1927 that “No virus had been obtained in an absoutely pure state” by reiterating that it was unlikely that a “virus” had ever been obtained in a state of absolute purity.
PURIFICATION. Inasmuch as virus-containing emulsions consist chiefly of substances unrelated to the active agents themselves, it is natural that workers should attempt to obtain the viruses either in a pure or in a relatively pure state. Moreover, it is being realized that purified viruses are essential for the proper study of problems in this field, such as the estimatlion of the size of viruses, the determination of their electrical charge, and the investigation of immunological responses excited by them. In addition to the fact that purified viruses are of practical value, it is obvious that such preparations will also be of value to investigators interested in the theoretical problem of the nature of viruses. Indeed, Murphy (52, 55) has already concluded from the results of his experiments on the purification of the Rous agent that this disease-incitant is neither a virus nor a living organism. He states, “It is hardly conceivable that the active fraction which I have thus succeeded in obtaining, a substance purified by repeated precipitations, could carry with it through all these manipulations any living organism or virus. To me the enzyme-like nature of the principle seems to have been conclusively established. . . . .” However, most workers do not believe that Murphy is justified in concluding from the results of such experiments that the Rous agent is not a virus, because at least eight other viruses, e.g., the incitants of infectious myxomatosis of rabbits (58), foot-and-mouth disease (64)) bacteriophagy (50, 56, 57), fowl-pox (56), vaccinia (66, 68)) rabies (66), poliomyelitis (65), and mosaic disease (67) have been subjected to manipulations similar to those used by Murphy and have been obtained, still active, in various states of purity.
Most methods of purification of viruses are based on the principles of precipitation by a variety of chemicals and selective adsorption and elution as used extensively in enzyme work. As yet, it is unlikely that a virus has been obtained in a state of absolute purity. Nevertheless, the results already secured are encouraging and should excite further investigations. It may be possible in this way to attain eventually a more accurate concept of the nature of some viruses. For instance, it may be shown that in certain purified virus preparations the number of nitrogen atoms for each infectious unit or particle is insufficient to warrant the supposition that the agents are living, organized structures. Krueger and Tamada (57) have already suggested this viewpoint.
While it is now stated that “viruses” require a host cell and must be cultured in order to be observed and studied, in the past, claims were made that “viruses” could be grown without cells. Rivers stated that these claims of successful cultivation on lifeless media were not uncommon, and he noted a few cases:
Frosch and Dahmen stated that they were able to cultivate the “virus” of foot-and-mouth disease on ordinary media.
Olitsky reported the cultivation of mosaic “virus” in a cell-free medium.
Eagles and McClean reported that vaccine “virus” is capable of regeneration in a cell-free medium.
Rivers ultimately decided that none of these were true examples of “viruses” being grown in cell-free media, and thus, it was chalked up to contradictory evidence that was brushed aside in favor of the prevailing belief that “viruses” are invisible and incapable of regeneration in the absence of living susceptible host cells. Rivers did note that such a state of affairs would prevent a complete definition of the nature of “viruses.” However, he believed that it was not absolutely essential to see and to cultivate the “viruses” on simple media.
CULTIVATING. In the literature of twenty years ago it is not uncommon to encounter reports in which it was claimed that viruses had been successfully cultivated on lifeless media. These reports have not been confirmed and at present such claims are rarely made. A few, however, have been made in recent years. Frosch and Dahmen (78) stated that they were able to cultivate the virus of foot-and-mouth disease on ordinary media. But the German, English, and American Foot-and-Mouth Disease Commissions were unable to confirm their work. Olitsky (91) reported the cultivation of mosaic virus in a cell-free medium. Nevertheless, upon repeating his work he (92) has been forced to conclude that true multiplication of the virus was not obtained. Recently, Eagles and McClean (75, 76) reported that vaccine virus is capable of regeneration in a cell-free medium. A careful examination of their papers, however, leaves one in doubt as to whether some of their media were cell-free, and as to whether multiplication of the virus occurred in the nutrient materials that undoubtedly contained no cells. In my laboratory (86, 90, 93) during the last four years, Haagen, Muckenfuss, Li, and I have made numerous attempts to cultivate vaccine virus in cell-free media, many of which were similar to if not identical with those employed by Eagles and McClean. None of our efforts was successful. On the other hand, the cultivation of vaccine virus in the presence of cells surviving in vitro has been more consistently successful in our hands and in Maitland’s (88) than it has been in Eagles and McClean’s.
Although the cultivation of viruses in lifeless media has not been accomplished, it is generally conceded that these agents are capable of pullulation in the presence of susceptible cells either surviving or growing in vitro. The viruses of Rous sarcoma (72), Virus III infection of rabbits (69), herpes febrilis (70), fowl-pox (77), vaccinia (79, 80, 86, 88)) rabies (94), foot-and-mouth disease (83,84,85? 89), vesicular stomatitis (73), infectious myxomatosis of rabbits (71, Sl), fowl plague (82), and probably the agents causing common colds (74) and poliomyelitis (87), have been cultivated in the presence of tissues surviving in vitro.
Moreover, the characteristic of species specificity possessed by many viruses is frequently reflected in their in vitro cultivation. For instance, fowl-pox virus (77), innocuous for mice and rats, does not regenerate in cultures of their tissues. Foot-and-mouth disease does not attack chickens and the virus (89) does not grow in cultures consisting of minced chick embryo and plasma. In addition to a species specificity, some viruses exhibit in cultivation experiments a predilection for certain kinds of cells. Fowl plague virus (82) multiplies in the presence of chick embryo skin and brain, but does not regenerate in pure cultures of fibroblasts. Foot-and-mouth disease virus (85) increases in amount when the culture medium contains minced guinea-pig embryo, but does not grow when fibroblasts or bits of heart muscle alone are present. Thus it appears that many viruses are capable of multiplication in tissue cultures and frequently retain under such conditions their species and cellular specificity. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to observe the results of further attempts to circumvent this species and cellular specificity of viruses by in vitro methods of cultivation.
A crucial experiment, if there be one, to decide the question of the autonomy of the viruses is their undisputed cultivation on lifeless media. It may be impossible, however, to accomplish such an experiment with all of the viruses, because some of them may be obligate parasites, as is the malarial organism. Thus in the quest for proof of the nature of viruses, we may find that many of them are invisible and incapable of regeneration in the absence of living susceptible host cells. Such a state of affairs will prevent, for a time at least, a complete definition of the nature of these peculiar incitants of disease. Nevertheless, we should obtain all the facts and make the most of them in the study of biological phenomena and in the better understanding and control of disease. For this purpose it is not absolutely essential to see and to cultivate the viruses on simple media any more than it is imperative to see and to know what electricity is in order to study the phenomena produced by it and to control its activity for our daily needs.
Regarding whether “viruses” are alive or not due to having their own metabolism, Rivers stated that the evidence was that they did not have any such metabolic capabilities. However, he felt that conclusions could not be drawn that “viruses” do not have a metabolism and that they are inanimate because the methods used may not have been adequate.
Adaptation of the “virus” to different hosts was used by researchers in order to state whether or not “viruses” were alive. This essentially meant drawing conclusions from using different materials and different methods in different animals while generating different results. One set of researchers viewed the contradicting outcomes as the result of a “living virus” while another set of researchers saw it as a result of the hosts response. Neither seemed to recognize the fact that it was the different experimental procedures generating different responses and results rather than the act of any “virus” adapting.
METABOLISM. Much of the discussion conc.erning the nature of viruses has centered around the question as to whether they are animate or inanimate. In this relation, one would like to know what the evidence is regarding independent metabolic activities of these active agents. Technical difficulties have hindered this type of experimentation with viruses. Nevertheless, a few investigations (95-99) have been made, the result,s of which were negative. One must not conclude from such negative results, however, that viruses do not possess an independent metabolism and are, therefore, inanimate substances, because the methods used for the detection of the metabolic activities may not have been sufficiently delicate.
ADAPTATION. Certain viruses inoculated into new hosts apparently undergo changes in some of theircharacteristics. Smallpox virus (100, 101) passed through monkeys to rabbits and calves and then back to man is no longer smallpox virus but vaccine virus, a.nd the disease, vaccinia, caused by it is not contagious as is smallpox. The incitant of yellow fever (106, 107) passed through a large number of mice by means of intracerebral inoculations loses much of its pathogenicity for monkeys when inoculated intravenously or intraperitoneally, but gains the power of producing a transmissible encephalitis in monkeys receiving the inoculum in the brain. Such phenomena are spoken of as adaptations of viruses to new hosts, and, inasmuch as adaptation is considered a characteristic of living rather than lifeless material, they have been cited by some investigators (103) as proof of the animate nature of the viruses. On the other hand, workers, who believe that viruses are products of cellular perversion, state that the changes observed in the characteristics of the active agents when they are inoculated into alien hosts are to be expected, inasmuch as mouse, rabbit, monkey, and human cells, because of intrinsic differences, may not always manufacture identical substances as the result of similar stimuli. Therefore, they contend that the changes and adaptations are not accomplished by the agents themselves but by their hosts and, consequently, are not admissible as proof of the living nature of the viruses.
As ”viruses” were incapable of being observed and studied directly, various forms of indirect evidence were utilized in order to infer the presence of these entities. One of the earliest ways to do so was by claiming that a phenomenon known as inclusion bodies was a sign that a “virus” was present. These “bodies” are aggregates of proteins seen in various tissues under microscopy that were taken as an indicator by the researchers that they were dealing with a “virus.” However, it is well-known that inclusion bodies are not specific to “viral” cases and can be found in those without a “viral” disease. They are also not found in all cases of a particular disease, can be found in those without the disease, and are even found in uninoculated cell cultures, as seen with RSV. A 1941 paper by Alfred M. Lucas stated that the “existence of an object which appears to be an inclusion body is not proof of the presence of a virus but merely an indication that a virus should be considered if no bacterial agent can be found.” What this means is that inclusion bodies are nothing more than non-specific indirect evidence used to infer an assumed “virus” if other “causes” are ruled out. This means that finding inclusion bodies is essentially meaningless as a specific sign for the presence of any “virus.” Rivers appeared to understand this as well. After presenting various contradictory interpretations and presentations of inclusion bodies by different researchers, he noted that “inclusions may arise in a number of ways and that they may or may not contain virus.” He felt that making conclusions about what these “peculiar structures” represented was “hazardous at present.”
INCLUSIONS. Within the nucleus and cytoplasm of cells injured by viruses, certain peculiar structures, inclusion bodies, are frequently observed. Although many of these bodies are of importance in diagnostic and experimental work, numerous opinions exist concerning their nature. Lipschtitz believes that the inclusions in many diseases (119) consist of compact masses of virus particles, yet he is of the opinion that such structures in measles (120) are nothing more than altered central bodies. Goodpasture (113) thinks that Negri bodies in rabies are composed of degenerated mitochondria and neurofibrils, while Levaditi (118) and Manouelian (121) consider them protozoa and designate them, respectively, Glugea lyssae and Encephalitoxoon rabiei. Goodpasture and his associates (124, 125) have demonstrated that the incitant of fowl-pox is intimately associated with the Bollinger bodies which are made up of a lipoid capsule within which numerous small coccoid bodies are embedded in a protein matrix. On the other hand, Glaser (112) has presented evidence that the polyhedral bodies, the characteristic inclusions in wilt diseases of caterpillars, consist of non-infectious crystalline protein. Thus, it appears that inclusions may arise in a number of ways and that they may or may not contain virus. Consequently, generalizations regarding these peculiar structures are hazardous at present.
