[As a service to protect truth from censorship & to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Del Bigtree asked ICAN’s attorneys to explain when someone can claim a medical exemption and whether a business can ask for proof of the medical exemption.
ICAN’s attorneys, led by Aaron Siri, provided this letter. In short, ICAN has been advised that, upon asserting a medical exemption to wearing a mask, the business cannot ask for proof of the medical exemption.
If you want to complete a self-assessment to determine if you have a medical exemption to wearing a mask, here are self-assessment forms for residents in New York, California, and Texas. If you would like a self-assessment form for another state, please let us know!
With so little information public, and the information we do have is not genuinely encouraging, a cynical person might suggest the only thing breathless media coverage of Covid vaccine news has done is create pump-and-dump stock opportunities for investors.
As Bloomberg wrote: There’s ‘a wave of euphoria’ surging through global finance markets. Hooray? Pfizer’s latest stock surge was supported by press release hopium rooted in Science™. Like corporate media’s reporting on vaccine Science™, inconvenient truths are misrepresented, glossed over or outright ignored.
Just as Pfizer’s recent press release hyped its first interim analysis from its phase 3 study, the company’s CEO Albert Bourla sold 61% of his stock, netting him a cool $5.6M.
The sale was part of a pre-scheduled 10b5-1 trading plan. So were Moderna’s Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks and their CEO Stephan Bancel, who made $63,069,210 and $58,591,783 respectively over the last six months with the world’s eyes on their vaccine development milestones. Optics be damned, as the companies simultaneously gobble up taxpayer money while their leadership unload stocks at record pace.
Science™ by press releases get dissected almost immediately nowadays, laying bare their shortcomings. Covid vaccine makers and their front men are throwing out big numbers to grab headlines across corporate media. Operation Warp Speed head contractor Dr. Moncef Slaoui said Friday, speaking from the White House Rose Garden (through a mask), that 20 million Americans could receive the shot by December. Followed up with 25-30 million each month after that.
Two narratives are running parallel throughout media to direct two different types of consumers. While the ‘pump and dump’ headlines target investors, the ‘vaccine will save us all’ reporting aims at the eventual mandatory consumers.
Reading between the lines, Reuters might be telling investors to be on the lookout for the next Science™ by press release before making any financial moves, while commoners in Europe under second lockdown, “must grit [your] teeth.” Or perhaps another translation: Don’t mistake our media hype aimed at investors to think you’ll get out of your [second] unscientific lockdown anytime soon, Europe!
Similarly, Yahoo News ran the headline, Pfizer vaccine could be key to conquering COVID-19 — but don’t throw away your mask yet. One statement message for investors, another for people under authoritarian edicts.
A recent BMJ analysis by Peter Doshi reviewed Covid vaccine frontrunners. Current trials, hyped at every turn, aren’t designed to save lives. Doshi writes, “None of the trials currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”
He continues, “In all the ongoing phase III trials for which details have been released, laboratory confirmed infections even with only mild symptoms qualify as meeting the primary endpoint definition. In Pfizer and Moderna’s trials, for example, people with only a cough and positive laboratory test would bring those trials one event closer to their completion.”
So why are we waiting for a vaccine to save us when its basic metrics aren’t designed to do so? In the early days of the coronavirus response, all measures were predicated on things going back to normal once the vaccine arrived. Now headlines have drastically changed. Lockdowns are here and increasing and your masks aren’t coming off when the vaccine savior arrives.
Yet that’s not stopping Ticketmaster or the airlines. Both are now considering digital vaccine verification to attend concerts or travel. A billboard.com exclusive reports, “After purchasing a ticket for a concert, fans would need to verify that they have already been vaccinated (which would provide approximately one year of COVID-19 protection)” Where the claim ‘approximately one year of COVID-10 protection’ comes from is anyone’s guess.
Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum’s CommonPass [for the commoners] is being tested for international flight travel. The CommonPass takes traveler’s vaccine status or Covid test and prints out a scannable QR code used by airlines or border officials.
Then there’s Microsoft founder and not a doctor Bill Gates who previously claimed countries could be back to normal by “late 2021” if a vaccine is found. The Sun reports that Gates will meet with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to “plan a national vaccine rollout plan with the pharma giants.”
Johnson has taken criticism for announcing a second lockdown, a move he deemed a ‘nuclear deterrent’ not to be embarked upon again after the collateral damage and life-years-lost recorded from the first round of UK lockdowns.
Even the notorious Dr. Fauci’s flip flops are now openly abusive as he ratchets up the rhetoric. Fauci recently stated the UK and US are countries that “have that independent spirit.” But now is the time to “do what you’re told” continued Fauci with an uncomfortable laugh.
Upon Pfizer’s latest press release, The Lancet’s editor-in-chief Richard Horton tweeted:
On the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: publishing interim results through a press release is neither good scientific practice nor does it help to build public trust in vaccines. An announcement should come with full publication of a peer-reviewed research paper in a scientific journal.
Unfortunately for many like Horton, the realization should be arriving that public trust may have never been a primary goal of vaccine-makers. Science™ regularly takes a backseat to profits and ethics [see Pfizer hit with $2.3B largest criminal fraud fine in history by Justice Department]. And even when proper science should be followed, it is often sidestepped. Regularly failing to use inert placebos during vaccine trials, using trial designs with obscenely short observation windows to monitor serious adverse events, refusing to conduct vaccinated vs unvaccinated trials to compare total health outcomes and deep conflicts of interest are all in a day’s work for vaccine makers.
It should be noted that one ofthe biggest retractions in modern history by a journal, The Lancet, happened on Horton’s watch. The investigation leading to the retraction wasn’t prompted by some internal watchdogs or misinformation czars, it was driven from public pressure by independent scientists and researchers.
Second waves of lockdowns are upon us. Many who thought the vaccine would return us to normalcy have had a rude awakening. Since we are given no clear exit plan by ‘officials,’ perhaps it’s time to make our own.
Patrick Bet-David and Dr. Reiner Fuellmich discuss revelations around the covid narrative, including a breakdown of what’s really been going on and how we are going to hold the people who orchestrated all of this accountable.
Patrick Bet-David has a virtual sit down with consumer protection trial lawyer Reiner Fuellmich to talk about the Coronavirus and his work on the German Corona investigation committee.
Panic Paper (in German) https://bit.ly/3f3IZRF
About the guest: Dr Reiner Fuellmich is one of four members of the German Corona Investigative Committee, which since July 10, 2020, has been listening to large number of international scientists’ and experts’ testimonies, to find answers to questions about the pandemic, being asked by people worldwide.
Connect with the Corona Investigative Committee at Corona Ausschuss
[As a service to protect truth from censorship & to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Aided by British military, Liverpool have initiated a mass covid testing program on its population, in an attempt “to control #Covid19”. No matter how often tests prove to be inaccurate, it doesn’t seem to be stopping governing authorities in Europe, and parts of the US, from tightening their grip on the people. But there is hope. True to the spirit and tradition of Liverpool lore, the people, and elements of the science and academia, are challenging the draconian measures.
What is a #Vaxhole? A person who quotes vaccine safety science that does not exist. What compelled Del to resurrect this HighWire tradition? British reporter Piers Morgan posted a tweet about the #Covid19 Vaccine you have to see to believe.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship & to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
[As a service to protect truth from censorship & to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Our book, The Contagion Myth, is now available (banned on Amazon but sold on other outlets) and has already generated dozens of comments, many of them challenging our contention that the corona “virus” does not exist and that the illness attributed to this virus is not contagious—one referred to our book as a fairy tale!
However, unlike most coronavirus skeptics, we are not arguing that the illness is just a bad case of the flu, with deaths due solely to pre-existing conditions or inappropriate hospital care; rather we postulate that the illness can be very serious and that the likely cause is radiation poisoning, probably from the worldwide deployment of 5G, starting in Wuhan, China and followed by major cities throughout the world.
Comments we have received include the following:
Okinawa does not have 5G but people are getting infected there;
Some friends went to a wedding in Kirkland, Washington and got Covid, so it must be infectious;
There’s 5G in New Zealand but very few cases of illness;
A school in our neighborhood has opened for in-person classes and there has been an outbreak—two people have tested positive;
A lot of people “got the virus” after a big no-mask motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota;
What about rabbits getting myxomatosis, a known viral disease.
With the exception of the rabbit comment (a subject to be explored in a future blog), these observations are just that—epidemiological observations, which are certainly interesting and deserve further exploration, but these in no way disprove our main contention that this virus does not exist and the illness attributed to it is not contagious.
Why take our word for the shocking claim that no scientist has found the so-called coronavirus? Of course, you shouldn’t take our word for it, you should listen to what the experts are saying. In July 2020, the FDA posted a CDC document entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), Real-Time RT-PCR diagnostic Panel. For Emergency Use Only. Instructions for Use.” Buried in the text, on page 39, is the following statement: “. . . no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available.”
In other words, our government is telling us that there are no purified isolated samples of this “novel coronavirus,” which means that the virus has never been isolated and purified. What they are finding in the RT-PCR tests are fragments of genetic material, which actually come from human chromosome #8. This means that the results of all RT-PCR tests are invalid—the only thing they can tell us is that we are human beings.
Here is an analogy to describe what is going on. Let’s say you are a paid Lego specialist and someone offers to reward you if you can construct an exact replica of King Beauregard’s Medieval castle. The referees put all the known Lego pieces out on a table and promise to pay you well to do the reconstruction. Naturally, you ask to see a picture of what the castle looked like or at least some sort of architectural plan so you know what to build. But the referees say that you must reconstruct the castle without having access to any information about the original castle. You think this is downright bizarre, but since a job is a job, you start looking. You find pieces for a moat; you know that castles have moats and think that this must be part of the castle. Then you find windows, turrets, soldiers, etc.–with each new finding you are given a castle-building Lego award and an increase in salary. You write some software that fills in the rest of the castle from the fragments you have. Then you publish a peer reviewed paper on the “completed” castle for all the world to see.
