Dr. Rima Laibow, M.D. is a graduate of Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1970) who believes passionately in the right of Americans to choose their own health paths. She has practiced drug-free, natural medicine for 50 years by seeking the underlying cause of every illness and ailment and treating that root cause.
In 2002 one of her patients from a very rich family told her about detailed plans from her circles for a new world order (NWO). This also included the reduction of the world population by 90%, because they would be “useless eaters”. Based on these stories, Dr. Laibow began to do research on these topics.
In 2004 she founded the “Natural Solutions Foundation” together with her late husband, an organization dedicated to health through food and freedom.
In this episode of ICIC, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and co-host Attorney Dagmar Schön talk with Dr. Rima Laibow, a psychiatrist and specialist in child & adolescent psychiatry in the US, about the untrustworthy and demonstrably long-planned agenda of a psychopathic minority of self-proclaimed elites who stop at no crime to achieve their inhuman goals.
In their dangerous megalomania to decimate humanity by 95% and to keep the rest under their totalitarian control like cattle and to abuse them as they see fit, they do not even stop at the cruelest violence against the weakest members of our society, the children.
If it’s possible to indoctrinate all children worldwide using mind control and MK-Ultra programs with early sexualization, uprooting and identity confusion, which they incorporate into all areas of our daily lives, and to poison them by means of so-called vaccinations and in the worst case by gene-altering, experimental injections to damage their DNA, it will be easy in the future to manipulate and control humanity and to eradicate the qualities that make up being human, such as love, compassion, friendship, social connectedness.
Thus, the “useless eaters” who, in their view, burden the planet to which they have issued a sole claim, should disappear. Useful slaves, without human characteristics, created in laboratories in the best case, shall be available for them, without feelings and without polluting the planet unnecessarily and wasting resources.
Dr. Laibow speaks clearly using plain words to expose it all, and bring into the light of day this terrible plan which the power-hungry and their henchmen, who she calls “monsters”, have subtly forged under the guise of private organizations like the WHO, EU, UN, Unicef and Unesco etc., which were founded especially for this purpose. It does not gloss over anything, and points out the impending dangers to our existence and that of our children and our children’s children.
We as sentient beings, as people with strength, creativity, courage and a sense of justice must no longer remain silent in the hope that ‘it’ will eventually pass and we will be able to live a normal life again, because it was not normal before either, only that it could not be perceived due to the brainwashing and drug treatments. But now that we have seen it clearly, what has been done to us just in the last three years and they are waiting in the wings again with panic and torture, we have to stand up and protectively put ourselves in front of our children.
Dr. Laibow advises everyone to declare loud and clear, “Don’t you dare lay a hand on our children, and don’t you dare try to control our lives!”
This is the language that they understand and it is the power of community and cohesion that we need to hunt down these ‘monsters’ and hold them accountable.
FROM 2016: You’ve probably heard all about Upton Sinclair’s 1906 expose of the turn-of-the-century American meatpacking industry and the Chicago stockyards…but everything you’ve heard about it is wrong. The book wasn’t an expose of the meatpackers, the legislation it inspired served to help the industry it sought to punish, and Sinclair himself hated the end result of his book, which aimed for the heart and hit the stomach by accident.
Join us for this month’s edition of the Film, Literature and the New World Order as we learn not to trust what’s on the label of mainline history.
About Dr. Sam Bailey: After training and practicing within the medical system for two decades, she commenced a new phase of understanding and promoting health as a wider concept.
In 2019, Sam launched her YouTube channel exposing the hidden scientific truths about health.
A few years later and after taking the red pill, Bailey’s channel has become a runaway hit with 20+ million views and 300,000+ subscribers to help people understand the simple ways they can take control of their health.
She is the co-author of Virus Mania, which examines how the medical industry continually invents epidemics to make billion-dollar profits at our expense.
About Dr. Mark Bailey: Mark is the husband of Dr Sam Bailey and when you see one of them, you are really seeing both of them. They started working together when they first met in 2007 and have been a close team ever since. Mark and Sam are based in New Zealand and have three children together.
Since early 2020 he has been the duo’s chief researcher with a focus on microbiology, the existence of viruses, as well as historical and epistemological issues within medical science.
Is There Anything Floating in the Air – Trying to Infect Us?
Glyphosate, a synthetic herbicide patented in 1974 by the Monsanto Company and now manufactured and sold by many companies in hundreds of products, has been associated with cancer and many other health concerns discussed in this fact sheet. Glyphosate is best known as the active ingredient in Roundup-branded herbicides, and the herbicide used with “Roundup Ready” genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Herbicide tolerance is the most prevalent GMO trait engineered into food crops, with some 90% of corn and 94% of soybeans in the U.S. genetically engineered to tolerate herbicides, according to USDA data. A 2017 study found that Americans’ exposure to glyphosate grew by about 500 percent since Roundup Ready GMO crops were introduced in the U.S in 1996.
Why is Bayer taking glyphosate off the U.S. consumer market?
In July 2021, Monsanto owner Bayer AG said it would remove glyphosate-based herbicides from the U.S. consumer market by 2023 due to litigation. More than 100,000 people are suing Bayer alleging they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure to the company’s glyphosate herbicides, such as Roundup. We are posting documents released via discovery on our Monsanto Papers page.
Glyphosate will still be used in large quantities in agriculture in the U.S. Reformulated versions of Roundup brand herbicides without glyphosate will also remain on the market, but may contain other chemicals of concern. For example, one of the active ingredients in “Roundup for Lawns” is dicamba, a chemical that can damage non-target plants and crops.
Americans applied 1.8 million tons of glyphosate (or 1.6 billion kilograms) from its introduction in 1974 to 2014.
Worldwide, 9.5 million tons (or 8.6 billion kilograms) of the chemical has been sprayed on fields —enough to spray nearly half a pound of Roundup on every cultivated acre of land in the world.
Glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since Roundup Ready GMO crops (genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate) were introduced in the mid 1990s.
In the U.S., approximately 281 million pounds of glyphosate were applied to 298 million acres annually, on average, from 2012 to 2016, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The most glyphosate was applied to soybean (117.4 million pounds annually), corn (94.9 million pounds annually), and cotton (20 million pounds annually). Many citrus fruits, including grapefruit, oranges and lemons, and field crops such as soybeans, corn and cotton have high percentages of their acres treated with glyphosate.
What do scientists and health care providers say about glyphosate?
Many scientists, health care professionals and public interest groups have raised concern about the health impacts of glyphosate. Here are some key statements:
Monsanto owner Bayer AG maintains that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides are safe when used as directed and do not cause cancer. “Glyphosate is one of the most studied herbicides in the world – and, like all crop protection products, it is subject to rigorous testing and oversight by regulatory authorities,” Bayer states on its website. “There is an extensive body of research on glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides… that confirm that glyphosate and our glyphosate-based formulated products can be used safely and do not cause cancer.”
More than 80% of urine samples drawn from children and adults in a U.S. health study contained glyphosate, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Out of 2,310 urine samples taken from Americans intended to be representative of the population, CDC found that 1,885 contained detectable levels of glyphosate. Scientists described this finding as “disturbing” and “concerning.”
A 2017 study in JAMA found that Americans’ exposure to glyphosate increased approximately 500 percent since Roundup Ready GMO crops were introduced in 1996.
While it is clear that most Americans are being exposed to glyphosate, the literature on glyphosate exposure levels, especially in children, remains limited, according to a 2020 paper in Environmental Health. “Without more data collected in a standardized way, parsing out the potential relationship between glyphosate exposure and disease will not be possible,” the researchers concluded.
Why are corporate studies a problem?
Regulators in Europe and the United States, Canada and elsewhere have repeatedly affirmed the corporate assertions of glyphosate safety. In making determinations about safety, these regulators have relied in part on tests that are conducted by or for the companies that have not been published or peer reviewed.
The corporate studies have long been kept secret, even by regulators. But in Europe, litigation by a group of European Parliament lawmakers led to the release of dozens of such studies. More than 50 of those corporate studies were analyzed in 2021 by independent scientists from the Institute of Cancer Research, Department of Medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, Armen Nersesyan and Siegfried Knasmueller.
Their goal was to determine if the industry studies comply with current international guidelines for chemical testing. The researchers concluded that the bulk of the industry studies were outdated and did not meet current guidelines. An array of shortcomings and flaws were found in the studies, rendering most of them unreliable. Of the 53 studies submitted to regulators by the companies, only two were acceptable under current internationally recognized scientific standards, Knasmueller said.
Glyphosate and cancer: What do scientific and regulatory agencies say?
The scientific literature and regulatory conclusions regarding cancer links to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides show a mix of findings, making the safety of the herbicide a hotly debated subject.
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” after reviewing years of published and peer-reviewed scientific studies. The team of international scientists found there was a particular association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
U.S. agencies: At the time of the IARC classification, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was conducting a registration review. The EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) issued a report in 2016 concluding that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at doses relevant to human health. In December 2016, the EPA convened a Scientific Advisory Panel to review the report; members were divided in their assessment of EPA’s work, with some finding the EPA erred in how it evaluated certain research. Additionally, the EPA’s Office of Research and Development determined that EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs had not followed proper protocols in its evaluation of glyphosate, and said the evidence could be deemed to support a “likely” carcinogenic or “suggestive” evidence of carcinogenicity classification. Nevertheless the EPA issued a draft report on glyphosate in December 2017 continuing to hold that the chemical is not likely to be carcinogenic. In April 2019, the EPA reaffirmed its position that glyphosate poses no risk to public health. But earlier that same month, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reported links between glyphosate and cancer: “numerous studies reported risk ratios greater than one for associations between glyphosate exposure and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma,” the report said.
The EPA issued an Interim Registration Review Decision in January 2020 with updated information about its position on glyphosate, continuing to hold the position that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer. In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected EPA’s decision. EPA withdrew its interim decision in September 2022 and the agency will start over in its review.
European Union: The European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency have said glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. A March 2017 report by environmental and consumer groups argued that regulators relied improperly on research that was directed and manipulated by the chemical industry. A 2019 study found that Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment report on glyphosate, which found no cancer risk, included sections of text that had been plagiarized from Monsanto studies. In February 2020, reports surfaced that 24 scientific studies submitted to the German regulators to prove the safety of glyphosate came from a large German laboratory that has been accused of fraud and other wrongdoing.
In June 2021, the European Union’s (EU) Assessment Group on Glyphosate (AGG) issued an 11,000-page draft report concluding that glyphosate is safe when used as directed and does not cause cancer. The finding is based in part on a dossier of roughly 1,500 studies submitted to European regulators by the “Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG),” a collection of companies that includes Monsanto owner Bayer AG. The companies are seeking the renewal of the EU authorization of glyphosate. Current authorization in Europe expires in 2023.
WHO/FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residuesdetermined in 2016 that glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet, but this finding was tarnished by conflict of interest concerns after it came to light that the chair and co-chair of the group also held leadership positions with the International Life Sciences Institute, a group funded in part by Monsanto and one of its lobbying organizations.
California OEHHA: In March 2017, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment confirmed it would add glyphosate to California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer. Monsanto sued to block the action but the case was dismissed. In a separate case, the court found that California could not require cancer warnings for products containing glyphosate. On June 12, 2018, a U.S. District Court denied the California Attorney General’s request for the court to reconsider the decision. The court found that California could only require commercial speech that disclosed “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” and the science surrounding glyphosate carcinogenicity was not proven.
Agricultural Health Study: A long-running U.S. government-backed prospective cohort study of farm families in Iowa and North Carolina has not found any connections between glyphosate use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but the researchers reported that “among applicators in the highest exposure quartile, there was an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with never users…” The most recent published update to the study was made public in late 2017.
What health problems are linked to glyphosate exposure?
Cancer
July 2023 study in Chemosphere: Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic review of mechanistic studies on glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations to evaluate them for the 10 key characteristics of cancer hazard identification. Data analysis revealed “strong evidence” for five of the key characteristics of carcinogenicity. An in-depth analyses of genotoxicity and endocrine disruption revealed “strong and consistent positive findings.” The researchers wrote, “Our findings strengthen the mechanistic evidence that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen and provide biological plausibility for previously reported cancer associations in humans, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”
March 2023 Leukemia and Lymphoma journal: Pooled study of three case-control studies found statistically significant increased risk and confirmed an association between Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), including sub type hairy cell leukemia, and exposure to certain herbicides including glyphosate.
A February 2020 paper in Environmental Health presents a comprehensive review of chronic exposure animal carcinogenicity studies of glyphosate. It reports toxicologically plausible pathways for why glyphosate may cause various cancers in rodents.
In April 2019, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued its draft toxicological profile for glyphosate, reporting an increased cancer risk from glyphosate exposures. Emails released via court proceedings show officials at EPA and Monsanto tried to hinder the ATSDR report. (The ATSDR profile is now final, and raises concerns about cancer.)
March 2019 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology analyzed data from more than 30,000 farmers and agricultural workers from studies done in France, Norway and the U.S., and reported links between glyphosate and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
February 2019 meta analysis in Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research reports a “compelling link” between glyphosate-based herbicides and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Three of the study authors were members of the EPA’s scientific advisory panel on glyphosate who have stated publicly that the EPA failed to follow proper scientific practices in its glyphosate assessment.
For an analysis released in July 2021, researchers from the University of Vienna analyzed 53 glyphosate studies submitted to regulators by pesticide companies found that most of the studies do not comply with modern international standards for scientific rigor, and lack the types of tests most able to detect cancer risks. The same researchers reported in November 2021 that only two of the 11 studies Monsanto submitted to EU regulators were deemed “reliable.”
In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected EPA’s decision that glyphosate likely poses no “unreasonable risk” to the environment and human health. In September 2022 the U.S. EPA withdrew its interim decision on glyphosate.
Endocrine disruption, fertility and reproductive concerns
July 2023 study in Environmental Pollution investigated the potential effects of low levels of glyphosate exposure from weaning to adult life in male Wistar rats on hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid (HPT) axis function. Various changes suggest that glyphosate “may affect several steps of HPT axis regulation at the transcriptional level in an age-dependent manner and alter the morphometric parameters of the thyroid gland and TH synthesis, with potential repercussions in the TH-target organs.”
November 2022 paper in the Review of Economic Studies discusses glyphosate exposure and birth outcomes of populations surrounding GMO soy growing regions in Brazil. “We document a significant deterioration in birth outcomes for populations downstream from locations that are likely to have increased relatively more the use of glyphosate … average increase in glyphosate use in the sample during the 2000-2010 period led to an increase of 5% of the average in the infant mortality rate.”
October 2022 study in Environmental Health found glyphosate in 99% of pregnant women in a Midwestern cohort. Higher maternal levels in the first trimester were associated with lower birth weight, higher NICU admission risk. See also Indiana University School of Medicine news release.
In a March 2021 paper in Frontiers in Endocrinology, researchers that glyphosate is detected in the urine of residents of rural and urban environments and there is a correlation between “farmers’ exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and altered thyroid hormone levels or incidence of thyroid pathologies.”
October 2020 paper in Chemosphere journal is the first comprehensive review consolidating the mechanistic evidence on glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC). The paper concludes that the world’s most widely used herbicide meets at least eight of the 10 key characteristics of EDCs, as proposed in an expert consensus statement published in 2020. See also article by USRTK.
July 2020 paper published in Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, Are glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides endocrine disruptors that alter female fertility?” summarizes the endocrine-disrupting effects of exposure to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides at low or “environmentally relevant” doses in the female reproductive tissues. Data suggesting that, at low doses, glyphosate-based herbicides may have adverse effects on the female reproductive tract fertility are discussed.
June 2020 paper in Veterinary and Animal Science concludes that some ingredients of glyphosate-based herbicides appear to act as reproductive toxicants, having a wide range of effects on both the male and female reproductive systems, including endocrine disruption, tissue damage and dysfunction of gametogenesis.
June 2020 paper in Environmental Pollution finds that neonatal exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides decreased cell proliferation and altered the expression of molecules that control proliferation and development in the uterus, potentially affecting the female reproductive health of sheep.
July 2020 study in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology found indications that “chronic low-level exposure to glyphosate alters the ovarian proteome and may ultimately impact ovarian function.”
September 2020 study in Food and Chemical Toxicology reports that perinatal exposure to a glyphosate-based herbicide or glyphosate “disrupted critical hormonal and uterine molecular targets during the receptive state, possibly associated with the implantation failures.”
A 2018 ecological and population study conducted in Argentina found high concentrations of glyphosate in the soil and dust in agricultural areas that also reported higher rates of spontaneous abortion and congenital abnormalities in children, suggesting a link between environmental exposure to glyphosate and reproductive problems. No other relevant sources of pollution were identified.
A birth cohort study in Indiana published in 2017 – the first study of glyphosate exposure in US pregnant women using urine specimens as a direct measure of exposure – found detectable levels of glyphosate in more than 90% of the pregnant women tested and found the levels were significantly correlated with shortened pregnancy lengths.
A 2023 prospective cohort study using data from the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) reports a strong association between glyphosate and AMPA levels in the urine of 4-year-old and 14-year-old Hispanic children and markers of damage in the liver indicative of future non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome. See also reporting in Inside Climate News.
A 2019 study based on urinary analysis for glyphosate reported that glyphosate excretion is significantly higher in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) who are considered to be at a higher risk of fibrosis progression and development to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.
A 2017 study associated chronic, very low-level glyphosate exposures to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats. According to the researchers, the results “imply that chronic consumption of extremely low levels of a GBH formulation (Roundup), at admissible glyphosate-equivalent concentrations, are associated with marked alterations of the liver proteome and metabolome,” the biomarkers for NAFLD
Kidney disease
The American Association for the Advancement of Science awarded two Sri Lankan scientists, Drs. Channa Jayasumana and Sarath Gunatilake, the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility for their work to “investigate a possible connection between glyphosate and chronic kidney disease under challenging circumstances.” The scientists reported that glyphosate plays a key role in transporting heavy metals to the kidneys of those drinking contaminated water, leading to high rates of chronic kidney disease in farming communities. See papers in SpringerPlus (2015), BMC Nephrology (2015), Environmental Health (2015), International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2014).
November 2020 paper in the Journal of Hazardous Materials reports that approximately 54 percent of species in the core of the human gut microbiome are “potentially sensitive” to glyphosate. With a “large proportion” of bacteria in the gut microbiome susceptible to glyphosate, the intake of glyphosate “may severely affect the composition of the human gut microbiome,” the authors said in their paper. See also reporting by USRTK.
A 2020 literature review of glyphosate’s effects on the gut microbiome concludes that, “glyphosate residues on food could cause dysbiosis, given that opportunistic pathogens are more resistant to glyphosate compared to commensal bacteria.” The paper continues, “Glyphosate may be a critical environmental trigger in the etiology of several disease states associated with dysbiosis, including celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Glyphosate exposure may also have consequences for mental health, including anxiety and depression, through alterations in the gut microbiome.”
A 2018 rat study conducted by the Ramazzini Institute reported that low-dose exposures to Roundup at levels considered safe significantly altered the gut microbiota in some of the rat pups.
A large nationwide study published in the journal NeuroToxicology (December 2021) reports that “several neurotoxic pesticide exposures estimated using residential location were associated with statistically significant increased risk of ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). These include the herbicides 2, 4-D and glyphosate, and the insecticides carbaryl and chlorpyrifos.” ALS is a progressive nervous system disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, causing loss of muscle control.
Anemia
A July 2023 study in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Taiwanese researchers analyzed data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 1466 adults to explore the relationship between glyphosate exposure and erythrocyte profiles. The study found a “significant negative association between urinary glyphosate levels and hemoglobin and hematocrit … and provides “preliminary evidence of a plausible association between glyphosate exposure and anemia in a subset of the adult population in the United States.”
Research from 2017 correlated glyphosate use with reduced populations of monarch butterflies, possibly due to reductions in milkweed, the main food source for monarch butterflies.
Why are people suing Bayer over glyphosate?
More than 100,000 people have filed suit against Monsanto Company (now Bayer) alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and that Monsanto covered up the risks. As part of the discovery process, Monsanto has had to turn over millions of pages of internal records. See our Monsanto Papers page for documents released during the trials. The first three trials ended in large awards to plaintiffs for liability and damages, with juries ruling that Monsanto’s weed killer was a substantial contributing factor in causing them to develop NHL. Bayer is appealing the rulings. The U.S. Supreme Court has so far upheld the rulings against Bayer.
Monsanto influence over research
In March 2017, the federal court judge unsealed some internal Monsanto documents that raised new questions about Monsanto’s influence on the EPA process and about the research regulators rely on. The documents suggest that Monsanto’s long-standing claims about the safety of glyphosate and Roundup do not necessarily rely on sound science as the company asserts, but on efforts to manipulate the science.
Letter to Nature by Stéphane Horel and Stéphane Foucart (March 2018)
Why is desiccation of wheat and other crops a problem?
Some farmers use glyphosate on non-GMO crops such as wheat, barley, oats, and lentils to dry down the crop ahead of harvest in order to accelerate the harvest. This practice, known as desiccation, may be a significant source of dietary exposure to glyphosate.
How much glyphosate is in our food?
Despite having annual pesticide residue testing programs for more than 30 years, the USDA U.S. FDA mostly skipped testing food for glyphosate until after criticism from the Government Accountability Office in 2014. The USDA said it would start testing but then dropped the plan in 2017. Internal government documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know show USDA had planned to start testing over 300 samples of corn syrup for glyphosate in April 2017; but the agency killed the project before it started. FDA began a limited testing program in 2016, but the effort was fraught with controversy and internal difficulties and the program was suspended in September 2016. The FDA did later resume limited testing.
One FDA chemist found alarming levels of glyphosate in many samples of U.S. honey, levels that were technically illegal because there have been no allowable levels established for honey by the EPA. Here is a recap of news about glyphosate found in food:
October 2018: FDA issued its first-ever report showing the results of its glyphosate residue in food testing. The FDA said no residues of glyphosate were found in milk or eggs, but residues were found in 63.1 percent of corn samples and 67 percent of soybean samples, according to FDA data. The agency did not disclose in that report the findings of glyphosate in oatmeal or honey products.
What mixtures of glyphosate and other pesticides are in our food?
USDA data from 2016 shows detectable pesticide levels in 85% of more than 10,000 foods sampled, everything from mushrooms to grapes to green beans. The government says there are little to no health risks, but some scientists say there is little to no data to back up that claim. See Chemicals on our food: When ‘safe’ may not really be safe.
In 2020, a group of FDA scientists published a research paper examining pesticide residue data collected from 2009-2017. The scientists said: “In this study, results for over 56,000 human food samples collected and analyzed under the FDA pesticide residue monitoring program between fiscal years (FY) 2009 to 2017 were reviewed to identify trends not apparent in annual reports. The overwhelming majority of these samples, 98.0% of domestic and 90.9% of import human foods, were compliant with federal standards. Although herbicides may be more widely used, the 10 most frequently detected residues were insecticides and fungicides. On a yearly basis, the violation rate for imported samples is 3-5 times higher than the rate for domestic samples. The import violation rate increased over time, as did the number of residues detected. Targeted sampling of foods with higher commodity-specific violation rates appears to be a major contributor to the increased violation rate. Mismatches between US tolerances and international MRLs can lead to violations; this was especially marked for rice. Overall, the majority of violations are due to residues of pesticides not authorized for use in the US (lack of tolerances). While DDT continues to persist in the environment and was found in 2.2% of domestic samples and 0.6% of imported samples, 42.3% of DDT-positive samples were below the limit of quantitation. The trends and analyses identified in this paper may help FDA plan future sampling and continue to protect the food supply.”
Monsanto owner Bayer AG maintains that residues of glyphosate in food are not harmful at levels approved by the EPA. A 2021 paper written by longtime Bayer (former Monsanto) scientist John Vicini and published in Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety states that “dietary exposures to glyphosate are within established safe limits.”