The small coccoid bodies found in fowl-pox by Borrel (109) and in vaccinia by Paschen (122,123) appear to be extremely minute organisms. In fact, one is justified in asking why these bodies are not convincing evidence of the organismal nature of certain viruses. The first reason is that one cannot by morphological and tinctorial data alone determine whether autonomous life exists in such small objects. Another reason is the fact that Goodpasture, while holding the belief that the small coccoid bodies in fowl-pox (124, 125) represent the virus, stated that similar structures, seen in rabic brains (113) and considered of etiological importance by Babes (108) and Koch (114-116), are probably degenerated mitochondria. Moreover, Borrel (110) has described similar bodies in other virus diseases the etiological agents of which have been shown by ultrafiltration to be incapable of resolution by microscopic methods. Furthermore, Craciun and Oppenheimer (111)) who cultivated the small bodies of vaccinia and showed that they are closely associated with the virus, made the following statement, “We have from these studies no morphological proof of an increase in the number of granules, since they cannot readily be distinguished from other granules normally seen in tissue cultures.” Finally, mitochondria in some respects resemble bacteria. They may decrease or increase numerically within cells, and their size and shape may be altered by appropriate stimuli. At times, they actually divide. Nevertheless, mitochondria are not considered autonomous living agents. Consequently, so far as I am aware, there is no convincing evidence-the specific agglutination of virus elementary bodies (184) by antiviral sera will be discussed later-to invalidate the conception that cells under the stimulus of viruses may react by the formation of numerous small coccoid bodies uniform in size and intimately associated with the stimulating agents. One would not consider such bodies microorganisms or hold that they consist of virus alone. Therefore, in spite of definite proof that viruses are present in certain types of inclusions, doubt still exists regarding the organismal nature of the small coccoid bodies found within them.
Other features observed in pathological processes induced by viruses, e.g., hyperplasia and necrosis, are fully as important as are the inclusion bodies. The excessive stimulation of cells seen in some virus diseases, e.g., fowl-pox and warts, leads one by analogy to think of mdignant neoplasms. Undoubtedly a number of fowl tumors are caused by agents separable from cells, and, although there is no proof that mammalian tumors arise in this way, the possibility is worthy of consideration and offers an attractive field for work. The fact, however, that some tumors are produced by filterable agents is by no means conclusive evidence that all neoplasms (217) arise through the activity of such incitants.
In this next section, Rivers admitted that there was an increasing chorus of researchers who believed that “viruses” were nothing more than “merely filterable, invisible, and noncultivable elements of ordinary bacteria.” He presented many scenarios, such as:
The bacteriophage is a form in the life cycle of lysogenic bacteria.
The “viruses” of yellow fever and hog cholera are invisible forms of Leptospira icteroides and B. suipestifer respectively.
The etiological agent of scarlet fever is a filterable form of hemolytic streptococci.
The incitants of poliomyelitis, epidemic encephalitis, fox encephalitis, common colds, measles, and influenza represent certain stages in the life cycle of green streptococci.
Apparently, Rivers was unfamiliar with the fact that this bacterial life cycle process, known as pleomorphism, was observed by many researchers such as Antoine Bechamp, Günther Enderlein, Royal Raymond Rife, and later by many others with the use of dark field microscopy. That bacteria are pleomorphic entities, i.e. having the ability to assume different forms, is an established fact.
VIRUSES AS FILTERABLE FORMS OF BACTERIA. For a long time a few investigators have held that certain virus diseases are induced by ordinary bacteria. Now that attention is being focused on filterable forms of bacteria, workers in increasing numbers (128, 131, 132, 134, 135) are adopting the belief that viruses are merely filterable, invisible, and noncultivable elements of ordinary bacteria. It has been claimed, and evidence of a kind has been offered to substantiate the assertions, that the bacteriophage (165, 166) is a form in the life cycle of lysogenic bacteria, that the viruses of yellow fever (131, 134, 135) and hog cholera (134, 135) are invisible forms of Leptospira icteroides and B. suipestifer respectively, that the etiological agent of scarlet fever (134, 135) is a filterable form of hemolytic streptococci, and that the incitants of poliomyelitis, epidemic encephalitis, fox encephalitis, common colds, measles, and influenza represent certain stages in the life cycle of green streptococci (131). Without going into details of the available knowledge of bacterial life cycles and their invisible and noncultivable forms, one can say that proof of many of the claims regarding them is lacking. In fact, if certain reports are correct, some of the filterable forms of bacteria are much smaller than are many of the viruses. Kendall (131) recently stated that “egg white, filtered through Berkefeld W filters (after dilution with sterile physiological saline solution) is rarely sterile.” Such a statement raises embarrassing questions for workers in the virus field because many viruses will not pass through W filters. Since the existence of bacterial life cycles is doubtful, it seems unwarrantable to offer the presumptive filterable forms of them as evidence upon another unsolved problem, the nature of the viruses.
The thing to notice in this next section on physical and chemical agents is, once again, the often contradictory nature of the evidence presented by different researchers. One researcher would find a certain chemical that had an effect on the “virus,” while another researcher would state otherwise. Some viewed that chemical tests proved “viruses” were protozoa. Others felt that their tests proved the “virus” was an enzyme. Sanderson showed that bacteriophages were not killed by successive freezing and thawings and believed that they were unliving. However, Rivers showed that bacteriophages can be killed by repeated freezing and thawing, thus contradicting Sanderson’s interpretation. Ultimately, Rivers concluded that, regardless of the number of tests with chemical and physical agents that had been devised as criteria for the presence of life or to define the nature of “viruses,” not a single one of them was found to be satisfactory.
EFFECT OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL AGENTS ON VIRUSES. Many years ago it was discovered that bile and saponin are injurious to protozoa but with a few exceptions are innocuous for bacteria. Consequently, when the question of the nature of viruses began to attract attention, tests were made to determine what effect bile and saponin have on these incitants of disease. Many viruses, e.g., rabic virus (141, 144), were found to be inactivated and because of this fact certain workers concluded that they are protozoa. Sufficient exceptions, however, have been encountered to invalidate the test as a means either of separating bacteria from protozoa or of defining the nature of viruses. The agent causing Rous’ sarcoma (140) is more resistant to ultraviolet light than are bacteria, and Murphy (220) considers this fact as evidence in favor of his hypothesis of the enzyme-like nature of the virus. On the other hand, bacteriophage (139), the living nature of which many doubt, is just as sensitive to ultraviolet light as are bacteria. Sanderson (153), using a temperature of -78°C., found no diminution in the titer of two strains of bacteriophage subjected to 20 successive freezings and thawings. Since bacteria and cells are killed by repeated freezing and thawing, he concluded that bacteriophage must be something other than a living organism. Rivers (151) showed, however, that colon bacilli, Virus III, vaccine virus, herpetic virus, bacteriophage, complement, and trypsin are all either killed or inactivated by repeated freezing (-185°C.) and thawing and that, as might be expected, some of the agents are more resistant than are others. Hence it is obvious that destruction or inactivation of an active agent by repeated freezing and thawing is not evidence that it possesses life. The observations on heat, desiccation, oxidation, and the effect of dyes have likewise yielded no convincing evidence concerning the nature of viruses. Thus it appears that a number of tests with chemical and physical agents have been devised as criteria for the presence of life or to define the nature of viruses, but no one of them has been found satisfactory.
The spontaneous generation of “viruses” by the host is a concept that defeats the idea that these entities are exogenous outside invaders. If something like a bacteriophage can be produced by a normal bacterium without any external phage present, it shows that these entities arise from a process initiated from within the organism. Rivers noted that Hadley and his co-workers stated that it was possible to obtain bacteriophage from normal bacterial cultures by means of enforced dissociation. Thus, no external source of phage was necessary. Nobel Prize-winning immunologist Jules Bordet was able to do the same, as did other researchers. Rivers presented a few scenarios where “viral” diseases could be induced by injecting toxic substances such as tar and arsenic into chickens, as well as an instance where a tumor-producing extract could be obtained from healthy chickens. While Rivers thought that the interpretation of the evidence was potentially fundamental to biology, he excused it as being due to contamination by the researchers working in labs with similar materials as well as the possibility that “latent viruses” were hiding within the healthy hosts.
SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF VIRUSES. The origin as well as the nature of viruses constitutes a question of interest. The intimate relation between these active agents and their host cells has induced more than one investigator to view the host cell as the source or origin of viruses. Indeed, reports of experimental work have appeared leading to claims that normal cells have been induced to manufacture certain viruses. According to Carrel (156, 157), minced chick embryo mixed with tar, indol, or arsenic and injected into normal chickens in a small percentage of instances gives rise to tumors resembling Rous’ sarcoma no. 1 and transmissible by cell-free filtrates. Fischer (163) by treating cultures of normal cells with arsenic obtained on one occasion a filterable agent capable of causing tumors. Carrel was unable to confirm Fischer’s work. Murphy (52, 167), by means of a method the details of which have not been described, reported that he was able to extract a filterable tumor-producing agent from the gonads of normal-appearing Plymouth Rock roosters.Recently, Hadley and his co-workers (166) stated that it is possible to obtain bacteriophage from normal bacterial cultures by means of enforced dissociation. Although no worker in this field has claimed to have generated living organisms from inanimate matter, it appears that a few believe that they have by certain manipulations induced cells to yield substances which possess some of the attributes of life, notably that of increasing without limit.
The observations described above are suggestive, and, if confirmed and found to warrant the interpretation given them by Carrel, Murphy, Fischer, and Hadley, will prove to be of fundamental biological importance. Unfortunately, however, all of the experiments yielding the observations were actively referred to were conducted in laboratories where workers engaged in the study of agents similar to those supposedly brought into existence. In such laboratories and with such materials it is always difficult for one to rule out the possibility of contaminating normal animals, tissues, bacteria, emulsions, and filtrates. This fact has long been appreciated by workers in vaccine virus laboratories and it delayed the acceptance of the experimental transformation of smallpox virus into vaccine virus. Therefore, experiments of the nature described should never be conducted in rooms used for the study of agents similar to those for which a search is being made. The workers who believe that they have induced viruses to come into existence have not excluded the possibility of the preexistence of latent viruses or of small amounts of virus in the supposedly normal embryos, gonads, chickens, and bacterial cultures utilized in the experiments. This possibility is emphasized by Flexner’s (164) work on poliomyelitis, for he was able to demonstrate the presence of virus in the nasal washings from normal contacts. The possibility outlined is further emphasized by Andrewes and Miller’s (155) experience with Virus III in rabbits, by Cole and Kuttner’s (158) work with the salivary-gland virus in guinea pigs, and by the work upon virus carriers in general among animals, plants (168) and bacteria.
CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery): The only way you will ever see “antibodies” attacking “viruses.”
Rivers next discussed “immunity” in relation to establishing the nature of “viruses.” It is important to note that, regarding antibodies and “immunity,” researchers are utilizing one hypothetical entity in order to define another. While Rivers spoke as if the antibody and antigen concepts are established facts, he remarked that if the concept of the nature of antigens is correct, “viruses” are proteins or are closely linked to proteins. Thus, the interpretation of the nature of the “virus” rests upon the correctness of the nature of the antigen concept. He felt that the rise of these (hypothetical) antibodies that differed between host cell and antigen adduced (led one to believe) the exogenous rather than the endogenous origin of the “viruses.” Regardless, Rivers admitted that the mode of action of neutralizing antibodies was not clearly understood, and when speaking of antibodies causing flocculation (clumping together), he shared that various researchers noted the “immunological” phenomena in “virus” maladies are comparable to those induced by toxins. While Rivers felt that “immunological” observations were important, he admitted that this method of approach had not brought about a definite solution to the problem of the nature of “viruses.”