Unfortunately, a child appears who looks like he has time traveled from the Middle Ages. You show him the castle. “Everybody knows that Beauregard didn’t have a castle.” He says. “Beauregard was an impoverished aristocrat who was afraid of moats; he lived in a garret in London.” But the show must go on, so his remarks are never published, while the Lego expert (who knows the child is right) keeps quiet and enjoys his hefty salary.
A number of readers have sent us studies “proving” the existence of pathogenic viruses. In fact, one virologist claimed that “thousands of papers” show that isolated bacteria or viruses cause disease. (He also tried to convince us that one could sterilize one’s hands, cover them and they would remain sterile “indefinitely.”)
One was a link to a study with the promising title “Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus”, published 2003 in the prestigious journal Nature. We discuss this study in The Contagion Myth. The researchers claim that Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is also caused by a coronavirus. The title itself is misleading, not to say fraudulent, because the researchers did not satisfy Koch’s postulates—which is the common-sense way of proving that a microbe causes disease. They did not satisfy River’s postulates either—River’s postulates are for proving that a virus causes a disease. These methods involve isolating and purifying a specific microbial organism from a number of individuals suffering from a specific disease and injecting the isolated, purified bacteria or virus into healthy organisms (animal or human). If every sick person has the organism and every test subject becomes ill, then you know that the specific microbe causes the specific disease.
Let’s focus on the process of isolating and purifying a virus—it’s hard to do but not impossible. In 1973, the Pasteur Institute published guidelines for doing this. First the virologist takes mucus or secretions from a person with the disease. The secretions are diluted and then put into a kind of blender. The resultant liquid is then passed through a very fine filter—fine enough to keep out bacteria and fungi but let the viruses through; the resulting liquid is called a supernatant. It contains the virus but also lots of other stuff as well. The supernatant must then be centrifuged in such a way that you get bands of particles of the same size and weight. The scientist can determine which band is the virus using the known size and weight of viruses. This band is removed from the supernatant with a pipette. This is the properly isolated and purified virus. The virus is then transferred to some tissue to grow and multiply.
An important point is that when the virologist has finished the purification process of macerating, filtering and ultracentrifugation, he must then take an electron micrograph of the final, purified virus to show his colleagues that he has in fact successfully purified and isolated the virus. Virologists have done this many times and for many different viruses. Without an electron micrograph picture showing purification, no reputable journal would publish this work. The reason is simple: scientists are essentially told not to believe each other because someone says so. If you say you isolated a virus you must show the picture to prove it, period. Absent the picture it could be a total fabrication. The way science is supposed to work, after you have isolated and photographed the virus, other scientists in other labs follow the exact steps that you outlined in your paper and show pictures of the same isolated virus. Once a number of labs have done this, you have real proof that the virus exists.
In the case of the novel corona virus, every single published photograph we have seen showing the “isolated” virus shows no such thing. Instead, it shows tissue with a number of dots, usually with an arrow pointing to the so-called coronavirus. If you see tissue in the photograph, by definition, it’s not isolated. An example of such a photograph comes from “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea,” published February 24, 2020 in the Journal of Korean Medical Science. Although the authors claim to have isolated the virus, the photographs they publish show “virus” structures inside and outside a cell (indicated by arrows), not isolated.
You can see a properly isolated “virus” in the electron microscopy image of the chicken pox “virus,” below. (By the way, although health officials claim that chicken pox is “highly contagious,” no studies have shown that exposing people to isolated chicken pox virus makes them sick.)
What virologists do today is use the liquid—called the supernatant–after either filtration or centrifuging to get rid of the bacteria, fungi and other larger material. This is what they refer to as “purification.” This is like filtering the grounds out of coffee to get caffeine so you can study its effects. But there are hundreds or thousands of other compounds in the coffee, so you still need to isolate the caffeine. What the researchers should then do is put the supernatant in what’s called a sucrose density centrifuge column, which spins out the various compounds into bands. One of these bands will contain the pure virus, which can then be photographed and analyzed.
Instead of working with pure virus, researchers use the supernatant, which contains all kinds of molecules and particles. Instead of doing a genetic analysis of the isolated virus, they do genetic analysis on the mess of compounds in the supernatant.
Now to get enough “virus” to use experimentally, virologists must grow it in a biological medium such as an animal or at least cells from an animal. Unlike bacteria, which can be grown in petri dishes, viruses are not alive and can only “grow” in other living cells.
So they transfer the supernatant not to healthy tissue, but to tissue that has been starved of nutrients and poisoned with strong antibiotics—to make sure that what is left is only viruses and not bacteria and fungi. The main type of tissue they use is kidney cells from various species, often monkey kidney cells (called Vero cells), and lung cancer cells. The “viruses” seem to multiply. The resultant mess of “viruses,” particles, poisons, dead tissue and cellular debris—called “cultured” virus– is then sold to researchers as samples of “purified virus” for them to use in studies.
By the way, the CDC has published guidelines on “transport medium” for viruses. This is what they use to inoculate the starved tissue which then grows the “virus.” The three main ingredients are fetal bovine serum (extracted from still-living fetal calves and preserved with anti-fungals, among other poisons) along with two highly toxic antibiotics, amphotericin (affectionately called ampho-terrible) and gentamicin. This ungodly mixture is then grown on monkey or fetal kidney cells. Interestingly, all doctors know that the main organ affected by gentamicin and ampho-terrible is the kidneys. So you poison the kidney, the kidney breaks down and then the virologist claims that the virus killed the kidney—without performing any controls. Don’t look behind the curtain, folks!
This practice is fraught with obvious problems for proving it is the virus and not the cancer cells or poisoned kidney cells that are causing disease when these viruses get injected into healthy test animals.
Remember that to prove that a specific virus is making humans or animals sick, they need to find the identical virus in many subjects who are sick with the same symptoms—and then make healthy humans or animals sick by exposing them to this virus. But when researchers try to grow the purified virus on healthy cells, they don’t get a lot of viruses; and when they subject healthy tissue, healthy animals or healthy people to these “viruses,” illness does not result—and this is the wily virus that is going to kill us all!
Why do “viruses” multiply in the starved and poisoned kidney or cancer cells? Because when cells are starved or poisoned, they produce exosomes, which are identical in appearance and characteristics to what are called “viruses.” These tiny particles are helpful, not toxic. They do not attack the cells and then multiply; rather, they are produced inside the cell, often in large amounts, when the cells are stressed by poison and starvation.
Viruses and exosomes are indistinguishable, as we learn from a study entitled “The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS viruses,” published in the journal Viruses, May 2020. To quote from the paper, “The remarkable resemblance between EVs [extracellular vesicles, that is, exosomes] and viruses has caused quite a few problems in the studies focused on the analysis of EVs released during viral infection. Nowadays it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimensions. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist [emphasis added]. “
In other words, researchers can’t distinguish viruses from exosomes—that’s because they are the same thing and in reality, all viruses are exosomes. Scientists are discovering that all of these “viruses” originate in our own tissues—they don’t attack us from the outside.
With this background, let’s then look at the study, “Koch’s Postulates fulfilled for SARS Virus.” The researchers took unpurified sediment from the snot of sick people, grew that in lung cancer cells until they got a sufficient quantity of cellular material to work with. Then they centrifuged this mess again, not even attempting to purify any virus from the mixture. Finally, they took this unholy mixture of snot sediment, lung cancer cells and who-knows-what-else and injected that into two unfortunate monkeys. They didn’t do a control group by injecting saline into other monkeys or injecting lung cancer cells into monkeys or even injecting the liquid from the centrifuged material into monkeys. They just injected the cellular-debris-laden goop. One of the monkeys got pneumonia, the other got a rash. That, claim the researchers, is the proof that a “coronavirus” can cause disease and that Koch’s postulates have been satisfied.
“The Coronavirus Unveiled,” appearing in the New York Times, gives the impression that researchers are working with a genuine isolated coronavirus. Nevertheless, the article tells us that “In February, as the new coronavirus swept across China and shut down entire cities, . . . the best pictures anyone had managed to take were low-resolution images, in which the virus looked like a barely discernible smudge.”
How did the researchers isolate the virus? They “doused the viruses with chemicals to render them harmless. . .” In other words, they poisoned them. Then they somehow “concentrated the virus-laden fluid from a quart down to a single drop” after which they flash froze the drop. Then in the microscope they saw structures they called viruses.
This is not the proper way to isolate and characterize a virus, either. Proper isolation involves ultrafiltration and centrifuging–not dousing with chemicals and flash freezing–and then performing various physical, biochemical and immunological analyses.
After seeing these particles—most likely helpful exosomes responding to the poisonous chemicals–the researchers state that “its intimately twisted genes commandeer our biochemistry [and] wrenches into our cellular factories, while others build nurseries for making new viruses.” This is highly imaginative horror-movie speculation, not science.
Virologist have three “hosts” they can use in their attempts to prove that viruses cause illness. After “isolating” the virus, they can expose humans to the virus; they can expose animals to the virus; or they can use tissue cultures taken from various animal or human sources and expose the tissue culture to the virus. Leaving aside the fact that they never actually isolate and purify the virus, which they openly admit, let’s assume that the unpurified fluid they are using does contain the relevant virus and therefore should be able to transmit infection. I
In the history of virology, most virologists have decided not to do their experiments on human subjects as this is considered unethical. In the case of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we know of no published study that used humans as the test subjects.
Virologists also admit that in the case of most viral infections, there are no studies available proving infection in animals. How a virus can infect and kill humans but not animals is left unexplained. Researchers get around this obvious biological conundrum by saying, “there are no animal models on which to test such-and-such a virus.” In other words, “We know that the virus infects and kills humans even though we’ve never tested the virus on humans because that would be unethical. Therefore, we do our tests on animals, even though when we test animals. they don’t get sick, because they are not proper “hosts” for the virus. So, you’ll just have to trust us.”