For a complete history of the use of glyphosate, including regulatory action and inaction, scientific controversies, human and environmental impact data, read Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science, winner of the 2018 Rachel Carson Book Award from the Society of Environmental Journalists. See also USRTK’s report on what internal corporate documents reveal about the tactics Monsanto and Bayer used to defend glyphosate. Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticides by Stacy Malkan, with Anna Lappe and Kendra Klein, PhD.
This fact sheet was originally written by Carey Gillam and is regularly updated by USRTK staff
“CONCOCTED science is the modern version of spiritual revelation. The Roman Church—while it was carrying out witch hunts and inquisitions replete with confessions obtained through torture and capped off with death by burning at the stake—was claiming Jesus Himself had passed the keys of the Kingdom to the Church…and He tacitly approved its policies.
“These days, debilitating, brain damaging, and life-destroying vaccines are the scientific revelations the Church of Federal Medicine stands for.
I continue to write about this subject because it’s vital.
NIH, the US National Institutes of Health, is the largest medical research facility in the world. It has 18,000 employees and runs on an annual budget of $45 billion.
I once suggested to Jim Warner, a White House policy analyst under Ronald Reagan, that somebody should do an audit of NIH and determine exactly what medical advancements the agency had actually made during its long history. He thought that was a terrific idea. But nothing came of it.
I assure you, an audit would reveal much less than meets the eye. Much less in the way of useful discoveries and technology. Along with mountains of useless and fraudulent science.
BUT NIH stands as a center of knowledge and a symbol, a reference point, a proof positive that medical science is marching forward.
It’s a very expensive public relations tool.
How could we not accept and signal our obedience to medicine, when we have such an awesome modern cathedral for its research?
Ditto for the CDC and the FDA. Both infernally corrupt agencies.
CONCOCTED science is the modern version of spiritual revelation. The Roman Church—while it was carrying out witch hunts and inquisitions replete with confessions obtained through torture and capped off with death by burning at the stake—was claiming Jesus Himself had passed the keys of the Kingdom to the Church…and He tacitly approved its policies.
These days, debilitating, brain damaging, and life-destroying vaccines are the scientific revelations the Church of Federal Medicine stands for.
Concocted science.
People accept science as fact, based on the IMPRESSION that actual knowledge is being discovered.
PR people make sure this impression is delivered.
Just as the Roman Church never confesses to fraud in its doctrine, the centers of modern medical knowledge never confess fraud.
On the latest episode of Russell Brand’s “Stay Free,” scholar, environmental activist and food sovereignty advocate Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., discussed food fascism, the power of “philanthropy,” digital enslavement and how people can free themselves from this system.
“Human beings cannot have a relationship with nature, land and one another, it seems increasingly, without the intercedence of this corporate power,” comedian and political commentator Russell Brand told scholar and environmental activist Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., on the latest episode of his “Stay Free” podcast.
Brand asked Shiva, a food sovereignty and environmental activist, to explain how this corporate takeover of nature happened.
Shiva said the privatization of land and resources under colonialism was the first step in transforming nature into “either a mine or a dump.”
Today, she said, privatization has become so entrenched that mega-corporation Cargill can own every chicken, chicken production facility, and every input needed to raise chickens, and then dump all of its waste into public rivers.
The situation we face today could not have happened, she said, without the criminalization of farmers — for which she held media organizations like The Guardian responsible because they attack farmers instead of the corporations.
“If the drivers are the corporations,” she said, “you have to have the guts to bite the corporations. You don’t target the victims. The farmers are victims of this system.”
Who are the real ‘food fascists’?
Brand asked Shiva why the global uprising of farmers — from Sri Lanka and India to Germany, England and the Netherlands — against the globalization of agriculture had come to be cast as a right-wing idea by the press.
Shiva said Mussolini himself defined fascism as “the convergence of economic and political power.” “Food fascism,” she said, “is the recent control over our food systems by giant corporations and the billionaires.”
Under colonialism, the British controlled the land, she said, but they didn’t control the food. The advent of agricultural industrialization, the green revolution and globalization made it possible for corporations to take control of food.
The call for “food sovereignty,” she said, “came as the call as opposite to the food dictatorship and food fascism.”
Now, she said, those people want to complete the separation of people from the land that began with colonialism.
Today, they want “farming without farmers.”
Being able to plant a seed, input love, knowledge and sun and produce food, “is the only truly independent production system and it’s that freedom they want to attack,” Shiva said, because they are threatened by it.
So they discredit farmers by calling them “fascists” and “right wing.”
“And anybody who facilitates that is essentially doing the work of these globalists,” she said, “they’re the fascists.”
How ‘philanthropy’ buys control
Today, people who talk about the disproportionate power and influence that billionaires like Bill Gates have over global agriculture and health are regarded as “conspiracy theorists,” Brand said.
He asked Shiva to explain Gates’ rise to power in plain language and with facts.
Shiva said people like Gates became wealthy through neoliberal trade liberalization, where trade in information, in the software and other forms of data Gates produced, went completely untaxed.
Then, she said, they used that money “philanthropically” to gain control of other sectors.
It even gives them the power to control governments, she said, who have been made desperate for money through indebtedness.
Gates and Silicon Valley, she said, “are very big players in the fake food future of farming without farmers, food without farms.” And they get journalists such as The Guardian’s George Monbiot to promote it.
Chasing enslavement
Shiva said this vision is built on “an imagined promise of an imagined future that we are never gonna arrive at. Because when you get there, you’ll find it doesn’t belong to you. It belongs to them.”
The systems that support their vision of the future appear to offer us convenience, but in reality, she said, maintaining them takes all of our time.
Many indigenous people, she said, still have a lot of time to enjoy life “because they’re not chasing enslavement through consumption.”
Shiva wondered why people would want a “smart home,” where, for example, “the fridge will tell you your milk is getting old. How dumb are we getting that we can’t open the door of our fridge and know our milk is getting old?”
“All that is surveillance data,” she said.
And processing that data takes big servers. “The tiny bits of enslavement we are getting into is [producing] 4% of greenhouse gases, which is more than the aviation sector,” she said.
She added:
“So, not only is it a very foolish kind of slavery, it’s a huge ecological footprint on the planet. Yes. And we can’t afford it. So we have to learn to walk lightly.”
Data is the new oil
Brand said he was alarmed at the increasing pace of “desacralization” where people prioritize materialism over spirituality and lose control over their lives. He asked Shiva how she thought censorship, the inhibition of free speech and the ability of the media to shut down dialogue, fed into this process.
Shiva said it was part of “a system of total control,” that makes that control highly profitable.
What’s new in this system according to Shoshana Zuboff’s “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” is that today, human beings themselves have been turned into raw material whose data can be extracted.
“That is the capital of today. Big data is the new oil, and then it’s used to manipulate us,” she said, adding “Any system that allows you the awareness of your real freedom must be censored.”
The strange thing, Brand said, is that this system of technological domination was sold to people as a way of empowering them and giving them their freedom.
Technology should be a tool, she said, but it “has been elevated to a god” and those opposed to that transformation are discounted, through Orwellian doublespeak, as “right wing.”
But, Shiva said, the last few years have shown there are three things people cannot give up:
“First, your ability to know and distinguish between truth and untruth. … And not allow post-truth to be projected as truth and the truth speakers to be projected as conspirators.
“The second is our ability to relate to each other without the intervention of a surveillance state and surveillance corporation.
“And third, because food is what makes us, it becomes our blood, ourselves, our brain.”
In other words, Brand said:
“Speak freely. Tell the truth. Communicate freely. Grow your own food. Don’t eat things grown in labs. Don’t eat bugs. And don’t listen to people who want to promote it.”
Synthetic foods are the next generation of ultra-processed foods made through the hyper-processing of industrially produced crops, a combination of processed and artificial ingredients and completely new ingredients produced through synthetic biology, (or so called ‘precision fermentation’), and cell-culturing. These products use a combination of gene editing used for the precision fermentation, industrial ingredients, and traditional commodity supply chains to create a product that only further entrenches our already highly problematic and destructive globalized food system.
Why lab-made meat and dairy is not an option:
These false solutions will only reinforce and continue industrialization- which is the real culprit of the climate crisis. The issue of unsustainable food systems comes from the inherent unsustainability of the industrialization of all areas of food and agriculture. Whether that be through the industrial raising of animals through CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Farm Operations) where animals are force-fed industrially grown, pesticide-laced grains and soy, or the further industrialization of food now being made in a lab. These two things stem from the same corporations, the same mentality and the same denial of the industrial, globalized food systems devastation on the planet.
Lab-cultured food is a fake solution that aims to replace products without challenging the power structures that underlie the corporate, industrialized agricultural model. It moves attention away from the real solutions offered by the growing regenerative agriculture movement and disregards the role of small producers and food communities in shaping our food systems. Regenerative, agroecological farming practices have the potential to sequester 52 gigatons of carbon dioxide, as they can harvest 733- 3000 kg or more of carbon dioxide per hectare, per year from the atmosphere, equivalent to the amount needed to stay below the 2 degree centigrade range. By increasing carbon absorption, organic farming has a lower climate impact than industrial agriculture.
The dichotomy does not stand as industrial CAFOs versus lab-meat. This false binary erases the role of agroecological small farmers, and pastoralists and treats them as if they were the same as industrial agriculture. Both CAFOs and lab-cultured meat concentrate power into the hands of a few. While agroecological systems are based on generations of ecological knowledge, local food culture and ecological resilience that support local food sovereignty.
The true solution is agroecological systems that work in harmony with nature, that regenerate ecosystems and ensure the health and well-being of plants, animals and humans. Ecological systems based on integration of agroecosystems promote food sovereignty, food democracy. The real solution does not lie in creating substitutes for food, it lies in understanding the needs of the ecosystems we are embedded in and healing our connection with nature.
The same circle of businessmen and corporations that pushed for the Green Revolution, and the industrialization of food systems, are the very actors behind these lab-made products. Actors such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and meat industry giants like Tyson foods, JBS, Cargill, Nestlé, and Maple Leaf Foods are behind the push for this new market where investment has now reached $2.78 billion. synthetic and lab-cultured foods are quickly becoming a next means to consolidate even more power and profit into the hands of a few food giants without holding them accountable to the consequences of the system they perpetuate.
Handing over control of our food to a handful of multinational companies only makes us more dependent on them, creating a fully integrated food and agricultural system, controlled by profit. This erodes our food sovereignty, and food security, while having potentially detrimental consequences on local food systems, and ecological systems. What is at risk is the final elimination of small farmers, of traditional agroecological practices, and traditional diets. To follow through with the massification of lab-grown meat would mean the final, complete separation of food from nature.
These products still rely on long-distance globalized supply chains, and derivatives of the industrial food system. For example, to run, these bioreactors require large amounts of nutrients for cells to grow and reproduce. Given the limited production of individual amino acid formulations suited for cell culture globally, one hope is to use industrially cultivated soy to derive the full amino acid profile necessary for cell growth. This would work to only further entrench the already destructive cultivation of soy. Therefore defining these products as environmentally friendly, and sustainable, is just a greenwashing ploy to profit off a new generation of environmentally conscious consumers who are growing critical of the grim realities of industrial food production.
It is unlikely these products will be any healthier or safer to eat. These ultraprocessed foods are made from refined ingredients which means that they lack many of the nutrients found in traditional foods. Nutrients and fortifiers will need to be added as separate ingredients and cannot be absorbed as effectively as they would from whole foods, and can cause harmful interference with other nutrients. As a result our bodies may derive less health benefits from them and therefore they should not be part of a nutritious and environmentally friendly diet and should be classified as Junk Food.
According to a report by the FAO, the complex process of cell-culturing also leaves many opportunities for contamination from toxic heavy metals, organic pollutants, cleaning products, toxic bacteria, additives and preservatives, left-over antibiotics, growth hormones or other chemical or material contaminates. The presence of any of these contaminants, whether individual or in combination, would pose serious food safety risks to consumers.
In the end, these “Frankenstein foods” dismantle our connection with nature and in doing so, they ignore the role of natural processes and the laws of ecology that are at the heart of real food production. By promoting the illusion that we live outside of nature’s ecological processes, this new technology will only serve to increase corporate control over food and health, accelerate the collapse of local food economies and further destroy food democracy. The real solution to the environmental, and health crises should be based on an active rejuvenation and regeneration of the planet by working with ecological processes through agroecological and regenerative farming practices.
Real food made through real farming is the direct result of a process of care for the land, animals, and fellow humans that celebrates the connection between food and life. It protects the life of all beings on Earth while also nourishing our health and wellbeing. Artificial food is a direct manifestation of years of food imperialism and colonization that has denied our diverse food knowledge, food cultures, and disregarded the biodiversity of the earth and its ecosystems.
Last week it was reported that the Australian state of Victoria may be considering “permanent” facemask mandates to achieve “zero-Covid”.
Now, we don’t need to get into the personal liberty implications of such a law, or the near-infinite supply of evidence that masks don’t work to prevent the transmission of respiratory disease.
They don’t work, they never worked. Mandating them was a political move designed to make the fake Covid “pandemic” appear real, and their continued use is a symptom of brainwashing or a by-product of chronic virtue signaling.
The mask debate, such as it was, is over.
No, the only aspect of this development worth talking about is the “evidence” used to support the position – and trust me, the quotes are entirely justified.
“Simulation modelling study” is very much the key phrase there. For those who don’t know, “simulation modelling studies” involve feeding data into a computer programme, then asking it to form conclusions.
Clearly, they are only as reliable and useful as the data you use. In fact, you can very easily make them produce any result you want by feeding in the “right” (bad) data.
In this particular modelling study they started out by telling the computer that cloth masks reduce transmission by 53% and respirators reduced it by 80%:
Odds ratios for the relative risk of infection for people exposed to an infected person (wearing a mask v not wearing a mask) were set at 0.47 for cloth and surgical masks and 0.20 for respirators
Essentially, they told their computer that masks prevent disease…and then said “ok, computer, since you now know masks prevent disease – what would happen if everybody wore them all the time?”
The computer then told them – obviously – that nobody would get sick.
Because they made it logically impossible for it to say anything else.
But there’s a bit more to it.
The next layer of interest is where they got their input data from.
After all there have been dozens of studies done on masks over the years, 98% of which say masks don’t work.
So, did our guys they choose a peer-reviewed real-time control trial relying on lab-tested double-blind results?
Perhaps one of the dozen or so such trials listed in our40 facts article?
Did they maybe average the results of multiple studies?
In this *ahem* “scientific study”, they had people randomly call up those who had recently been tested for “Covid”, ask them “did you wear a mask?” and then published the conclusion – “masks reduce transmission by 53%” – as if they meant something.
Interestingly, if you scroll down to the “affiliations” section you can see that one of the authors is a Pfizer grant recipient.
What we have here is not “science” it’s a computer model based on the results of a subjective phone survey conducted by a government agency with a vested interest. It is entirely meaningless, and yet is published in journals and cited by “experts”, perhaps even used as the basis of introducing new laws.
This is how “The ScienceTM” works. And, although Covid has maybe opened many people’s eyes to this issue, it is far from unique to “Covid”. You are just as likely to find this kind of “research” published on any topic – especially those that serve a political purpose – and have been for years if not decades.
This has nothing to do with the “pandemic”, and everything to do with the difference between science and “The Science”. So let’s examine that distinction.
“Science” is an approach to the world. A rational method for gathering information, testing new ideas and forming evidence-based conclusions.
“The Science” is a self-sustaining industry of academics who need jobs and owe favours.
An ongoing quid pro quo relationship between the researchers – who want honors and knighthoods and tenure and book deals and research grants and to be the popular talking head explaining complex ideas to the multitudes on television – and the corporations, governments and “charitable foundations” who have all of those things in their gift.
This system doesn’t produce research intended to be read, it creates headlines for celebrities to tweet, links for “journalists” to embed, sources for other researchers to cite.
An illusion of solid substantiation that comes apart the moment you actually read the words, examine the methodology or analyse the data.
Self-reporting surveys, manipulated data, “modelling studies” that spit-out pre-ordained results. Affiliated-authors paid by the state or corporate interests to provide “evidence” that supports highly profitable or politically convenient assumptions.
This mask study is the perfect example of that.
Interlacing layers of nothing designed to create the impression of something.
That’s why they want you to trust it, rather than read it.
In this episode of ICIC, Dr Reiner Fuellmich talks to Dr Gerd Reuther, medical doctor and radiologist, about the historical background of medicine and the genesis of diseases and epidemics over the centuries, from the pre-Christian era to the present day.
He points out numerous connections and parallels to so-called pandemics of antiquity and current events, i.e. the “Corona pandemic”. The criers of these “pandemics” have always used the same methods earlier and to this day: the creation of fear and panic.
It sheds light on the role of the Church and its representatives and how far their powerful arm has reached in science, research as well as medicine at all times. These areas were entirely under the control of the Church, and even today these exercises of power continue.
One could call this behaviour opportunistic, since throughout history the Church has always turned to those who were in power. It is currently showing this pattern again, namely when it unhesitatingly fired up the Covid vaccination propaganda. Compared to then, not much has changed:
It was and is about trivial monetary claims to power and ownership, manipulating people for their own benefit, keeping them in dependencies, e.g. on the pharmaceutical industry, and exerting control over life itself.
Historical events such as outbreaks of plague and cholera are analysed and examined for their truthfulness. The history of the origin of “vaccination” and what the belief in its effectiveness is based on are also discussed in detail.
Since when have disease patterns and symptoms been defined and documented, and why were there no “civilisation diseases” in the past? How can it be that not all people fall ill with one and the same “pathogen” and what role do the improper handling of toxins and the natural immune system play?
Dr Gerd Reuther and his wife Dr phil. Renate Reuther, historian and English specialist, have summarised all these medical-historical findings and events compactly on 150 pages in a book entitled “Hauptsache Panik” (Panic is the main thing), which, despite its historical focus, is more up-to-date than ever. For only those who know the past can shape the present and change the future.
via ANTIJANTEPODDEN: Investigative journalist James Corbett has investigated how psychology is being weaponized to target dissidents.
In this episode he explains the absurdity of the old diagnoses of anarchia, which was too much love for freedom, and drapetomania, which was the mental illness of slaves running away from their masters.
Over the last three years, we have seen a medical doctor being diagnosed and force medicated for corona insanity. This was because of his resistance to the government narrative in Switzerland. We have also seen an increased willingness to pathologize conspiracy theorists, and to label people as domestic terrorists for using their right to share their opinions.
Even though the methods used against us are ugly, and the majority just go along uncritically, James Corbett shows examples of how modeling disobedience can dramatically turn the situation around.
There is a growing international campaign to institute free school meals all around the globe. On face of it this might seem like a great idea…
but in the New Normal age nothing is ever really free.
So, let’s unpack…
The campaign is being spear-headed by the UN-backed School Meals Coalition (SMC), whose self-proclaimed goal is “free school meals for every child by 2030” (for some reason they are obsessed with that date).
The SMC already has over 80 national governments signed up to its pledge, with over 90 “partners” (including the Rockefeller Foundation), and these numbers are only likely to grow after their presentation at the UN’s World Food Summit earlier today.
At the same time, the Coalition is getting glowing press write-ups, like this one from The Guardian’s economics editor Larry Elliot:
For the scheme to work, rich countries would find around one-third of the $6bn annual cost, with the rest found by the governments of low-income countries through their budgets or though innovative financing ideas such as debt for school meals swaps, under which countries would channel the savings from debt relief into school meals programmes. At a time when aid budgets are being cut, $2bn a year is small change for donor governments and represents just one day’s worth of annual subsidies to food producers. It is a small price to pay for something that could do so much good.
This agenda has been lurking in the shadows of UK politics for a while now, with Labour Party MP Zarah Sultana first pushing FSM to all primary kids back in the winter of 2022.
It feels weird to write sceptically about this, because, as a self-proclaimed leftist for most of my life, free school meals is exactly the kind of policy I likely would have supported without question just a few short years ago…
…but those few years were Covid years, and they’ve taught us all a lot.
Firstly, and most importantly, its become increasingly apparent that any policy is only as fair as the people implementing it, and only as decent as the intention behind it, and, however superficially humane this plan might sound, the practical impact would be to hand yet more control over to the same murderous, eugenicist state that very recently killed thousands with a lie.
Secondly, a monopoly is a monopoly – whether private or state-backed – and the moment a monopoly exists the freedom to choose is dead. Freedom of choice is always the first liberty to go, but never the last.
Consider, for a moment, exactly what free school meals means in a post-covid world still reeling from a deliberately created financial crisis and in the midst of a “Great Reset” transformation.
1) The cost of living is soaring, and many parents – working parents as well as unemployed – are simply not able to afford to heat their homes or feed their children.
3) there is an on-going campaign to “revolutionize global food systems” by promoting eating insects, GMOs and lab-grown “meat”.
Let’s trace the point where all these policies intersect.
What are we looking at?
Essentially, free school meals can be used to…
a) counter the rise in homeschooling by effectively bribing or coercing struggling parents to keep their kids in school so they can be fed
b) condition children (and their parents) into accepting eating whatever the state chooses to provide – be it ‘healthy’ GM veganism, bug-burgers or lab-grown food paste
c) this conditioning will help to normalise a more general acceptance of these “foods”
And that’s just the passive phase of control. We can assume it won’t stop there because it never does.
Maybe free school meals will one day be tied to accepting universal basic income payments, or conditional on your digital ID or your social credit score.
Maybe only vaccinated children will qualify for free school meals.
I’m sure you see my point.
The unfortunate truth is that we live in an era of ever-increasing – and anti-human – corporate/state overreach.
The food might be free in the financial sense of the word, but there will most definitely be a price to pay.
The Bravo channel’s TV show I Am Jazz followed the adventures of Jazz Jennings, a spunky little boy who wanted to be a girl. The GLAAD crowd got a front man (well, boy) to push its trans movement upon boys and girls. Barbara Walters got an exclusive interview with him for Disney’s ABC. Bravo made money. He got attention. Everybody was happy.
His story was the LGBTQ version of Pinocchio but without a Jiminy Cricket to steer him clear of those who would exploit him — such as Barbara Walters and the producers of the I Am Jazz TV show. On June 20, 2018, doctors sliced and diced the 17-year-old in transsexual surgery — which is now called gender-affirming health care because everyone is too ashamed to call it a sex change.
The TV show went on a hiatus because Jazz was not too pleased with the result. He gained 100 pounds. He should have been more careful of what he wished for because he did not become a glamorous girl but a fat chick whose emotional problems grew worse.
When the show resumed, he returned to a public spotlight he had first entered at 7; Jazz now was fat and unhappy. The TV show recorded his first post-op date with a man. It was awkward and awful. Much like Kim Kardashian’s cosmetic doctoring, Jazz could change how he looked but not who he really is — a boy who never grew to be a man.
He has a trump card. He can sue. He was a minor when doctors began feeding him pills and under age when they performed this ultimate cosmetic surgery in him.
While he denies having regrets, Jazz’s behavior shows he is having second thoughts. I am pretty sure GLAAD and Bravo are sweating this one out. The stakes are so high that people are getting nosebleeds as they try to keep him away from personal injury lawyers.
My hope is that every ambulance chaser in the nation enters the detransitioning lawsuit business because it will be bigger than that Camp Lejeune water case they are advertising for plaintiffs. If suspected carcinogens — not proven, but suspected — can yield millions in legal fees, just think of the billions that could be there for the raking for a medication known to be toxic. The money is there. For example, Boston Children’s Hospital has an endowment of $7 billion.
That hospital’s Center for Gender Surgery said, “As the first pediatric center in the country dedicated to the surgical care of transgender patients, we take an interdisciplinary approach from the start to ensure exceptional patient care.”