IMMUNITY. Most virus diseases lead to a marked and lasting immunity in recovered hosts. Not only are the but in their sera antibodies capable of hosts refractory to reinfection neutralizing the viruses are demonstrable. What bearing have these facts upon the nature of viruses? In the first place, it is certain that viruses are highly antigenic. Furthermore, if our concept of the nature of antigens is correct, the viruses are proteins or are closely linked to proteins. Moreover, the agents are not only antigenic, but they give rise to antibodies different from those excited by proteins of the host cells. This is true even of the bacteriophage (188). These facts have been adduced as evidence of the exogenous rather than the endogenous origin of the viruses. Thus, the antigenic nature of viruses appears to be prejudicial to the idea that they are products of cellular activity. The notion, however, that a lifeless agent may be injurious to the cell creating it and that it may induce immunological responses independent of those excited by the cell, loses some of its fantastic qualities when one considers the well-known facts that lens protein is not species specific but organ specific and that sympathetic uveitis in the uninjured eye is caused not by microorganisms but by the reaction of the body to substances derived from injured cells of the other uveal tract.
In addition to the neutralizing antibodies, whose mode of action is not clearly understood, complement-fixing antibodies and antibodies causing flocculation in virus emulsions have been described. Schultz and his associates (191-195) contend that the latter types of antibodies are not excited by viruses and that the immunological phenomena in virus maladies are comparable to those induced by toxins. In spite of their contentions, sufficient evidence has been adduced by different workers to make it more than likely that certain virus diseases lead to the production (176, 177, 180, 199) of the antibodies mentioned. Furthermore, Ledingham (184) has recently demonstrated that Borrel bodies in fowl-pox and Paschen bodies in vaccinia are specifically agglutinated by antifowl-pox and antivaccinal sera respectively. The results of these experiments indicate to Ledingham that the elementary bodies are living organisms and represent the virus. There is no reason to doubt that specific agglutinations of the bodies occurred in the manner described by Ledingham, and one cannot deny that such a phenomenon is presumptive evidence of the organismal nature of the bodies. Yet one dare not say categorically that his experiments are unequivocal evidence that the elementary bodies represent virus alone, because it has been shown by Jones (182, 183) that collodion particles treated with a variety of proteins and then thoroughly washed are specifically agglutinated by the proper antisera. Thus, the Borrel and Paschen bodies without being organisms yet having virus adsorbed on them might nevertheless be specifically agglutinated by appropriate antiviral sera.
Gye (181) states that Rous virus repeatedly injected into alien hosts excites two groups of antibodies, one of which acts on the virus itself, while the other operates on the “specific factor” derived from the host cell. According to him, either set of antibodies inactivates the virus. This fact is offered by him as further evidence of the dual nature of the causative agent of fowl tumors. Murphy (189) and Sittenfield (196-198) have reported the presence in Rous sarcoma of a substance that inhibits the action of the etiological agent, and the first mentioned worker is of the opinion that the “inhibitor” differs from ordinary virus antibodies. The presence of this “inhibitor” together with other phenomena has induced Murphy (220) to believe that immunity to the Rous agent is unlike that observed in virus maladies and lends evidence to his view that the Rous agent is not a virus. Inhibiting substances, however, have been obtained from tissues infected with viruses, for example, a substance restraining the action of rabic virus has been demonstrated by Marie (186) in the brains of rabid animals. Furthermore, Andrewes’ (172, 173) work appears to indicate that the immune responses excited by the filterable agents of fowl tumors may not be unique and may possess much in common with those encountered in other virus diseases.
From what has been said, it is obvious that immunological phenomena are playing an important role in discussions concerning the nature of viruses. As yet this method of approach has not brought us to a definite solution of the problem.
Rivers finished up his review on the nature of “viruses” by presenting the various differing interpretations on the concept of the “virus.” These invisible entities were regarded as either:
Living contagious fluids
Oxidizing enzymes
Protozoan parasites
Inanimate chemical substances
Minute living organisms (related to bacteria)
Rivers noted that depending on the researchers, the rabies “virus” was either an enzyme, a parasite, a protozoon, or an unknown living organism. He stated that researchers were divided over whether bacteriophages were an inanimate agent or a living organism. The fowl-pox “virus” was thought of as either a protozoan parasite, a nucleoprotein poison manufactured by “infected” cells, or a minute coccoid organism capable of regeneration in parasitized cells. The agent associated with Rous sarcoma was either animate, a living organism mixed with an inanimate substance, an enzyme-like substance, or a transmissible mutagen.
Rivers highlighted these numerous competing concepts in order to show how radically different the ideas concerning the nature of “viruses” are from one another. He then proceeded to explain the main conceptions of “viruses,” with the first two scenarios explaining how a stimulus induces a normal cell to create a substance X, which may either remain free or become closely bound to a part of the cell. In Rivers’ third example, which he considered the most popular, X is a minute living organism that enters cells, multiplies, and produces disease. Thus, there is a distinct difference where X is considered an inanimate substance that results from cellular perversion in the first two scenarios, while X is viewed as an autonomous organism in the last scenario. Regardless of the scenarios that Rivers provided attempting to explain “viral” formation, he admitted that there was no unequivocal evidence of the validity of any of these concepts.
CONCEPTS OF THE NATURE OF VIRUSES. A review of the data by means of which one arrives at a concept of the nature of viruses has been presented. Now it will be interesting to see what notions certain workers have concerning some of them.
Beijerinck (202) considers the virus of mosaic disease to be a living contagious fluid; Woods (228), an oxidizing enzyme; Goldstein (212), a protozoan parasite; Vinson (67), an inanimate chemical substance. Most workers, however, believe that it is a minute living organism.
Hijgyes (216) is of the opinion that the incitant of rabies is an enzyme or “alternatively, that the tissues themselves might spontaneously become virulent as the result of changes in their chemical composition.” At one time Remlinger said, “The rabies virus, which is at once filterable, diffusible and capable of reproducing the disease from case to case, appears to occupy a place midway between the microbes and the diastases.” Recently, however, he (221) has published an article on the evolution of the parasite of rabies. Levaditi (118) and others (121, 225) have presented evidence in favor of the idea that the causal agent is a protozoon. The majority of investigators hold the concept that the incitant is a living organism whose nature is not definitely known.
Numerous workers believe that the bacteriophage is an inanimate agent, while others are convinced that it is a living organism. Ideas, however, concerning the nature of the inanimate transmissible substance or the animate organism vary. For details of the different concepts one is referred to papers by Twort (226, 227), d’Herelle (103), Bordet (203), Bronfenbrenner (95), Burnet (206), and Hadley (165, 166).
The incitant of fowl-pox has been described by certain investigators as a protozoan parasite. Sanfelice (222, 223) suggested that it is a nucleoproteid poison manufactured by infected cells. Borrel (log), Goodpasture (124, 125), and Ledingham (184) hold that it is a minute coccoid organism capable of regeneration in parasitized cells.
Rous and others are prepared to entertain the idea that the causal agent of Chicken Tumor No. I is animate. Gye (215) believes that it consists of two factors, one of which is a living exogenous organism, the other an inanimate specific factor derived from infected cells. Murphy (52, 55), at one time, spoke of the Rous agent as an enzyme-like substance. Recently, however, he (220) has compared it to filterable substances capable of transforming melitensis (204,205) into paramelitensis organisms and of converting one type specific pneumococcus (201) into another type specific form. In regard to the matter he says (22O), “Thus we have a group of agents, products of specialized cells capable of conferring the peculiar type quality to undifferentiated cells of the same species which, in turn, may produce the active factor and transmit this to their descendants.” For this type of agent he proposes the name transmissible mutagens.
Sufficient ideas concerning the nature of viruses have been cited to illustrate how radically some differ from others. Many of them, particularly the ones dealing with the origin and reproduction of inanimate substances that behave in a manner similar to that of living organisms, lack precision. In a general way, however, the different concepts can be arranged in groups and it seems advisable to state and to portray diagrammatically several of the popular ones.
According to one conception, certain stimuli produce changes within cells that are inherited by daughter cells. Once the mutations occur, cells of the new type continue to be formed though the stimuli disappear. No agents separable from the cells are demonstrable, and immunological phenomena in this type of disease differ from those observed in virus maladies. Ordinarily this idea of the causation of disease and the concepts concerning the nature of filterable viruses are not grouped together. Yet in some respects they are not dissimilar and many hold the view that malignant neoplasms arise in some such way. See figure 1.
Another notion is that appropriate stimuli induce normal cells to make a substance x which is closely bound to parts y of the cells. Thus an xy complex is formed. This complex, separable from the cells, yet capable of inciting its own production by them, either passes directly into daughter cells, or, having become extracellular, enters another set of normal cells. The xy complex is antigenic, and cells freed from it presumably become normal again. See figure 2.
Still another idea is that certain stimuli incite normal cells to produce a substance x which is not closely bound to parts of the cells, X, separable from cells, yet capable of impelling its formation by them, either passes directly into daughter cells, or, having become extracellular, enters a new group of normal cells. X is antigenic and cells freed from it presumably become normal again. See figure 3.
Finally there is the concept most generally held that x is not a product of the perverted activity of cells but is a minute living organism. X enters cells, multiplies, produces disease, is separable from cells: and is antigenic. Cells freed from it presumably become normal again. At times, x is absorbed by particles y of host cells and evidences of an xy complex are obtained. See figure 4.
For practical purposes it makes little difference which one of the last three concepts is accepted. Theoretically, however, x of the second and third conceptions is quite different from x of the fourth. In the second and third, x, a product of cellular perversion, is an inanimate agent, while in the fourth it is an autonomous organism. No unequivocal evidence of the validity of any of the concepts has been adduced.
Rivers concluded by acknowledging the confused state of the evidence concerning “viruses,” noting that this confusion had made it exceedingly difficult to define their nature. He felt that the easiest way out of their dilemma would be to accept “viruses” as minute organisms. However, Rivers warned of quickly accepting presumptive evidence as “viruses” may be either minute organisms, forms of life unfamiliar to us, inanimate transmissible incitants of disease, or all of the above.
Conclusion
The confused state of our knowledge of the viruses at the present time makes it exceedingly difficult to define the nature of these active agents. The easiest way out of the dilemma, however, would be the acceptance of the presumptive evidence that viruses are minute organisms. Yet the easiest way and the one that best fits the experiences of the day may not be the right one. Furthermore, excessive skepticism and the habit of too readily accepting presumptive evidence are equally productive of sterility. Unless viruses represent a form of life unknown to us, proof of their living nature would not be a striking discovery. If, however, some of them are not animate, absolute proof of such a fact would be of fundamental biological importance. Therefore, care should be exercised that immoderate skepticism on the one hand, and the mental satisfaction secured by accepting presumptive evidence on the other, do not dull our efforts to obtain a better understanding of the viruses, some of which may be minute organisms, while others may represent forms of life unfamiliar to us, while still others may be inanimate transmissible incitants of disease. In any event, we are face to face with the “infinitely small in biology,” and, if there be a sharp demarcation between life and death, then scientists, investigating the nature of viruses, are working near the line that separates infinitely small living organisms from inanimate active agents.