In the case of SARS CoV-2, we know of two studies that used unpurified “virus” on animal models, one with hamsters and one with mice. In the hamster study, researchers took the unpurified, lung-cancer-grown, centrifuged animal secretions and squirted it down the throats and into the lungs of a group of unfortunate hamsters. Some but not all of the hamsters got pneumonia and some even died. We have no idea what would have happened if they had squirted plain lung cancer cells into the lungs of these hamsters, probably not anything good. Even more perplexing, some of the hamsters didn’t even get sick at all, which certainly doesn’t square with the deadly contagious virus theory.
In the mouse study, researchers infected both transgenic mice and wild (normal) mice with unpurified virus. None of the wild mice exposed to the “virus” got sick. Of the mice genetically programmed to get sick, a statistically insignificant number either lost some fur luster or had an insignificant weight loss. Thus, scientists have not been able to show that the Covid-19 “virus” causes harm to animals.
The purpose of the study was for a group of about twenty virologists to describe the state of the science dealing with the isolation and purification, and the biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.
First, in the section titled “Whole Genome Sequencing,” we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence. . . “ This means they actually looked at a mere thirty-seven primers out of the approximately thirty thousand base pairs claimed to be the genome of an intact virus. They then took these thirty-seven segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the genome.
This computer-generation step—called “whole genome sequencing”–constitutes scientific fraud of the highest order. Here is an equivalency: a group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a sliver of a horn. They then put that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, claiming that this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they have never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.
The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by “consensus,” sort of like a vote. As different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary “unicorn,” they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn. (By the way, this is how scientists characterized the measles “virus”—by consensus!)
But the real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that it’s hard to believe what we are reading. “Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells . . . Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection.”
This is the third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they usually rely on—namely, the inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As we have pointed out, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first poisoned and starved (grown in a “minimal-nutrient medium.”)
In the Results section, the authors state: “Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T) . . . Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells.”
Note, CPE means “cytopathic effect,” which refers to structural changes in host cells that are caused by “viral invasion.” The infecting virus is said to cause lysis (breaking up) of the host cell or, when the cell dies without lysis, an inability to reproduce. Both of these effects are said to occur due to CPEs.
So did this viral material with its “intimately twisted genes commandeer the cellular biochemistry [and] wrench into the cellular factories, while others build nurseries for making new viruses?” Nothing of the sort!
The shocking thing about the findings is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions claimed to contain SARS-CoV-2 (as well as poisons)—even in high amounts –were not infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this “new coronavirus” is not infectious to human beings. It is only infective to monkey kidney cells, and only when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.
Interestingly, in their conclusion the authors don’t mention this important fact. Only virologists reading the whole paper will find out that if you want to grow the virus, don’t bother to use human cell lines.
Meanwhile we have worldwide lockdown predicated on the idea that something called coronavirus causes disease. As you can read, in all three of the human cell lines no CPE (no cell death, no infection) was observed. Only Vero cells (monkey kidney cells) were adversely affected—and remember, the material injected into these cells contained kidney toxins. So basically, they proved that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not infect human tissue.
The researchers used “The wild type chimpanzee adenovirus isolate Y25 [which] was originally obtained from William Hillis, John Hopkins University of Medicine. The virus was passaged in HEK293A cells (Invitrogen, Cat. R705-07) and purified by CsCl gradient . . . Viral DNA was phenol extracted for genomic sequencing and cloning.”
The researchers purchased some material (not properly isolated even though it is called an “isolate”) which they then “passaged” through human embryonic kidney cells (called HEK293A), and then they “purified” it by CsCl gradient. You can read about this technique here. It separates DNA molecules (not viruses) after mixing them with cesium chloride (a heavy metal salt) and ethidium bromide (a mutagen that can affect DNA biological processes, like DNA replication and transcription.)
This is the same smoke and mirrors—not true separation and isolation but “surrogate” techniques that use various poisons.
Another study sent to us is entitled, “SARS-CoV-2 structure and replication characterized by in situ cryo-electron tomography,” published June 23, 2020. The authors begin with the creed of the faithful: “β-coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-1 and Middle Eastern Respiratory Virus (MERS-CoV) are highly contagious pathogens that can cause severe lower respiratory infections. At the end of 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the city of Wuhan, China, likely through zoonotic transmission via a bat reservoir and a still unidentified intermediate host that subsequently led to a pandemic, accumulating to date to over 8 million cases and close to 500,000 deaths worldwide.”
The article provides no references for the statement that the SARS virus is “highly contagious” but does contain a lot of fuzzy electron-microscope photographs of tissues and cells whose genetic material they determined using PCR tests—the equivalent of finding moats and turrets in a bunch of Lego pieces.
The researchers did not isolate and purify the virus but instead used “monkey kidney derived VeroE6 cells” and “human pulmonary cell lines.” In other words, they used cell lines grown in starved and poisoned cultures.
Later in the paper the authors state that they get different “morphologies” of the virus depending on which cell line they use. In other words when grown on monkey kidney cells the virus looks one way, grown on lung cancer the same virus looks different. That is like saying that if you plant some seeds in one garden you will get tomatoes but if you plant them in another garden you will get turnips. What this observation tells us is that what they find comes from the tissue not the source “virus,” that is why they are different.
According to the authors, “Our report provides the first in situ cryo-ET analysis of coronaviruses at high preservation levels.” Wait a minute—this study was published on June 23, 2020. You mean they had no analyses of this virus before health officials called for universal lockdown?
Says Scoglio, “At the center of the pandemic project stands the Covid swab test, which is based on the RT-PCR (Reverse Transcriptase- Polymerase Chain reaction): a sample of organic material is taken from the throat, or more rarely from the broncho-alveolar fluid, of the individual, and then the presence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in the sample is tested. This is done by using the same RT-PCR methodology used to originally “isolate” the virus from patient zero. Thus, the Covid test depends essentially on the original isolation, or lack thereof, of the SARS-Cov2 virus, the original PCR isolation of the virus constituting the golden standard necessary to validate any subsequent Covid test. The problems with the original virus isolation, and thus with the ensuing swab test, are many, and they all point to the truth that the SARS-Cov2 virus has never been isolated and never tested for its pathogenicity.”
One argument we hear is that Koch’s postulates are irrelevant, out of date, useless or even “wrong.” If so, why do researchers claim to have satisfied Koch’s postulates, not only for Covid-19 but for other diseases like HIV/AIDS and Lyme’s disease.
For example, in 1997, scientists announced that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does fulfill Koch’ postulates and hence is the proven cause of AIDS. The study involved taking the blood from an HIV-positive person and injecting it into one chimpanzee. They didn’t purify or isolate anything, just injected the blood into one chimpanzee. They kept the chimp for ten years–who knows what they fed it or anything about its conditions of confinement. After ten years the chimp developed an “opportunistic infection” (which could even be a yeast infection) and tested HIV-positive (a test result that occurs in at least thirty-three other conditions). The study had no controls–like injecting the chimp with blood from someone with cancer or with blood from a healthy person. This was the proof that HIV causes AIDS! This is not science, but it keeps the grant money flowing.
With Lyme’s disease the “proof” that Koch’s postulates were fulfilled comes from a paper published in 1983, which reported detection of spirochete [spiral-shaped bacteria] in the blood of two patients with Lyme. The researchers then examined some ticks in the neighborhood and found the same spirochete. That’s it, that was the “proof” of Koch’s postulates.
As we have explained, finding bacteria at the site of an injury or in a person with a disease in no way constitutes proof of causation any more than finding firemen at the site of a fire means they caused the fire. Among other roles, bacteria act as scavengers in nature, they “eat” dead or diseased tissue. Maggots play the same role; if you see a dead dog crawling with maggots, it would be crazy conclude that the maggots killed the dog. So why do scientists assume that the presence of “viruses” in a cell means that the cell has been attacked from the outside and taken over by hostile compounds?
If anyone can show us a properly done study in which the “coronavirus” from many sick people was isolated, purified, photographed and characterized according to the consensus agreement of the 1973 Pasteur Institute guidelines, and then shown to cause disease in healthy organisms (animals or humans), we will gladly withdraw the book. Meanwhile, we contend that the idea of a contagious coronavirus is a fairy tale.
The Contagion Myth is banned on Amazon but available at:
[As a service to protect truth from censorship & to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Description of video from Children’s Health Defense YouTube channel:
In the latest episode of our second season of “TRUTH” with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Kennedy interviews Dr. David Martin.
The two primarily discussed medical patents and the involvement from Dr. Anthony Fauci. Highlights of their conversation include:
– Breaking down Dr. David Martin’s company ‘M·CAM’ and how he found a way to put up intangible assets as collateral security.
– The Bayn – Dole Act that led to Fauci profiting from royalties off University patents.
– Fauci working for the NIAID but failing to study infectious diseases and allergies.
– Fauci involved in dodgy deals and price-fixing medicine in the USA.
– SARS vaccine patented in March 2019, 8 months before the COVID-19 outbreak.
Are you ok with your 11-year-old consenting to a medical procedure at school without your parental consent?
The new “Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act” Bill would give children the authority to get a vaccine at school without permission from their parents or legal guardians.
Dawn Richardson, director of Advocacy at NVIC, speaks with Del about this potentially dangerous overreach and how to stop it.
As I keep making the case that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been proven to exist, I’m also making this point:
There is no honest and prolonged mainstream debate on this issue, and there has to be. Reputable journals should be opening up their pages to such a debate from all comers, and they aren’t. They’re ignoring, side-stepping, and suppressing a debate. This is not science. It’s not even a shadow of science.
And the COVID virus is not the first time the issue of existence has arisen. If more people understood that, they wouldn’t be so shocked.
Here are several cases from recent history:
In the early part of the 20th century, a very nasty skin disease called pellagra took hold in the American South, affecting several million people.