But the children’s hospital also claims not to perform sex-change surgery on minors.
However, it is not just the surgery that is the problem. It is the pills. Puberty blockers expand the targets of litigation to include not just doctors and hospitals, but drug companies as well. It also expands the universe of plaintiffs.
The American College of Pediatricians warns, “There is not a single long-term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender-believing youth. This means that youth transition is experimental, and therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors provide assent for these interventions. Moreover, the best long-term evidence we have among adults shows that medical intervention fails to reduce suicide.
“Puberty blockers may actually cause depression and other emotional disturbances related to suicide. In fact, the package insert for Lupron, the number one prescribed puberty blocker in America, lists ‘emotional instability’ as a side effect and warns prescribers to ‘Monitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms during treatment.’
“Similarly, discussing an experimental trial of puberty blockers in the U.K., Oxford University Professor Michael Biggs wrote, ‘There was no statistically significant difference in psychosocial functioning between the group given blockers and the group given only psychological support. In addition, there is unpublished evidence that after a year on [puberty blockers] children reported greater self-harm, and the girls also experienced more behavioral and emotional problems and expressed greater dissatisfaction with their body—so puberty blockers exacerbated gender dysphoria.’
“Puberty blockers may cause permanent physical harm.
“Temporary use of Lupron has also been associated with and may be the cause of many serious permanent side effects including osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment and, when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility.”
Right now, there is big money in transing kids. Obama approved having Medicaid and Medicare pay for transsexual operations and the like. He also forced insurers to cover transing, and the transing industry took off — and best of all for these ghouls is the poisonous side effects make the transed kids customers for life.
Fox reported, “A young male, who formerly identified as a trans woman, who was castrated and became a patient for life as part of gender-affirming care, wants to warn others not to follow in his footsteps. He discussed his story of resilience and learning to accept himself for who he is, for the first time, with Fox News Digital.”
He appears in a video.
The story said, “Kobe, whose name is being withheld for privacy reasons, had ‘checked every box for what they call a trans adolescent.’ He was always effeminate and loved pink and playing with Barbies. If he had never been exposed to gender ideology, he says he probably ‘would have just stayed a feminine boy. And there’s nothing wrong with that.’”
He said, “I felt unlovable as an effeminate man in society and everything. A feminine boy, actually. I was never a man, I’m trying to reclaim my manhood now and everything. It’s hard. I have breasts, I have the hip development of a woman, because I started the estrogen young. I have no gonads. You know, it’s hard. My skull never really masculinized.”
We won’t let kids smoke at 10, why do we allow them to take experimental drugs that will cause such damage?
Litigation will stop this quicker than the politicians will. Heck, the pols are still arguing over which bathroom drag queens use.
In February, Fox reported, “A prominent detransitioner sued a nationwide medical group and its doctors Thursday who she said ‘decided to perform a mutilating, mimicry sex change experiment’ on her, according to the lawsuit.
“The Center for American Liberty sued Kaiser Hospitals on behalf of detransitioner Chloe Cole ‘for pushing her into medical mutilation instead of properly treating her,’ according to Cole’s lawyer Harmeet K. Dhillon. Between the ages 13–17 years, Cole underwent a transgender transition, including the off-label use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and a double mastectomy.”
Dhillon tweeted, “What Kaiser did, for profit, to Chloe in the name of woke ideology instead of sound medical practice, should not happen to any child in America!”
Win the case and it won’t.
The left knows these lawsuits are a bigger threat to LGBT than Ron DeSantis. In May, NYT tried to play down the kids who want their old bodies back — which will never happen. NYT objected to using detransitioners to push bans on transsexual operations for kids.
NYT said, “As more American teenagers have identified as transgender, it is difficult to say how many will transition medically — many transgender people do not — and precisely how many will later change course. Methodology, demographics and even the definition of detransition vary widely from study to study, which typically show that between 2% and 13% of people detransition, and not always because of regret.”
Only 2% to 13%?
We shut down the world’s economy because of a virus that killed less than 1% of those infected.
The story said, “Elisa Rae Shupe was well known in the transgender rights movement: first as an outspoken transgender woman, and then as the first American to change her legal sex to nonbinary.
“So when she published an essay in 2019 saying that her transition ‘was all a sham’ and that she wanted ‘to live again as the man that I am,’ conservatives took immediate notice.”
And lefties dropped her like a hot brick.
But the radioactive brick is litigation, not legislation.
The Economist reported in March, “Legal action may change transgender care in America. Some detransitioners are starting to take their doctors to court.”
The story said, “Most Americans favour protecting trans people from discrimination, but they sharply disagree on medically transitioning children. Whereas 72% of Republicans believe it should be illegal to provide a minor with medical care for gender transition, just 26% of Democrats agree, according to the Pew Research Centre, a think-tank. Activists who believe such care saves lives have tried to discredit Ms Cole, by focusing on the support she receives from firebrands on the right. But the facts of this case—if they are as claimed—could give at least some of them pause for thought.”
A Jazz Jennings lawsuit would stop hospitals from preying on kids.
“Covid” Vaccines Were Deployed by the US Department of Defense as “Countermeasure Prototypes” With No Safety Testing Required, Using the General Public as Guinea Pigs
“As if that news were not troubling enough, Katherine and Sasha learned that anyone who examines the contents of the vaccines vials can be legally punished for doing so. Pharmacists and doctors warned that the vials are property of the US government, so having the vials tested would expose them to criminal charges.”
I found Sasha Latypova through a colleague in Europe. The day I met Sasha at her villa in California, the skies were overcast, which correlated with the subject matter of the interview. Now retired, Sasha had had a very successful career as an independent contractor designing clinical trials for the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.
During our interview, I was stunned by some of the conclusions Sasha had reached regarding which government agencies actually authorized the vaccines. Through the COVID crisis, Sasha teamed up with a paralegal in Pennsylvania named Katherine Watt who conducted very thorough research that unearthed the legal framework through which the vaccines were approved and deployed. You can find her work here.
Katherine Watt discovered that the covid vaccines were authorized not by the FDA but by the US Department of Defense as countermeasure prototype demonstrations. This revelation ties in with a prior BIG PICTURE interview with Brook Jackson, who managed a piece of the Pfizer clinical trials for a Pfizer contractor, found fraud, and was fired for bringing the irregularities to the attention of her superiors. When Brook later sued the government for purchasing vaccines that were not properly FDA approved, the government’s response was that they were not FDA approved but approved instead by the DOD.
Coincidentally, Katherine Watt uncovered the existence of a joint Health and Human Services and Department of Defense program to combat bioterrorism or natural outbreaks through the rapid deployment of “countermeasure prototype demonstrations.” This is a shockingly broad term that basically means “anything whipped up by the military that they think may be of use.” In other words, they are rapidly whipped-up secret recipe military vaccines that require no approval other than the say so of the HHS secretary and his belief they may be of benefit. No testing needed, no clinical trials required.
The general public is now the unwitting guinea pig. This means all the COVID vaccines everyone has been receiving were actually produced by the military under a martial law legal structure and the public is being unwittingly injected with not just experimental vaccines, but with military prototypes that were never intended to receive any FDA approval.
This strange scenario explains why the regulators (FDA) behaved so strangely and why no one was ever punished for the rushed and fraudulently conducted clinical trials.
Operation Warp Speed was a military operation complete with sophisticated propaganda strategies. These psychological propaganda programs targeted films like my Planet Lockdown film. The public was encouraged to take the vaccines by psychological warfare units of the military. Yet it is illegal under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act for the military to operate on US soil.
As if that news were not troubling enough, Katherine and Sasha learned that anyone who examines the contents of the vaccines vials can be legally punished for doing so. Pharmacists and doctors warned that the vials are property of the US government, so having the vials tested would expose them to criminal charges.
I must ask: If these are simply experimental vaccinations for a novel flu, why on god’s green earth are all these unusual measures needed? This is quite suspicious, and, in my experience, suspicious people tend to act suspiciously . . . and are up to something they don’t want you to know . . .
Please join me and learn just how Sasha discovered what she did, the logic she followed, and where it led her. I think you will understand why the truth disturbed her enough to come forward and share it with the world. She is committed to getting this information so that we cannot be fooled the next time a “pandemic” is announced.
Video available at PlanetLockdown Odysee & Rumble channels.
“Experts Agree: Not only is the sky falling but we’re all going to die from global warming. SUVs are a major culprit, and have been contributing to rising sea levels according to climate expert, Chicken Little. Colleague, Algore, speaking during a blizzard, agreed with Little.”
~ The Daily Alarmist
I must preface my comments here with sane logic, so as to ward off the absurd idiots who have bought hook, line, and sinker, the madness of the mainstream media, the political class, the non-science ‘scientists,’ the fake environmental whackos, the evil UN, the illegitimate IPCC, and the staged marketing of the ever-pathetic rantings of the once teenage bimbo ignoramus, Greta Thunberg, about man’s normal activity destroying the ‘planet.’ It is just not so!
Yes, the climate on earth changes on a regular basis. Yes, extreme weather conditions are seemingly present more often than not considering the near past. Yes, warming and cooling takes place over time, and has for millions, (or billions) of years. Yes, particular humans, (government, malevolent ‘scientists,’ NGOs, and the military, among many other nefarious individuals and organizations) can manipulate weather to harm us, but no; driving an SUV cannot kill us all. I present this as a purposeful affront to the evil liars, propagandists, depopulation monsters, eugenists, and technocrats, who desire to rule the earth at the great expense of all common men and nature.
The latest absurdity, not new or unique in any way, is the plan of the Irish government to cull (kill) 200,000 healthy cows, claiming “they contribute to ‘climate change’ due to ‘carbon’ emissions.” Anyone who takes this nonsense seriously, or accepts and/or ignores it, is opening the gates to voluntary human extermination. To not be able to understand that both cows and humans eat, live, and expel C02, and to not see that there are eight times more humans than cows globally, why would anyone not grasp that killing humans would be, according to these mad enviro-fools, even more effective in their efforts to ‘save the planet’ than killing cows? Why not kill every animal, including large numbers of humans, if ‘saving the planet’ from farts is the main goal?
Humans not only expel more C02 than cows, but they consume vast amounts of energy, they drive cars, they fly on planes, they build factories that pollute, they mine, they create incredible mountains of plastic and garbage, they perpetuate wars that destroy the earth at unheard of levels, and they continue to outpace cows in population growth by extreme margins. Cows only breath and fart, so why kill these innocent animals; why not just go ahead and cut to the chase, and kill large swaths of humans, (the real plan) saving the soon to be endangered Bos taurus — bovine? (cow) Are you beginning to see the absurdity of this bogus ‘climate change’ bullshite? The nonsense swallowed up and believed by most all these ‘climate change’ pushing scum, expands the bounds of absurdity to astronomical levels.
It gets much worse. This incredibly harmful and idiotic plan by the very imbecilic Irish Department of Agriculture, and the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, will pay 5,000 euros ($5,622) for each cow killed. Keep in mind, that 200,000 cows makes up 0.02% of the total number of cows on earth. Is anyone stupid enough to consider this a legitimate fight against the fraudulent notion of ‘climate change?’ At that price, it would cost $1.125 billion just to pay the farmers for killing their animals. (At this price, to kill all cows on earth, would cost $5.525 trillion) But what about the cost to dispose of these animals, the huge amount of energy and pollution used to do so, the loss of food and dairy products, the supply reduction and obvious extreme price increases certain to come? How will these losses be made up, and how much increased energy will be required to fill this void?
I do realize that most might consider this a minor subject matter, but that would be a grave mistake on your part. The powers that be are not planning on stopping with the killing of animals; they are intent on total control over every aspect of your life, including what food you eat, where you are allowed to go, how much energy you are allowed to use, how much heat you will be allowed in winter to keep warm, how you spend your allotted currency units, (CBDCs) how much medical care you may be allowed, where you may live, and even control whether you may procreate or not.
Why not get to the meat (pun intended?) of this problem, and dispose of the lies and propaganda that consume this now ignorant, pathetic, and indifferent population. The weather is being controlled, it is greatly harming humanity and nature, and is causing an incredible amount of damage not only to this earth, but to every living thing on it. This is not, and never has been, the result of normal human behavior, but is due to mass manipulation of the weather by the ruling class of claimed ‘elites’, who have chosen to use false climate narratives to create mass fear in order to control all. This is the ultimate fake ’emergency’ being used to take over humanity.
Many factors are likely present concerning climate extremes, including, but not limited to, weather geoengineering by the State, graphene rain, directed energy, climate modification assault, heating the ionosphere using HAARP technology, cloud seeding, spraying our skies with metals and poisons through stratospheric aerosol injection, (chemtrails) and most assuredly, artificially creating and enhancing the destructive nature of hurricanes and earthquakes. Certainly, there are other devastating manipulations of weather going on as well that are unknown at this time, as the military’s full technological potential is hidden, and far ahead of what is believed by most. In addition, releases of toxic chemicals, bioweapons, and the continuous poisoning of the earth’s land and water by deadly substances such as glyphosate, is continuously ongoing. Weather is now a major weapon against mankind, and is being used to monopolize all agriculture and food production, or planned lack thereof.
It is not just cows that will be targeted by these evil ‘climate change’ monsters, it is the entire human race. So to believe that killing cows will save anyone or this earth, is not only completely ludicrous, but a sign that this is only the start of a much broader assault on all of the proletariat herd. They may attempt to begin with the cattle, but if that atrocity is allowed to happen, you and your family will likely be next.
Carbon Dioxide (C02) is absolutely vital to the existence of man. Without it, everything on earth would die. Through the process of photosynthesis, leaves on trees and plants use the great energy of the sun in order to convert this C02 to feed the plants, causing life-sustaining oxygen to be produced so that all things can live and breathe. It is said that one large tree can produce by using expelled C02, enough oxygen supply to provide what is necessary for a full day for several people. Plants also store carbon dioxide to clean the air and reduce negative effects to the environment. This process is imperative for life to survive, as without it, oxygen would cease to be available. If carbon dioxide were to be eliminated, (net zero is the stupid term used) everything would die. Keep this in mind the next time you hear some ranting ‘climate change’ dreg advocating the killing of all our animals (including humans) to ‘save the planet.’
All that is needed to save this planet and everything on it, is the elimination of all rulers and governments! Think about that the next time you perpetuate your own destruction by choosing to vote to ‘elect’ a master, any master, to rule over and control you. It is better to cull politicians and save the cows.
“Almost all of history is an unbroken trail of one conspiracy after another. Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception.”
“The truth is, no one can get to health through vaccinations. If a person is sickly, vaccines won’t help. If he’s healthy, he doesn’t need vaccines.
“The bad news is, vaccines destroy. Whether it’s the so-called adjuvants they put in the shots, the goop they think are pieces of viruses (that don’t exist), the preservatives, the lipid nanoparticles, the coatings on the particles, the little segments of RNA—the injections attack the body. In all sorts of ways. In all sorts of places.”
When I think about what piece to write next, or when for the moment my tank is empty, I come up with VACCINES. That’s the subject.
It’s been that way for a long time.
I could be accused of having a grand obsession, but this isn’t the case. I’m responding to the civilizational obsession with vaccination.
At the same time, it IS personal. Because of the outrage I feel, watching medical storm troopers who have been on the march for more than a hundred years.
Watching their arrogance, their blunt stupidity, their “rational” madness. As they keep marching and invading.
If we were living in an absolute monarchy and I were King, there would be hell to pay. The troopers would pay, dearly.
Over the past 35 years, I’ve written countless articles on vaccination. I’ve run down the evidence from all the angles. Now I’m left with the feeling when all the data detailing crimes have been exhausted. I’m at the end of that trail.
It’s not THE end, though. Not by a long shot.
The troopers and their allies represent, for me, everything that’s insane about our society—especially the bland acceptance by the willing victims. The silent majority.
Including, of course, the educated classes, who proudly wear their badges of science, the ultimate virtue signal. They live in a harsh bombed out desert and think it’s a pretty garden.
Some of them watch their children go crazy from the shots, suffering massive brain damage—and still these parents won’t admit what happened.
They refuse to see what they saw.
—It might have been after a talk I gave. I had mentioned the fact that improved sanitation and nutrition in the West accounted for the decline in all sorts of illness—not the widespread introduction of vaccines.
The person said, “But for children who still can’t get nutritious food, vaccines protect them.”
It was a mindless “save the children” remark.
Of course, when the body’s defense is chronically deficient, a vaccine isn’t going to pump it up. Because there isn’t anything THERE to pump up. That’s a ridiculous fairy tale. And a vaccine isn’t food.
Bill Gates tried to pull off the same sort of nonsense, when he announced with great personal fanfare, that he’d just read a book about contaminated water supplies in the Third World—as if he’d just discovered what everyone else had known for 50 years.
So he said something like this: I saw that bad water accounted for horrific chronic diarrhea, a killer. We have to clean up the water. But meanwhile, my anti-diarrheal vaccine will help.
No it won’t. The sick child, who is wasting away, has no immune system left. The vaccine won’t build up what isn’t there.
—Belief across a population is a powerful thing. It can operate like a bulldozer, flattening all obstacles and objections. And at the end of the day, it stands naked, amid the ruins. When the belief is demanding a solution that won’t work. Vaccines.
I come from an era when vaccinations were few and far between. A poke here, a stab there. There was no CDC shouting about schedules. The big Pharma money wasn’t rolling in yet. The predators knew the public wouldn’t go for 30 or 40 shots during childhood.
But now it’s a lifeline. Oh, the kids will die if you don’t shoot them up.
Bleeding heart liberals, clueless rubes, and Big Pharma. A jackpot sales team.
And a bland Howdy Doody monster like Bill Gates in the background, pouring billions of dollars into MORE vaccines.
As I predicted early on during Warp Speed, the introduction of RNA technology was going to create a bonanza for Pharma. They’d redo every vaccine in the book with the new tech. They’re working in that direction now.
Because vaccines injure and kill, this civilization is on wartime footing. We’re under attack. Half the effort to censor us is devoted to the vaccine issue. The enemy knows what’s at stake.
If we take their prime weapon away from them—by walking away from it in huge numbers—they fall.
After the COVID fiasco, when millions of people DID walk away from the injection…the public is primed to take a look at the whole range of vaccines.
I’ve watched some of the new pundits who appeared during COVID to expose that shot. Some of them are close. They’re close to seeing that the whole arsenal of vaccines is nothing less than a doomsday weapon. They haven’t crossed that line yet. But they’re on the verge.
I crossed the line in 1988, when I wrote AIDS INC. Because I realized “the virus” wasn’t causing anything, I was looking for real causes of immune suppression—since that was what so-called AIDS was.
And that’s when I saw The Big One looming up on the horizon. Vaccines.
I started talking to Health Freedom advocates who’d been in the trenches for decades. I started reading hard to find books that investigated vaccines. And then, there it was.
I saw it.
I couldn’t look away from it.
Whatever I thought a career in journalism was, could be, should be, that career took a sharp turn.
I had no idea how much passivity I would encounter.
Pure, dumb, conformist passivity.
But with Warp Speed, and everything that followed, I saw the apathy in the public begin to dissolve.
I saw foundational pillars begin to crack.
The truth is, no one can get to health through vaccinations. If a person is sickly, vaccines won’t help. If he’s healthy, he doesn’t need vaccines.
The bad news is, vaccines destroy. Whether it’s the so-called adjuvants they put in the shots, the goop they think are pieces of viruses (that don’t exist), the preservatives, the lipid nanoparticles, the coatings on the particles, the little segments of RNA—the injections attack the body. In all sorts of ways. In all sorts of places.
In England, right at the start, when THE one shot was for smallpox, there were whole cities with high vaccination rates where people were dropping like flies. And cities where the vaccination rate was low, people came through all right.
When the authorities finally began cleaning off the raw sewage running down the city streets, when they installed public sanitation systems, disease took a very sharp downturn.
These things aren’t hard to understand.
But they’ve been hidden from the public.
We’re looking at a revolution of simple truth. Which can be spoken and delivered simply.
And widely.
By us all.
In this war.
During which we’re under attack.
Many foot soldiers happen to be doctors, who have the advantage of seeming neutral. They wave no flags. They salute no dictator. They’re calm and rational. Nevertheless, they wield the weapon, and they use it.
We can’t let that oddity deter us.
If you need a push, talk to the mother of a severely autistic child. That is, a child whose brain was assaulted by a vaccine. Have her tell you what she goes through every day of her life, with that child.
It seems difficult to believe a modern civilization could have gone so far off the track as this one has.
The difficulty in facing that fact is what drives people back into their huts and their television screens and online games.
But you know, believing something that happens to be true and then acting on it is more powerful than any civilization.
Well, I’ve won another Nobel Prize. I’ve got so many now, I keep the medals in a box in the basement. I mail the checks straight to the IRS, they take what they want and deposit the leftovers in my bank account.
This Prize has to do with child psychology, and more importantly, cultural psychology.
Let’s start here. Some kids do have problems.
If a kid is walking to the grocery store through a hail of drive-by bullets, that’s a problem.
If his father is beating him up three times a month, that’s a problem.
If he has no father and his mother is working two jobs to keep the lights on and she’s rarely home, that’s a problem.
If breakfast every day is chocolate Snuffles and peanut butter pressed between two slices of plastic white bread, that’s a problem.
But I’m not talking about those problems. I’m talking about the fashion trend and the cultural imperative and the outright demand that kids ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE personal problems—and if they don’t, they’re out. They’re barred from belonging. They’re weird. They’re covering up something.
Once you install the need to have problems in a kid, once you convince him he has to be on that starter page, boom, with a leap he’s off and running. Because he has an active imagination.
He’ll go with that proposition, and all kinds of invention will follow.
“I’m trying to root out my systemic racism…climate change is going to kill us all…I think I want to be a girl…my mother doesn’t understand me…I may have early arthritis…I don’t like sports anymore…I’m having a crisis and I don’t know what it’s about…how can we stop people from cutting down trees…I don’t eat meat but I want to…I have neck pains at night…I was getting taller but now I’ve stopped…I may be too thin…we’re not letting in enough immigrants…”
Badges. Badges of belonging. Gotta settle on a good problem. Which one should I have today? Not having a problem is like going to school naked.
Back in the 1940s, when I was growing up, no kid had these problems. No kid was manufacturing problems.
That was before the Age of Psychologizing.
When I was a kid, there were foods I didn’t like. Unfortunately, they would appear on the dinner table. Chicken soup. String beans. Mashed potatoes. So my mother and I would argue, I would force down a forkful and a spoonful or two, and that would be it, until the next night, when we’d go at it again.
But it never occurred to me that this was a problem.
Now, YOU HAVE TO HAVE PROBLEMS is the gateway drug into all sorts of wretched crapola. It’s a set-up.
Admiral Rachel Levine—a man who “transitioned” and is now Assistant Secretary of Health in the Biden administration—has made shocking statements in support of transgenderism:
“We really want to base our treatment and to affirm and to support and empower these youth—not to limit their participation in activities in sports and even limit their ability to get gender affirmation treatment in their state…”
“I can say that you [doctors], the children that you serve, the young people that you serve, their families, and you all have support at the highest levels of the federal government.”
“President Biden supports you. I as the Assistant Secretary for Health will support you and I talk about this topic, everywhere I go, to get the word out…”
And the Word is: backing, at the highest levels of government, children receiving puberty blockers, sex hormones, and genital mutilation surgery.
That’s “gender-affirming care.”
So if you still think the trans movement is just a small collection of misfits, forget it.
This is big-league politics. This is major medicine. This is government policy by fiat.
Realize this is federal power dictating medical treatment and supporting it with all hands on deck.
In terms of power at the helm, this is on the level of the CDC childhood vaccination schedule.
This is also on the level of declaring the RNA COVID vaccine kill shots safe, effective, and necessary.
Full steam ahead.