From these two presented articles from two different points in time in the history of virology (Rivers in 1932 and Summers in 2014), it should be clear why it is difficult for virologists to define the nature of the “virus.” Researchers needed to invent, and then continually reinvent, the nature of the “virus” as the foundation that virology is built upon is conceptually weak. It is full of contradictions that have cracked the very infrastructure that was put in place. There were never any submicroscopic entities that were being studied by the various researchers over the last century. As there were no “viruses” to study and characterize, there was no agreement at all amongst the various researchers as to the nature of the invisible concept crafted inside of their minds. They had tricked themselves, through shoddy indirect pseudoscientific evidence, into believing that they were studying something real based upon lab-created effects without an identifiable cause. This is why the “virus” has been continually defined for what it isn’t, rather than for what it supposedly is. The magical “virus” skirts the line between life and death, microbe and molecule, enzyme and ferment. It is unlike anything else seen in nature, and for this very reason, its nature remains mysterious and incomplete. This should be the very first clue that there is nothing scientific about the “virus,” as science only deals with the natural world and its phenomena, not the supernatural. However, within the supernatural realm is where the “virus” concept will remain, ready and waiting to be reinvented upon the arrival of the latest technology for the next best indirect measurement. This will be utilized to continue fooling the researchers, as well as the public that blindly trusts in them to know better, that these fictional entities exist in nature, when, as Thomas Rivers kindly pointed out, “viruses” have never once been observed there. Thus, the nature of the “virus” will continue to remain merely an invention of the imagination of the most ardent admirers of these invisible boogeymen—the virologists.
It is time to revisit the England-wide NHS prescription data regarding one particular category of psychiatric drug prescribing. In a previous post specifically on ADHD drugs, a shocking 15% year-on-year rise in ADHD drug prescriptions for 2022 was noted. Within the first two quarters of 2023, the previous increase has already been exceeded by over 2.5%. It now stands at an almost 18% increase for the same period, compared to 2022.
And this is the year-on-year increase. Looking at current levels compared to a long-term trend, it is even more staggering. For almost 9 years, since 2012, prescriptions of drugs used for ADHD remained fairly close to the long-term trend (within a 5% window). In 2022, that trend was broken with a 10% divergence, but in 2023 it disconnects from it completely. A 25% divergence from a steady long-term trend must signal a radical change in the userbase. What is happening?
In economics, there is the law of supply and demand. As the price increases, supply rises while demand declines. Conversely, as the price drops, supply constricts while demand grows. CCHR UK has been scrutinising the demand side of the equation, while the media has been keen to underline the supply side. Journalists tend to write about drug supply shortages as if they are occurring within a status quo of demand. An 18% year-on-year increase, and a 25% divergence from a long-term trend, is anything but a status quo.
In recent media articles, there was an obvious omission. The media failed to mention that demand has – somehow and without too much explanation – exploded. What brought about such a demand?
It should be recognised there are no physical or biological tests that can be carried out to support the existence of ADHD. None. There are no tests. Pontificating psychiatric authors have however taken regular human behaviour and redefined it as a so-called mental ‘disorder’ which has been accepted without inspection.
This isn’t a new concept. Sets of emotional and behavioural characteristics were redefined as far back as 1987 when ADHD was literally voted into existence. This however is not science. It’s consensus. It’s psychobabble. Considering the law of supply and demand, there has been a tremendous increase in the supply of psychiatric rhetoric, opinions and assumptions that have brought about a greatly-increased demand for ADHD drugs.
Furthermore, the prescribed drugs can have serious consequences, that include some of the following side-effects:
abdominal pain
aggression
depression
dizziness
drowsiness
hallucinations
headaches
insomnia
loss of appetite
moodiness
nervousness
psychosis
restlessness
seizures
stunted growth
suicidal thoughts
violent behaviour
weight loss and ‘zombie’ appearance
While there are many discerning people who question the unscientific psychiatric modus operandi, there are many who accept psychiatric labels like ADHD without inspection. Not so long ago, psychiatrists brazenly used the ‘chemical imbalance’ theory to push ADHD. That theory has been debunked but the statistics represent that more people must be accepting the label for the prescribing rates to continue to rise.
At the end of the day, being fully informed is the key policy. If people reply on the psychiatric narrative, they won’t be fully informed. Don’t be fooled by psychiatric rhetoric.
As soon as I began writing about COVID in the spring of 2020, I made the case that SARS-CoV-2 hadn’t been proved to exist.
I then met Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey. I became aware of the work of Stefan Lanka. They were making a wide challenge about viruses in general:
No actual isolation; no proof of existence; instead, a parade of false claims and obfuscations from official sources.
A few years later…and the number of serious researchers who are coming to the same conclusion has expanded significantly. (You can find links to some of these researchers at Christine Massey’s Substack page )
The new work isn’t just a repetition of the original challenge to official authority. It attacks fake viruses from a number of angles. The shocks keep coming.
This story isn’t going away. It’s building.
It reminds me of the vaccine story. When I first started writing about dangerous and ineffective vaccines, in 1987, there were dozens of writers, present and past, who had covered similar ground—going back many decades. But that was nothing compared with…
The strength of that story now, in 2023, after the catastrophe of the COVID vaccines.
This is what I believe is going to happen to the fake virus story—against even longer odds. I say “longer,” because the proofs that viruses aren’t real by any scientific standard will undermine and detonate the very center of the medical cartel, which is all about germ theory.
Germ theory is marketing. The marketing of (toxic) drugs and vaccines for thousands of so-called distinct diseases, each supposedly caused by a unique germ.
When that fiction falls, the whole house collapses.
Going back as far as the beginning of the 20th century (and farther), another paradigm about disease emerged. It came to be called “holistic.” Probably not the best label. But the idea was: look at the whole body, the whole person. Look at body processes as connected and inter-related. Understand disease and health in those larger terms. Include environmental effects—basic sanitation, pollution, toxic chemicals, nutrition, the rise of the middle class out of poverty.
Something needs to be pointed out here. The holistic paradigm is a very difficult approach, in terms of making it pay off in real cures. It always has been difficult. Thousands of methods have been suggested. Many of these tend to mirror the medical strategy: find magic bullet solutions, take short cuts. Market them. Claim temporary fixes are permanent.
Treating the body and the person as a whole, taking in the mind-body connection—this is by no means a walk in the park.
Therefore, sooner or later, many people, discouraged, fall back on medical answers and germ theory.
The work of the no-virus pioneers provides an absolutely essential antidote to that surrender.
Because what are people surrendering to? The convenient fiction that viruses are everywhere, causing separate diseases. Convenient fiction was how viruses were willed into existence in the first place:
Doctors couldn’t cure their patients. So they looked for “something that was missing.” A hole in their hypotheses. And they claimed they found it.
Tiny particles no one had ever seen. No one had ever isolated. “This is the key. This is the great discovery.” It was a self-serving fairy tale. An excuse for treatment failure.
It kicked off millions of efforts to assure one and all that viruses were real. Marketing, parading as science.
Where were these viruses being discovered? In proprietary labs. No civilians permitted. Doors locked. Only the experts could understand the details of their own isolation of the tiny particles.
The particles which had been fantasized into existence.
We’re actually looking at a magic-myth story. Explorer-knights (doctors, researchers) are searching for an invisible dragon object which is crippling the population. These heroes finally corner it and isolate it and go to work decimating it and all its variants.
But the real ending to that story is now being provided by the multiplying number of independent researchers, who are proving the invisible dragon object was never cornered or identified or isolated.
Instead, the so-called explorer-knights made up, invented, fabricated the idea of the object to begin with.
That’s the magic. Sleight of hand. That’s the myth. Secret lab procedures that, when exposed, turn out to assume what they’re trying to prove. Also known as circular reasoning.
The whole story has come unglued.
For now, I’ll conclude with this analogy. A group of elite researchers claim that, 49 trillion light years from Earth, there is a flaming star the size of the Milky Way. At the center of that star, buried within a supernatural vault, there is a tiny, tiny purple man with green toes and orange hair who is causing all trouble and all destruction circulating throughout the universe. He’s there. He’s been “isolated.”
Given that incredible tale, would you expect, would you really expect there can be ANY sort of test which would prove the existence of that tiny man?
Could ANY test be produced that would be authentic?
So, in the case of the wild virus fairy tale, are we looking at proofs of existence and isolation that need to be improved, in order for us to accept them?
Or are we, instead, looking at the tiny purple man, about whose existence there are no possible proofs at all?
Because the story is so absurdly outrageous.
I’m thinking we’re dealing with the tiny purple man. And this may be the next chapter in the no-virus revelation:
The original concoction of viruses was so crazy, every so-called proof is going to be circular, mindless, and futile.
“You mentioned “DNA targeting.” yes, indeed, this is possible, but is it happening? I seriously doubt it. If medical/pharmaceutical experts cannot isolate a virus, RNA, or spike protein, they cannot (not capable) of working with DNA targeting, as assumed.”
Viruses/Virology: Promoting With Glorified And Catchy Language
About the view that vaccine(s) may include some type of DNA targeting, I responded as follows:
Being a chemist/scientist all my life, and mainly in the pharmaceutical area, when I read about pharmaceuticals, including viruses and vaccines, it is evident to me that medical experts clearly describe chemistry in a glorified and catchy language. However, most of their claims do not make sense and are often false and fraudulent.
You mentioned “DNA targeting.” yes, indeed, this is possible, but is it happening? I seriously doubt it. If medical/pharmaceutical experts cannot isolate a virus, RNA, or spike protein, they cannot (not capable) of working with DNA targeting, as assumed. So, it is fancy language to impress that something (high-level “science”) is happening.
On the other hand, as I described (here and here), it looks like they are injecting partial or unpurified cell culture (as a “vaccine”), assuming it is mRNA and is causing the problems (adverse effects), including deaths.
The only and easiest/quickest way to find out is to get an audit done by experts with experience in isolation/purification to establish if the mRNA/vaccine is pure as described or junk.
However, in the current (regulatory) system, an audit is done by experts who have no or limited experience in isolation and purification and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, so they will provide fancy stories and seek more funding for “research” to prepare for next “pandemic” and “vaccine.”
Further information on the topic may be found here: Helpful Notes, the Book, and Blog by the author (Dr. Qureshi), who worked at Health Canada as a Research Scientist and had 35+ years of bench science experience in substance isolation, characterization, and analytical testing among other specialties.
For many years doctors have received bonuses for adherence to the latest drug therapy protocol. Drugs that are known to be dangerous such as statins and anti-depressants. And now we know that insurance companies are paying doctors to fully vaccinate your children.
This incentive program for vaccinating babies can be found in the Blue Cross Blue Shield doctor incentives booklet. And specifies that every patient under the age of two that receives the currently prescribed twenty-four inoculations is worth a four-hundred dollar payout to that doctor.
For further motivation, they get paid by the hundred and they have to vaccinate a certain percentage of their total patients or they don’t get anything. Blue Cross Blue Shield rules say that a doctor needs to vaccinate sixty-three percent of their patients in order to qualify.
The average American pediatrician has about fifteen hundred patients and would have to have nine hundred and forty-five of them fully vaccinated in order to get paid. At forty-thousand for every hundred this works out to three-hundred and sixty thousand dollars.
This is why most pediatricians won’t provide care for families who don’t completely submit to the latest childhood vaccine schedule protocol. We are talking over a quarter million dollars which is more than the average pediatrician’s yearly salary.
Research shows that an unvaccinated child’s risk of death increases by over five thousand percent when they receive the current vaccine schedule.
And Doctors are now beginning to use virtual reality to help them administer these poisons to children who instinctively know better.
Drs. Tom Cowan and Mark Bailey challenge an article posted on October 4, 2023 by HART (a group of scientists in the UK) titled “Why HART uses the virus model — Arguments against ‘the virus doesn’t exist’ “.
Tom and Mark go over all key points made in the article.
It’s clear that the HART group has no idea what has been revealed in the research done by those who been exposing the false foundation of virology.
HART has somehow missed a foundational point of the “no virus” research — that no infectious “virus” has ever been isolated in the entire history of virology and that the “no virus” research shines a light on the fraud of all so-called infectious viruses.