The elite medical view, of course: a germ was the cause. But no one could find it in the ensuing decades. Finally, a small group of independent researchers, relentlessly pursuing a different course, convinced the establishment that the true cause was a niacin deficiency.
In the 1960s and 70s, Japan experienced a strange nervous-system affliction labeled SMON. Again the clarion call was: find the virus, it must be a virus. But no, in a landmark court case, the cause was shown to be a gastrointestinal drug, clioquinol, manufactured by Ciba-Geigy. The company apologized and paid out damages. Since then, some research has suggested that clioquinol fails to explain all the SMON cases.
SARS, 2003. During the height of hysteria in Canada about this flu-like illness, famous WHO researcher, Frank Plummer, wandered off the reservation and told the press that fewer and fewer SARS patients showed any sign of having the virus—in fact, the percentage was shrinking to zero. Therefore: what virus?
Swine Flu, 2009. As I detailed in a recent article, CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson uncovered the fact that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases, because the overwhelming percentage of patients’ samples coming back from testing labs showed no sign of the Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus.
HIV, first announced as the cause of AIDS in 1984, has been challenged by a number of independent researchers. I have published Christine Johnson’s explosive and detailed interview with Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia.” The subject? Does HIV exist? I’m reprinting my article and the Papadopulos interview below.
There are other illnesses in which the existence of the virus has been challenged: for example, polio and the Swine Flu of the 1970s.
Mainstream and independent investigators should also be aware there are analogous “missing causes” within the medical framework. The most egregious example is certainly psychiatry.
Following the breakthrough work of psychiatrist Peter Breggin, I’ve written extensively on this subject. In a nutshell, there are NO defining lab tests for ANY of the 300 so-called mental disorders. Every one of these disorders is arbitrarily assembled by committees of psychiatrists, from menus of behaviors. This is about as far from science as you can get.
Is there an open and honest prolonged debate about this stunning situation in the psychiatric literature? Absolutely not.
Here is my article, Does HIV Exist? Buckle up:
Before we get to Christine Johnson’s interview, a bit of background.
My first book, AIDS INC., was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19.
In 1987-88, my main question eventually became: does HIV cause AIDS? For months, I had blithely assumed the obvious answer was yes. This created havoc in my investigation, because I was facing contradictions I couldn’t solve.
For example, in parts of Africa, people who were chronically ill and dying obviously needed no push from a new virus. All their “AIDS” conditions and symptoms could be explained by their environment: contaminated water supplies; sewage pumped directly into the drinking water; protein-calorie malnutrition; hunger, starvation; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines and drugs; toxic pesticides; fertile farm land stolen by corporations and governments; wars; extreme poverty. The virus cover story actually obscured all these ongoing crimes.
Finally, in the summer of 1987, I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV caused AIDS. Their reports were persuasive.
I’m shortcutting a great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here, but once HIV was out of the picture for me, many pieces fell into place. I discovered that, in EVERY group supposedly at “high-risk” for AIDS, their conditions and symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do with a new virus.
AIDS was not one condition. It was an umbrella label, used to re-package a number of immunosuppressive conditions and create the illusion of a new and unique and single “pandemic.”
Several years after the publication of AIDS INC, I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research: DOES HIV EXIST?
Was the purported virus ever truly discovered?
And THAT question led to: what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus?
The following 1997 interview, conducted by brilliant freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:
How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct steps?
These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.
Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”
Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts from the interview. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.
Christine Johnson: Does HIV cause AIDS?
Eleni Papadopulos: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.
CJ: Why not?
EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.
… CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?
EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]
CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.
EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.
CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?
EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.
… CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.
EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.
The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.
CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?
EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.
CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?
EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.
CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.
EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.
CJ: And what was that method?
EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.
CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?
EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.
CJ: But what about their pictures?
EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”
—end of interview excerpt—
If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to doubt the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.
And so…as I’ve reported these past few months, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done.
I kept the Christine Johnson interview, and other similar information, in mind when, for example, I explored the dud epidemics called SARS and 2009 Swine Flu.
How many viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?
Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.
After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I’ve seen that false science occurs in levels.
The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.
If you’re a regular reader here, you’ll recall that I recently blogged about a strange story from Botswana of the sudden death of a herd of elephants in that country. Indeed, the article was accompanied by sad pictures of elephant corpses that look as if they had died so suddenly that they collapsed and fell where they stood. SADs (sudden animal deaths) are one of the topics that fascinate me, not only for their occurrence, but also because of their inherent strangeness, and the equally strange explanations offered for them. The topic began to interest me years ago when I heard a radio report of the sudden deaths of a flock of birds in Tennessee that simply fell from the sky, stone cold dead, while they were in flight. At the time, I thought that it might have been a test of some sort of exotic electromagnetic weaponry, and I haven’t really modified that conclusion since. We’ll get back to that in a moment, for it forms part of today’s “really high octane speculation.”
That SAD Tennessee bird incident was followed by similar stories of birds falling from the sky from Arkansas to Texas, and then there was a story of a flight of geese in Idaho that fell dead from the sky, again in mid-flight. Indeed, I’ve written a number of blogs related to the phenomenon of Sudden Animal Deaths, and I thought this would be a good time and context to remind readers here of those blogs:
All this brings me to a story that I did not blog about at the time, but which I did comment about with an interviewer. I believe it was “Al” of Forum Borealis. In this case, the story is from 2016, was shared by PAI, who is due a big thank you for reminding me of it. The, like the story of the sudden deaths of the herd of elephants, concerns the sudden deaths of a herd of reindeer, half a world away, in Norway. But this time, the story has a twist:
Note that similarly to the elephants in Africa, the reindeer appeared to just have suddenly died where they stood. Notably, there’s no attempt to write the SAD reindeer event off to “sudden onset reindeer flu”. (Scamplandemics did not have the cachet they do now.) Rather, an entirely different explanation was offered, and it’s one that, at first glance, seems broadly to confirm my electromagnetic weapons speculations, and raises new issues. Citing from the article, which first appeared in August 2016 in the New York Times:
Experts say that lightning most likely caused the grisly sight. But for many people who have seen images and video of the eerie scene that answer has raised some suspicion.
“Lightning does not strike a point, it strikes an area,” said John Jensenius, a lightning safety specialist with the National Weather Service. “The physical flash you see strikes a point, but that lightning is radiating out as ground current and it’s very deadly.”
It’s possible that a single bolt could have hit one or two reindeer directly, he said, but the majority of the carnage was caused by ground current. When the electric discharge touches down it spreads out in search of places to travel. The reindeer, with their four hooves on the grass, presented potential pathways where that current could flow.
OK… that’s believable and plausible. Lightning does create a ground current, and in some cases, if one watches carefully, lightning can actually start from the ground and go up to the sky (as, incidentally, recent videos of the California fires seem to include examples of this type). The Earth is an electrodynamic body, and biological life – like reindeer – are bio-electrical systems. Suddenly zapping them with a pulse of electricity can cause them to die, like that surge protector you have on your computer is designed to prevent transients or pulses from frying your computer. It’s electromagnetic pulse, but through the wires, or in this case, through the ground. Wet ground would be far more conductive, and hence this explanation might explain the sudden elephant deaths in Africa. Except that there, recall, the speculation was on some kind of fast acting pathogen, not lightning strikes. Why? We’re not told, except we may speculate that perhaps the weather was not storming or raining where the elephants were found, and hence a lightning strike in clear blue weather might raise uncomfortable questions.
But then comes an odd statement, and with it, questions are raised:
“The electricity would go up one leg of the body and stop the heart and go down and out another leg,” he said. “In an instant, of course.”
The same thing can and does happen to humans, Mr. Jensenius said, but animals are particularly vulnerable because they have more legs and their legs are further apart. The greater the distance between two legs, the greater the chance that electricity will try to flow through them, and the stronger that charge will be.
Though the reindeer were in a herd when they died they did not have to be touching to get electrocuted. They only had to be touching the ground within an area about 160 to 260 feet in diameter from where the strike or strikes hit. The 323 reindeer most likely dropped dead from cardiac arrest where they stood and did not go flying in the air, like in some movies. Mr. Jensenius said that it’s likely the lightning would have struck that location whether the reindeer were there or not.
Now, as we know, livestock and humans can be struck by lightning, and die from that ground current discharge. What I find extremely odd about both instances is that no other animal deaths are reported in conjunction with the reindeer and elephants. For that matter, the same seems to hold true in those reports of birds falling from the sky. Here it’s starlings, there it’s geese. Particularly in the case of a herd of reindeer, one might assume that the herd would be being stalked by predators of some sort, wolves, cougars, and so on. In other words, it’s the fact that, in all these incidents, it’s only one type or species of animal that is involved is what raises my suspicions. That, to my mind, suggests deliberate targeting of that species. After all – and here’s today’s high octane – if every species has its own unique bio-electric template, and if that signature or template is known, one can modulate an electrical pulse to take out only that species with an electromagnetic pulse. This hypothesis – wild and woolly though it is – is what I believe to be in action in some of these strange cases. All that is needed is to something to complete the circuit…
… like a cell phone. Just dial the right number, and send the pulse…
[TCTL Editor’s Note: Several US readers shared links to information, from a number of sources, regarding the use of Standard Form 95 to legally challenge the unfolding medical tyranny. Based on clarity, prepared documents, and strength of understanding, I selected the work of Dr. David Martin to share here.
TCTL provides a partial transcript to use as reference after viewing Dr. David Martin’s video. The original video has been mirrored to TCTL Bitchute channel in the event that it is removed from YouTube.
Please note that this posting is not legal advice. Nothing found on this website will ever be offered as legal advice. This is shared as reference and potential tool for your use. Do your own research and take responsibility for your own actions.
Standard Form 95 is used to present claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for property damage, personal injury, or death allegedly caused by a federal employee’s negligence or wrongful act or omission occurring within the scope of the employee’s federal employment. These claims must be presented to the Federal agency whose employee conduct gave rise to the injury.