This is the federal government supporting castration for boys.
And double mastectomies for girls.
National policy.
Colluding with medical societies, doctors, hospitals, clinics, and psychiatrists.
A government is bent on destroying lives and generations of children.
Officially.
The day is approaching when multiple laws will empower Child Protective Services to remove children from their homes, if their parents revolt against “the child’s decision” to change genders.
In my last interview with Del Bigtree on The Highwire I sounded the alarm regarding the future of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines. I urged against complacency and warned that next generation vaccines would continue to rely upon aluminium adjuvants. Well, we now know this to be true direct from the horse’s mouth.
The latest vaccine industry funded paper entitled ‘Aluminium Adjuvants – Back to the Future’ leaves no doubt that the vaccine industry is not contemplating a future without aluminium adjuvants. The paper is published in a special issue of the journal Pharmaceutics called Designing and Developing the Next Generation of Vaccine Adjuvants. The vaccine industry will continue to use aluminium adjuvants well into the future. They will continue to promote the injection of aluminium into our body, from new born infants to vulnerable individuals and the elderly.
Their rationale for continuing the use of aluminium adjuvants? Well, first and foremost, though not mentioned in this latest review, is cost. As I have written about in previous substacks and in my book, aluminium adjuvants are dirt cheap, they add absolutely nothing to the cost of a vaccine. Why would industry invest in new adjuvants when aluminium adjuvants are effective and cheap. The bottom line is always the deciding factor for profit-led industry.
However, their cost effectiveness is not worthy of a mention in this latest industry review. The major selling point for aluminium adjuvants in this paper is ‘their excellent safety profile, which has been established through the use of hundreds of millions of doses in humans over many years’. This stomach churning statement, taken from the abstract of the published paper, is pure aluminium industry speak. It reminds me of their often used defence of the safety of aluminium, wheeled out at many scientific meetings, that the fact that aluminium is present throughout the body must prove that it is good for you.
The fact that such a statement is in the abstract of this paper demonstrates that it went unchallenged by the so-called peer review process. Indeed there is no evidence that this paper was peer reviewed. The Guest Editor of the Special Issue where the paper is published is the lead author of the paper. The Editor of Pharmaceutics is a vaccine industry stooge. This journal, published by MDPI (see my criticism of this publisher in my book), is simply a vehicle for the vaccine industry to legitimise their messages regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
It is, of course, common knowledge and scientific fact that the safety of aluminium adjuvants in humans has NEVER been tested for any vaccine in use today. To my knowledge the only vaccine ‘safety trial’ where a saline control was used was carried out by Merck on Gardasil. The results of this trial, available through clinicaltrials.gov, showed an incidence of serious adverse events of 2.4% both for the whole vaccine and for the aluminium adjuvant alone while the incidence was 0% for a saline control. Make of this what you will but my interpretation is that an unacceptably high incidence of serious adverse events in recipients of Gardasil was due to the aluminium adjuvant.
Further indirect evidence of the toxicity of aluminium adjuvants comes from the work of vaccine advocate Peter Aaby working in Guinea-Bissau, Africa. He has shown in multiple studies that mortality in children receiving aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines is significantly higher than unvaccinated children. He does not find a similar effect in live attenuated vaccines that do not use an aluminium adjuvant.
Any form of true peer review of this paper in Pharmaceutics would have prevented such lies from being published. The true safety profile of the use of hundreds of millions of doses of aluminium adjuvants in humans is all about us for anyone willing to look and see. True epidemics of industry sponsored human disease including Alzheimer’s disease and autism. Shame on those in scientific publishing who turn a blind eye to the truth and worse promote lies that can only result in further human suffering and death.
For the last few years, agribusiness and biotech giants have been quietly making changes to GMO regulation around the world, deepening and entrenching their monopolistic grip on the global food system.
Today the effects of this lobbying also reached Europe.
On July 5, 2023, the European Commission released a proposal to exclude a large part of the new GMOs, or organisms genetically modified through new genetic editing techniques, from existing GMO regulations that require traceability, labeling, and risk assessment for genetic engineering products. The new regulation considers plant products deriving from genetic editing, of “category 1″, or equivalent to those that “could have been achieved with classic techniques like seed selection and crossbreeding”.
Through this proposal, the products obtained with genetic editing can contain up to 20 different genetic modifications and would be considered “equivalent” to all conventional plants and products, without the need to explicitly declare their nature as genetically modified.
The European Union represents the last bastion against the imposition of these new technologies. Therefore, it is essential for environmental, ecological, and human health and safety to require that these new genetically modified organisms be labeled, and subjected to independent evaluations. Also meaning that their process of production, sale, and distribution be carefully regulated.
Second generation GMOs
Over the last five years, new gene-edited technologies, denominated under an alphabet of new acronyms, from NBTs (New Breeding Techniques), NGTs (New Genomic Techniques), and TEAs (Techniques of Assisted Evolution), have been silently dovetailing into different countries’ existing agricultural legislation to by-pass any existing regulations and safety checks set in place for GMOs.
The logic used around the world to justify the deregulation of what is nothing but a new generation of GMOs is based on statements coming from the influential biotechnology sector. According to them, these products obtained through genetic editing (including seeds, plants, microorganisms, and animals), are to be considered harmless as gene editing would allow them to mimic nature’s natural mechanisms of genetic evolution and reproduction, now only faster. According to the large agrotech companies operating in the sector, since these techniques do not involve the insertion of foreign DNA through transgenesis, they cannot be considered equivalent to the first generation of GMOs and can therefore be regulated like conventional crops, microorganisms, and animals.
A question of biosafety
As demonstrated by numerous independent studies, however, gene editing is not as accurate, safe, or sustainable as the industry claims. The process, considered as a whole, induces hundreds of unwanted mutations throughout the plant genome. This may affect multiple gene functions with unknown consequences to cell protein biochemistry and metabolic activity.
We have already seen how the promises of food security, sustainability, and adaptation to climate change which in the past justified the use of highly toxic chemicals, GMOs, and the unlimited expansion of monocultures, have been severely disregarded.
Considering the devastating consequences already caused by the industrial food system in terms of environmental pollution, loss of biodiversity, climate destabilization, and the destruction of small rural economies, there is little reason to believe that the scenario will be different for new genetic editing techniques. Especially when the actors behind this push are the same ones who have fuelled an agricultural model of exploitation and ecological disaster for decades.
The exclusion of gene edited products from regulation, traceability, and labeling and the lack of independent research on their actual safety for human health and the environment, would leave consumers and farmers unaware of the type of GMOs released into nature, the risks associated with their spread and the ecological and/or health damage they can cause. Directly violating the precautionary principle to protect the rights of citizens, farmers, and of the environment.
Food sovereignty under attack by multinationals
This lack of transparency appears to serve to absolve manufacturers of any responsibility and represents a further attack on food sovereignty. Also understood as the fundamental right of people to healthy and safe food, produced by ecological methods and adequate information on the origin and production methods of food.
The lack of in-depth research on the safety, as well as the long-lasting effects of gene edited products on the environment, undermine this fundamental right and encourages the centralization of food systems to the detriment of local food systems.
A closer analysis is sufficient to bring out all the interests at stake in this very dangerous game. Indeed, the deregulation of gene editing around the world has opened the door to the advent of a new “bioeconomy,” which is a new method of economic production based on manipulating the genetic information of microbes, plants, and animals to “program biology” to make it more economically productive.
What is really at stake is a further process of corporate appropriation and control not only of our food system but of all living systems. In this new “bioeconomy,” the goal of biotech and agrotech companies is to make gene editing and biological engineering the main tool for producing and processing all natural material, reducing agribusiness production to an artificial system of exclusive patents and licensing.
“Organic” and “No GMO” labeling are thus likely to disappear in favor of more generic labels such as “healthy” or “sustainable,” regardless of the process used to create the product.
The deregulation of gene editing biotechnology is opening up huge new profit potential for the major players in global agriculture. Regardless of the regulatory definition that equates these products with conventional ones, companies continue to file hundreds of patents using these new technologies to further strengthen their control over food systems.
The advent of these new technologies is enabling companies to patent specific genomic sequences by circumventing the foundations of current biosafety regulations established by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol.
The real solutions to the climate and food crises
The agribusiness industry’s attempt to reduce the complexity, diversity, and richness of life forms to a mere matter of genetics, treating food and crops as mechanical products, only further endangers the world’s biodiversity, ecological systems, and people’s health.
The desire to control everything living, and the very constitution of living things, is an attack on diversity and life. Diversity is the basis of life on the planet and is the only antidote we have to create ecological, health, and climate resilience.
After centuries of dominance of a mechanistic, reductionist, and linear worldview, we should see that the solution to the multiple crises of the present cannot come from further manipulation or control of nature.
New gene editing technologies continue to shift attention away from the real alternatives that can drive ecological regeneration. The solutions lie in the creation of ecologically integrated systems based on biodiversity, care, and science that understands and respects the interconnections between life and nature.
The Netherlands has been chosen as a pilot area in the EU to be climate neutral with a transition in protein food and a transformation of healthcare into a telemedicine, data, and AI-driven connected system approach led by Public Private Partnerships. A closure of 55-70 percent of traditional farming is foreseen to be replaced by tech-driven vertical farming, gene-edited crops, edible insects, veganism, 15-minute cities and a CBDC passport covering personal health data.
Citizens will pay for the transition by increasing prices for energy, food, healthcare services, and insurance.
A U-turn of these EU-driven policies is highly needed. Health and wealth have been decreasing in the past years due to pandemic measures, inflation, and recently implemented policies. The Netherlands, famous for farming and innovations, can best win this challenge to re-establish healthcare driven by traditional farmers producing nutritious whole food that prevents famine, improves the soil and the immune system for healthy lives.
Dutch Farmers will no longer accept harmful policies
The Netherlands, a small country conveniently situated within the EU, has been economically growing by generations of farming and fishing. In July 2022 the Dutch policies on farming led to the articleNo farmers No Food No Life.
Large demonstrations initiated by farmers and fishermen took place in July 2022, November 2022, and March 2023 in The Hague and Brussels respectively, which received much attention worldwide.Now, half a year later an even bigger demonstration initiated by Dutch farmers took place on June 29,2023 in The Hague. Farmers and citizens have drawn the line.
The new policies pushed forward by politicians in Rutte IV could be disastrous for farmers and humanity. This will not only affect the Netherlands. Changes in farming in the Netherlands, being the second largest export country for food, will affect many people worldwide.
Last week the negotiations with farmers and agricultural society on the Agriculture Agreement IN MOVEMENT to meet the governmental goals for climate change on CO2 and Nitrogen reduction in 2040 collapsed. In the draft Agreement a 25-30 percent reduction of farmers and cattle and loss of agricultural fields is foreseen in 2035.
It could even be a reduction of 55-70 percent of farmers to transform the Netherlands together with Flanders and North-Rhine Westphalia in one region ‘Tristate city’ “a large green world city with 30 million inhabitants.” This is a concept that was introduced in 2016 as a marketing strategy, established as a place brand, and initiated by the private sector. The concept was found by visiting emerging markets in China. The opinion of thought leaders is that it will be a success, but there is no way of knowing this would be the case.
When the new agreement is signed farmers need to fulfill 122 measures; most of them will not be able to meet them. Farmers are warning that if the eighth EU Nitrogen rule will be forced for the ability to grow vegetables and fruit, it will be impossible to continue farming. This year the use of certain crop protection spreads has become restricted in the Netherlands while other countries are allowed to use it. A 40 percent reduction in yield is expected.
The only way out for farmers seems to be to accept the offer by the government to sell their ownings for 120 percent of the value with a restriction not to be allowed to start another farm within the EU area. Many farmers still refuse the offers made. ‘Even when they pay 400 percent of the value I won’t leave, my son is going to be the next generation farmer.’
The draft agreement does not present information on effects on farmers’ income and consumers’ behavior. The advisory report from Wageningen University and Research (WUR) writes that they cannot advise on this topic as they do not have the information. With the reduction of cattle, farming land and a transition to regenerative farming they will be able to meet the goals on climate change. However, 30,000 jobs will be lost and €6.5 billion of added value.
Remarkably, the role of Rabobank (originally derived from Boerenleenbank, a cooperative owned and run by farmers) which has been pushing investments by farmers for large-scale farming, while knowing for 30 years this strategy could harm the environment, has been kept out of the N2 debate in the Netherlands. A report published by Greenpeace explores the role of Rabobank. The minimum Rabobank (a bank for actively accelerating transitions for food, climate and finance) can do says Greenpeace is to contribute €3.1 billion in the N2 Fund.
A catastrophic power by a Culture of Climate Hysteria
Recently Rob Jetten, the Dutch minister for Climate and Energy Policy presented in parliament the net zero CO2 and nitrogen plan, which will cost €28 billion and would result in a 0.000036 degree Celsius reduction in temperature in 2050. A harmful and unrealistic plan for a problem that even does not exist.
There is no climate emergency, over 500 eminent experts wrote in 2019 in an open letter to the United Nations. A research paper by Skrable et al, in Health Physics in 2022 concludes the increase in total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels was much too low to be the cause of global warming. Another group of researchers found ice around Antarctica Thwaites Doomsday was eight times thinner around 8,000 years ago.
Furthermore, the Nobel Prize winner in Physics in 2022, John F Clauser, says it is clear; there is no climate crisis. Climate crisis is based on scientific corruption, pseudo-science. Similarly, Greenpeace co-founder Dr Patrick Moore explains in his speeches ‘Carbon dioxide is the currency of life and the most important building block for all life on earth. It is not responsible for global warming. The whole debate on climate change is a fabrication.’
The European Court of Auditors stated in a recent report, ‘It is not clear if the suggested measures will be supportive to meet the climate goals.’ Probably the EU will not be able to meet their sustainability goals to reduce CO2 emission in 2030 by 55 percent. Unfortunately, the EU committed that they will be the first worldwide to be climate neutral. In the near future every EU citizen will have to pay for CO2 emissions via house, car, and company.
Gripped in a culture of climate catastrophism, society seems to allow to rip the work of generations of farmers and thousands of cattle being slaughtered while the real consequences are unknown and threatens us all.
What is also conveniently overlooked in the climate debate against cows is the carbon cycle. CO2 is absorbed by grass during photosynthesis. Cows eat the grass produce methane-which is released into the atmosphere and breaks down into CO2 and H2O. And the cycle repeats itself. Basic biological knowledge that is learned at school and everybody knows. Livestock are highly needed for fertile lands. A healthy soil, the underpinning of cultivation throughout history is created in interaction between grazing animals and soil microbiology. Regenerative agriculture can sequester more carbon than humans are inventing.
A net zero CO2 policy in Sri Lanka has proven to be a disaster and ruined many farmers’ lives. The policy resulted in complete chaos and a setback in health, environment, and economy.
In the Netherlands an increasing number of farmers a year commit suicide; the exact numbers are unknown. According to a recent investigation there was a 37 percent increase in 2020. Families are crying at the kitchen table daily.
Dutch citizens will be financing the €28 billion climate plan by extra taxes on food prices for example on milk products, meat, compounds for vegetation protection, and fertilizers while inflation is high and purchases are expensive.
Also, a prepared law for zero taxes on vegetables and fruits to promote healthy foods supposed to pass for January 2024 seems to make a U-turn. According to a report from SEO Economic Research it will be too complex and too expensive and it is not sure the introduction of this law will promote health. However, keeping taxes on vegetables and fruit will generate €550-950 million in income for government.
Overlooked risks of expensive food transitions
A transition to ‘Food is Medicine’ initiatives is a strong promotion for the necessity to eat fully plant-based (vegan), bio-engineered food, lab-grown meat, and novel foods like edible insects. Fresh whole foods from farmers will be replaced by products derived from vertical farming, food grown in laboratories, and innovative Food Hubs.
According to the many start-ups and initiatives, it is necessary to solve diminishing resources and an insecurity for healthy nutritious and sustainable food for a fast-growing human population to 9 billion people in 2050. A future of food with low-footprint ingredients and technology that will bring a beautiful nature back into balance. A Global Food Forum of young people is accelerating the transition.
The Netherlands is leading this worldwide food transition funded by the private sector-run FoodvalleyNL, the World Economic Forum and Rockefeller Foundation, the EU, and the Dutch government. The secretariat and coordinating centre for various Food Hubs in the world is based at Wageningen University and Research (WUR). In 2050 we will eat less meat, eggs and dairy products and more chickpeas, crickets and chlorella; a movement for everyone, the WUR states.
A McKinsey report ‘Alternative proteins, the market share is on’ states leading alternative protein resources will be plant protein, insect protein, mycoprotein and cultured meat.
It is not a surprise that the world’s largest and leading insect company Protix, producing protein and fats from insects for feed and food for animals and humans, is based in the Netherlands.
The company was founded in 2009 by two consultants from McKinsey and attracted huge amounts of funding. Protix uses high-track control systems, artificial intelligence, genetic improvement programs, and robotics. The company received many awards, among them from the WEF. A circular frontrunner in the greenfield of insect-based foods.
In the EU in the past few years Protix, Fair Insects, and CricketOne, a Vietnam-based company, gained approval for use of insects in human consumption. The growing number of insects authorized in the EU for sale in food including dietary supplements will not be required to carry special labels to distinguish them from other products the EU has confirmed despite protests from MEPs.
Insect protein and fat can be found in products like paste, bread, ice creams, cakes, and more. The argument is that before insects can become a large-scale food product for humans in the Western world, insects should be turned into an appealing product. For several years start-ups in food transition products like hamburgers from cultivated crickets have been supported by the EU and government in the Netherlands.
According to the Dutch Platform De Krekerij is the most sustainable fast food on the planet. One kg of cricket meat uses 85 percent less food, 90 percent less land and 95 percent less water than one kg of beef.
Green gas emission from farming insects would be 100 times lower than those from pigs and cattle. However, a position paper of the Eurogroup for animals says insect farming is a false solution for the EU’s food system. Industrial animal farming for food should be replaced rather than having insect protein as another form of industrial farming.
Although more than 2,000 edible insects caught in the forests or agricultural fields have been consumed for thousands of years all over the world, there is hardly any knowledge on consuming insects cultivated in plastic boxes in fabrics. Impacts on various aspects, governing the cultivating and production methods of insects and issues on upscaling, on health, and the environment have not been investigated in the short and long term. ‘Little is known about the food chain leading edible insects from farm to plate and on their role in human and planet wellbeing says the editorial Edible Insects: From Farm to Fork.
In a report in 2022 the FAO documented possible food safety issues with edible insects. Among them are allergen cross-reactivity, biological safety hazards as bacteria, viruses, fungi as well as chemical contaminants (toxins (myco), PFAS, pesticides, antibiotics, toxic metals, flame retardation, cyanogenic glycosides). Especially for undernourished children and people with a weakened immune system, eating insects might be a risk factor. The EFSA report for CricketOne is warning of a possible negative impact on both the innate and adaptive immune system.
A research paper on edible insects versus meat shows that the content of individual nutrients in both insects and meat varies significantly. Both are rich in nutrients for development and functioning of the human body. Some foods might exacerbate diet-related health problems while others may be effective in treatments. However, studies on eating insect products versus meat on health are still lacking.
Around the myth of cultured meat It remains to be seen whether the production of artificial meat will be enough to be competitive in comparison with conventional meat. It is still in its infancy. Analysis found that lab-grown meat made from cultivated stem cells could be 25 times worse for the climate than beef if current production methods are scaled up because they are still highly energy-intensive.
Another threat for traditional farming in the EU conversation is the industrial lobby owning 10,000 patents boosting the use of gene-edited crops (CRISPR-Cas) as a solution to climate change and biodiversity. Recent research by the EU and the Global Biodiversity Framework are likely to foster the use of CRISPR-Cas as a solution to not only climate change but also biodiversity conversion. Also WUR scientists expect the EU will change the rules this year with smarter governance for the benefits of society and environment.
The debate on gene-editing for crops instead of classical natural crossings for crops is not new and has been used by Monsanto. The use of the gene-edited seeds has been expensive for many farmers. Biological farmers are concerned that farmers will become dependent on multinationals and natural classical solutions will no longer be effective. The balance with nature will be destroyed. Plants are interconnected with soil, animals and humans. The long-term effects of combining various gene-edited plants and foods are not known. Moreover human gene-editing is still controversial and the effects of eating the gene-edited plants and fruits on animals and humans is not known.
It is clear that when evaluating the food transition to veganism, gene-edited plants, soil fertilizers converting biodiversity, increased irrigation technologies, and edible insects, the intended transition has many risks in the short and long term for humans, animals, plants, and the planet.
A ‘rich’ country in famine and lack of care
The Healthcare system in the Netherlands has been ranking for years as the best in Europe. In 2020 the Dutch healthcare system was ranked as the number three most innovative in the world.
Unfortunately, in a country with 17.8 million people, approximately 2 million people do not get the care they need, and 1.2 million people are living below poverty. Around 148,000 citizens visit a food bank. Poverty is expected to rise to 5.8 percent.
In 2021 30.9 percent of men and 35.9 percent of women (age > 16 years) experienced one or more chronic diseases. This is expected to increase to around 7 million in 2030. During the last few years a strong increase in heart problems has taken place, and one in ten persons in the Netherlands experiences heart problems.
After three years of pandemic measures and limited care, healthcare is confronted with a population with an increasing number of elderly people, people with more chronic diseases, rising mental problems, increased feelings of stress, fear, and loneliness, more people dying as expected, shortness of nurses, increased sickness leaves, low salaries, inflation, high prices for energy and food, and more people being undernourished. People are leaving the healthcare system, and 37 percent experience moral conflicts. Doctor visits are replaced by telemedicine or done by people with less professional education.
The number of people on waiting lists for urgent care in nursing homes is increasing and surgeries have been postponed. CEO’s of healthcare organisations have started to hire nurses from Indonesia and India as sufficient Dutch nurses are not available or prefer to work as an independent nurse. In 2032 a shortness of 137,000 nurses is expected. Furthermore, shortness of family doctors (35 -45 percent ) is on the rise. Telemedicine and efforts on the implemention of technological support for big data and AI are pushed forward by the minister of Healthcare.
Large academic hospitals have started AI labs. Personal medical information files will become more easily available among different care organisations and within the EU. Special acute care will be concentrated in fewer hospitals.
CEO’s of healthcare organizations with nursing homes and homes for the disabled have written an open letter to the minister that the current situation will drive organisations into bankruptcy. The risk for Dutch women to become burnt out or lose their paid work to replace with unpaid voluntary care is near.
Prices for mandated private health insurance increase due to inflation. During the pandemic billions have been thrown away for unsafe and ineffective and even harmful measures. But, politicians in the Netherlands don’t see it as a priority to evaluate the policies as they have postponed the pandemic inquiry. Trust in politics in the Netherlands is at an all-time low.
Preventing Famine
It is the UN report that appeared in April 2023 that needs to be on the front page of all media worldwide. “Globally the consumption of animal source foods including, meat, eggs and milk can help to reduce stunting, wasting and overweight amongst children.”
“This is a significant gap given the co-existence of micronutrient deficiencies with overweight, obesity and Non-Communicable Disease.”
At least one in ten people and one in three children worldwide is malnourished. This is presumably much more when various grades of deficiencies are considered. While it is known that most non-communicable diseases can be prevented and restored, it is unacceptable given the co-existence with deficiencies that malnutrition and even hunger and famine may increase when EU policies will be forced into the agriculture and healthcare system in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands owes generations of hard-working farmers and fishermen a solution to the problem of famine and a restoration of lower cost of healthcare. A cooperation between farmers, fishermen, and medical doctors for good nutritious whole food and loving care will be a strategy less costly, safe, better for soil and the immune system, and more successful. This will be the way that needs to be followed to regain trust and wealth.