Here is how HART group describes themselves at their website:
“HART is a group of highly qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts. We came together over shared concerns about policy and guidance recommendations relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
We continue to be concerned about the lack of open scientific debate in mainstream media and the worrying trend of censorship and harassment of those who question the narrative. Science without question is dogma.”
We are providing a transcript of one of Dr. Tom Cowan’s recent weekly webinars. His research (and that of many others) that shreds the heavy veil of lies about our human biology (and the biology of the animal world) is essential for us all to understand. The mind control involved in modern “medicine” is deeply entrenched.
Just as we as a species have been easy to control via politics, religions, and false narratives about our true nature and our history, “science” has been used in the same way. These deceptive narratives keep us trapped in a world of ever-spawning sub-narratives laced with fear. This latest whirlwind of information related to mRNA vaccines, spike protein, DNA contamination, shedding, etc. pushes us to get a better grip on what is really possible and ultimately what is true.
~ Kathleen
“You see, the tendency here, especially amongst the so-called freedom community, is they like to pick up on these studies to attempt to demonstrate or prove that these vaccines, so-called, are horrible, and they’re causing myocarditis, and they’re doing so through the mechanism of the creation of this so-called spike protein.
“I am not arguing against the fact that the injections are horrible, or that they give people myocarditis or otherwise heart problems. I’m talking about the mechanism. Because the mechanism is everything. It has to do with, eventually, how you think about this whole thing. What is actually happening. And even, eventually, how to treat it.
“Because I have no sympathy for the argument advanced by so many doctors. ‘Tom, what difference does it make whether there’s actually mRNA in the injections or whether there’s spike proteins or whether there’s a virus?’
“It makes all the difference in the world. Because if you can’t understand what’s happening or at least disprove that this particular thing is happening, you will will eventually be led astray.
“You will also eventually scare and frighten people more than you should. And there is no benefit from being ignorant about what happens and using anti-scientific thinking to make claims about what’s happening that are easily disproven.”
[…]
“So there is no such thing as a monoclonal or antibody specificity. So all these papers alleging that they found the spike protein, that the spike protein is a mechanism of damage, need to be tossed out as uncontrolled anti-scientific garbage.”
[…]
“So again, there is no actual clear scientific evidence that this process would result in pure mRNA of a specific type that could be put into these vials, that could produce a spike protein, and that could be the saving grace of the pharmaceutical industry with further mRNA vaccines.
“It’s simply the old culturing non-specific stuff that they’ve been doing all along with viruses and claiming they’re actually doing something a lot more sophisticated then they actually know how to do.”
So today I wanted to talk about the question again, which we’ve dealt with a little bit.
Is there spike proteins being made as a result of COVID shots?
But then taking it back even a step further. So this, we’re told, is a new mRNA technology that has been developed over many years. Robert Malone was one of the people who worked on the development of this technique, we’re told.
And I received an interesting series of short papers by a friend and colleague, Saeed Qureshi.
So many of you know him. I believe he’s a biochemist and works in pharmacy kind of things, who’s been very vocal about the non-existence of the virus, or at least the inability to prove that viruses actually exist.
And he sent me some papers where he goes through the argument of whether there is actually mRNA in the mRNA shots. Imagine that.
And I can imagine that most of you can imagine that because we’ve heard so many things that simply aren’t true.
When people say, ‘but there’s got to be something that is true’… And right now I’d be hard pressed to think of what in modern medicine and biology is, in fact, accurate. I’m sure there’s something. Like we have a head on top of our chest, sort of.
So we’re going to take a look at that. Before we look at that, we need some background, which is again, going over old hat.
Most of things, probably these days have a little bit of old hat in them. And that is, we have to really understand what this question of antibody specificity — and I’ll tell you a little more about what I mean by that.
But I also want to point out that probably the best paper that was written on this was written by our friend Mike Stone at Viroliegy called Antibody Specificity?
So if you’re really interested in this subject you should check out that paper on that website. So this is, again, me lifting things from other people. But as I always say, at least I acknowledge that.
So let’s get into the question first of antibody specificity. And before I do that, I have something I wanted to show you. So share the screen.
I don’t know this guy Daniel Dennett.
“There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion.”
So, I guess you can forget about worrying about that, because if there’s actually no way to do that and “be polite’ or maintain connection, then you don’t have to bother trying to think about what the best way would be, because there’s no way. So you might as well just say it the best way you know how.
So here’s some papers — some quotes from peer reviewed journals. The first three that I’ve probably shown before. (Can make this a little bigger.) This is about antibodies. Again, these were all lifted from peer reviewed journals.
[TCTL editor’s note: Here Tom Cowan shares some images of papers and reads from them.]
“The idea of poison and antidote led to the belief that the antidote would precisely combine with the poison and thus neutralize it. Even if death occurred when treated with the antidotes, which was often the case with mercury and arsenic, the justification was that it would prevent infecting others or that the person would have died more quickly without treatment.
“When Paul Ehrlich, who invented chemotherapy and the immune theory, slowly poisoned horses with toxic plant extracts so that they could survive otherwise lethal concentrations of the poison for a time, he found that there was an increase in protein in the blood. Since that time, these proteins have been referred to as an antidote and, in the modern version, as an anti-body.
“In reality, the body builds new vessels with these proteins, called globulins, seal all other cells and tissues with them, regulates blood clotting and thus wound healing. Paul Ehrlich’s misconception that these antidote proteins fit the toxins exactly like a key in a lock is the basis of all immune theories.”
So this paragraph essentially encapsulates the reason why I keep saying there’s no immune system.
This is the foundation of the immune theory — that we make proteins called antibodies, which are, in fact, globulins — which I would say are non-specific, unlike the specificity which is claimed. And I’ll get into more what I mean by that in a minute. So they’re not specific to anything in any virus or any protein.
They are non-specific proteins that regulate clotting and wound healing. So they cannot be used in any way to identify the protein. That’s what it means by specificity.
And since the time of Ehrlich, there have been probably thousands of papers going into the molecular details of how this specificity comes about. But the fact of the matter is, nobody has been able to prove specificity — meaning one antibody is specific, that binds and only binds to one specific antigen or protein or part of a protein or toxin. That’s what we mean by specific.
The antibody, if it was specific, could be used to identify the protein. If it’s not specific, it can’t be used to identify the protein. That should be obvious.
And so specific means it’s unique to that protein. Non-specific means it’s not unique to that protein.
If it’s specific, it can be used to identify the protein, since that’s the only possible thing it could be reacting to. If it’s non-specific, then it can’t possibly be used to identify the protein.
So next:
“In reality, these globulins, which are presented as antibodies and used in antibody tests, only come in a few size classes and different charge states. Only the size and the state of charge on the one hand and the composition of the liquids on the other hand in which the antibodies are supposed to react with the ‘bodies’ decide whether a reaction will occur or not. Even a slight change in fluid composition, temperature, or pH can cause antibodies to bind to all substances or none.”
And this is the case that the antibodies are not specific, and that they’re reacting to non-specific proteins. And the reaction is more based on the composition of the fluid, such as the temperature or the pH, or maybe the oxidation reduction potential, or maybe some other things, but they are not reacting to a specific antigen protein or toxin at all.
“This is the reason why all antibody tests, e.g. against pathogens, types of cancer etc. can be easily manipulated, are arbitrary and without any meaningfulness. Even the package inserts for these tests state that there is no (calibration) standard. Even if the disease-causing viruses existed, ‘antibody tests’ could not detect them.”
So, that is the basic argument that they’re manipulatable, they’re changed depending on the conditions of the fluid that they’re in.
They can’t possibly identify a protein or a virus or a toxin. They’re just, as they say, non-specific proteins that regulate blood clotting and wound healing. And so this is a very important fact as we go forward in this discussion.
Okay, next.
So I’m going to switch here to a slightly different.
Before I get into the spike protein and the mRNA —
This, unfortunately, title is called “Biden Quotes”. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen this. Apparently Biden said:
“I said I’d cure cancer. They looked at me like, ‘Why cancer’? Because no one thinks we can. That’s why. And we can. We ended cancer as we know it,” Biden said during a speech in the East Room of the White House.
Well, that’s good to know. So one less thing we all have to worry about, according to Joe Biden.
And then just highlight this and then I’m going to bring this up.
Okay. So this is a little bit of a switch of subjects. But I found this interesting and you’ll see how it relates to the topic. This was posted on something called US Mortality by someone who I don’t think I know. I may know them, named Ben. So I don’t really know who Ben is. I’ve seen some of his stuff just recently and it looks great. So I applaud Ben, whoever you are, you’re doing some great stuff. And, in particular, for thinking properly, because that’s what it all is based on.
So we all know that it certainly doesn’t reduce the death rate. That’s easy to show with just epidemiology. But here’s the question — because people, including myself before I really toned or honed my thinking process had questions about this. Because it seems like in previous times, 50-60 years ago, there was more of a disease called measles than there is now. And so, now that I know more about it, I know how difficult it is to make that diagnosis. And how difficult that kind of conclusion is to make on pure epidemiology or pure observation.
So it’s one of those things that — it seems like there’s less measles. But the question here is, has it been actually proven whether or not there’s more or less measles? That the MMR vaccine has been shown to reduce the number of measles cases?
So, again, the thinking process is: this is a claim. You don’t have to know anything else about the situation but the claim is the MMR vaccine has reduced the number of measles cases.
So that claim should be provable or disprovable by doing a proper study with a control — giving one group of people or children who haven’t had measles the MMR and another group of more or less identical children, not giving them the MMR, and then looking at the cases and seeing if you can detect a difference.
Anything else but that, any observation or any other epidemiological information can’t come up with that answer. This is the only way to do it. That should be obvious.
So we’re investigating the claim that the MMR vaccine reduced the cases of measles.
So here’s what the CDC says: that the MMR vaccine protects against measles, mumps and rubella. Two MMR vaccines are available — MMR II and PRIORIX, fully interchangeable. So you can use either one.
And then they go according to the Mayo Clinic — What is Measles? So they give you a bunch of of symptoms. And in particular I want to mention they tell you about Koplik’s spots, the white spots with the bluish white centers on a red background inside the lining of a cheek.
And as I said, this is the so-called pathonomonic feature of a case of measles, except 40% or so of children who are told they have measles don’t have Koplik’s spots. So that’s apparently non-Koplik’s spots measles, which is odd because that’s how you know it’s measles. So how can there be a non-Koplik’s spot measles? But anyways. So these are the symptoms of a child or a person with measles. Occurs in stages over two weeks.
So now that we know what measles looks like, let’s look at the package insert of the two products, he says.
So, these were the clinical trials that demonstrated that these vaccines reduce the case of measles. And as he points out this is the MMR II, quoting here they “demonstrate that the antibody response rates to measles, mumps, and rubella among children who received MMR II manufactured with rHA will be similar to the antibody response rates among children who receive MMR manufactured with” some other antigen and to demonstrate that MMR II will induce acceptable antibody response rates to measles, mumps, and rubella. And it’s well tolerated.
So in other words, the demonstration that the MMR II works to prevent cases of measles has no clinical indications as endpoints, no placebo was used. They only looked at antibodies under the claim that the antibodies tell you specifically that this child had or didn’t have measles. And as we now know that isn’t possible with an antibody test.
So this is an anti-scientific study, which can tell you nothing about whether the MMR II vaccine reduced the actual cases of clinical measles or not.
So let’s look at the other one, the PRIORIX. The second current vaccine was also compared to antibody responses, this time to the antibody responses of MMR II.