Standard Form 95 is not required to present a claim under the FTCA, but it is a convenient format for supplying the information necessary to bring an FTCA claim. Please note that a completed form must state a claim for money damages in a “sum certain” amount (that is, a specific amount) claimed for personal injury, death, or injury to or loss of property. In addition, if a sum certain is not specified in Standard Form 95 block 12d, or in accompanying information, a submission cannot be considered a valid presentation of a claim. The completed Standard Form 95 must be presented to the appropriate federal agency within two years after the claim accrues.
You might have questions about how to determine a dollar value as compensation for emotional distress or mental anguish, for possible future health issues due to forced mask wearing, etc. These and other questions, such as how to fill out forms, etc. will require your own research. Contact information for Dr. David Martin is included below. I would suggest following his work for updates.
Feel free to share your research and experiences in the comment section below and/or send a note to the email address found on the TCTL contact page. — Kathleen]
[TCTL Editor’s Note: the following transcript was sourced using YouTube’s transcript function, with some additional editing by us along with the addition of hyperlinks for your convenience.]
“At the end of this video I am going to be giving you an opportunity to actually do something, which you can do: 1) for free and 2) to start taking action to stand up against all of the tyranny that’s happening.
…For those of you who don’t know, the 21 Code of Federal Regulations is the rules that govern the Food and Drug Administration. And those rules are set out for the guidelines of how we constitute what is safe and what is effective in medicine in the United States.
Rules on Informed Consent, which is actually one of the early sections of the the provisions of the code of federal regulations that govern the FDA, say in Section 50.20 that, except as provided in 50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective consent of the subject or the subjects legally authorized representative.
…But the problem with the Declaration of Helsinki and the problem with the trials in Nuremberg was that the United States and other countries specifically decided that, while they wanted to punish the Germans for what they did during the Second World War, they wanted to keep a wiggle-room-out clause that allowed them to continue to do human experimentation on people without their consent.
That sounds like the pot calling the kettle black and that’s the reason why it sounds like it is because it’s illegal, immoral and unethical. But Section 50.23 and section 50 24 gives, in 50.23, the Department of Defense an opportunity to waive all requirements of informed consent for anybody serving in the military. Which means that if you are serving in the military, or you’re part of any of the branches of the armed services, you actually not only have no rights to inform consent.
But it’s worse than that… What’s worse than that is the Supreme Court, in a very famous case of the United States v Stanley, decided that not only do you have no rights but you have no redress either. Congress thankfully passed a law later… that actually gave a tiny bit of room for people who have been severely harmed by federal government research, without their consent, a way to get redress.
But the law and the Supreme Court actually ruled that basically the Department of Defense can waive informed consent and can do basically anything they want to anybody in the military.
50.24 is more problematic.
…I found something really problematic when I found was a thing called … MCMs — Medical Counter Measures.
And I want to read what the Federal Register has — and this is the law in the United States — that during declared emergencies medical industry is exempted from liability.
And you heard what I just said. If you declare an emergency, the current 1379 trials on medical devices for diagnostics and therapeutics around coronavirus — every single one of those manufacturers, every single one of those individuals — from the date of the declared emergency, has immunity from any liability.
They can literally poison you. They can literally kill you with their therapy and there is no recourse in law, courtesy of the exemption that’s in 21 CFR.
…In other words, the reason why governors are so dedicated to keeping up the illusion of a pandemic and the illusion of the state of emergency is because, it turns out, that any action taken under an emergency use authorization by the FDA — any action taken by any manufacturer for any research that they’re doing they get a get-out-of-jail-free card and they can do anything that they want and they have… no liability.
…But there’s a little tiny problem and I told you there’s going to be hope at the end of this very disappointing, very abysmal, very unfortunate set of facts. The hope is that, under Section 50.24, Anthony Fauci, and the CDC, and all the criminal co-conspirators I’ve talked about before at the Department of Health and Human Services, forgot to read a little tiny clause…
And the one thing they got wrong was for 50.24 to work there has to be, and I quote, “concurrence of a licensed physician who is a member of or consultant to the Institutional Review Board and who is not otherwise participating in the investigation“.
In other words — if there was going to be a clinical trial on any intervention for coronavirus, there had to be somebody not associated with any of the therapies.
Ha. Ha! This, my friends, is where we enter into the rabbit hole of the fun.
Because, you’ll notice that every individual that is in the Advisory Program, and every individual that has been active in stipulating the biggest of the clinical trials, which is called social distancing and face mask wearing, which is clinical research as a defined term under the FDA standard of clinical research, they screwed up by not having an independent and institutional review board which is required under the 50.24 waiver.
In other words, they thought they were getting away with absolute immunity, but they screwed up. Because they kept the conspirators all in the room and forgot that they have to have somebody who is independent.
…I read the entirety of the case United States versus Stanley, a case that was argued in 1986. and while Justice Antonin Scalia gets my absolute loser of the week, right, because he’s the guy who decided for the majority — and basically came up with this doctrine that says that the US can get away with anything and is absolutely incapable of having their immunity pierced.
Justice Brennan and Justice O’Connor dissented with the majority in that Supreme Court case.
Now I want to read you what Justice Brennan wrote: “The court confers absolute immunity from money damages on federal officials, military and civilian alike, without consideration of long-standing case law establishing the general rule that such officials are liable for damages caused by their intentional violation of well-established constitutional rights.” That is the absolute statement by Justice Brennan.
And Justice O’Connor says “No judicially crafted rule should insulate from liability the involuntary and unknowing human experimentation alleged to have occurred in the case.”
And the case, remember, was actually an outgrowth of the MKULTRA case. This was when the CIA and DOD were injecting people with LSD and then trying to figure out what the side effects were.
Indeed, as Justice Brennan observes, the United States military played an instrumental role in the criminal prosecution of Nazi officials who experimented with human subjects during the Second World War. And the standards that were the Nuremberg military tribunals developed to judge the behavior of defendants, stated that, quote, “voluntary consent of human subject is absolutely essential“.
Did you hear what she said? “is absolutely essential to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts.”
…”If this principle is violated, the very least that society can do is see that victims are compensated as best they can be by the perpetrators. I am prepared to say that our Constitution’s promise of due process of law guarantees this much.” That is a quote from Sandra Day O’Connor.
…if two well-respected Supreme Court jurists actually come to the same conclusion that any normal human being would come to, which is that no constitutional rights can be abridged because somebody decides to act in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and put against their will a human subject in an experiment, then what’s going on right now?
Now let’s break this down really simply.
You are part of an experiment.
There is no medical or scientific evidence at all that the 6-foot distance has anything to do with the way a healthy population stays healthy in our society.
Social distancing is based on droplet studies which have never been associated with actual epidemiologic data.
So when Dr. Birx gets up and says we now think that there’s science to justify social distancing, Dr. Birx is lying to you.
There is no science justifying it.
It’s a belief system.
And the Supreme Court has been very clear on the difference between science and belief. Which means if you are currently living in under an order to social distance, you are part of a large epidemiologic experiment.
There is no science for this. You are a lab rat.
…The tyrant that is Governor Northam seeks to impose upon the population of Virginia, a face mask ordinance.
But here’s the problem: There is no scientific evidence that those work, and more importantly, there is very specific evidence that they actually impair the healthy functioning of society.
You, if you are asked to wear a face mask, are a lab rat.
You are subject to an investigation.
Social distancing, face mask wearing, both are experiments. They are experiments promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services, supported by the Center for Disease Control.
And they have no Institutional Review Board authorization — which means they are in violation of the law.
And that, my friends, is the reason why I hope millions of people hear what I’m about to say.
After the injustice that was given to the Stanley case. And, just for your reference, the Stanley in the Stanley case was a veteran of the Korean War and I believe also the Vietnam War. He was subject to all kinds of clinical experimentation and his life was actually severely damaged. He went on to be a Florida police officer and continued to serve his country. But his country didn’t serve him back. And after reading the dissent to the Supreme Court’s decision in 1986, Congress passed an interesting law that created a very interesting action you can take.
…You go to the US Department of Justice website and you download Standard Form 95.
…It is your pathway to actually find a criminal or a civil liability, define it, and seek redress from the agency of the federal government that harmed you.
What’s harm? Well if you lost your job, if you lost customers, if you were physically harmed because you couldn’t go to doctors appointments, you couldn’t do the things that you needed to do to maintain your health, the Department of Human Services is actually supposed to get their liability notice from you.
…You need to send it to the US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the General Counsel, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20201.
And in that form you need to say that:
The Department of Health and Human Service, through the Center for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease, sought and filed and received a patent starting in 2003 which made the identification, the detection and detection kits for coronavirus not available to the general population. They, by virtue of that act, by filing that patent, they made it impossible for the public health interest to be served. And that’s the beginning of the damage.
In 2007 they extended their patent filing and in that patent filing sought to actually patent the virus, which is against 35 US Code Section 101.
In 2013 and 2018 they worked to use international sources and take the research on gain-of-function, which was determined by the National Institutes of Health in 2013 to be unethical.
They decided to take it offshore and work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology so that they could get around the ethical and legal implications of the work being done here in the United States. And they did that willfully.
So that at September 2019, in the publication World at Risk from the World Health Organization, Dr. Anthony Fauci and the members of the committee, that actually are affiliated with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, could make a recommendation that a respiratory-based pathogen simulation must be run with no Institutional Review Board review, with no independent physician certifying that their actions were legal — therefore, getting them out from the exclusions of Section 50.242 of the 21 Code of Federal Regulation.
They decided to start a clinical trial that you have become an unwilling participant in.
And the damages that you have, the damages that are your loss of livelihood, your loss of access to health, your loss of access to Liberty, the costs associated with your shutdown, the fact that you have not been able to work, the fact that you have not been able to deal with child care — every one of those facts is now a financial liability under the Standard Form 95 submission to the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Now here’s what it’s going to get fun.