At Age of Autism, there is a riveting piece about the government cover-up and the forced collusion with Pharma, entitled “Sharyl Attkisson, Friend of Ours.”Read it.
Let’s start here. There is no defining physical diagnostic test for autism. No blood test, no urine test, no hair test, no genetic assay, no brain scan.
What??
That’s right.
And you can throw out the official definition of autism. That menu of behaviors and attitudes is arbitrary—complied by a committee of psychiatrists.
But a doctor’s eyeball diagnosis of autism is very valuable. To government and Pharma.
Why?
When a mother comes before the mandatory federal vaccine court to win $$ compensation for her destroyed child, the court can (and will) say:
“We see your doctor diagnosed your son with autism. But there is no proof vaccines cause autism. Compensation denied.”
The mother was really telling the court (but she couldn’t say it), “My child had a vaccine and checked out of the world. It’s VACCINE DAMAGE.”
Of course, that wouldn’t fly, either. Why should it? It’s the TRUTH. And truth doesn’t win.
This is the word game the government plays. It’s a predatory game.
How does the government “prove” vaccines don’t cause autism? Easy. Researchers say: “We have identified children with autism who have never had vaccines.”
What is the government really saying? “We’ve identified children with brain damage caused by factors other than vaccines.”
Of course there are such children. But so what?
So the government wins. With that completely absurd assertion.
Cutting through all this wordplay and mumbo-jumbo—push the label “autism” to one side and speak the facts: The child had a vaccine and it DAMAGED HIS BRAIN.
But again, that won’t work. In court.
It’s too obvious, too clear-cut, too simple, too true.
The court’s rule is: A parent seeking compensation for injury to her child, caused by a vaccine, MUST have a diagnosis of an official disorder or a disease from a doctor.
The most frequent diagnosis is autism—and then, bang, “There is no proof vaccines cause autism.”
The rush to deploy the 5G Network around the world coincided with the global COVID pandemic of 2020. That happened.
Only two years earlier, officials at the World Health Organization called COVID a global threat. But behind the scenes, the media quietly announced that 5G was coming, whether people wanted it or not.
Why is the connection between 5G and COVID important?
It’s time to play detective and retrace the narrative back to the evidence.
Let The Games Begin!
The effort to convince people that they needed a new microwave technology called 5G “for faster downloads,” began below the radar when the 5G network was tested during the 2018 South Korean Winter Olympics. Then, the narrative sounded like this:
Let the 5G games begin! 5G will affect everything from self-driving cars and the so-called Internet of Things.
Then, in 2019, the first COVID case was declared. By then, the 5G networks had already been activated and back-page news around the world.
EMF exposure limits set up in 1996 by the FAA and others are based on invalid assumptions. Over 25,000 articles over 30 years provide evidence that shows they are not protective of human health and wildlife. One such 2015 Polish study in the Journal Przegl Lek recognizes EMF-induced biological effects in humans.:
Electromagnetic fields can be dangerous not only because of the risk of cancer, but also other health problems, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).
EHS is a syndrome with a broad spectrum of non-specific multiple organ symptoms including both acute and chronic inflammatory processes located mainly in the skin and nervous systems, as well as in respiratory, cardiovascular systems, and musculoskeletal system. WHO does not consider the EHS as a disease.
It is neglectful that the WHO does not consider EMF-related health effects as a legitimate syndrome or disease. This delinquency becomes a challenge to the medical profession which must base a diagnosis on guesswork.
Inflammation is a key common player in COVID-19 and ARS, and drives the multi-system damage that dramatically alters biological homeostasis. Both conditions initiate a cytokine storm, with similar pro-inflammatory molecules increased and other anti-inflammatory molecules decreased.
In 2020, during a Coronavirus Task Force briefing, Secretary Mike Pompeo disclosed the fact that the pandemic “is a live exercise.”
Do the EMF-induced symptoms mimic COVID-19? Does the added mRNA EUA technologies increase adverse events?
Any investigative mind would first attempt to rule that out a connection between 5G and COVID-19.
So, the first order of business would be to find the alleged causal viral agent for COVID 19.
One small problem.
Officially, the 2019 virus called Coronavirus-19 has never been isolated. in its original state. See page 41 of the 2023 CDC document where the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) reports the suspect virus is “not available.”
Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.
What is it?
Did the Corona virus mutate or disappear before it could be identified?
Did it ever exist in the first place?
Is Coronavirus a case of semantics, and not of disease?
If you look up the term, Coronavirus, it is defined as a family of cold and flu viruses. Hence, it is not one virus; Corona virus:
Coronaviruses constitute the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, in the family Coronaviridae,
The present invention provides a live, attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene encoding polyproteins comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein(s) (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16. The coronavirus may be used as a vaccine for treating and/or preventing a disease, such as infectious bronchitis, in a subject.
In fact, there are a lot of COVID 19 patents when you look for them. In 2022, there were 3741 COVID-19-related patents.
“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. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection.”
If no wild Coronavirus was ever officially isolated, and if Coronavirus is not harmful to humans, then what could be causing similar symptoms in millions of people all over the world?
It turns out that 5G millimeter waves can and do promote symptoms described as Covid.
Controlling The Narrative
This chronological overview of the publications published during the initial critical phase of discussions around 5G and health leads to the interesting observation that publications by authors with links to anti-5G campaigning organizations dominated the early phase in which adverse effects related to 5G were discussed..Such patterns of efforts to control the narrative during critical periods. – The population health effects from 5G: Controlling the narrative, Frontiers, 2022
“5G Technology induces Coroavirus in skin cells.” That was the conclusion of a study published in an Editorial from the July 2020 Journal Biol Regul Homeost Agents by Fioranelli et al, that was subsequently retracted:
In this research, we show that 5G millimeter waves could be absorbed by dermatologic cells acting like antennas, transferred to other cells and play the main role in producing Coronaviruses in biological cells. DNA is built from charged electrons and atoms and has an inductor-like structure. This structure could be divided into linear, toroid and round inductors. Inductors interact with external electromagnetic waves, move and produce some extra waves within the cells.
The shapes of these waves are similar to shapes of hexagonal and pentagonal bases of their DNA source. These waves produce some holes in liquids within the nucleus. To fill these holes, some extra hexagonal and pentagonal bases are produced. These bases could join to each other and form virus-like structures such as Coronavirus. To produce these viruses within a cell, it is necessary that the wavelength of external waves be shorter than the size of the cell. Thus 5G millimeter waves could be good candidates for applying in constructing virus-like structures such as Coronaviruses (COVID-19) within cells.
We know the importance of skin cells by their absorptive and alchemical abilities to convert sunlight (the frequency of the sun), into Vitamin D3. [See my article on Vitamin D here]. Yet, even knowing the delicate relationship between light frequencies and human skin, harmful technologies march forward, undaunted.
What happens when scientists take it below the surface, under the skin?
The Internet of Things
is moving ahead of itself, without attention to detail, safety, or security features.
From dental sensors that collect your data, to medication sensors to track compliance with prescriptions, to kitty litter that tracks your cat’s bowel movements, artificial intelligence (A.I.) is moving inside. And its all hackable.
The 5G rollout preceded the vaccine rollout by several months, not only in the U.S., but in other parts of the world as well. For more information see my 2020 article, Induction of COVID Symptoms via 5G Frequencies.
Fortunately, the question of association between EMFs and COVID-related symptoms can be answered by a long list of medical journal studies:
An increasingly common response includes clumping (rouleau formation) of the red blood cells, heart palpitations, pain or pressure in the chest accompanied by anxiety, and an upregulation of the sympathetic nervous system coincident with a downregulation of the parasympathetic nervous system typical of the “fight-or-flight” response.
This assessment clearly shows exposure to 5G mmW technology is statistically significantly associated with higher COVID-19 case and death rates in the U.S.A. The mechanism–should this be a causal relationship–may relate to changes in blood chemistry, oxidative stress, an impaired immune response, an altered cardiovascular and/or neurological response.
Research suggests that the circadian rhythm, which controls several physiological functions in the human body, can be influenced by light but also by the earth’s EMFs. … Severe disruption of the circadian rhythm increases inflammation which can induce fatigue, fever and flu-like symptoms in a fraction of the population and worsen existing symptoms in old and diseased individuals, leading to periodic spikes of infectious and chronic diseases.3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580522/
We present evidence that WCR may: (1) cause morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that can contribute to hypercoagulation; (2) impair microcirculation and reduce erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplify immune system dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increase cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals resulting in vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increase intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsen heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.
…a decrease in the water membrane permeability of the irradiated samples was observed. We advance the hypothesis that both the above effects may be explained in terms of a change of the polarization states of water induced by the radiation, which causes a partial dehydration of the membrane and consequently a greater packing density (increased membrane rigidity).
A second project of two large life-span carcinogenic bioassays was conducted on over 3000 Sprague Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to 1.8 GHz GSM of mobile phone radio base station, alone or combined with acute exposure to gamma radiation. Early results from the experiment on 1.8 GHz GSM alone show a statistically significant increase in the incidence of heart malignant schwannoma among males exposed at the highest dose.
A wide pathogenic potential of the induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) and their involvement in cell signaling pathways explains a range of biological/health effects of low-intensity radiorequency radiaiton (RFR), which include both cancer and non-cancer pathologies. In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates that low-intensity RFR is an expressive oxidative agent for living cells with a high pathogenic potential and that the oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation.
Wireless devices used at home such as DECT, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth amplify the effect of the GSM radiation. In the case of adrenaline and noradrenaline, almost exclusively children and chronically ill subjects (here mostly subjects with allergies) are affected.
Especially in children below age ten, it is not thought possible to maintain a chronic state of anxiety for one and a half years due to an abstract term such as cell tower radiation.
The clinical relevance of changed PEA levels is well documented for mental illnesses. Endogenous depression is associated with lowered PEA levels, whereby the transition from depression to maniac episodes is accompanied by an increase in PEA levels
After having exhausted the biological feedback mechanisms, major health problems are to be expected. The possible long-term consequences of remaining caught in the exhaustion stage have already been described by Hecht and Selye
pulsed electromagnetic fields can be more active biologically than continuous ones. According to the present theory, the low frequency fields are the most bioactive ones. The basic mechanism is the forced-vibration of all the free ions on the surface of a cell’s plasma membrane, caused by an external oscillating field. We have shown that this coherent vibration of electric charge is able to irregularly gate electrosensitive channels on the plasma membrane and thus cause disruption of the cell’s electrochemical balance and function.
The question is does the 5G Network play a role in creating a pandemic with symptoms identical to the condition dubbed as COVID 19?
According to a 2021 study, published in J Clin Transl Res, there is indeed evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G.
… we investigated a possible environmental factor in the COVID-19 pandemic: ambient radiofrequency radiation from wireless communication systems including microwaves and millimeter waves. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, surfaced in Wuhan, China shortly after the implementation of city-wide (fifth generation [5G] of wireless communications radiation [WCR]), and rapidly spread globally, initially demonstrating a statistical correlation to international communities with recently established 5G networks.
Foresight: Looking Ahead
Hindsight is always 20/20.
This means that it is easy to clearly see what should have been done or said in the past. We are looking back on what has already happened, so the reasons it happened should now be crystal clear.
In truth, 20/20 is not perfect vision. It is average or ‘normal’ vision, because is possible to have better than twenty-twenty vision with the naked eye.
We see, now, that we may have a case of a missing virus!
For people to stay ahead of any future live exercises, and where the problem is clear as mud, people must lead with foresight. How did the prophet-authors of the past, Orwell and Huxley, seem to predict a dystopian future that is now? Did they have foresight, or did they have a blueprint?
These are times for discernment. People must raise their private investigator magnifying glasses. They must stay one step ahead, before the next games begin.
Cheyenne, Wyo. (July 2, 2023) – Yesterday, a Wyoming law went into effect that will further increase food freedom in the state, and potentially alleviate some of the recent price inflation on eggs and dairy.
Sen. Tim Salazar and 10 fellow cosponsors introduced Senate Bill 102 (SF102) on Jan. 12. The new law expands the Wyoming Food Freedom Act to allow a “designated agent” to “facilitate sales transactions” in the marketing, transport, storage, or delivery of food and beverage products. Under previous law, producers could only sell directly to consumers.
The new law will also add eggs and dairy products to the foods that can be sold at farmer’s markets, farms, ranches, producer’s homes or offices, and the retail location of the third-party sellers.
The House passed SF102 by a 62-0 vote. The Senate approved the measure by a 30-1 vote. With Gov. Mark Gordon’s signature, the law went into effect on July 1.
Expanding the market for eggs and dairy could provide some relief for Wyoming residents struggling to deal with price inflation. The price of both eggs and milk has increased precipitously over the last year. Opening up the market to more producers and sellers could help the people of Wyoming to get some relief from the money-printing frenzy of recent years.
Wyoming Leads the Way
Wyoming was the first state to enact a comprehensive Food Freedom Act back in 2015. The law allows the sale of many foods and food products direct from the producer to the consumer without adhering to onerous state regulatory and licensing requirements. The expansive law even allows poultry farmers with fewer than 1,000 birds to sell chicken and turkey, along with products made from their birds outside of the regulatory system. It also authorizes the sale of raw milk, rabbit meat and most farm-raised fish.
In 2020, the state expanded food freedom to allow consumers to buy individual cuts of meat through herd-share agreements. The law is modeled on laws that allow the sale of raw milk in some states. Consumers pay the rancher a fee for a “share” in either an individual animal or a herd. In return, the consumer gets cuts of meat. A second expansion allows for the sale of “non-potentially hazardous” homemade foods to be sold in retail stores and restaurants. “Potentially-non hazardous foods are defined as ” food that does not require time or temperature control for safety and includes jams, uncut fruits and vegetables, pickled vegetables, hard candies, fudge, nut mixes, granola, dry soup mixes excluding meat-based soup mixes, coffee beans, popcorn and baked goods that do not include dairy or meat frosting or filling or other potentially hazardous frosting or filling.
Following Wyoming’s lead, North Dakota and Utah passed similar laws. In 2017, Maine enacted a law that gives local governments the authority to enact ordinances regulating local food distribution without state interference.
Food freedom laws not only open markets, expand consumer choice, and create opportunities for farmers and entrepreneurs; they take a step toward restoring the United States’ original political structure. Instead of top-down, centralized regulatory schemes, these laws encourage local control, and they can effectively nullify federal regulatory schemes in effect by hindering the enforcement of federal regulations.
While state law does not bind the FDA, the passage of food freedom laws creates an environment hostile to federal food regulation in those states. And because the state does not interfere with local food producers, that means it will not enforce FDA mandates either. Should the feds want to enforce food laws in states with food freedom laws, they have to do so by themselves.
As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway. The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”
Less restrictive food laws almost certainly have a similar impact on FDA regulation. They make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce their will within the state.
While FDA apologists claim the agency only wants to protect consumers, in truth, federal regulations tend to benefit big companies and squeeze out family farms. In the name of safety, FDA regulations limit your ability to access local, fresh food.
For example, the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 mandates meat must be slaughtered and processed at a federally inspected slaughterhouse, or one inspected in a state with meat inspection laws at least as strict as federal requirements. Small slaughterhouses cannot meet the requirements. As a result, the meat processing industry went through massive consolidation. Since the passage of the act, the number of slaughterhouses dropped from more than 10,000 to less than 3,000. Today, instead of hundreds of companies processing meat, three corporations control virtually the entire industry.
This does not promote food safety. In fact, by concentrating meat processing in a few facilities, the likelihood of widespread contamination increases. A single sick cow can infect thousands of pounds of beef in one of these corporate slaughterhouses. In a more diversified, decentralized system, outbreaks generally remain limited to small regions. You never saw these nationwide recalls in the era of diversified meat processing.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) “directs FDA to build an integrated national food safety system in partnership with state and local authorities explicitly recognizing that all food safety agencies need to work in integrated ways to achieve public health goals.”
Constitutionally, food safety falls within the powers reserved to the states and the people. The feds have no authority to enforce food safety laws within the borders of a state. Food freedom laws undermine these federal regulatory schemes. Widespread adoption of food freedom, along with state and local refusal to enforce federal mandates, could make FDA regulations virtually impossible to enforce and nullify them in effect and practice.
The extensive history of the pharmaceutical industry is filled with stories and deeds of adventures, misadventures, profit-making, profit-taking, fraud, bribery, false claims, messianic promises, and criminal conduct.
Few companies in the history of medicine have received as much attention as Pfizer Inc. has received these last three years of the Corona Crisis.
Through the course of relentless media coverage and amidst all the sound and fury, Pfizer has managed to avoid scrutiny of its previous criminal conduct and is universally portrayed in the mainstream media as a benevolent enterprise whose mission is to nobly service humanity.
In an effort to set the record straight we embark upon a comprehensive historical examination of this company which sprouted from humble beginnings into one of the most influential corporate behemoths walking the earth today.
History
The story of Pfizer begins in New York City in 1849, when a pair of German immigrants, cousins Charles Pfizer and Charles F. Erhart, received a $2,500 loan from Charles Pfizer’s father to purchase a commercial building in Williamsburg, Brooklyn where they would embark upon a joint business venture in the nascent chemical manufacturing industry.
Charles Pfizer had been a pharmacist’s apprentice in Germany and possessed commercial training as a chemist. Charles Erhart was a confectioner.
Originally named Charles Pfizer and Company the business would initially focus on the production of chemical compounds. Their first product was a pharmaceutical called Santonin which was used to treat parasitic worms.
Combining their talents the cousins housed their product within tasty confections such as candy lozenges and toffee-flavored sugar cream cones. This strategy proved to be a success, setting the stage for the company’s future development.
The drug Santonin would be used as an anthelmintic up until the 1950’s, when it fell out of favor due to noted toxic effects which posed serious risks to patients.
Pfizer would quickly expand into the realm of fine chemicals for commercial sale to wholesalers and retailers.
In 1862, Pfizer would become the first U.S. company to domestically produce tartaric acid and cream of tartar.
With the outbreak of the American Civil War a massive need for painkillers and antiseptics erupted, creating an “opportunity” for the pharmaceutical industry.
Pfizer quickly expanded its production of both, as well as of iodine, morphine, chloroform, camphor, and mercurials. By 1868, Pfizer revenues had doubled and its product line had increased substantially.
The big boon for the company would come in the 1880’s with its production of industrial grade citric acid, widely used in soft drinks like Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper. This would become the company’s centerpiece and drive their growth for decades.
Another fortuitous change for the “small New York firm” would arrive in 1919, when its scientists would pioneer and develop a deep tank fermentation process, the principles of which would later be applied to the production of penicillin.
This prowess in fermentation and large-scale pharmaceutical production would put Pfizer in a lead position in WW2, when the US government appealed to the pharma industry for support in producing penicillin for the war effort.
Working with government scientists, Pfizer began pursuing mass production of penicillin utilizing its deep-tank fermentation technology and in 1944 became the first company to mass produce penicillin.
As penicillin prices and usage declined post-WW2, Pfizer began searching for more profitable antibiotics. The move into commercial production of antibiotics signaled a pivot in Pfizer’s business model.
The company’s operations shifted from the manufacture of fine chemicals to research-based pharmaceuticals, giving birth to Pfizer’s new drug discovery program, which focused on vitro synthesis.
In 1950 Pfizer would develop its first proprietary pharmaceutical product, Terramycin, a broad-spectrum antibiotic.
By 1951, Pfizer had established offices in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, England, Mexico, Panama, and Puerto Rico. As its power and profits mushroomed, Pfizer would augment its portfolio through various acquisitions and entries into multiple areas of research and development, including an animal health division.
As the Pfizer pharmaceutical kingdom expanded, however, questions about salacious business practices began to surface.
Violations
Despite portraying itself as a righteous corporate citizen, Pfizer is no stranger to controversies and scandals. As early as 1958 it was one of six drug companies accused of price fixing by the Federal Trade Commission.
In 1961 the Justice Department filed criminal antitrust charges against Pfizer, American Cyanamid, and Bristol-Myers, accusing top executives at each company of charging egregiously high prices and monopolizing the production and distribution of drugs dating back to 1953.
In 1963 the FTC ruled that the accused companies in its 1958 complaint did in fact rig antibiotic prices. The FTC also noted that “unclean hands and bad faith played a major role”in Pfizer being granted the tetracycline patent.
By the 1960s, Pfizer was at its most diversified point in history, with interests ranging from pills to perfume to petrochemicals to pet products.
The company’s shift toward bringing out new products culminated with the establishment of the Central Research Division in the early 1970s. A full 15% of Pfizer’s revenue was directed to this research department.
This focus on innovation brought about Pfizer’s development of blockbuster drugs, which are described as “drugs that generate at least $1 billion in revenue a year for the pharmaceutical companies that produce them.”
While these drugs can be extremely profitable for pharmaceutical companies, the blockbuster drug business model presents certain long-term problems. Beyond the time and money that goes into their development, there are the exigencies of patent issues. Pharma companies see the “patent window” of 20 years as a severe limitation, since it often takes them a full decade to bring a new drug to market, thus shortening both the time allowed to reclaim profits from development costs and the time allotted to reap maximum profits from their new product.
Due to patent laws, the success of blockbuster drugs is often short-lived. Also, reliance on blockbusters means that if a product fails, the consequences for the manufacturer can be catastrophic.
Using this business model, the need for pharmaceutical companies to constantly produce blockbuster drugs is difficult to overstate. Naturally, they go to great lengths to protect their golden goose.
Accompanying Pfizer’s string of blockbusters was a massive surge in the company’s fortunes in tandem with a procession of controversial products, felony offenses and multiple fines—including the largest criminal fine in US history.
Take, for example, Pfizer’s first blockbuster drug, the anti-inflammatory Feldene, which would also become one of its initial contentious products.
Pfizer submitted a new-drug application for Feldene to the FDA in March 1978 and again in May 1980. The applications were rejected due to poor testing protocols. In September 1981, Pfizer resubmitted an application to the FDA, using old data.
Multiple questions surrounding Feldene, including the route taken toward its ultimate approval, would make it one of Project Censored’s top “Censored” news stories in 2015.
In that story, Project Censored noted:
”Then, while the FDA was still considering the application, Pfizer sponsored a reception at the meeting of the American Rheumatism Association in Boston and showed a film promoting Feldene which the FDA said was illegal. Nevertheless, on April 6, 1982, the FDA approved Feldene for use in the U.S.”
Even though Feldene would go on to become Pfizer’s most lucrative product, questions about the drug quickly surfaced. By 1986 the FDA was being petitioned to relabel the drug due to serious concerns about its long half-life and its tendency to accumulate in the blood.
The watchdog organization Public Citizen Health Research Group (PCHRG) would later charge that this widely prescribed arthritis drug created risks of gastrointestinal bleeding among the elderly.
Citing reports of 2,621 adverse events and as many as 182 deaths among patients taking the drug, PCHRG requested that the FDA ban Feldene for patients 60 and over, “as an imminent hazard to the public health.”
Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the PCHRG stated, “At least 1.75 million elderly American people now receiving this drug are at risk of developing life-threatening gastrointestinal reactions.”
PCHRG’s Wolfe would later cite internal documents from Pfizer that voiced concerns about the drug. By 1995 he called for a complete ban on the drug for all ages.
This was just the beginning of a series of high-profile scandals and legal problems that would come to define Pfizer’s business-as-usual practices.
For instance, reports of serious issues surrounding a heart valve produced by Pfizer’s Shiley division began to plague the company. This problem would result in the cessation of production of all models of the faulty valves by 1986.
A 1991 FDA task force charged that Shiley withheld information about safety problems from regulators in order to get initial approval for its valves. A November 7, 1991, investigation in The Wall Street Journal asserted that Shiley had deliberately falsified manufacturing records relating to valve fractures.
These fractures resulted in catastrophic consequences for numerous patients. By 2012 it was reported that 663 individuals had died as a result of the defective valves.