In other words, they inject a poison in you. They see that you have a non-specific repair mechanism activated by this injection of the poison. They claim that that means that you have an immunity against measles. And then the second vaccine, they compare it to the first one, which was fraudulently and anti-scientifically done. And then they compare the antibody response relative to MMR II, and they find that it’s basically similar. Therefore, they both protect you against measles.
When in reality that just means they both created approximately the same sort of tissue damage because they’re both poisons. And they, therefore, create the same amount of bodily response, non-specifically to heal the damage.
Now third one, MMR II (HSA), since 1978, they say that the efficacy of measles, mumps, rubella was established in a series of double-blind controlled trials, of which only these two references mentioned measles. So only this one study is — so that’s the only study that actually has anything to do with measles. And so here he has a link to the studies. And according to the study, the vaccines were compared for their clinical reaction and their antibody response.
He says he doesn’t have access to the full text, but according to the abstract the endpoints did not include the case rate of measles or deaths.
And here you can see the clinical reaction rate and antibody, were compared in children given three vaccines — so they’re compared these to the previous two. And they say they did it with the clinical reaction. So finally we get actually a trial that’s looking at whether the children got sick or not. But how did they do it?
So they did it with a clinical trial of 300 children that did not have measles. They split them into three groups. They use two measles vaccines and a placebo. And then they monitored them for three weeks.
So even though they did use a placebo, they gave them these two different measles vaccines. And then they monitor them for a total of three weeks to see whether that protected them against measles.
And what did they actually do? Did they actually look for all the clinical signs of measles? No, they simply did a rectal temperature every day, I guess, for those three weeks. And that was the only clinical sign that they measured. And if they had no more signs of a rectal increase in temperature that, apparently, meant they were protected for life against measles or three weeks.
So this is about as crazy as you can get. It goes back to an experiment in ’69 in Honduras where 300 children were monitored for three weeks. No efficacy for measles cases or deaths was established. All subsequent studies rely on this original study.
This is yet another example of these doctors thinking that somebody must have proved this. Somebody must have shown that the cases go down. When this is the only trial, apparently, that actually did anything clinical at all. And it was — all they did was measure the rectal temperature for three weeks, which has nothing to do with the alleged protection against measles or the reduction of cases or death or anything else that is claimed for this measles vaccine.
So you would have to say that there is no evidence that any MMR shot or any measles vaccine, reduced the cases of measles or the death rate for measles. Full stop.
And if you disagree with that, you’re going to have to send us a study that shows that that’s the case. And my guess is you will not be able to do that.
Okay. So now with that background, we can then go to the first question. Are we, as this paper claims… one of the most important papers on the molecular mechanism of the detection of recombinant spike protein in the blood of individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.
Here is the author [Carlo Brogna], apparently in Italy.
So, of course, we go down to the methods section and ask. So how did he detect this recombinant spike protein in the blood of individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2?
And lo and behold, no surprise, probably. We go down to the experimental procedures… informed consent… 20 human samples were collected from vaccinated subjects with informed consent. The geometric mean of their antibodies′ titer versus spike protein was such and such after 60 days. In addition 20 human biological samples were collected from unvaccinated subjects wtih informed consent.
And so they were different. These ones who had not undergone COVID-19 and didn’t have the vaccine, and presumably had less tissue breakdown, were negative for these antibodies — which according to them, proves that the spike protein is created in the blood through vaccination, and is part of the illness they’re calling COVID-19.
So again, the whole thing rests on the fact that the only thing that they measured here were antibodies. They were claiming that the antibodies were specific for the spike protein. Therefore, if they find the spike protein in the blood of vaccinated or people who allegedly had COVID, that means that they had spike protein disease. Whereas the people who were healthy and then, presumably not breaking down their tissues, didn’t have to make non-specific antibodies. So the antibody tests were negative.
It has nothing to do with spike proteins or viruses at all.
So again, it doesn’t mean that I’m saying — we’re talking the mechanism here, not whether some people who allegedly had some non-specific illness called COVID-19 were sick. Maybe they were and maybe they were breaking down. And I’m not exonerating these injections.
For sure, if you inject somebody, as we’ll see with non-specific cell culture goop, you will make them sick. Their tissues will break down and they will have increased antibodies.
The question we’re dealing with here is not whether things can make people sick, or injections of poisons can make people sick. It’s whether the antibodies prove that this is a spike protein or a spike protein coming from a virus, and the spike protein is made by the alleged mRNA in the injection.
So, let me just go through, well, let me go to the next one here.
You see, the tendency here, especially amongst the so-called freedom community, is they like to pick up on these studies to attempt to demonstrate or prove that these vaccines, so-called, are horrible, and they’re causing myocarditis, and they’re doing so through the mechanism of the creation of this so-called spike protein.
I am not arguing against the fact that the injections are horrible, or that they give people myocarditis or otherwise heart problems. I’m talking about the mechanism because the mechanism is everything. It has to do with, eventually, how you think about this whole thing. What is actually happening. And even, eventually, how to treat it.
Because I have no sympathy for the argument advanced by so many doctors. ‘Tom, what difference does it make whether there’s actually mRNA in the injections or whether there’s spike proteins or whether there’s a virus.’
It makes all the difference in the world. Because if you can’t understand what’s happening or at least disprove that this particular thing is happening, you will will eventually be led astray.
You will also eventually scare and frighten people more than you should. And there is no benefit from being ignorant about what happens and using anti-scientific thinking to make claims about what’s happening that are easily disproven.
So when you say, okay, well, how did this paper that’s so crucial to our understanding that it’s the spike protein that’s causing myocarditis — how did they detect the spike protein?
And no surprise there. If you go to the method section, you see:
“We performed extensive antibody profiling…” and then there’s a whole other bunch of immune profiles, antibodies against the human-relevant virome. These are all downstream antibody testing, all of which are non-specific and can’t possibly tell you that there was a spike protein.
And here again you see this immunophenotyping, and it’s all about detecting antibodies against previous infection, SARS-Cov-2 spike protein specific T-cell responses and other antibodies.
They never actually assay for spike protein directly in the fluids. They sometimes look for pieces which they allege, through other antibody testing previously done, that those come from the spike protein.
It all basically boils down to: Are antibodies specific? And the answer, as I said, is clearly no.
So, this brings up another interesting question.
So somebody could say, ‘Okay, Cowan, how can you actually go about proving whether these antibodies are specific or not? Like what should we do?’
Just like we outlined with how they should go about proving there is a virus or not with our viral challenge, here I will outline how you would go about, if you wanted to do proper, reasonable, logical science, proving that antibodies are specific and not just non-specific reactions to tissue breakdown. So it would go something like this:
You would give a substance, preferably a toxic substance or a substance that causes damage, like a vaccine (so-called), or an injection, or some sort of cell culture goop or nanoparticles. And
then you would get breakdown of the tissue. If you don’t give any toxic substance, you won’t get any tissue breakdown, presumably, and then you won’t get any antibodies produced, and then you don’t have anything to study. So you give the substance, you get the tissue breakdown.
And then you inject the antibody or take a sample and mix it with the antibody that you believe — this is what you’re going to test — is specific for a certain protein.
They say that if this antibody binds, and therefore makes some sort of reaction, that’s proof of specificity. But what they should do is give the same person or animal a different substance that couldn’t possibly have a spike protein in it, but is also toxic to the tissues and causes a similar amount of tissue damage. Then you once you get the tissue damage, you take a sample or inject the antibodies, or mix it with antibodies in the sample, or inject the antibody into the person, and see if it binds the same antibody.
If it binds — and obviously the insult, the toxin, was different — that proves that the antibodies are not binding to a specific toxin, they’re binding to non-specific toxins and, in particular, they’re being produced in reaction to tissue damage.
So that’s the first of two controls that you would do.
The second is you would give this toxic substance — let’s say something you claim is a spike protein or an mRNA — you would see the tissue damage. And then you would inject it with the antibody that you claim is specific, see if it binds. and see if it lights up and you can detect it. And if it does, you claim that that binding proves that it’s protein specific.
But then, give the same substance (your so-called spike protein), you get the tissue breakdown, but this time you inject or mix it with a different antibody, not the antibody that you say is specific to the spike protein, but a totally different antibody. That of course shouldn’t bind. And if it does, it tells you that antibodies are binding non-specifically, and you cannot use it to prove the existence of that antigen or that protein in the first place.
Every single paper that does that, that uses antibodies to make this claim, should obviously include both of those steps. And yet, none of us can find a paper that ever includes both of those steps. Therefore, they’re all anti-scientific. They are not using appropriate controls and not following the scientific method.
And this is why one of the world’s leading authorities on antibodies, and particularly monoclonal antibodies (monoclonal means they’re specific to one antigen) and that’s Clifford Saper, Harvard Medical School Professor. And this is a quote from one of his papers.
“No, there is no such thing as a monoclonal antibody that, because it is monoclonal, recognizes only one protein or only one virus. It will bind to any protein having the same (or a very similar) sequence.”
So there is no such thing as a monoclonal or antibody specificity. So all these papers alleging that they found the spike protein, that the spike protein is a mechanism of damage, need to be tossed out as uncontrolled anti-scientific garbage.
If you want an analogy, I came up with one just before this that may help.
So let’s say you have a balloon and you cut the balloon with a knife or some object. And then you put duct tape on it to fix the balloon. And then you claim that because you were able to fix the balloon with duct tape this proves that the knife was the mechanism that cut the balloon.
That’s essentially what they’re doing. They’re saying essentially that the duct tape is somehow specific to the mechanism of injury, which is a knife.
So the first control experiment you would need to do is take the balloon and cut it with a scissors, and then use your duct tape and see if you could fix the balloon. Because if you could, this would demonstrate that your conclusion originally was wrong, that it is not specific to a knife, because it works just as well with a balloon cut with a scissors.
And then the next control experiment you would do is you would take the balloon and you would cut it with a knife. But this time you would try to fix the balloon with, say, elephant tape. I’m not sure what that is, but I’ve heard that that actually works sort of like duct tape. And if that works to fix the balloon, which it would, that would tell you that the type of tape, i.e. the antibody, is not specific to the mechanism of injury, that is to say a knife — that any similar tape would work.
So again, similarly, many antibodies will bind to that protein, or to that injured tissue, because the antibodies are not specific to the protein. They’re specific to the tissue injury.
So many different mechanisms of injury, and many different antibodies will work. And if you don’t believe me, send me a paper where they did both of those controls, and I and others will admit we’re wrong. Except that won’t happen, because none of the so-called scientists will be able to do that. Because, as far as we can see, it doesn’t exist.
And so, once again, we are putting out very specific guidelines to prove us wrong. And the people who are attempting to do that seemingly never are able to do that, because those papers don’t exist.
And then, finally, we get to the issue of Dr. Qureshi’s paper of ‘Is there actually mRNA in these injections?’.
So here’s the paper. You can see the reference here, and I don’t know exactly how to find it but I think if you put this in somehow you’ll be able to find it. And he talks about how they claim that there is mRNA in these injections. I mean that’s the whole point.
You put the mRNA for the spike protein, then that goes to the imaginary ribosomes and makes the spike proteins, and the spike proteins make non-specific antibodies to a protein that couldn’t possibly have been made — or at least has never been demonstrated to have been made — and pretty soon you realize you’re in La La Land.
So, here he goes through the steps. And I think basically, he talks about the fact that the mRNA… Let’s just read it and so we go there from a pharmaceutical perspective.
[TCTL editor’s note: Here, Tom skips through, reading parts of pages 2 to 4 from Saeed Qureshi’s paper and mixing with his own comments. To identify which words are Saeed’s and which are Tom’s, it might help to read the paper while listening. LINK]
“One must obtain the active ingredient, in this case mRNA”… either have to make it yourself or get it from a third party.