They are required by law to respond to you. And the best thing about it is there’s a time limit on it. They have to respond within 90 to 180 days depending, on whether they get some wiggle room. But here’s the other part of that.
You have two years from the date of the injury or from the date of the civil claim or from the date of the crime — you have two years to do this filing.
…I want the office of the general counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services to be overwhelmed with millions of claims.
I want every person who has filed an unemployment claim, I want every one of those people to fill out a form 95 and send it to the office of the General Counsel. I want the Department of Health and Human Services to know that their violation of their own rules, which led to the destruction of your life and your livelihood, I want them to know that it comes at a cost.
… my goal, thirty million individual forms of claims for benefits for an illegal clinical trial.
And the specifics on the clinical trial, just so you get it right, are you have been forced to an experiment in which you did not give consent. And the experiment was called social distancing and face mask wearing. That’s the experiment. There is no institutional review board, there is no independent doctor, and it is up to you now to take a stand.
…Remember in the Stanley case, one courageous veteran — one courageous veteran — stood against the tyranny of the Department of Defense’s experimentation with LSD and stood against the tyranny of the CIA’s investigations with LSD. One veteran stood alone and that got Congress to act in 1986 and 1987.
Please understand, ladies and gentlemen, if a million of us act, if 30 million of us act, if a hundred million of us act, we will be heard. Because they have no recourse. Because they wrote the rules and they didn’t follow them.
…I want to see 35 million of us standing together and actually sending the bill for this crime to the place that it started– the United States Department of Health and Human Services.”
No, I’m not going to be polite or gentle when so many good people are being tricked into cooperating with widespread, devastatingly destructive “solutions” to a problem that only ever threatened a tiny percentage of the population (which can be protected separately).
Feel free to copy and spread this video, since YouTube is likely to take it down if any of their censors notice it not parroting the idiotic, fear-driven party line.
[TCTL editor’s note: YouTube did take it down after 50,000 views.]
Transhumanism is a futuristic concept where man and technology blend, resulting in soulless intelligent machines. It is a movement that favors the evolution of a new species of human through the use of integrative circuitry. Referred to as “human betterment for the post-human era,” transhumanists assume that humanity will only be enhanced by machines. No damage. No degradation. No possibility for coercion or domination. In a post-human world, humanity as we know it will be obsolete.
In 2012, artificial intelligence pioneer Ray Kurzweil became Director of Engineering and Chief Futurist at Google, hired to work on projects to teach machines to learn. Kurzweil predicts that by 2030 (there’s that date again) technological advances will allow tiny nano-bots to be injected into the bloodstream, pass through the blood-brain barrier and integrate into the brain. The human brains can then be connected to “the cloud,” achieving a level of brilliance never thought possible. So, essentially, biological beings will become “non-biological entities.” In his book, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Kurzweil states, “In the future, there will be no distinction between human and machine, or between physical and virtual reality.”
But if our brains can tap UP into the cloud, it only makes sense the what’s in the cloud could be pushed DOWN into our brain…So, the question becomes: Who controls the specific information we’re allowed to tap into? Who determines what is downloaded into us? The disturbing vision of thousands – or millions – of Manchurian Candidates comes to mind.
The Quest for Control of the Human Brain
In former-president Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address, he announced his plan to invest in brain mapping technologies. In April of that year, a $100+ million initiative was launched called BRAIN, which stands for Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies. Multiple public-private partnerships were funded, including the Allen Institute for Brain Science, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, and the Kavli Foundation and Institutes. Our tax dollars also funded this project; the government allocations included:
$20 million to the National Science Foundation to study how Big Data could be used to understand the ability of the brain to generate thoughts, emotions, and memories;
$40 million to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop training tools and resources to support the BRAIN initiative; and
$50 million was given to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop tools to capture and process dynamic neural and synaptic activities.
Using those funds – and more – DARPA announced in 2016 it would develop the Neural Engineering System Design (NESD) program. Touted as the next-level brain-computer interface (BCI), the NESD system is designed to turn brain activity into a binary code, allowing humans to engage with machines wirelessly, by simply thinking.
While many amazing medical uses could come from this research, from treating PTSD and traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), to maneuvering brain-activated exoskeletons and prosthetic limbs, it takes very little imagination to see how this research could quickly turn dark.
What if the post-human world was dominated by strong, mechanical humanoids with enhancements designed to benefit institutions, at the expense of the individual?
Will the drivers to create bionic humans be economic efficiency, cultural modification, and military dominance?
Post-humans will live longer and be Global Citizens, a future where humankind is melded into a single, apolitical identity ruled by the UN and governed by the global Sustainability Agenda. Bionic humans will have no need to connect, even with creatures of their kind. Advances in animal cloning and embryonic stem cell technologies are bringing human cloning closer to reality, eliminating the need to procreate – satisfying the globalist’s concerns regarding planetary overpopulation. Need more worker bees? Create them at the factory – they need no benefits, no vacations and can work 24/7.
DNA Vaccines: Permanent manipulation of humans and animals
DNA vaccines, a type of genetic engineering, were first tinkered with in the early 1990s. A small snip of DNA, say, from a herpes virus, is inserted into a bacterial “bubble” called a plasmid. When the plasmid-laden vaccine is injected, the cellular immune system gears up to eliminate the foreign protein (plasmid + viral DNA snip) and at the same time, the humoral immune system creates antibodies against the viral DNA. When a herpes virus enters the body, the memory T-cells and B-cells work together to attack the foreign virus, eliminating it and avoiding the infection.
The DNA snip can be incorporated into the host’s DNA, leading to chromosome instability. The mutagenic affect can turn on oncogenes and turn off tumor suppressor genes, leading to cancer.
Genetic expression is the process where genes create proteins. Genetic over-expression is when the process “goes rogue” and produces massive amounts of foreign protein, destroying human tissues via both acute and chronic inflammation.
Often the plasmid used is resistant to antibiotics; the same antibiotic resistance can be transferred to the host.
The plasmid DNA can appear very similar to the vaccine recipient’s DNA. The anti-DNA antibodies can attack human organs with similar DNA sequences. The result is autoimmunity, clearly identified as the cause of nearly 100 different diseases and suspected to be the cause at least 40 more chronic and potentially life-threatening conditions.
A concern that sounds like science fiction is the use of DNA vaccines in food-producing animals. The foreign DNA can be incorporated into an animal’s DNA, getting into the human food supply. The plasmid DNA can disrupt the animal’s microflora, and even potentially transform the environmental microflora as the animals defecate.
This level of genetic manipulation makes DNA vaccines a dreamy tool of the transhumanists. With a host of companies working on biotic human body parts and DARPA working to build killer robots, designing DNA vaccines to enhance human DNA is only a step away. In fact, Editas Medicine, a US-based company, announced in November 2015 that the trials with the first humans to have their DNA genetically modified were well underway.
If robots could think, feel and have a conscience, would that make them human? Or, would the lack of genetic material always render it as non-human? Using the combination of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and DNA vaccines to insert human genes and human characteristics into machines is no longer just for the movies. At what point are humans no longer humans?
As vaccine recommendations become mandates – and 30 states are now pushing for mandatory vaccines, will you retain your right to refuse?
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is an osteopathic medical doctor, board-certified in three specialties. She is the founder of Tenpenny Integrative Medical Center, a medical clinic located near Cleveland, Ohio. Her company, Courses4Mastery.com provides online education and training regarding all aspects of vaccines and vaccination.
Dr. Tenpenny has invested nearly 20 years and more than 40,000 hours documenting and exposing the problems associated with vaccines. As an internationally known speaker and author, her many articles have been translated into at least 15 languages. She is a frequent guest on radio and TV to share her knowledge and educate parents on why they should Just.Say.No. to vaccines.
In my research on so-called epidemics and viruses over the last 30 years, I’ve examined a point very few people want to think about.
Does the virus being promoted actually exist?
It might seem absurd to ask that. “Well, of course it exists. Why else would experts be saying it’s causing disease and death? Why else are they developing a vaccine?”
I don’t buy that reply at face value. Never have, never will.
Let me illustrate with a short tale. —Word goes out to an elite intelligence agency that a stranger on a train is a spy, and he is dangerous. He must be captured. The Agency sends a few people to board the train.
Who is the spy? What does he look like? Unknown. The agents move from car to car looking at passengers. From “past experience” in profiling suspects, they decide their target is probably a man in sleeping car 100. They knock on his door. He opens it. They place him under arrest.
The next thing the Agency knows, a week later, the ops director says, “Boys, he was the one, we have our man. He was planning to blow up bridges. Great work.”
Evidence of guilt? Proof? Was the initial story about a spy on a train even true? Answers unknown. But who cares? The job is done.
With a purported new epidemic disease, how do researchers find the man on the train? What method do they use to isolate a unique virus that is present in the bodies of people who are sick?
Various experts will offer various answers. In a moment, I’ll present an interview with a researcher who proposes a method. To sum up this method in simplistic terms: you remove a tissue sample from a person suspected of carrying a virus. Taking a tiny piece of that sample, you place it into a sugar solution and spin it in a centrifuge at high speed. The solution settles out, according to layers of density and weight. You presumably know, from past experience, which layer will contain particles of virus (if they are there). From that layer, you remove a small sample. You look at it under an electron microscope. You photograph what you see. If you’ve found a virus, you should be able to observe many copies of it in the photo. From analyzing these copies, you should be able to tell what kind of virus you’ve found. This is a very rough description of the process.
To announce to the world that you’ve found a virus that’s causing a rapidly spreading and dangerous epidemic, you should be sure of your work. You should have performed the above process on MANY, MANY supposed human carriers of the virus, and you should have obtained the same result in the overwhelming percentage of cases. And independent researchers should be able to replicate your work.
In the Chinese epidemic, and in other past epidemics, I’ve seen no evidence that this process of isolation was employed on many, many patients with the same result—much less the independent confirmation.
Therefore, the whole inquiry and research are in doubt. Simply announcing to the world that “the virus has been found” means nothing.