It also agreed to pay $10.75 million to settle US Justice Department charges that it lied to regulators in seeking approval for the valves.
The parade of corrupt practices and legal problems that has come to define this pharmaceutical Leviathan was just getting underway. From then on, Pfizer was cited and prosecuted for a litany of illegal acts ranging from price fixing, product safety, bribery, advertising and marketing scandals all the way to environmental and human rights violations.
In 1999 Pfizer pled guilty to criminal antitrust charges and agreed to pay fines totaling $20 million. In that case, Pfizer was charged with “participating in a conspiracy to raise and fix prices and allocate market shares in the U.S. for a food preservative called sodium erythorbate, and to allocate customers and territories for a flavoring agent called maltol.”
In 2000 The Washington Post published a six-part exposé accusing Pfizer of testing a dangerous experimental antibiotic Trovafloxacin (trade name Trovan) on children in Nigeria without receiving proper consent from their parents.
Trovan was slated to become Pfizer’s next blockbuster drug, according to Wall Street analysts, one of whom claimed, “Pfizer might reap $1 billion a year if Trovan could gain approval for all its potential uses.” But when the company was unable to find enough patients in the United States, its researchers went in search of new patients in Kano, Nigeria.
This unapproved clinical trial on 200 Nigerian children resulted in the death of 11 children. It is alleged that many more children later suffered “serious side-effects ranging from organ failure to brain damage.”
In 2001 Pfizer was sued by 30 Nigerian families, who accused the company of using their children as “human guinea pigs.” The families contended that “Pfizer violated the Nuremberg Code as well as UN human rights standards and other ethical guidelines” and alleged that Pfizer exposed the children to “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”
After years of legal battles, Pfizer agreed in 2009 to pay $75 million to settle some of the lawsuits that had been brought in Nigerian courts.
Trovan never became the blockbuster Pfizer had envisioned. The company admitted to stockholders it had “suffered a disappointment” with this experimental meningitis drug. Trovan was never approved for use by children in the United States, so production was halted. The European Union banned it in 1999.
Below is a chronology of still more Pfizer misadventures.
— In 2002 Pfizer agreed to pay $49 million to settle charges that one of its subsidiaries defrauded the federal Medicaid program by overcharging for its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor.
— In 2003 Pfizer paid $6 million to settle with 19 states that accused it of using misleading ads to promote the antibiotic Zithromax (also called Z-Pak), used for children’s ear infections. The claim alleged that Pfizer “overstated the benefits and efficiency of Zithromax when compared to other comparable antibiotics.”
— In 2004 Pfizer agreed to a $60 million settlement in a class-action suit brought by users of a diabetic medication developed by Warner-Lambert, which Pfizer acquired in 2000. The drug Rezulin had been withdrawn from the market after numerous patients died from acute liver failure said to be caused by the drug.
— In 2004 Pfizer agreed to halt ads for its painkiller Celebrex, and the following year it admitted that 1999 clinical trials found that elderly patients taking the drug were far more likely to incur risks of heart problems.
— 2004 also saw Pfizer plead guilty to two felonies and pay $430 million in penalties for fraudulently promoting the epilepsy blockbuster drug Neurontin for unapproved uses. Pfizer claimed it could also be used for “bipolar disorder, pain, migraine headaches, and drug and alcohol withdrawal.”
Pfizer’s underhanded tactics involving Neurontin also included bribing doctors with luxury trips and monies to promote the drug and planting operatives at medical education events.
Documents later came to light suggesting that Pfizer arranged for delays in the publication of scientific studies that undermined its claim for the other uses of Neurontin. In one of these documents, it was found that a Neurontin team leader at Pfizer said, “I think we can limit the potential downside of the 224 study by delaying publication for as long as possible.”
Finally, in 2010, a federal jury found that Pfizer committed racketeering fraud in its marketing of Neurontin; the judge in the case subsequently ordered the company to pay $142 million in damages.
— In 2005 Pfizer withdrew its painkiller Bextra from the market after the FDA cited “inadequate information on possible heart risks from long-term use of the drug as well as ‘life-threatening’ skin reactions, including deaths.”
— That same year the FDA approved a black box warning on Pfizer’s other blockbuster painkiller, Celebrex, citing elevated risks of “cardiovascular events and life-threatening gastrointestinal bleeding.”
— In 2007 Pfizer agreed to pay $34.7 million to settle federal charges relating to the marketing of its Genotropin human growth hormone. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., a Pfizer subsidiary, agreed to pay $19.7 million for “offering a kickback to a pharmacy benefit manager to sell more of the drug,” while Pfizer agreed to pay another $15 million for “promotion of Genotropin for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”
— In 2008 Pfizer paid out a whopping $894 million fine to settle lawsuits “alleging that its withdrawn Bextra painkiller and widely used Celebrex arthritis drug harmed U.S. patients and defrauded consumers.” Of the total fine, $745 million was set aside to “resolve personal injury claims.”
— The very next year, 2009, Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion gaining the dubious distinction of being tagged with the largest health care settlement in history. GlaxoSmithKline would up the ante with a $3 billion settlement in 2012.
The fine was a combination of civil and criminal settlements relating to Pfizer’s “allegedly illegal promotion of certain drugs, most notably Bextra.” Pfizer pled guilty to “misbranding the painkiller Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead, promoting the drug to treat acute pain at dosages the FDA had previously deemed dangerously high.”
The Justice Department also noted Pfizer had “allegedly paid kickbacks to compliant doctors and promoted three other drugs illegally: the antipsychotic Geodon, an antibiotic Zyvox, and the antiepileptic drug Lyrica.”
When interviewed by The New York Times, former Pfizer sales representative John Kopchinski, who helped initiate the federal investigation, stated, “The whole culture of Pfizer is driven by sales, and if you didn’t sell drugs illegally, you were not seen as a team player.”
The criminal fine of $1.195 billion in that settlement still represents the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter.
Even after entering an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the 2009 settlement, Pfizer’s unprincipled and injurious behavior continued. The band played on.
In 2010 The New York Timesreported on Pfizer’s admission that it had paid around “$20 million to 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals for consulting and speaking on its behalf in the last six months of 2009.”
The Times also mentioned that Pfizer had paid “$15.3 million to 250 academic medical centers and other research groups for clinical trials in the same period.”
In reference to the amounts disclosed by Pfizer, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and author of The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, admitted that while she had no specific knowledge of the matter, she believed the publicly revealed amounts Pfizer disclosed “seemed low.” She added: “I can’t help but think something has escaped.”
In 2011 Pfizer agreed to pay $14.5 million to resolve False Claims Act accusations that it illegally marketed its bladder drug Detrol.
The SEC alleged that “employees and agents of Pfizer’s subsidiaries in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Serbia made improper payments to foreign officials to obtain regulatory and formulary approvals, sales, and increased prescriptions for the company’s pharmaceutical products.”
According to Kara Brockmeyer, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit, “Pfizer subsidiaries in several countries had bribery so entwined in their sales culture that they offered points and bonus programs to improperly reward foreign officials who proved to be their best customers.”
In 2012, Pfizer was hit with another massive fine—this time to settle claims that the side effects of its Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) drug Prempro cause breast cancer. Around 10,000 women filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that the drug maker withheld information about the potential risks of breast cancer from HRTs. The $1.2 billion settlement came after six years of trials.
The FDA had placed a black box warning on Chantix, the highest safety-related warning assigned by the FDA, “to alert patients and doctors to the risk of psychiatric side effects” and had noted that the drug is “probably associated with a higher risk of a heart attack.”
Pharmaceutical companies make every effort to circumvent black box warnings. They generate bad publicity and negatively impact the marketability of the drug in question, which leads to adverse financial consequences for the company.
In 2016, after years of lobbying, Pfizer managed to get the FDA to lift the black box designation from Chantrix in a 10-9 vote, giving the controversial blockbuster drug a “new lease on life.”
In 2013 Pfizer reached a $35 million settlement relating to the alleged improper marketing and promotion of the immunosuppressive drug Rapamune. When New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced that he and 40 other state attorneys general had arrived at the settlement, he remarked, “There has to be one set of rules for everyone, no matter how rich or powerful, and that includes big pharmaceutical companies that make unapproved and unsubstantiated claims about products in order to boost profits.”
While this article’s list of Pfizer’s corporate crimes is prodigious by any measure of shady business practices, it is far from exhaustive. In total, since 2000 Pfizer has accumulated $10,945,838,549 in penalties and incurred 96 violations covering a wide range of offenses.
A Company You Can Trust?
Pfizer’s portfolio of corporate crimes rivals that of the most corrupt companies in history. But that did not stop Pfizer from becoming a corporate celebrity with its COVID-19 vaccine. Indeed, the company has benefited handsomely from that product, whose $36.8 billion in 2021 sales made it the highest-selling pharmaceutical product in history.
When the pharma company’s 2022 revenues reached an all-time, single-year high of $100.3 billion, COVID-19 vaccine sales accounted for nearly 38 percent of those revenues.
Yet, while Pfizer was basking in the glow of mainstream media cheerleading and record-setting profits, honest inquiries into its unremitting record of corruption were kept from public view.
We were told we must “Trust in Pfizer” to vaccinate the world and save humanity from the so-called COVID crisis.
Given Pfizer’s documented record of misdeeds, any reasonable person would ask:
“Is this a company that belongs behind the wheel of the most widespread mass vaccination campaign in history?”
“Is this a company we should trust with experimental medical technology?”
“Is this a company we want to be in control of the most radical mass medical experiment in human history?”
“How is it that a company that habitually engaged in such illegal practices was able to reinvent itself as the savior of humanity?”
At that commemoration, then-president of Pfizer Global Manufacturing Natale Ricciardi told attendees, “We have always had a very noble mission.” Despite cryptically lamenting, “A lot of things have changed at Pfizer, and unfortunately, we had to make certain decisions,” Ricciardi went on to assert, “But the nobility of what we do, the nobility of what has been done and continues to be done has never changed and will never change.”
All these years later—and despite Mr. Ricciardi’s insistence on Pfizer’s magnanimity—a thinking person might look through the company’s checkered catalog of crimes and fines and recognize that noble experiments are hardly the realm of “alleged” serial felons like Pfizer.
June 15, 2023, podcast host Joe Rogan interviewed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is currently running as a Democratic presidential candidate
In 2005, Kennedy started suing coal-burning powerplants and cement kilns for releasing mercury into waterways. He also pushed legislation to protect children against mercury and gave lectures on its dangers
During those lectures, mothers started approaching him saying they suspected their children had been injured by mercury-containing vaccines. They told him that if he was really interested in protecting children against mercury, he had to investigate vaccines
The mother of a vaccine-injured child brought him a thick stack of published research, and after looking through it, Kennedy realized that what health officials told us was very different from what the science showed
Kennedy is now also legally representing people who claim they’ve been injured by cellphone radiation, which science shows can cause cancer, degrade mitochondria and make your blood-brain barrier more permeable, allowing toxins in your system to flood into your brain
Still, if anything in that book was false, Kennedy would have been sued to high heaven by now, Rogan reasoned. Reading that book opened Rogan’s eyes to the fact that what we’re told by public officials and the media isn’t necessarily the truth. He also realized just how easy it is to fall for a false narrative — especially when it’s all you’re ever allowed to really hear.
For the first several minutes of the interview, Kennedy reviewed his background and how he got to where he is today. He started his legal career as an environmental lawyer in the mid-1960s, suing 500 polluters who had turned the Hudson River into a sewer, on behalf of commercial fishermen whose livelihoods were threatened.
As a result of those lawsuits, the Hudson River was cleaned up and restored. These successes led Kennedy to found Riverkeeper,2 which patrols waterways in 46 countries, holds polluters accountable and defends clean drinking water.
How Kennedy Got Involved With Vaccine Safety
I would strongly encourage you to listen to this interview as around the 10-minute mark Rogan asks Kennedy how he got into the vaccine controversy. Although Kennedy had presented some of his comments in the media previously, this is the first time he was ever allowed to give his uninterrupted one-hour fascinating story on major media.
In 2005, Kennedy started suing coal-burning powerplants and cement kilns for releasing mercury into waterways. He launched these lawsuits on behalf of local Riverkeeper chapters after learning that mercury was being found in the flesh of most freshwater fish. Pregnant women were also found to have levels that might put their children at risk of developmental problems.
Kennedy also pushed legislation to protect children against mercury and gave lectures on its dangers. During those lectures, mothers started approaching him saying they suspected that mercury (thimerosal) in the childhood vaccines had injured their children. They told him that if he was really interested in protecting children against mercury, he had to investigate vaccines.
He resisted, as his focus was on environmental pollution and he didn’t want to get involved in public health. However, mothers of developmentally challenged children kept coming to his speeches, wanting to talk to him about vaccines.
Their continued pressure eventually changed his mind, and he decided to listen to their concerns. The true turning point came when a psychologist named Sarah Bridges found his home address and delivered an 18-inch thick stack of scientific papers, saying she would not leave until he’d read them.
Bridges was one of the few people who had been awarded $20 million by the vaccine court, which had concluded that her son’s autism had been caused by a vaccine. She just didn’t want other parents to go through the same heartache.
Huge Gap Between Public Narrative and Published Science
Kennedy began reading, and by the time he’d gone through a third of the pile, he came to the realization that there was a huge gap between what the public health agencies were saying about vaccine safety and what the published science showed.
Kennedy then started calling high-level public health officials and regulators, asking them about these studies and, to his surprise, he realized none of them had read them. They were all just repeating what they had been told about the science. Stranger still, they told him to take his questions to people in the vaccine industry.
Kennedy did contact Dr. Paul Offit, as suggested, and caught Offit in a blatant lie. He asked Offit, how come pregnant women are told not to eat tuna fish to avoid mercury, but are then told to get flu shots that contain a huge bolus of mercury? Offit told him “there are two kinds of mercury, a good mercury and a bad mercury.” According to Offit, fish contain the bad kind, whereas the mercury in vaccines is harmless.
The problem was, Kennedy is an expert on mercury, having spent years suing mercury polluters. He has a deep understanding of the two types of mercury (ethylmercury in vaccines and methylmercury in fish), and there’s no such thing as a “good” or harmless mercury.
Kennedy, an excellent storyteller, goes on to review the history of vaccine science and why toxic elements like mercury are used at all. This interview is without doubt one of the most educational “lectures” on vaccines available right now, so I encourage you to listen to at least the first hour, if you don’t have time for the whole thing.
Ethylmercury Lodges in the Brain
Importantly, he reviews crucial research that firmly debunks the claim that ethylmercury is excreted from the body within a week. Studies on monkeys, where the animals were sacrificed after vaccination (which you cannot do with children), showed that the reason there was no ethylmercury in the blood after several days was because it had traveled into the brain, where it stayed, causing inflammation.
When Kennedy challenged Offit on this point, Offit insisted that, while this research did show that ethylmercury lodged in the brain, “the mosaic of studies” proved it was harmless and left the body.
Kennedy asked him to share those studies, which Offit promised to do but never did. Kennedy never heard from him again. At that point, Kennedy realized that something was terribly wrong, and he couldn’t walk away.
Kennedy also challenged Dr. Anthony Fauci — who is a close friend of the Kennedy family — to show him a single placebo-controlled trial of a vaccine listed on the childhood vaccination schedule. Fauci said he would send him the studies, but, like Offit, never did.
The reality is, none of the mandated vaccines has ever been tested against a true placebo, such as saline. Most are tested against other vaccines, and if you’re testing two products that contain a similar toxin, of course, the outcomes will be similar. That doesn’t mean you’ve proven safety. Not even close.
Kennedy eventually sued the Health and Human Services Department to obtain the evidence Fauci claimed to have, and after a year the HHS finally returned a letter saying there were no such safety studies. “So, nobody knows what the risk profiles of these products are,” Kennedy says.
The sheer lack of data also means that anyone who claims vaccines have saved more lives by preventing disease than they’ve destroyed through side effects is simply guessing and making assumptions. There’s no scientific data to back that up.
Also, Kennedy points out that while many vaccines are now mercury-free, they’re loaded with aluminum adjuvant instead, which is just as bad. So they’ve just exchanged one neurotoxin for another.
Intentional Suppression of the Autism Signal
Kennedy goes on to tell the story of a secret meeting3 organized by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1999 after they conducted an internal study of their database, which contains the medical records, including the vaccination records, of 10 million children from the 10 biggest HMOs.
Specifically, they wanted to know whether mercury-containing vaccines might be causing autism. One of the first comparisons of health outcomes was done on the hepatitis B vaccine.
The data showed that infants who had received the hepatitis B vaccine within 30 days of birth had a 1,135% higher risk of autism compared to infants who either did not get the hepatitis B vaccine at all or received it after 30 days of age. “At that point, they knew what caused the autism epidemic,” Kennedy told Rogan, because “that’s a relative risk of 11.35, and a relative risk of 2 is proof of causation.”
As panic spread through the industry, the CDC put together this secret meeting at a retreat center in Georgia. It was intentionally held outside the CDC campus to circumvent FOIA laws. The meeting included representatives from all the major vaccine companies, regulatory agencies that administer vaccines, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Health and Human Services Department and leading academic institutions that conduct clinical trials.
The first day was spent discussing the reality of the problem, and the second day was spent discussing how to hide it. While the meeting was held in secret, someone did record it and, in 2005, Kennedy obtained a copy of it. You can read the transcript on the Children’s Health Defense website.
Early on in that 286-page transcript, we find the following admission by Walter Orenstein, then-director of the National Immunization Program at the CDC:4
“Initial concerns were raised last summer that mercury, as methylmercury in vaccines, might exceed safe levels … Analysis to date raise some concerns of a possible dose-response effect of increasing levels of methylmercury in vaccines and certain neurologic diagnoses.”
What happened to this safety signal? As explained by Kennedy, it was intentionally “vanished” by reworking the study four times, using statistical tricks.5 After the fourth iteration, the signal linking thimerosal with autism and a half dozen other neurodevelopmental disorders were no longer detectable.
The CDC published that final version and announced thimerosal had been investigated and found to be safe. And when investigators asked to see the raw data, the CDC claimed the data had been “lost,” so no one was ever able to verify the results. The fabrication stuck and has been peddled ever since.
We Live in a Toxic Soup
Kennedy stresses that vaccines are not the only factor in the epidemics of chronic disease and autism in children. There are many other factors as well. Children are exposed to an enormous amount of toxins from many different sources, including electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless radiation.
Kennedy is currently representing people who blame their brain tumors on cellphone radiation, and “we have the science,” he says. “Tens of thousands of studies show the dangers of Wi-Fi radiation.”
Aside from cancer, cellphone radiation degrades your mitochondria and makes your blood-brain barrier more permeable, Kennedy says, allowing all the other toxins in your system to flood in. So, this too, could play a significant role in the neurological dysfunction we now see in so many children. Kennedy also discusses the history behind and toxic influence of glyphosate, especially on your gut. (Incidentally, gut dysfunction is also a hallmark in autism.)
This is an interesting part of the interview as when Kennedy first mentions EMF, Rogan doubts it is true and doesn’t believe him. After Kennedy’s explanation you see Rogan morph in real time to a believer in EMF dangers and even ask his assistant Jamie to look into getting rid of the Wi-Fi.
Rogan Invites Dr. Hotez to Debate RFK
Yesterday, I published an article reviewing the online debate that erupted after this interview, when Dr. Peter Hotez took to Twitter, slamming Spotify for not clamping down on Rogan’s “vaccine misinformation.”6 Never mind the fact that Hotez, in April 2020, was allowed to argue his own irrational vaccine stance on Rogan’s show.7
Rogan replied to Hotez’s tweet, saying, “Peter, if you claim what RFK Jr. is saying is ‘misinformation,’ I am offering you $100,000.00 to the charity of your choice if you’re willing to debate him on my show with no time limit.” Others further sweetened Rogan’s offer by adding their own donations and, by 9 a.m. EST on June 18, the pot had reached $1.52 million.
Hotez refused, albeit indirectly. Instead of giving Rogan a direct answer, he went on the MSNBC show “Rising Reacts” and said he wasn’t willing to participate in an event that would get turned into “The Jerry Springer Show” by having Kennedy there.
Once you’ve listened to this interview, you can probably understand why no one is willing to engage in a public debate with Kennedy on this issue, particularly if you also heard Rogan’s interview8 with Hotez and compare the two. Kennedy has the data to back his claims and they have none.
On a side note, I find it curious that after Rogan took a beating in the press for discussing how he used ivermectin to treat a bout of COVID-19, he really hasn’t had any hard-hitting health-related truthtellers on his show — until Kennedy.
In my view, Spotify is hardly a free speech platform, so maybe that shouldn’t be that surprising. Spotify killed our account due to a discussion about EMF, and they didn’t just take that episode down. They removed all of my content.
Rogan has an exclusive contract with Spotify that grants him more freedom than most others, but I doubt he has completely free reign. That said, I’m glad he brought Kennedy on, and allowed him to talk uninterrupted.
I am an accomplished interdisciplinary scientist and physicist, and a former tenured Full Professor of physics and lead scientist, originally at the University of Ottawa.
I have written over 30 scientific reports relevant to COVID, starting April 18, 2020 for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca/covid), and recently for a new non-profit corporation (correlation‑canada.org/research). Presently, all my work and interviews about COVID are documented on my website created to circumvent the barrage of censorship (denisrancourt.ca).
In addition to critical reviews of published science, the main data that my collaborators and I analyse is all‑cause mortality.
All-cause mortality by time (day, week, month, year, period), by jurisdiction (country, state, province, county), and by individual characteristics of the deceased (age, sex, race, living accomodations) is the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause.
Such data is not susceptible to reporting bias or to any bias in attributing causes of death. We have used it to detect and characterize seasonality, heat waves, earthquakes, economic collapses, wars, population aging, long-term societal development, and societal assaults such as those occurring in the COVID period, in many countries around the world, and over recent history, 1900-present.
Interestingly, none of the post-second-world-war Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention-promoted (CDC‑promoted) viral respiratory disease pandemics (1957-58, “H2N2”; 1968, “H3N2”; 2009, “H1N1 again”) can be detected in the all‑cause mortality of any country. Unlike all the other causes of death that are known to affect mortality, these so‑called pandemics did not cause any detectable increase in mortality, anywhere.
The large 1918 mortality event, which was recruited to be a textbook viral respiratory disease pandemic (“H1N1”), occurred prior to the inventions of antibiotics and the electron microscope, under horrific post-war public-sanitation and economic-stress conditions. The 1918 deaths have been proven by histopathology of preserved lung tissue to have been caused by bacterial pneumonia. This is shown in several independent and non-contested published studies.
My first report analysing all-cause mortality was published on June 2, 2020, at censorship-prone Research Gate, and was entitled “All-cause mortality during COVID-19 – No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response”. It showed that hot spots of sudden surges in all‑cause mortality occurred only in specific locations in the Northern-hemisphere Western World, which were synchronous with the March 11, 2020 declaration of a pandemic. Such synchronicity is impossible within the presumed framework of a spreading viral respiratory disease, with or without airplanes, because the calculated time from seeding to mortality surge is highly dependent on local societal circumstances, by several months to years. I attributed the excess deaths to aggressive measures and hospital treatment protocols known to have been applied suddenly at that time in those localities.
The work was pursued in greater depth with collaborators for several years and continues. We have shown repeatedly that excess mortality most often refused to cross national borders and inter-state lines. The invisible virus targets the poor and disabled and carries a passport. It also never kills until governments impose socio-economic and care-structure transformations on vulnerable groups within the domestic population.