So he talks about this. There’s the active ingredient, which is the mRNA and then there’s all the other stuff that goes into the formulation.
So we’re not interested in the other stuff. We’re only interested in this so-called active ingredient, which is mRNA.
So during the product development, the active ingredient is monitored, tested, to see if it is in the body, is expected in the expected amounts, the efficacy and toxicity relate to the active ingredient levels.
Therefore, a vaccine developer would first need an appropriate mRNA or its source to purchase such an active ingredient… should commonly be available from an independent third party supplier with appropriate certification for identification and purity.
However, the COVID-19 mRNA is proprietary. No information about its nature and purity is available in the public domain. So obviously that makes it difficult to know whether that’s in there.
Therefore, as he says, appropriately, one must rely on general information regarding what is present in the vials, and how they may have been synthesized manufactured and purified.
So now we’re getting to the crux of the matter.
In this regard a fermentation process using culturing microbes, such as bacteria is claimed to produce mRNA, which is then extracted, isolated, from the manufacturing perspective. The following diagram shows the steps. [see the bottom of page 2 for diagram]
You can see that steps — hard to see here. Culture has developed, some chemical reactions are performed. This stops the culturing fermentation, followed by purification. The last step is marked as formulation.
This production process of mRNA is simple, yet very confusing, which may be why people do not correctly understand the manufacturing of the vaccine and its adverse effect.
As explained above, the active ingredient is mRNA.
And this is the key of all this.
But no step describes mRNA production. We go through this in detail.
There is no step proving that this bacteria in this fermentation mat are making a specific mRNA.
The last step in the diagram is formulation or vaccine. Therefore this is vaccine production, not mRNA per se.
He says they use the words mRNA and vaccine interchangeably which is incorrect. Calling the end stages formulation indicates that the mRNA has never been produced, but is assumed to be there. So there is no step in here that proves, or demonstrates the specific production of mRNA.
It’s only assumed to be there.
The last step in the manufacturing should be a pure and isolated mRNA compound. However, it is an “isolate”, culture or gunk, possibly selectively concentrated compared to the one in the productive chamber.
In other words, all they have is the breakdown of the culture or gunk, culture gunk, not specifically isolated purified mRNA, which then they could use as the active ingredient to put into the vials.
And he says they don’t appreciate the difference between culture isolate gunk and pure isolated component which is a critical misunderstanding as the relevant science, the same as the virus issue.
So mRNA has not been produced, but a culture isolate, gunk, is considered and sold as mRNA or vaccine.
And this is another crucial point he makes.
It may be argued that the manufacturing processes or steps shown in the figure above have multiple filtration separation or isolation steps, like gradient ultra centrifugation for virus isolation, ensuring the production of pure mRNA.
And this is the part that I can’t verify myself. But I know Saeed, and I think this is a worthy place to start.
“Considering my extensive expertise and experience 40 plus years in separation science, including exhaustive training and experience in chromatography, I can confidently say that the steps described here would not be able to produce the claimed pure and isolated mRNA until shown otherwise.”
“Another critical point is that it is impossible to monitor mRNA production because no test may be developed without the availability of the pure and isolated reference (mRNA) standard. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that mRNA production is based on assumption, not scientific or valid testing.”
In other words, if they can’t come up with the pure isolated mRNA, there’s no way to validate this procedure. And therefore, there’s no way to claim that this procedure made the mRNA that they’re saying is in there. Therefore, there’s no way to even know that the mRNA is in there.
So what’s in there?
He suspects that the presence of DNA contamination, which is becoming an issue now — they know that the DNA is contaminated — is simply because they’re using culture gunk or chip particles of bacteria, which obviously have their own contaminating DNA. And this contamination would explain the widespread adverse reactions after the injection of these vials.
So we don’t need to propose a mechanism of mRNA or spike protein. Simply injecting bacterial culture junk with all the stuff that’s in there that is not properly purified.
And there’s no way to assess the validity of the claim, because they don’t have a pure mRNA to begin with, makes the whole burden of proof on the manufacturers to prove that there is the mRNA that they say there is in there.
And my guess is that is, again, a challenge that they will never undertake due to claims of proprietary, or this or that, or we don’t want to sell our secrets, or people would do nasty things with it as if (as if they’re not doing enough nasty things with what they’re doing already).
So again, there is no actual clear scientific evidence that this process would result in pure mRNA of a specific type that could be put into these vials, that could produce a spike protein, and that could be the saving grace of the pharmaceutical industry with further mRNA vaccines.
It’s simply the old culturing non-specific stuff that they’ve been doing all along with viruses and claiming they’re actually doing something a lot more sophisticated then they actually know how to do.
So I hope that clarifies things and alleviates people’s worries that they’re being genetically reprogrammed or that there’s some specific genetic modification going on.
I mean, again, it’s not to say that the injections aren’t bad enough. And I’m not exonerating the injections or saying they’re not causing the damage that they do. Far from it.
It’s just not the mechanism that we’ve been told. And anybody who claims that’s the mechanism, the burden of proof is on them to:
Show the pure isolated mRNA that comes from this process.
Show us that mRNA is the same in all the vaccines.
Show us by direct assay that the spike proteins are made as a result of these injections.
Show that the spike protein injections create something called immunity to something called the virus.
And none of those four steps are possible, because the whole thing is a bunch of hooey.
The parents of 62-day-old Sawyer learned their baby’s blood contained 95 micrograms per liter of aluminum, a level that would be toxic for adults. The toxicologist who read Sawyer’s report said the aluminum and antigen levels in the blood were due to the vaccines.
A Maine couple last week finally got the answers they’d been seeking for nearly a year, ever since their 62-day-old son, Sawyer, died Oct. 28, 2022 — 34 hours after receiving his scheduled childhood vaccines.
According to a toxicology report, Sawyer’s blood contained 95 micrograms per liter of aluminum, a level that would be toxic for adults.
A toxicologist told the couple the aluminum and antigen levels in the blood were due to the vaccines. She also said a viral infection Sawyer was being treated for could have been a contributing factor.
Sawyer’s parents, Melissa — a registered nurse — and her fiancé Nick shared their story last week with journalist Jennifer Margulis.
In an interview this week with The Defender, the couple detailed their search for truth, beginning with how Maine’s medical examiner refused repeated requests to perform lab tests that might have shown the culpability of the vaccines — and instead initially ruled Sawyer’s death “asphyxiation due to inappropriate sleep position and environment.”
The story of baby Sawyer
On Oct. 20, 2022, Melissa took Sawyer to a doctor for a persistent rash around his torso. The doctor diagnosed a viral infection, gave Melissa some medicinal cream and told her to monitor Sawyer’s temperature for possible fever.
Exactly one week later, Melissa went to the same pediatrician for a baby wellness checkup, where the doctor insisted Sawyer, despite Melissa’s reservations and the baby still having a rash, receive the scheduled childhood vaccines.
These included: RotaTeq (for rotavirus), Hib (for Haemophilus influenzae b), Prevnar 13 (for 13 types of pneumococcal bacteria) and Pediarix (for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and polio).
Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, a pediatrician, told The Defender, “I don’t know of any official warnings against vaccinating sick children,” but “there are no upsides to vaccinating a sick child. There are only downsides.” He added, “And, there are no upsides to vaccinating any child.”
Melissa told The Defender that, despite her medical training, she became skeptical of vaccines just two days prior when she watched a video of a toxicologist talking about the dangers of vaccines for children. She discussed the upcoming vaccinations with her fiancé, and they decided to go ahead with them.
“We were afraid that the medical system was going to judge him and judge us and not let him into school,” Nick said. “We just hadn’t done any research on it.”
Nick has two daughters from a previous marriage, ages 11 and 19, who received all of their childhood vaccines “and nothing ever happened,” he said.
After the doctor’s visit, Sawyer arrived home screaming and Melissa gave him the baby Tylenol recommended by the doctor.
By the next day, the baby had calmed somewhat but was still acting “fussy and uncomfortable,” so Melissa gave him more Tylenol and some expressed breastmilk.
When Nick got home from work that day, they put Sawyer into his bassinet for a nap around 5:30. By 6:15 the baby was fussing, and with some help was able to get back to sleep. He slept off and on for another four hours, while his parents kept tabs on him via his baby monitor and visits to his room.
The last time Melissa checked on Sawyer, he wasn’t moving or breathing. She picked up his limp and lifeless body and started screaming. Nick rushed in to help but it was already too late.
Emergency medical technicians arrived after the couple called 911. They tried but were unable to revive Sawyer.
The county and state police also responded and, because it was an infant death, opened a formal investigation and ordered an autopsy.
Chief Medical Examiner Mark Flomenbaum performed the autopsy the next day. Although he found Sawyer to be “well developed” and without signs of injury or bruising, Flomenbaum filed a death certificate citing asphyxiation due to a “sub-optimal sleeping environment” — essentially blaming the parents.
“It was near Christmas when we got the autopsy results,” Melissa told The Defender. “We read them on Christmas Eve. … We did nothing for the entire weekend.”
Asked if they ever learned what the medical examiner saw to make his determination, they said no. “The only thing in his basket was the blanket he was laying on.”
The police looked for evidence of child abuse or alcoholism, but quickly concluded it was an accidental death.
Melissa, grief-stricken, told everyone she could to investigate the possible role of vaccines in Sawyer’s death.
She first called the medical examiner to see if he would do testing to determine if sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) was responsible, but was told there was no need “because it wouldn’t show the cause of his passing,” she recalled being told.
The hunt for answers
That’s when the couple’s hunt for answers began. “I was looking up people on the internet, on social media. I was calling any number I could find,” Melisssa said.
Finally, she discovered a suite of pathology tests that could determine whether vaccines played a role in Sawyer’s death.
The tests measure C-reactive protein (indicating brain inflammation), liver enzymes, aluminum and mercury in brain and blood tissue, formaldehyde and formalin (another name for formaldehyde). A cytokine panel would also identify various blood factors and vaccine titer levels.
Melissa mailed and emailed Flomenbaum’s office to formally request the full battery of tests. The doctor refused, dismissing her concerns and telling her that heavy metals do not cause SIDS.
“They gave me a reason why each test didn’t need to be done,” she said.
Further emails to the state medical examiner’s office, from both parents, have been bouncing back as “undeliverable” since.
A friend of Melissa’s told her about Health Choice Maine, a statewide nonprofit working to protect health freedom and parental rights. There she met Tiffany Kreck, Health Choice Maine’s executive director, who helped Melissa organize her own investigation.
“Families being bullied by a doctor or threatened with CPS [child protective services] or whatever, can reach out, and we will, to the best of our ability, help them navigate it,” Kreck told The Defender.
Melissa said Tiffany gave her a list of things they had to do, “like getting reports and billing information, people to contact, and that’s what I did.”
Their primary goal was to find a competent pathologist to perform the lab tests Melissa had requested. They searched the entire country — even enlisting the help of Laura Bono, vice president of Children’s Health Defense, Kreck told The Defender — but came up empty.
Kreck told Melissa they would not be mentioning anything about vaccines to the prospective pathologists, so they would be less likely to reject the request.
The biggest obstacle was finding a doctor who was willing to order the tests.
Her ob-gyn told her that it was “out of his scope of practice.”
She called her primary care physician and told him she thought the vaccines had played a role in her son’s death “and he denied it,” she said. Her pediatrician also said no.
The toxicology report and next steps
Finally, they found someone in-state who, responding to Melissa’s grief, agreed to perform the tests on June 21. Although some of Sawyer’s tissue samples had degraded, the pathologist was able to perform enough tests to issue a definitive report last month.