All right. Here are excerpts from an interview. It gets somewhat technical. It was conducted by a brilliant independent journalist, Christine Johnson. The interviewee is Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”
CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?
EP: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.
CJ: Why not?
EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.
[…]
CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?
EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]
CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.
EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.
CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?
EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.
[…]
CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.
EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.
The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.
CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?
EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.
CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?
EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [electron microscope photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.
CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.
EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs [EMs] of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.
CJ: And what was that method?
EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.
CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?
EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.
CJ: But what about their pictures?
EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…
(end of interview excerpt)
If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to question the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.
Therefore, more questions emerge. How many other viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?
Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.
I want to be clear about what I’m asserting here. There are very serious questions about whether a variety of viruses have ever been isolated, proven to exist, and proven to be causing disease. An OPEN, lengthy, ongoing, published debate needs to be undertaken among researchers—including independent researchers.
These vital issues should never be concealed behind closed elite doors.
Why Medically Caused Deaths Continue to be Ignored
Why Medically Caused Deaths Continue to be Ignored
by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
August 29, 2018
More than any other reporter, I have continued to champion and spread the word about Dr. Barbara Starfield’s revelation: The US medical system kills 106,000 people a year with its medicines. Extrapolate that number for a decade: more than MILLION DEATHS.
I have reported, many times, on Starfield’s review, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World,” published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 26, 2000. I interviewed her in 2009, when she told me that her death numbers (106,000 per year) were conservative, and that the federal government was doing NOTHING comprehensive to fix the ongoing disaster. Imagine that, coming from a doctor who was a revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
Since I’ve written more articles about Dr. Starfield’s revelations than any reporter around, I also know the reaction of the mainstream press over the years: SILENCE. And more silence. And more.
So this time, I thought I’d explain the main reasons for the silence.
On one obvious level, it stems from the fact that the pharmaceutical industry buys enormous amounts of ads on and around news media. Do not bite the hand that feeds you.
And of course, blaming the medical system for a million deaths per decade…well, if you’re the New York Times and you’re making this into a take-no-prisoners ongoing building story, you’re going to incur considerable heat. Blowtorch heat.
Then there is this: nowhere in the medical literature is there any evidence, based on published studies of drugs, that these substances do such catastrophic damage. In fact, the studies and reports of clinical drug trials are largely glowing. Only one conclusion can be reached: the medical literature is rife with fraud from top to bottom. This fact would immediately throw the reputations of the most prestigious medical journals in the world into garbage landfills.
Indeed, we have, on the record, an editor of one of these publications broadly confessing to a mind-boggling reality: Dr. Marcia Angell, editor of The New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, has written:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”)
Next: if the press dug deep into the guts of the Starfield story, the FDA, which must approve all medical drugs before they are released for public use, would go down with a blinding crash. No one would be able to defend the Agency. Its profound criminal alliance with Pharma would come full force to the surface.
Multiple medical schools would come under the gun for their relationships with Pharma, and their basic practice of teaching monopolistic drug medicine and not nutritional medicine. These schools pretend “the evidence of safety and efficacy” for drugs is wide-ranging and invariably clear. Therefore, they, the schools, are abetting what amounts to a capital crime.
And what of the basic Hippocratic oath to “first do no harm”? Where is that vaunted pledge that tries to establish the practice of medicine as supremely ethical?
As you can see, a whole long line of dominos would fall, if the Starfield story were pursued, by the mainstream, with time, energy, money, and passion for the truth. (Starfield is not the only citation on medically caused deaths. I have documented others in the past.)
Finally, we arrive at a psychological and even philosophical reason for press silence on this ongoing holocaust: for millions of people, the institution of medicine is a foundational pillar of Reality in the world. Attachment to it is, in a way, mythological. Loyalty to the medical system runs the gamut from hope for raw physical survival to spiritual sustenance. Creating doubt, widespread doubt, about such a powerful building block of Existence—that would be tinkering with the very structure of things, “meddling with the primal forces of nature.”
But here, on these pages, I’ll meddle with anything I want to. If you can’t handle that, so be it. If I want to make a true fact into a sledgehammer and use it over and over, I will. And on this issue of medical caused deaths, I’d be crazy not to.
Leslie Kenton concludes, “It’s little wonder that people are confused about where to go and what to do when they get ill. I personally hear all about this, because I mentor hundreds of men and women throughout the world. They become overwhelmed by the media propaganda and aggressive advertisements they see on television. Our medical industrial complex has turned into a bizarre conglomeration of misinformation, lies and deceptions designed to further the corporate agendas of Big Pharma, government regulatory bodies and mainstream medicine, with little regard for human wellbeing.”
Where did all the madness (pharmaceutical terrorism) come from. Well we can go back to the beginning, and now see in the end “Bayer-Monsanto, soon to be just Bayer, which owns 60% of proprietary seeds and 70% of agrochemicals in the world. There are a lot of industries that wreck havoc on our world. One just has to think of the biggest global banks and oil companies. Think plastics and now think of telecommunication companies that are lusting to bombard us with even more microwave frequencies via their rollout of G5. But there is one field that is much worse than all others: agro-chemicals. At some point, not that long ago, the largest chemical producers, who until then had kept themselves busy producing Agent Orange, nerve agents and chemicals used in concentration camp showers, got the idea to use their products in food production,” writes the Automictic Earth.
Everywhere we go in modern medicine there are dangers that can ruin your life. Even safe procedures are dangerous. For example, “When a doctor orders an MRI, it’s usually is to help detect or rule out something potentially life-threatening, or at the very least, something that could make you seriously ill. But, it’s recently come to light that this rather routine diagnostic test, meant to help you, can have devastating effects on your health.”
Why are MRIs dangerous? It is not the frequencies MRI employs, it is the contrast agent that they often use. Gadolinium is a metallic element with magnetic properties. It is injected into about one third of patients getting an MRI, in order to enhance imaging. If your doctor has ever ordered an MRI with “contrast” for you, you were exposed to gadolinium. But most likely you had no idea you were being injected with a known neurotoxin, capable of inhibiting mitochondrial function (energy production) and causing oxidative stress.
Bayer experimental drugs were tested on Auschwitz prisoners. One of the SS doctors at Auschwitz, Dr. Helmut Vetter, a long-time Bayer employee, was involved in the testing of Bayer experimental vaccines and medicines on inmates. He was later executed for giving inmates fatal injections. “I have thrown myself into my work wholeheartedly,” he wrote to his bosses at Bayer headquarters. “Especially as I have the opportunity to test our new preparations. I feel like I am in paradise.”
When John D. Rockefeller interlocked his American-based international empire with that of I.G. Farben in 1928 “there was created the largest and most powerful cartel the world has ever known. Not only has that cartel survived through the years, it has grown and prospered.
Heroin, originally created by I.G. Farben, was outlawed in 1924 as a prescription drug in the United States.
Frightened Sheep
Most people are living in a bubble of idiotic self deceit, out or touch with reality, dumbed down, immune to deep feelings, immune to caring and concern for the reality we are all facing. Evil has prevailed despite the best intentions of all the good people on earth.
One of my favorite business writers, Chris Martenson, had a mouth full to say about our present condition:
“More and more, I hear that folks are feeling frustrated and betrayed, combined with a sense of loss and despair. I feel this way, too. As I’ve written recently, I observe this is due more than anything else to a widespread demoralization society is suffering from. Certainly, the statistics reflect this. Suicides in the US are up 30% since the turn of the millennium, obesity is at epidemic proportions, mortality rates are rising especially among white working-class Americans, and our national opioid addiction is now the “epidemic of epidemics.”
“To these we can also add falling birthrates and the truly startling shift towards a younger age for the onset of depression; declining from age 30 now to age…14(!) When an organism gives up on self-care, breeding, or its will to live, it’s suffering from a tremendous amount of strain that is cutting it off from its own life force. A dispirited lion wasting away in a cage has a lot in common with the average American today.”
“At a deep level, what ails us is not a host of unrelated, intractable problems, but the fact that our model of pursuing eternal economic growth simply isn’t working anymore. It doesn’t work for the planet’s increasingly strained ecosystems, nor does it work for the bottom 99% of folks in society (i.e., the non-elites). The various health epidemics noted above are merely symptoms of a larger acute spiritual crisis.”
Years ago, the H1N1 vaccine was linked to 700 percent increase in miscarriages but the government does not care about this form of terrorism because they are terrorists at heart at the CDC and the FDA. A shocking report from the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) presented data from two different sources demonstrating that the 2009/10 H1N1 vaccines contributed to an estimated 1,588 miscarriages and stillbirths. A corrected estimate may be as high as 3,587 cases. NCOW also highlights the disturbing fact that the CDC failed to inform their vaccine providers of the incoming data of the reports of suspected H1N1 vaccine-related fetal demise.
We could go on all day with one dastardly report after another. Modern medicine in the United States today is putting people in their graves in large numbers but before it does the system is increasingly beating them into bankruptcy.
Purdue Pharma, the company that planted the seeds of the opioid epidemic through its aggressive marketing of OxyContin, has long claimed it was unaware of the powerful opioid painkiller’s growing abuse until years after it went on the market. But a copy of a confidential Justice Department report shows that federal prosecutors investigating the company found that Purdue Pharma knew about “significant” abuse of OxyContin in the first years after the drug’s introduction in 1996 and concealed that information. In 2016, one in 65 deaths in the United States involved opioids — and among younger adults, that number skyrocketed to one in five, according to a new study.
The World and the Legacy of the Nazis
The Nuremberg War Criminal Tribunal convicted 24 IG Farben board members and executives on the basis of mass murder, slavery and other crimes against humanity. Amazingly however, by 1951 all of them had already been released, continuing to consult with German corporations. The Nuremberg Tribunal dissolved IG Farben into Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF. Today each of the three daughters of IG Farben is 20 times as big as the IG Farben mother was at its height in 1944, the last year of the Second World War.