Here are my conclusions, from our detailed studies of all-cause mortality in the COVID period, in combination with socio-economic and vaccine-rollout data:
If there had been no pandemic propaganda or coercion, and governments and the medical establishment had simply gone on with business as usual, then there would not have been any excess mortality
There was no pandemic causing excess mortality
Measures caused excess mortality
COVID-19 vaccination caused excess mortality
Regarding the vaccines, we quantified many instances in which a rapid rollout of a dose in the imposed vaccine schedule was synchronous with an otherwise unexpected peak in all-cause mortality, at times in the seasonal cycle and of magnitudes that have not previously been seen in the historic record of mortality.
In this way, we showed that the vaccination campaign in India caused the deaths of 3.7 million fragile residents. In Western countries, we quantified the average all-ages rate of death to be 1 death for every 2000 injections, to increase exponentially with age (doubling every additional 5 years of age), and to be as large as 1 death for every 100 injections for those 80 years and older. We estimated that the vaccines had killed 13 million worldwide.
If one accepts my above-numbered conclusions, and the analyses that we have performed, then there are several implications about how one perceives reality regarding what actually did and did not occur.
First, whereas epidemics of fatal infections are very real in care homes, in hospitals, and with degenerate living conditions, the viral respiratory pandemic risk promoted by the USA‑led “pandemic response” industry is not a thing. It is most likely fabricated and maintained for ulterior motives, other than saving humanity.
Second, in addition to natural events (heat waves, earthquakes, extended large-scale droughts), significant events that negatively affect mortality are large assaults against domestic populations, affecting vulnerable residents, such as:
sudden devastating economic deterioration (the Great Depression, the dust bowl, the dissolution of the Soviet Union),
war (including social-class restructuring),
imperial or economic occupation and exploitation (including large-scale exploitative land use), and
the well-documented measures and destruction applied during the COVID period.
Otherwise, in a stable society, mortality is extremely robust and is not subject to large rapid changes. There is no empirical evidence that large changes in mortality can be induced by sudden appearances of new pathogens. In the contemporary era of the dominant human species, humanity is its worst enemy, not nature.
Third, coercive measures imposed to reduce the risk of transmission (such as distancing, direction arrows, lockdown, isolation, quarantine, Plexiglas barriers, face shields and face masks, elbow bumps, etc.) are palpably unscientific; and the underlying concern itself regarding “spread” was not ever warranted and is irrational, since there is no evidence in reliable mortality data that there ever was a particularly virulent pathogen.
In fact, the very notion of “spread” during the COVID period is rigorously disproved by the temporal and spatial variations of excess all-cause mortality, everywhere that it is sufficiently quantified, worldwide. For example, the presumed virus that killed 1.3 million poor and disabled residents of the USA did not cross the more-than-thousand-kilometer land border with Canada, despite continuous and intense economic exchanges. Likewise, the presumed virus that caused synchronous mortality hotspots in March-April-May 2020 (such as in New York, Madrid region, London, Stockholm, and northern Italy) did not spread beyond those hotspots.
Interestingly, in this regard, the historical seasonal variations (12 month period) in all-cause mortality, known for more than 100 years, are inverted in the northern and southern global hemispheres, and show no evidence of “spread” whatsoever. Instead, these patterns, in a given hemisphere, show synchronous increases and decreases of mortality across the entire hemisphere. Would the “spreading” causal agent(s) always take exactly 6 months to cross into the other hemisphere, where it again causes mortality changes that are synchronous across the hemisphere? Many epidemiologists have long-ago concluded that person-to-person “contact” spreading of respiratory diseases cannot explain and is disproved by the seasonal patterns of all-cause mortality. Why the CDC et al. are not systematically ridiculed in this regard is beyond this scientist’s comprehension.
Instead, outside of extremely poor living conditions, we should look to the body of work produced by Professor Sheldon Cohen and co‑authors (USA) who established that two dominant factors control whether intentionally challenged college students become infected and the severity of the respiratory illness when they are infected:
degree of experienced psychological stress
degree of social isolation
The negative impact of experienced psychological stress on the immune system is a large current and established area of scientific study, dutifully ignored by vaccine interests, and we now know that the said impact is dramatically larger in elderly individuals, where nutrition (gut biome ecology) is an important co-factor.
Of course, I do not mean that causal agents do not exist, such as bacteria, which can cause pneumonia; nor that there are not dangerous environmental concentrations of such causal agents in proximity to fragile individuals, such as in hospitals and on clinicians’ hands, notoriously.
Fourth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, the debate about gain-of-function research and an escaped bioweapon is irrelevant.
I do not mean that the Department of Defence (DoD) does not fund gain-of-function and bioweapon research (abroad, in particular), I do not mean that there are not many US patents for genetically modified microbial organisms having potential military applications, and I do not mean that there have not previously been impactful escapes or releases of bioweapon vectors and pathogens. For example, the Lyme disease controversy in the USA may be an example of a bioweapon leak (see Kris Newby’s 2019 book “Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons”).
Generally, for obvious reasons, any pathogen that is extremely virulent will not also be extremely contagious. There are billions of years of cumulative evolutionary pressures against the existence of any such pathogen, and that result will be deeply encoded into all lifeforms.
Furthermore, it would be suicidal for any regime to vehemently seek to create such a pathogen. Bioweapons are intended to be delivered to specific target areas, except in the science fiction wherein immunity from a bioweapon that is both extremely virulent and extremely contagious can be reliably delivered to one’s own population and soldiers.
In my view, if anything COVID is close to being a bioweapon, it is the military capacity to massively, and repeatedly, rollout individual injections, which are physical vectors for whichever substances the regime wishes to selectively inject into chosen populations, while imposing complete compliance down to one’s own body, under the cover of protecting public health.
This is the same regime that practices wars of complete nation destruction and societal annihilation, under the cover of spreading democracy and women’s rights. And I do not mean China.
Fifth, again, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no need for any special treatment protocols, beyond the usual thoughtful, case-by-case, diagnostics followed by the clinician’s chosen best approach.
Instead, vicious new protocols killed patients in hotspots that applied those protocols in the first months of the declared pandemic.
This was followed in many states by imposed coercive societal measures, which were contrary to individual health: fear, panic, paranoia, induced psychological stress, social isolation, self-victimization, loss of work and volunteer activity, loss of social status, loss of employment, business bankruptcy, loss of usefulness, loss of caretakers, loss of venues and mobility, suppression of freedom of expression, etc.
Only the professional class did better, comfortably working from home, close to family, while being catered to by an army of specialised home-delivery services.
Unfortunately, the medical establishment did not limit itself to assaulting and isolating vulnerable patients in hospitals and care facilities. It also systematically withdrew normal care, and attacked physicians who refused to do so.
In virtually the entire Western World, antibiotic prescriptions were cut and maintained low by approximately 50% of the pre-COVID rates. This would have had devastating effects in the USA, in particular, where:
the CDC’s own statistics, based on death certificates, has approximately 50% of the million or so deaths associated with COVID having bacterial pneumonia as a listed comorbidity (there was a massive epidemic of bacterial pneumonia in the USA, which no one talked about)
the Southern poor states historically have much higher antibiotic prescription rates (this implies high susceptibility to bacterial pneumonia)
excess mortality during the COVID period is very strongly correlated (r = +0.86) — in fact proportional to — state-wise poverty
Sixth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no public-health reason to develop and deploy vaccines; not even if one accepted the tenuous proposition that any vaccine has ever been effective against a presumed viral respiratory disease.
Add to this that all vaccines are intrinsically dangerous and our above-described vaccine-dose fatality rate quantifications, and we must recognize that the vaccines contributed significantly to excess mortality everywhere that they were imposed.
In conclusion, the excess mortality was not caused by any particularly virulent new pathogen. COVID so-called response in-effect was a massive multi-pronged state and iatrogenic attack against populations, and against societal support structures, which caused all the excess mortality, in every jurisdiction.
It is only natural now to ask “what drove this?”, “who benefited?” and “which groups sustained permanent structural disadvantages?”
In my view, the COVID assault can only be understood in the symbiotic contexts of geopolitics and large-scale social-class transformations. Dominance and exploitation are the drivers. The failing USA-centered global hegemony and its machinations create dangerous conditions for virtually everyone.
“Gates’ actual goal in reaching the poor is to use them as guinea pigs in his experiments in culling the human race. It is also a virtue signal — a means of getting away with his brand of predatory philanthropy…”
…
“The lack of access to c-19 injections was not a tragedy, it was a fantastically lucky break for the world’s poor. Thank heaven the world’s poor were not served equitably with the toxic jabs.
“In the rich countries whose people did get them, millions have been injured and killed. It is hard to imagine that an on-the-ground practicing doctor could miss the non-evidence of a pandemic, and the dangers of giving totally new medical products from felony-convicted drug companies to everyone in the world, without delay.”
Until we have vaccines & medicines, mask wearing is one of the best tools we have to stop the spread of COVID-19. #WearAMask and upload a photo to social media, then ask your friends to do the same 😷 🤳 #WorldMaskWeekpic.twitter.com/ypA07gNI7J
A good job, wealth, honors, and prestige are hard to come by if you’re outside the establishment.
At the time of his death almost a year and a half ago, Dr. Paul Farmer had all the honors —co-founder of Partners In Health, University Professor at Harvard, a department chief at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, UN envoy, recipient of prestigious awards, subject of the New York Times bestseller Mountains Beyond Mountains — but his reputation was built on not being part of the establishment. Perhaps his biggest honor was that he was allowed to have it both ways.
He was praised for setting up clinics and living among the poor in Haiti and Rwanda, yet he was well connected with a very corrupt global health establishment — the WHO, the UN, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, USAID, and the Clinton Global Initiative — and no one mentioned a conflict.
In August 2021 Farmer co-signed a letter to President Biden saying,
“The time is now for ambitious leadership to vaccinate the world. The need to be on a “wartime footing” to secure the world against this pandemic viral threat is paramount. Any global COVID vaccination program must be structured to address multiple interlinked priorities. First, the manufacturing capacity of mRNA vaccines in the US must be rapidly scaled up to reach approximately 4 billion people by the end of 2021 . . . . “
This is the same message Bill Gates had for us at about the same time when he informed us that “we need to vaccinate everyone on the planet.”
When it came to covid, Farmer’s message was not that untested mRNA vaccines might possibly be unsafe but that a special effort should be made to get them to the poor right away.
“By massively boosting vaccine production and removing barriers to an equitable rollout,” he said, “we can help vaccinate the world to the benefit of all.” ‘Equity’ was also the message put out by Bill Gates almost every time he gave an interview. “The lack of equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines is a public health tragedy,” Gates said.
Gates’ actual goal in reaching the poor is to use them as guinea pigs in his experiments in culling the human race. It is also a virtue signal — a means of getting away with his brand of predatory philanthropy. And, no matter if a country is poor, Gates looks to make a profit on his investments — something the devil apparently allows.
The Clinton Foundation used the poor in a similar way in Haiti, using the plight of Haiti’s devastating 2010 earthquake to raise $9 billion in charitable donations, only 10% of which actually went to Haitian organizations. Bill Clinton was envoy to the UN in this scam and Paul Farmer was directly involved as UN special envoy under Clinton.
So, Farmer was a front man for Clinton and accepted money (and pandemic talking points) from Gates. One wonders why.
One might now also question if Dr. Farmer’s bringing Anthony Fauci-underwritten HIV/AIDS drugs to Haiti in the 1990s was more of a benefit to Haitians or to the pharmaceutical companies who sold them for up to $16,000 per patient. If it hadn’t been for the gross malfeasance revealed in the covid era, we might never have asked.
The lack of access to c-19 injections was not a tragedy, it was a fantastically lucky break for the world’s poor. Thank heaven the world’s poor were not served equitably with the toxic jabs.
In the rich countries whose people did get them, millions have been injured and killed. It is hard to imagine that an on-the-ground practicing doctor could miss the non-evidence of a pandemic, and the dangers of giving totally new medical products from felony-convicted drug companies to everyone in the world, without delay.
Farmer rightly gained his reputation showing the connections between poverty and disease, but he made a terrible mistake getting caught up in the designs of predatory pharmaceutical companies and profit-making philanthropists.
Considering the small number of wealthy psychopaths who planned and conducted the covid operation, the war on the poor includes just about everyone — not just people in remote villages in Haiti — and doctors of medicine were its main lieutenants.
This great humanitarian seems to have missed the fact that the fake pandemic was a broad-daylight attack in an overall war on humanity.
In February 2022, Partners in Health announced that Paul Farmer died of “an acute cardiac event while he was sleeping.” He was 62. He is thus among the thousands who “died suddenly” — the meme for healthy people who quite likely died from covid “vaccination,” though we’re never told.
The kindest interpretation is that, unlike Gates, Paul Farmer was not among the cognoscenti, and that he unwittingly took the same poison he was pushing for all.
The moral of the story: you may gain fame and fortune, but end up being just a dupe. What a terrific waste for a man who apparently spent his life caring for the poor.
Let the well-off and well-connected take note: no matter the fame and status the establishment gives you, you can be used and discarded just like everybody else. There are other goals more worth achieving.
“The point is, separately, in different venues, the Breggins and Jane Ruby are individuals who rose to the challenge to try to inform a brutalized public about what turns out to have been a war: a war of fear, fraud and bioweaponry waged against us by own government. Their contributions were, are and will continue to be vitally important to the flow of essential and also life-saving information.
Ask yourself: Why would anyone want to deflect these valuable contributors from their important vocations?…”
Do you remember how hard it was to get good information, especially in 2020, back at the Beginning of the End? It is hard still, but it was much worse before so many of us had delved into the sciences with a doggedness we never mustered in high school; before we had learned to see into the geysers of government and media disinformation about the “plandemic,” the “scamdemic,” the garbage-demic, to take apart and stomp on all of the Big Lies we were and are still beset by. And that was even before the government’s biochemical attack on the world via “mRNA vaccine” had begun.
The totalitarian-style censorship and disinformation which government, media and social media imposed upon us were (are) catastrophic and also fatal in all too many cases. That’s why when we learn, through arduous court-ordered FOIA research or congressional hearings or secret interviews or confessions … or autopsies that we were right to doubt and disbelieve and not comply, there are dead bodies, broken homes, ruined lives and a shattered future to embitter our vindication. To intensify our rage. That’s why Dr. Robert Malone’s openly stated goal in 2023 to use the courts to have a “chilling effect’ on debate in the public square, which he’s trying to rebrand as “defamation,” is so disturbing, bizarre and fraught with peril.
Malone’s interlocuters-turned-“defendants” are Dr. Peter Breggin, Ginger R. Breggin and Dr. Jane Ruby — outlandish words to write about such worthies. I don’t recall exactly when in the dark of lockdown I first came upon them. I do remember Dr. Jane’s exciting reports on the then-new Stew Peters Show, her tenacity, her blinking neon commitment to finding the truth, were an immediate godsend. At some point, too, I matched with the Breggins, Dr. Peter Breggin, “Conscience of Psychiatry,” and his wife and co-author Ginger Breggin, benefiting enormously from their warm and civilized discourse, which included (bonus) two interviews with me about American Betrayal. I was delighted to learn my book had inspired the Breggins to dig into the research that became their 2021 success, COVID 19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey.
The point is, separately, in different venues, the Breggins and Jane Ruby are individuals who rose to the challenge to try to inform a brutalized public about what turns out to have been a war: a war of fear, fraud and bioweaponry waged against us by own government. Their contributions were, are and will continue to be vitally important to the flow of essential and also life-saving information.
Ask yourself: Why would anyone want to deflect these valuable contributors from their important vocations? So what if they said something, many things, with which you disagree, even violently disagree? So what if they reject and even rebut your theories? So what if they engage you in a veritable “war of words”? To quote vintage Michelle Malkin, “Boo-the-heck-hoo.” Argue. Gnash your teeth. Write a rebuttal. Quote Voltaire. Exult in the First Amendment. But this — resorting to the punitive enforcement mechanism of a defamation lawsuit — is not right. Asking for $25 million in damages is an outrage. Such aggressive lawfare is akin to dropping a cluster bomb. The landscape that was is no more.
As many know, I am referring to the tantrum-esque defamation lawsuit D. Robert Malone has brought against the Breggins and Jane Ruby. I wrote a book about 15 years ago called The Death of the Grown-Up, which employs the metaphor to explore chaos and decline in our time. However, the absence of bona fide adults is not just a metaphorical problem. We could really use some grown-ups here. To wit:
If there happens to be an adult in the vicinity of Dr. Malone’s circle, please, could you instruct the “inventor of the mRNA vaccine” to pack his marbles and come home from the playground? Given the catastrophic impact of his precious invention as deployed by the governments of the world, he’s surely the last man on earth who should be trying to exert a “chilling effect” on anything — and especially not on the speech of doctors and scientists. People are dying from these shots all around. We need help. Debate. Breakthroughs. Not silence, not fear of being dragged to court for speaking up. Sticks and stones, anyone? Like Rick said in Casablanca, the problems of three (or four) little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world; however, if Malone were to win this lawsuit, American jurisprudence would feature a jihad-style trip-wire on public debate by public figures on public issues. Then again, if the First Amendment and American tradition count for anything at all anymore, the court will rule decisively against Malone. One man’s “defamation” will be everyone else’s free speech.
But at what cost? Stories of case-related censorship and acrimony buzz around the erstwhile medical freedom movement. Wouldn’t it be a better use of everyone’s time to try to figure out how to heal mRNA-injected humanity?
It was about half-way through 2021 when Dr. Malone showed his face in public discourse. Remember the weird thrill that rippled through the battered band of shot-resisters? Look: the mRNA inventor was throwing shade, some, anyway, on the mass injection program at that time in full-throttle- enforcement. Yes, to be sure, Xyklon B isn’t for everybody….How exciting? I’m not sure what psychological buttons Malone’s arrival on the scene pushed; as I think back on it now, such enthusiasm doesn’t make a lot of sense. After all, he didn’t come forward expressing remorse, as lots of great inventors have done before him, rueing their sometimes literally earth-shaking inventions, from the atom bomb and the Kalashnikov, to the office cubicle and the labradoodle. Notably, “The History of mRNA Vaccines” still unfolds under a spray of lovely pink blossoms here on Malone’s website.
Nor did he arrive on the medical freedom scene waving an antidote to mRNA technology, which, they say, has now been “delivered” into 70 percent of humanity and linked to a scale of death and injury that is unimaginable.
Kristen Napolillo asked Malone on Twitter: “What are you doing to find a way to blunt the effects of your invention?”
One thing about quoting Dr. Robert Malone: There is no need to underscore or add anything.
On June 8, 2023, Dr. Malone set forth his legal thinking on Substack:
My criteria for taking legal action has been whether or not someone seems to be doing significant reputational damage, while also factoring in the quirky nature of various clauses in defamation law.
It’s almost touching, isn’t it, to see someone who “invented the mRNA vaccine” fretting about “reputational damage”?
In some cases I have proceeded to delivering a cease and desist and that was enough. Dr. Richard Fleming was one such case. I sent him a letter, and he stopped. Seems rational enough. Thank you, Richard (and I seriously mean that).
Again, no comment necessary — but I do want to write that again: Thank you, Richard (and I seriously mean that).
He continues:
Turns out that response is the exception rather than the rule. Others double down, go public, get even nastier and more personally vindictive.
No! Can you beat that? Malone sends out a “cease and desist” and some people … refuse?
So then you have the same dilemma. Act on it or not. Fish or cut bait. First stop is to ask a mutual colleague to intervene. In almost all cases they refused. So you then pay the lawyer to prepare and file the suit. And in some cases the accused gets even nastier, and seeks to cause yet more pain.
It’s a marvel but he soldiers on:
There are all of the armchair quarterbacks, some of who are employers, friends or associates with the ones doing the harassment and defamation. “Why are you suing the ____ (fill in the blank)!!??!!” “You just want to destroy the medical freedom movement!” (whatever that is). “You are just doing it for money!” (what a horrible business plan that would be, given the paltry odds of winning a defamation lawsuit).
“Fill in the blank”? Somehow, I feel bidden to provide photos of the people, the experts, including an eminent doctor, the writers and commentators, the human beings whom Dr. Malone has just turned into a blank.
Now, let him rip.
No, I am suing because I am having something taken from me, and it is both wrong and illegal. My reputation, my peace of mind, and that of those close to me. Cyberstalking, cyberbullying, malicious defamation. These things are wrong. They are not what civilized, mentally healthy people do to each other. And they often seem to involve some odd perverse obsession.
But it is also true that hate and defamation is a very good business model and a great way to build up a follower base. People are building their audiences by employing this strategy based on tall tales, lies, name calling and hate. But maybe, just maybe, if I win a case, this will become a disincentive for those prone to this sort of behavior in the future, directed towards me or to others.
And then there are the ones that are shunning me because I am (legally) fighting back against those that are doing this to Jill and I [sic]. That part is a real mind-bender for me. Somehow fighting back against those who are aggressively cyberstalking and defaming me on a daily basis makes me the bad guy. Now if that is not pretzel logic, I do not know what is.
I suppose, in an intellectual sense, it is a fascinating question to ponder – what makes these people behave in this way? Why do haters hate? Why do others support them? I do not have an answer, only informed speculation. Personally, I think it somehow relates to the mental state of other types of stalkers, such as the ones that shot President Regan [sic] and John Lennon. And it clearly relates to envy, jealousy, and greed. Spreading hate can be quite lucrative in the age of the internet, where attention seeking behavior can be monetized. So there is that. (Emphasis added.)
I have no quip to make when the rhetoric is so troubling. Consider seriously that Dr. Malone has first blanked the names of the Breggins and Jane Ruby, and then created an escalating series of fantastical enemies, from imaginary cyberstalkers, cyberbullies, malicious defamers, to not civilized, not mentally healthy people, to haters with a mentality “somehow related” to that of notorious violent criminals: John Hinkley and Mark David Chapman, the former, the attempted-assassin who wounded Ronald Reagan and paralyzed James Brady; the latter, the assassin of John Lennon.
Still, no one around him has put a hand on his shoulder and said, Enough.
—
Let’s pick up on p. 13 of a recent Motion to Dismiss by Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger R. Breggin.
The Breggin Motion is discussing the thirteenth bulleted item in Malone’s Complaint. This Item 13 contains four separate allegations of defamation purported to be found in an online interview of Dr. Breggin by Pete Santilli.
From the Breggins’ Motion to Dismiss:
Malone alleges that Breggins stated: Dr. Malone is part of the “Deep State” oppressors. Dr. Malone’s concept of mass formation psychosis is calculated to protect the “mass murderers of COVID-19.” Dr. Malone is a Hitler apologist and “excuser.” “Malone wake up to history.”
The Breggins:
When examining the entire interview of Dr. Breggin on this show, nowhere in the show can it be found that Dr. Breggin made the statement that Malone atrributes to him that he is a part of the “Deep State oppressors.”
Malone’s allegations that Breggin stated that “Dr. Malone’s concept of mass formation psychosis is calculated to protect the `mass murderers of COVID-19′ is actually Breggin talking about Dr. Desmet,not Dr. Malone.
And lastly, nowhere in this recorded interview (or anywhere else for that matter) can it be found where Dr. Breggin ever stated that Dr. Malone is “a Hitler apologist and excuser.”
First of all, may I say (shout): Who cares! Say what you will! These are public commentators debating the onset of totalitarianism in our time. Hitler, Stalin, Mao are the totalitarian all-stars, at least up to now, and are gonna come up. Boo-the-heck-hoo. Still, there is a crucially important legal (and moral) point here: The Breggins’ brief states that certain of these quotations are not to be found on video, or anywhere else. If this is true — and I cannot find them, either — the Malone Complaint includes false allegations. Put that in your syringe and shoot it. What will the judge say about that?
And now this:
Moreover, the only quote that can be found to be semi-accurate, “Desmet, Malone, wake up to history,” is a pejorative at best, and an admonition even, but it is not defamatory.