The report was technical and was not accompanied by any guidance or recommendations.
Melissa said, “They never called me and said, ‘Oh, listen, this is high. This could be due to his vaccines. We will do a VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] report, you know, and advocate for other infants that pass away.’ No, we didn’t get anything from them.”
So they had to hire a private toxicologist who could interpret the report. That second report arrived last week.
“And she was the one that called us the other day and told us that his aluminum levels were very high,” Melissa said, “and that we needed to seek some legal services.”
The report showed baby Sawyer had 95 micrograms of aluminum per liter of blood, a level that would be toxic for adults. The toxicologist told the couple the aluminum and antigen levels in the blood were due to the vaccines. She also said the baby’s illness could have been a contributing factor.
Kreck told Margulis, “This additional pathology report shows how much are medical examiners don’t know because they won’t look.”
The report also showed high levels of lead, which would not be due to vaccines, the toxicologist said, and asked about lead levels in their house or water. But given that the baby had only consumed breastmilk and was not yet old enough to crawl around on the floor, the question remains open.
After receiving the confirmation about the aluminum, the couple felt “exonerated” from the implication they were responsible for Sawyer dying from asphyxiation, “but we also still feel like we failed our baby,” Melissa told The Defender.
“Me being a nurse,” she said, “I felt like I failed him both as a nurse and a mother.”
Nick added, “From the father’s standpoint, you’re supposed to protect your family, and I failed at that. It weighs on me every second of the day.”
Melissa and Nick are planning to file a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). She said she still feels skeptical “because I know how the government and the medical system are.”
Kreck is helping the couple prepare for the VICP meeting. “We are doing every test that we can possibly do and trying to cross all of our t’s and dot all of our i’s before we go into the VICP,” Kreck said, “which is historically difficult and harsh on what they perceive to be SIDS cases.”
A couple told The Defender they got help reporting the case to VAERS last November, but have never received any follow-up. They did, however, confirm that Sawyer’s case was in the database.
Health Choice Maine is also exploring options for a lawsuit challenging the finding on the state medical examiner’s death certificate.
Dealing with the grief
Just three months after the ordeal, a therapist told Melissa, who was still grieving for her child and searching for answers, that she had an “adjustment disorder.”
“She was pretty much telling me that I was not adjusting to losing my son quick enough, and recommended trauma therapy,” Melissa said.
She left the office crying, wondering if something was wrong with her or not being able to let go of her grief. “I haven’t had good luck with therapists,” she told The Defender.
“I’ve been going through this all on my own, trying to go through reports and all the information about my baby’s life and his medical records. And I’m doing all this while trying to grieve the loss of him and it is horrifically painful,” she said. “It’s something no parent should ever have to go through.”
One therapist told Melissa to take mood stabilizers and anti-depressants. “The mental health care system has not been very helpful in this at all,” Nicked added.
Nick found that going back to work and keeping busy was the most therapeutic approach for him. “Just keeping my mind focused on other stuff, you know, while carrying all that around,” he said.
Nick has joined Melissa in several of her therapy sessions, which he found very helpful.
The couple found a grief support group called Empty Arms for parents who have lost a child, which has been “amazing,” Melissa said. The group does a butterfly release for the deceased on Memorial Day and an annual remembrance walk.
They have found support from family members as well, although Melissa said it has been hard to talk to her family about the vaccine connection.
The couple said the loss has brought them closer together. “I couldn’t keep going, fighting the fight we’re fighting right now, without her,” Nick said. “And you don’t realize how much you love someone and just how precious life is and what you have in front of you is.”
“Cherish it and love it, don’t let it go,” he said.
“We lost the biggest and best part of us both and if we didn’t stay together, I’d feel like I was losing another piece,” Melissa said.
The couple’s journey to warn others
“I just want to make other people aware and I want to put a stop to this,” Melissa said.
Melissa said she warns mothers of sick children to cancel their appointments for vaccines at least until the child has recovered. She added:
“Children do not need vaccines. And if they were to get them, they don’t need them until they’re at least two years old. The problem is, is they have a blood-brain barrier that has not closed up until they’re two years old or later.
“And if you get vaccinated before two years old, the aluminum can cross that blood-brain barrier. That’s why levels are so high and it stops respiration and causes cardiac arrest.”
Nick said, “I wouldn’t tell anybody ‘Don’t vaccinate your children.’ But I would definitely say ‘Do your research. Go to the end of the internet, make sure what you’re doing is right, that you know all the possible outcomes.’”
“Be more educated and be a strong advocate for your baby,” he added. “Because it’s your baby, not the doctor’s.”
Asked why more medical professionals don’t speak out, Melissa simply said “Career suicide.”
“I don’t even wanna be a nurse anymore,” she said. “Why would I want to be? But I have to pay my bills.”
“Doctors don’t have any better education on vaccines than most 10th graders,” she said. “Even as a nurse, we don’t get the education. We just got the schedule.”
She also said that medical examiners should have the right to test for vaccine injuries during the autopsy and identify them as a cause on the death certificate. “The vaccines are killing people and babies and they’re trying to cover it up,” she said.
While the couple said they found it helpful to share their story, they also admitted to wanting to keep a low profile. “It’s kind of a quiet subject for us because we’ve got to protect ourselves now,” Melissa said.
The couple is looking for a good support system. “We’re looking for people to stand behind us and support us as we go through this journey, for the next questionable amount of years, to get justice for our baby. It might drag on for a while,” Melissa said.
When asked about what gives them the strength to stand up and share their story, despite the backlash that such activism could invite, Melissa said:
“This is the only way that I feel like I can mother my baby anymore. And my baby deserves justice. And we deserve to know the truth.
“He is our reason for living right now. And he is our motivation.”
Questions about the state medical examiner
Kreck told The Defender that state medical examiner Flomenbaum came from Massachusetts where he had been fired as the state medical examiner. “It looks like he tried to sue them for wrongful termination and lost,” Kreck said.
Flomenbaum earned a national reputation as a top medical examiner through his work identifying bodies in New York City after the 9/11 attack in 2001, according to an article in the Portland Press Herald.
He was fired from his Massachusetts position for losing a body and having a backlog of bodies waiting to be examined.
In 2019, the Maine attorney general’s office investigated and later cleared Flomenbaum over criticism that he was running a side business as a consultant in out-of-state death cases.
The Press Herald article details more of Flomenbaum’s controversial history, which included a Connecticut prosecutor’s letter to then-Attorney General Jane Mills telling her that a judge had determined his testimony in a child manslaughter case was “not credible.”
Flomenbaum was reprimanded in 2021 by Maine Governor Mills for inappropriate and unprofessional behavior in the workplace, after which he announced he would not be seeking reassignment to the position.
“He was only supposed to have a month or so left of his term back then and he’s still in office now. That all sounds very odd and fishy,” Kreck said.
Melissa told The Defender that Flomenbaum had recently left the medical examiner’s office, putting the disposition of Sawyer’s remains in question.
The couple, with the aid of Health Choice Maine, is seeking to remove Sawyer’s blood and tissue samples from the medical examiner’s office.
Anyone with information about where a new location might be found to accommodate Sawyer’s remains is encouraged to email Tiffany Kreck at tiffany@healthchoicemaine.org.
About Dr. Sam Bailey: After training and practicing within the medical system for two decades, she commenced a new phase of understanding and promoting health as a wider concept.
In 2019, Sam launched her YouTube channel exposing the hidden scientific truths about health.
A few years later and after taking the red pill, Bailey’s channel has become a runaway hit with 20+ million views and 300,000+ subscribers to help people understand the simple ways they can take control of their health.
She is the co-author of Virus Mania, which examines how the medical industry continually invents epidemics to make billion-dollar profits at our expense.
About Dr. Mark Bailey: Mark is the husband of Dr Sam Bailey and when you see one of them, you are really seeing both of them. They started working together when they first met in 2007 and have been a close team ever since. Mark and Sam are based in New Zealand and have three children together.
Since early 2020 he has been the duo’s chief researcher with a focus on microbiology, the existence of viruses, as well as historical and epistemological issues within medical science.
Is There Anything Floating in the Air – Trying to Infect Us?
“CONCOCTED science is the modern version of spiritual revelation. The Roman Church—while it was carrying out witch hunts and inquisitions replete with confessions obtained through torture and capped off with death by burning at the stake—was claiming Jesus Himself had passed the keys of the Kingdom to the Church…and He tacitly approved its policies.
“These days, debilitating, brain damaging, and life-destroying vaccines are the scientific revelations the Church of Federal Medicine stands for.
I continue to write about this subject because it’s vital.
NIH, the US National Institutes of Health, is the largest medical research facility in the world. It has 18,000 employees and runs on an annual budget of $45 billion.
I once suggested to Jim Warner, a White House policy analyst under Ronald Reagan, that somebody should do an audit of NIH and determine exactly what medical advancements the agency had actually made during its long history. He thought that was a terrific idea. But nothing came of it.
I assure you, an audit would reveal much less than meets the eye. Much less in the way of useful discoveries and technology. Along with mountains of useless and fraudulent science.
BUT NIH stands as a center of knowledge and a symbol, a reference point, a proof positive that medical science is marching forward.
It’s a very expensive public relations tool.
How could we not accept and signal our obedience to medicine, when we have such an awesome modern cathedral for its research?
Ditto for the CDC and the FDA. Both infernally corrupt agencies.
CONCOCTED science is the modern version of spiritual revelation. The Roman Church—while it was carrying out witch hunts and inquisitions replete with confessions obtained through torture and capped off with death by burning at the stake—was claiming Jesus Himself had passed the keys of the Kingdom to the Church…and He tacitly approved its policies.
These days, debilitating, brain damaging, and life-destroying vaccines are the scientific revelations the Church of Federal Medicine stands for.
Concocted science.
People accept science as fact, based on the IMPRESSION that actual knowledge is being discovered.
PR people make sure this impression is delivered.
Just as the Roman Church never confesses to fraud in its doctrine, the centers of modern medical knowledge never confess fraud.
In this episode of ICIC, Dr Reiner Fuellmich talks to Dr Gerd Reuther, medical doctor and radiologist, about the historical background of medicine and the genesis of diseases and epidemics over the centuries, from the pre-Christian era to the present day.
He points out numerous connections and parallels to so-called pandemics of antiquity and current events, i.e. the “Corona pandemic”. The criers of these “pandemics” have always used the same methods earlier and to this day: the creation of fear and panic.
It sheds light on the role of the Church and its representatives and how far their powerful arm has reached in science, research as well as medicine at all times. These areas were entirely under the control of the Church, and even today these exercises of power continue.
One could call this behaviour opportunistic, since throughout history the Church has always turned to those who were in power. It is currently showing this pattern again, namely when it unhesitatingly fired up the Covid vaccination propaganda. Compared to then, not much has changed:
It was and is about trivial monetary claims to power and ownership, manipulating people for their own benefit, keeping them in dependencies, e.g. on the pharmaceutical industry, and exerting control over life itself.
Historical events such as outbreaks of plague and cholera are analysed and examined for their truthfulness. The history of the origin of “vaccination” and what the belief in its effectiveness is based on are also discussed in detail.
Since when have disease patterns and symptoms been defined and documented, and why were there no “civilisation diseases” in the past? How can it be that not all people fall ill with one and the same “pathogen” and what role do the improper handling of toxins and the natural immune system play?
Dr Gerd Reuther and his wife Dr phil. Renate Reuther, historian and English specialist, have summarised all these medical-historical findings and events compactly on 150 pages in a book entitled “Hauptsache Panik” (Panic is the main thing), which, despite its historical focus, is more up-to-date than ever. For only those who know the past can shape the present and change the future.
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