And we still wonder why modern medicine is a killing machine. The FDA’s huge power to do wrong is founded in their ability to lie and deceive the public by declaring harmful toxic substances safe. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) practices a unique form of terrorism that tends to be particularly ugly, mean, nasty, brutal and cruel. They are an organization from its inception dedicated to the slow poisoning of every man woman and child in America.
There are people on this planet that take pleasure in hurting other people, others just cannot help it and they hurt from sheer psychological habit. The general nature of ‘evil’ is to not have consciousness of the effect that our actions have on the feelings and emotional world of others. Doctors have no excuse for how many people they kill each year, at least in America—where such statistics are kept and published.
If we were really interested in eliminating terrorism in the world we would start with the terrorism against children. The horrors of the childhood vaccine program are too long to tell but billions get paid out in the United States alone for vaccine damages and vaccine death. You do not hear that in the papers so understand how deep the rabbit hole of terrorism goes.
The world is going down, civilization is threatened by Mother Nature and by ourselves from a host of sources because of our ignorance of terrorism in ALL its forms. As a race we are less intelligent because of our blindness of how terrorism operates on every level of human activity. Our collective blindness has created a dark side that is conspiring to take us down into a human pit of suffering. That doctors and the medical industrial complex has embraced this darkness is telling.
Here is a new introduction to a piece I wrote several years ago. Then I’ll reprint the piece.
The famous CIA mind-control program, MKULTRA, always used psychiatrists; often these professionals headed up projects; they carried out the bulk of the research. But what I’m talking about here is the “evolution” of MKULTRA into mainstream psychiatry that affects the lives of millions of people every day.
I’ve demonstrated, on a number of occasions, that not one of the 300 so-called official mental disorders has a lab test to back up the diagnosis. No defining lab test. No blood test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic assay. All 300 “disorders” are described and defined by committees of psychiatrists—and their non-scientific decisions are published in the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association.
Unfortunately, the treatments for every one of these arbitrary diagnoses are toxic drugs; drugs that addle the brain; drugs that reduce people to a state of abject dependence; drugs that make people think they’re insane; drugs that cause violent behavior; drugs that create life-threatening problems when patients try to withdraw from them quickly; drugs whose effects mimic the very descriptions of mental illness.
In other words, modern psychiatry, backed by drug makers, has an ideal formula for disabling populations.
So it’s more than interesting that the CIA has pursued a mind control program (MKULTRA) to achieve, in certain respects, the same objectives.
—end of introduction—now here is my piece on a forgotten CIA document:
Drugs to transform individuals…and even, by implication, society.
Drug research going far beyond the usual brief descriptions of MKULTRA.
The intention is there, in the record:
A CIA document was included in the transcript of the 1977 US Senate Hearings on MKULTRA, the CIA’s mind-control program.
The document is found in Appendix C, starting on page 166. It’s simply labeled “Draft,” dated 5 May 1955.
It states: “A portion of the Research and Development Program of [CIA’s] TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods:”
What followed was a list of hoped-for drugs and their uses.
First, a bit of background: MKULTRA did not end in 1962, as advertised. It was shifted over to the Agency’s Office of Research and Development.
John Marks is the author of the groundbreaking 1979 book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate, which helped expose MKULTRA. Marks told me a CIA representative informed him that the continuation of MKULTRA, after 1962, was carried out with a greater degree of secrecy, and he, Marks, would never see a scrap of paper about it.
I’m printing below, the list of the 1955 intentions of the CIA regarding their own drug research. The range of those intentions is stunning.
Some of my comments gleaned from studying the list:
The CIA wanted to find substances which would “promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness.” Serious consideration should be given to the idea that psychiatric medications would eventually satisfy that requirement.
The CIA wanted to find chemicals that “would produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way.” This suggests many possibilities—among them the use of drugs to fabricate diseases and thereby give the false impression of germ-caused epidemics.
The CIA wanted to find drugs that would “produce amnesia.” Ideal for discrediting whistleblowers, dissidents, certain political candidates, and other investigators. (Scopolamine is such a drug.)
The CIA wanted to discover drugs which would produce “paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.” A way to make people decline in health as if from diseases.
The CIA wanted to develop drugs that would “alter personality structure” and thus induce a person’s dependence on another person. How about dependence in general? For instance, dependence on institutions, governments?
The CIA wanted to discover chemicals that would “lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men.” Sounds like a general description of the devolution of society.
As you read the list yourself, you’ll see more implications/possibilities.
Here, from 1955, are the types of drugs the MKULTRA men at the CIA were looking for. The following statements are direct CIA quotes:
A portion of the Research and Development Program of TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods:
1. Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.
2. Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.
3. Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
4. Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
5. Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.
6. Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.
7. Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called “brain-washing”.
8. Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.
9. Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.
10. Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.
11. Substances which will produce “pure” euphoria with no subsequent let-down.
12. Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.
13. A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.
14. Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.
15. Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.
16. A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.
17. A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a man to perform any physical activity whatsoever.
—end of quoted section from the 1955 CIA document—
At the end of this 1955 CIA document, the author [unnamed] makes these remarks: “In practice, it has been possible to use outside cleared contractors for the preliminary phases of this [research] work. However, that part which involves human testing at effective dose levels presents security problems which cannot be handled by the ordinary contactors.”
“The proposed [human testing] facility [deletion] offers a unique opportunity for the secure handling of such clinical testing in addition to the many advantages outlined in the project proposal. The security problems mentioned above are eliminated by the fact that the responsibility for the testing will rest completely upon the physician and the hospital. [one line deleted] will allow [CIA] TSS/CD personnel to supervise the work very closely to make sure that all tests are conducted according to the recognized practices and embody adequate safeguards.”
In other words, this was to be ultra-secret. No outside contractors at universities for the core of the experiments, which by the way could be carried forward for decades.
A secret in-house facility.
Over the years, more facilities could be created.
If you examine the full range of psychiatric drugs developed since 1955, you’ll see that a number of them fit the CIA’s agenda. Speed-type chemicals to addle the brain over the long term, to treat so-called ADHD. Anti-psychotic drugs [Haldol, Risperdal, etc.], AKA “major tranquilizers,” to render patients more and more dependent on others (and government) as they sink into profound disability and incur motor brain damage. And of course, the SSRI antidepressants, like Prozac and Paxil and Zoloft, which produce extreme and debilitating highs and lows—and also push people over the edge into committing violence.
These drugs drag the whole society down into lower and lower levels of consciousness and action.
If that’s the goal of a very powerful and clandestine government agency…it’s succeeding. In mainstream psychiatry.
The Psychiatric Agenda Destroys Creative Children
The Psychiatric Agenda Destroys Creative Children
by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
June 23, 2017
“Take a child who wants to invent something out of thin air, and instead of saying no, tell him he has a problem with his brain, and then stand back and watch what happens. In particular, watch what happens when you give him a toxic drug to fix his brain. You have to be a certain kind of person to do that to a child. You have to be, for various reasons, crazy and a career criminal.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
First, here are a few facts that should give you pause:
According to NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness), “More than 25 percent of college students have been diagnosed or treated by a professional for a mental health condition within the past year.”
NAMI: “One in four young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 have [we claim] a diagnosable mental illness.”
According to healthline.com, 6.4 million American children between the ages of 4 and 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD. The average age for the child’s diagnosis is 7.
BMJ 2016;352:i1457: “The number of UK children and adolescents treated with antidepressants rose by over 50% from 2005 to 2012, a study of five Western countries published in European Neuropsychopharmacology has found.”
Getting the picture?
Children are being diagnosed and dosed with toxic drugs at a staggering rate.
But, as I have shown in many past articles, NO so-called mental disorder is based on a lab test. No blood, saliva, genetic, brain test. ALL 300 or so official mental disorders are defined by menus of behaviors concocted by committees of psychiatrists.
On that foundation, the diagnoses and the drugs are handed out.
Let’s look at just one of the drugs: Ritalin (or any similar ADHD medicine). After a creative child is seen fidgeting in class, looking bored, studying what he wants to study, ignoring classroom assignments, focusing on what interests him, he is diagnosed with ADHD. Then comes the drug.
In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published an important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].
Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.
For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:
* Paranoid delusions
* Paranoid psychosis
* Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
* Activation of psychotic symptoms
* Toxic psychosis
* Visual hallucinations
* Auditory hallucinations
* Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
* Effects pathological thought processes
* Extreme withdrawal
* Terrified affect
* Started screaming
* Aggressiveness
* Insomnia
* Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
* Psychic dependence
* High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
* Decreased REM sleep
* When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
* Convulsions
* Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.
Under this chemical assault on the brain, what are the chances that a creative child will go on in life to become an innovator, rather than a victim of psychiatric drugging?
Make a list of your favorite innovators. Imagine them as bored distracted children sitting in classrooms…and then diagnosed, and then hammered with drugs prescribed by a doctor.
This is happening now.
The institution of psychiatry is making it happen.
What about the consequences of diagnosing clinical depression in larger numbers of young children? What about the antidepressant drugs?
Here is just a sprinkling of information about antidepressants, from a huge body of literature:
Psychiatrist Peter Breggin: February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”
An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Peter Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”
The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac. California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”
When pressed, proponents of these SSRI antidepressant drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk.” But the issue of benefits will not go away on that basis. A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”
In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.
There are other studies: “Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.
July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”
September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.
For money, for profit, for status, for control, there exists a professional class called psychiatrists. They approach children—particularly creative children who refuse to fall into lock-step with a regimented program of learning—as outliers, as ill, as strange, as maladjusted, as threats to the system. And this professional class takes action. Diagnose the children, drug them, bring them back into line, make them “normal,” reduce their curiosity and independence and drive and will power.
Instead of using overt physical force, they use relatively invisible chemical force.
Under the banner of caring, they perform, on the young, a scientific ritual of sacrifice, a rite of passage into the dead world where they, the elite rulers, exist.