No, it is not. But ponder the legal mind that sees fit to include such an innocuous comment, with its pleasantly archaic rhetorical flourish, into a defamation brief. Ponder the scientific mind that hopes for a “chilling effect.” Frankly, if Dr. Robert Malone is so darn worried about reputational damage, he should drop this stupid lawsuit ASAP and wake up. Wake up to free speech.
Collagen accounts for about 30% of the total protein content in the human body and needs to be replaced. Red meat will not provide enough amino acids to allow you to build strong connective tissue
Collagen provides structural scaffolding for your various tissues to allow them to stretch while still maintaining tissue integrity, and is crucial for repairing soft tissue, muscle and connective tissue. Gelatin is cooked collagen, which makes it more digestible and easier to absorb
Many degenerative and inflammatory diseases can also be ameliorated by eating more gelatin-rich foods. Red meat, on the other hand, contains far higher levels of the antimetabolic amino acids cysteine and tryptophan, which you want less of if you struggle with degenerative and/or inflammatory conditions
Life extension studies have shown that restricting only tryptophan, or only cysteine, produces a greater life span extension than caloric restriction
Collagen is rich in glycine, which can be helpful for all sorts of bleeding problems, including nosebleeds, excessive menstrual bleeding, bleeding ulcers, hemorrhoids and even stroke
Collagen accounts for about 30% of the total protein in your body. One of its primary purposes is to provide structural support and strength to your tissues, such as skin, bones, tendons, ligaments and cartilage1,2,3 by allowing them to stretch while still maintaining tissue integrity.
As such, collagen is crucial for repairing soft tissue, muscle and connective tissue. Connective tissues include tendons, ligaments, cartilage and fascia, which tend to get weaker and less elastic with age. Connective tissue injuries are also problematic since there’s very little blood supply in connective tissue, which slows down recovery.
Nearly one-third of the amino acids in collagen is glycine. It is also high in proline, hydroxyproline and alanine, which are the building blocks for the matrix of connective tissue. Your body uses the amino acids in collagen to rehab stressed areas and places in your body where it’s needed the most. Other lesser-known health benefits of collagen supplementation include:
Deeper sleep due to its glycine content4
Reduced joint pain and stiffness,5 including osteoarthritis pain6
Improved gut health and digestion, thanks to the presence of glycine7
Improved blood pressure and reduced cardiovascular damage8
Improved glucose tolerance9
Reduced inflammation and oxidative damage, as glycine inhibits the consumption of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH). NADPH is used as a reductive reservoir of electrons to recharge antioxidants once they become oxidized
Important Differences Between Collagen and Red Meat
The chart below details the amino acid ratios of gelatin and collagen versus red meat (beef). As you can see, gelatin/collagen contain vastly more of the important amino acids to rebuild your connective tissue than beef. Since one-third of your body’s protein is collagen, it makes no sense to eat only muscle meat, as it will not provide enough amino acids to allow you to build strong connective tissue.
Importantly, collagen contains higher amounts of specific amino acids with anti-inflammatory and other healing properties, while red meat is higher in amino acids that induce inflammation. I’ll discuss these differences further below.
I believe it is still important to eat animal protein that is higher in branched chain amino acids to stimulate mTOR and muscle protein synthesis, but it is wise not to use this exclusively as the amino acids in red are relatively high in animal protein and have been shown to negatively correlate with longevity.
Interestingly, collagen and gelatin are extraordinarily low in these amino acids. This is why I personally shoot to have about one-third of my protein as collagen or gelatin. I have cut down my egg and meat intake by 50% and replaced the protein with gelatin and collagen. One of the reasons I did this was based on the late Ray Peat’s take on the importance of balancing these important amino acids.
Our ancestors never had access to gelatin or collagen products as food sources like we have today, so they typically obtained their collagen from eating the whole animal, including the connective tissue. Since most of us are not doing that today, it would seem important to integrate some collagen and gelatin into our diets.
Collagen Is Important for Degenerative Diseases
According to Peat, who was a biologist10 with a specialization in physiology,11 collagen — especially the cooked form, which is gelatin — also helps protect your cells against stress. He points out that amino acids in their free state have many hormone-like functions.
For example, during stress, cysteine and tryptophan are released in large quantities, and these amino acids have antimetabolic effects. Other amino acids act as nerve-modifiers, triggering excitation or inhibition, while others, especially glycine, have cell-protective, anti-stress effects.
As such, many degenerative and inflammatory diseases can be ameliorated by eating more gelatin-rich foods. Red meat, on the other hand, contains far higher levels of the antimetabolic amino acids cysteine and tryptophan, which you want less of if you struggle with degenerative and/or inflammatory conditions.
We’ve Followed a Flawed Paradigm
Peat stressed that the conventional “lock and key” paradigm of endocrinology, which teaches that hormones signal cells that have suitable receptors for it, is flawed. Instead, his research brought him to the understanding that cellular responses were in fact dependent on the state of the cells, and that state is modified by nutrients, metabolites, hormones and neurotransmitters in its surroundings.
By fixating on a flawed paradigm, we’ve ended up with what Peat referred to as “monstrous distortion of the official dietary recommendations.” For example, most studies trying to determine the nutritional requirements for protein were done for the agricultural industry and were designed to identify the cheapest way to achieve maximum growth in the shortest time possible.
But maximizing growth doesn’t mean you’re also maximizing health and longevity. Quite the contrary. Polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) like linoleic acid (LA), for example, produce rapid weight gain in young animals, which translates into rapid profits. But if we’re looking for optimal human health, that’s not what we want. And, indeed, there’s overwhelming evidence showing excessive PUFA consumption is wrecking human health.
Similarly, amino acids in proteins were defined as “essential” based on their contribution of growth in animals, again ignoring factors such as longevity, brain development and optimal health.
According to Peat, what little research has been done in this area suggests the human requirement for tryptophan and cysteine is very low in adulthood. So, the high intake of red meat and virtually no consumption of connective tissues rich in collagen and gelatin is not doing your health any favors.
Collagen for Life Extension and Disease Prevention
According to Peat, life extension studies have shown that “Restricting only tryptophan, or only cysteine, produces a greater extension of the life span than achieved in most of the studies of caloric restriction,” which is rather remarkable. In his archived article “Gelatin, Stress, Longevity,” Peat explained:12
“Both tryptophan and cysteine inhibit thyroid function and mitochondrial energy production, and have other effects that decrease the ability to withstand stress. Tryptophan is the precursor to serotonin, which causes inflammation, immunodepression, and generally the same changes seen in aging.
Histidine is another amino acid precursor to a mediator of inflammation, histamine; would the restriction of histidine in the diet have a longevity promoting effect, too?
It happens that gelatin is a protein which contains no tryptophan, and only small amounts of cysteine, methionine, and histidine. Using gelatin as a major dietary protein is an easy way to restrict the amino acids that are associated with many of the problems of aging …
When cells are stressed, they form extra collagen, but they can also dissolve it, to allow for tissue remodeling and growth … When collagen is broken down, it releases factors that promote wound healing and suppress tumor invasiveness. Glycine itself is one of the factors promoting wound healing and tumor inhibition.
It has a wide range of antitumor actions, including the inhibition of new blood vessel formation (angiogenesis), and it has shown protective activity in liver cancer and melanoma …
When we eat animal proteins in the traditional ways (for example, eating fish head soup, as well as the muscles, or ‘head-cheese’ as well as pork chops, and chicken-foot soup as well as drumsticks), we assimilate a large amount of glycine and gelatin. This whole-animal balance of amino acids supports all sorts of biological process[es], including a balanced growth of children’s tissues and organs.
When only the muscle meats are eaten, the amino acid balance entering our blood stream is the same as that produced by extreme stress, when cortisol excess causes our muscles to be broken down to provide energy and material for repair.
The formation of serotonin is increased by the excess tryptophan in muscle, and serotonin stimulates the formation of more cortisol, while the tryptophan itself, along with the excess muscle-derived cysteine, suppresses the thyroid function …
The range of injuries produced by an excess of tryptophan and serotonin seems to be prevented or corrected by a generous supply of glycine. Fibrosis, free radical damage, inflammation, cell death from ATP depletion or calcium overload, mitochondrial damage, diabetes, etc., can be prevented or alleviated by glycine.
Some types of cell damage are prevented almost as well by alanine and proline as by glycine, so the use of gelatin, rather than glycine, is preferable … Gelatin has been used successfully to treat diabetes for over 100 years. Glycine inhibits lipolysis … and this in itself will make insulin more effective, and help to prevent hyperglycemia. (A gelatin-rich diet can also lower the serum triglycerides.)
Since persistent lipolysis and insulin resistance, along with a generalized inflammatory state, are involved in a great variety of diseases, especially in the degenerative diseases, it’s reasonable to consider using glycine/gelatin for almost any chronic problem.”
Glycine for Bleeding, Stroke, Muscle Spasms and Pain
In his article, Peat reviewed several conditions that can be successfully treated with glycine. For example, all sorts of bleeding problems, including nosebleeds, excessive menstrual bleeding, bleeding ulcers, hemorrhoids and even stroke may benefit from a gelatin-rich, and hence glycine-rich diet.
According to Peat, glycine, taken shortly after a stroke, limits the damage and accelerates recovery. Glycine may also be protective in epilepsy, by stabilizing nerves and raising the amount of stimulation required to activate nerves. Glycine also has antispastic effects that can help alleviate muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. He also shared the effects of his personal experimentation with gelatin:13
“For years I hadn’t slept through a whole night without waking … The first time I had several grams of gelatin just before bedtime, I slept without interruption for about 9 hours.
I mentioned this effect to some friends, and later they told me that friends and relatives of theirs had recovered from long-standing pain problems (arthritic and rheumatic and possibly neurological) in just a few days after taking 10 or 15 grams of gelatin each day.
For a long time, gelatin’s therapeutic effect in arthritis was assumed to result from its use in repairing the cartilage or other connective tissues around joints, simply because those tissues contain so much collagen …
Some of the consumed gelatin does get incorporated into the joint cartilage, but that is a slow process, and the relief of pain and inflammation is likely to be almost immediate, resembling the anti-inflammatory effect of cortisol or aspirin.
Inflammation produces fibrosis, because stress, hypoxia, and inadequate supply of glucose stimulate the fibroblasts to produce increased amounts of collagen. In lungs, kidneys, liver, and other tissues, glycine protects against fibrosis, the opposite of what the traditional view would suggest.
Since excess tryptophan is known to produce muscle pain, myositis, even muscular dystrophy, gelatin is an appropriate food for helping to correct those problems, simply because of its lack of tryptophan. (Again, the popular nutritional idea of amino acids as simply building blocks for tissues is exactly wrong — muscle protein can exacerbate muscle disease.)”
According to Peat, any condition involving excess prolactin, serotonin and/or cortisol, including autism, postpartum and premenstrual problems, Cushing’s disease, diabetes, and impotence “should” benefit from a diet low in tryptophan.
“In some of the older studies, therapeutic results improved when the daily gelatin was increased,” he noted. “Since 30 grams of glycine was commonly used for treating muscular dystrophy and myasthenia gravis, a daily intake of 100 grams of gelatin wouldn’t seem unreasonable, and some people find that quantities in that range help to decrease fatigue …
For adults, a large part of that could be in the form of gelatin. If a person eats a large serving of meat, it’s probably helpful to have 5 or 10 grams of gelatin at approximately the same time, so that the amino acids enter the blood stream in balance.”
What Is the Difference Between Gelatin and Collagen?
While collagen and gelatin have the same basic amino acid composition, their properties differ due to differing manufacturing processes. Put simply, gelatin is basically cooked collagen,14 which makes it more digestible and easier to absorb. This is particularly important if you have compromised digestion.
Collagen is made from animal bones, skins, tendons and other connective tissues. The collagen is extracted through an acid or alkali treatment followed by purification and does not involve heat. Since the molecular structure is larger, collagen does not dissolve in water.
When collagen is heated, the molecular bonds break down, giving you gelatin hydrolysate or hydrolyzed gelatin (other terms to describe gelatin include collagen hydrolysate or collagen peptides). Since the peptide chains are shorter, gelatin can be dissolved in water, where it forms a thick gel.
In terms of health benefits, these differences are likely minimal, because when collagen is ingested, it gets broken down in your gastrointestinal tract into shorter peptides that are the same as gelatin. Since only free amino acids can enter your bloodstream, collagen and gelatin have essentially identical systemic effects, as their basic composition is the same. That said, gelatin may be preferable if you have ulcers or other GI problems.
Types of Collagen
While 28 different types of collagen have been scientifically identified, most supplements will contain one or more of just three of these,15,16,17 as they comprise 90% of the collagen in your body.18
Type 1 — collagen found in skin/hide, tendon, scales and bones of cows, pigs, chicken and fish
Type 2 — formed in cartilage and typically derived from poultry
Type 3 — fibrous protein found in bone, tendon, cartilage and connective tissues of cows, pigs, chicken and fish
Choose Your Collagen Source Wisely
Historically, traditional diets provided ample collagen in the form of broth made from boiled chicken feet or beef bones. These are by far your best alternatives. If you decide to use a collagen or gelatin supplement, here are some general considerations to take into account when shopping around:
•Is it organic and/or grass fed certified? — Laboratory testing has revealed many popular collagen and bone broth products contain potentially hazardous contaminants typically associated with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), such as heavy metals,19,20 chemicals like butylparaben, and various veterinary drugs,21,22 including antibiotics.
To avoid contaminants, make sure your collagen supplement is certified “100% Organic” by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)23 or, better yet, certified grass fed by the American Grassfed Association (AGA), which has the most rigorous standards. This also applies to gelatin, although it can be a bit more difficult to find, and if you do, it can run about $50.
It appears that collagen and gelatin provide virtually identical protein profiles and biological benefits. Collagen has the benefit of being available in affordable organic choices. Gelatin can be used to improve the texture and satiety of foods. So, they both can improve your health; you just need to choose the one that works best for you.
•What raw materials is it made from? — Nonorganic collagen is almost universally made from hydrolyzed cattle hides, not beef bones. When made from cattle hide, even organic certification becomes questionable, because hides, organic or not, are still scraps from the leather tannery industry and have undergone intense processing with harsh chemicals.
Raw, newly skinned hides arrive to the tannery on large pallets, where they can remain to rot for weeks before being processed. Even though they’re salted, they’re not entirely preserved and the stench is overwhelming. The tannery process itself typically involves an acid bath and processing with harsh chemicals such as sulfuric acid or chromium salts.
Hides with scars and imperfections are discarded once they’ve gone through this processing, and these castoffs are what are used to make bovine hide-based collagen supplements.
The already processed scraps then undergo additional processing to dissolve the hide and release the collagen peptides. So, while the raw hide may have come from an organically-raised, grass fed cow, after all that chemical processing, just how organic is the final product?
While my personal preference used to be grass fed organic collagen made from beef bones (not hide), I’m now leaning more toward powdered gelatin, as it’s more easily digested.
That said, I still believe the natural approach is best. Making homemade bone broth using bones and connective tissue from grass fed, organically raised animals isn’t very complicated and will produce the best results. If you prefer chicken broth, consider using organic chicken feet. The claws are particularly rich in collagen.24
And, to reiterate, eating muscle meat will not provide you with the important amino acids that are necessary for building collagen. Considering about one-third of the proteins in your body are collagen, it makes sense to ensure you’re getting enough collagen/gelatin.
Beware: Jell-O Contains No Gelatin
In closing, do NOT make the mistake of using Jell-O brand25 “gelatin” snacks. Remarkable as it may seem, the ready-to-eat Jell-O cups contain no gelatin whatsoever. Instead, they’re using carrageenan, which can induce inflammation and contribute to a wide variety of chronic diseases.26 It can also cause digestive side effects.27
Jell-O powder28 does contain gelatin, but sugar is the No. 1 ingredient, plus it contains food coloring and preservatives with questionable safety. What you want is a pure gelatin powder without sugar and other additives.
In the glorious aftermath of Robert Kennedy Jr. red-pilling Joe Rogan about vaccines; other toxic but government approved products like glyphosate, atrazine, and PFOAs; and the malfeasance of government agencies, vaccine developer Dr. Peter Hotez seriously miscalculated or suffered an unfortunate lapse of judgement when he accused Kennedy of spreading misinformation. He thus unleashed a storm of criticism he surely never expected. Rogan publicly offered Hotez $100,000 donated to the charity of his choice if he would come on the show to debate Kennedy. Other onlookers chipped in and the donation promise mounted. Last I looked, the offer stood at $2.6 million but Hotez is not taking it!
Never before has the refusal of vaccine apologists to debate vaccine critics spoken louder of their ties to big pharma, big media, big government, and big academia.
Observing the last few years, millions have not just awoken to the reality of conflicts of interest and captured media, industry, and government, but also to true authoritarian censorship. Unfortunately, while millions may be forgiven for believing this is a recent development, the reality is far different.
I’ve been smeared by media outlets like the New York Times and CBS. Congressman Adam Schiff wrote to big tech and had my movie The Greater Good and the movies and books of many others removed from big tech platforms. Those of us working on vaccine safety awareness and health freedom issues know this is nothing new and has, instead, been standard practice for decades.
And Peter Hotez has acted as a loyal foot soldier to the big pharma lobby in their condemnable battle against honest citizens who’ve witnessed vaccine injury close up. His dishonesty is now on full display for all to see – but again, it’s not new.
In 2021, Hotez tweeted false claims about investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson alleging she had endorsed an article comparing him to Joseph Mengele, placed him in harm’s way through “dangerous and hurtful” conduct, and called for his doxing. He even suggested she was connected to white nationalists and was sending him images of Nuremberg. To call Hotez a liar is an understatement. Hotez exhibits a particularity dangerous and pathological behavior in that he is not merely dishonest but a fabricator of falsehoods intended to destroy those with different opinions.
Unfortunately, I have had my own experience with Hotez.
On October 2, 2019, a pediatrician, the Idaho State Health and Welfare epidemiologist, Hotez, and I, were guests on the NPR/Boise Public Radio show Idaho Matters. Some might argue 2019 was a prelude to what was to come in 2020 as the relatively small increase in measles cases was being hyped worldwide and weaponized against those demanding bodily autonomy and truth in science. Hotez’ conduct on the show illustrates perfectly the kind of person we’re now seeing unmasked – and it’s not a very flattering image.
Hotez employs slurs, ad hominem attacks, and falsehoods to smear his challengers from the vaccine safety awareness community. Again, this kind of treatment is not new. During the radio show, Hotez made the following statements:
1) that there is an “aggressive anti-vaccine lobby”
2) that I repeated “anti-vaccine tropes”
3) that I compared the measles cases in NY to the national population to “deliberately mislead”
4) that the concept of health and medical freedom is a “phony concept”
5) that I and other parents “download vaccine misinformation” from the internet
6) that the “anti-vaccine lobby is a media empire” with over 480 “misinformation websites”
7) that parents can’t put children in harm’s way because of “misinformation”
8) that I stated 89,000 vaccine “injuries” have been reported to VAERS after MMR
9) that Hotez is going to “correct the misinformation” I gave and give the “real information”
Additionally, Hotez insinuated I was lying when I stated that a local woman developed MS from a vaccine by saying there is no evidence of that. The young woman in question had to leave our community with her three children as she was no longer able to care for her family. She spent time on a neurological ward at a hospital in Salt Lake City, UT and there were many others suffering neurological complications from flu vaccines.
So, let’s address his claims:
1) There is a genuine grassroots effort of vaccine injured families raising awareness about the lack of quality science on vaccines. Specific problems with vaccine safety studies are the lack of genuine placebos (mercury, aluminum or another vaccine is used), short duration (studies can last as few as 3 days), lack of comparison to completely unvaccinated populations, lack of studies evaluating all the combinations in which vaccines are given, lack of studies evaluating health outcomes of the vaccination schedule. There are a couple of studies comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children and they overwhelmingly show the health of unvaccinated children is superior. The truth is that big pharma, which includes the vaccine industry, is the largest lobby group in the US shelling out $250 million each year, spends $35 billion on ads annually thereby “owning” the media, pays more than half the drug approvers’ salaries at FDA, and controls the medical journals through the purchase of glossy reprints.
2) Everything I stated was based on official data from US agencies or data from peer-reviewed published studies. It’s there for anyone to see – you just have to dig a little deeper than the mainstream media. In fact, these days, you may have to employ an independent search engine because google rigs its results to downplay anything that challenges officialdom. I don’t repeat tropes, I know the science and would gladly debate Hotez or any other vaccine pusher about the true science of vaccines, including all we don’t know.
3) I did not compare measles cases in NY to the national population. I compared the total amount of measles cases according to CDC to the total US population. To understand how the public has been misled about the dangers of measles, the cases, and the role of vaccines, check out these articles at Children’s Health Defense.
4) Health and medical freedom are not a “phony” concept. Children have been kidnapped by hospitals and CPS for refusing the Hep B shot at birth or deciding a fever has passed and there’s no need for medical attention. There is nothing phony about parents having their children stolen from them because they’ve done what they think is best for their children. Millions have been injured by vaccines and there is a mountain of science documenting the risks and shortcomings of vaccines. To suggest otherwise is not only dishonest, it’s immoral.
5) All the information I give in all forums is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and derived from published peer-reviewed research or US government data. It is not misinformation in any way, shape or form, no matter how often or loudly Hotez or other vaccine industry stakeholders shout about it. (Notice, Hotez and his ilk were calling us misinformation spreaders years ago – it’s not a new derision.) Rather, parents like me have advanced degrees and are highly educated. We can read science and discern when we’re being misled. We understand when an issue is being whitewashed. We understand experts can be bought and we’re smart enough, strong enough, and well-educated enough to call them out – we’re just not usually given the chance.
6) The vaccine awareness safety movement is largely not “anti-vaccine”. Rather, it is comprised primarily of ex-vaccinators who’ve witnessed the dangers of vaccines first hand. Would you call them anti-car seat for wanting safe car seats for their children? If someone chooses to only eat organic food, does that make them anti-food? If someone chooses filtered water based on the science related to a specific filter does that make them anti-water? If someone chooses to live in the countryside does that make them anti-city? This slur has been weaponized to smear and dehumanize individuals and their choices rather than address the damage sustained by them or their children from government approved products. It’s a ridiculous leap that has been normalized and is the go-to rhetoric for dismissing well-educated, well-researched individuals as loony dissenters. Many parents who once enthusiastically embraced vaccinations have now adjusted their posture choosing not to vaccinate and challenging the official narrative, but that results from personal negative experience, not some words they read on the internet.
7) Parents are protecting their children and themselves from the injection of known toxins that can damage the neurological system, the immune system, the gastrointestinal system, and more. Vaccines contain myriad toxins which have never been tested singly or in combination for toxicity, yet they are readily injected into our tiny, newborn babies as though no possible downside exists. This is prima facie not just wrong, but indisputably unethical.
8) I stated correctly that there have been 89,000 reports of adverse reactions to measles vaccines. Hotez’ number of 221 is the number who actually received compensation from the impossibly corrupted Vaccine Compensation Program.
“While the current vaccine is acknowledged as a good vaccine, we and others have demonstrated that the immune response to measles vaccine varies substantially in actual field use. Multiple studies demonstrate that 2–10% of those immunized with two doses of measles vaccine fail to develop protective antibody levels, and that immunity can wane over time and result in infection (so-called secondary vaccine failure) when the individual is exposed to measles. For example, during the 1989–1991 U.S. measles outbreaks 20–40% of the individuals affected had been previously immunized with one to two doses of vaccine. In an October 2011 outbreak in Canada, over 50% of the 98 individuals had received two doses of measles vaccine. The Table shows that this phenomenon continues to play a role in measles outbreaks. Thus, measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced [8]. This leads to a paradoxical situation whereby measles in highly immunized societies occurs primarily among those previously immunized [8].”
Call me a lay person, but it does not take a scientist to understand words like “primary and secondary vaccine failure” or the “paradoxical situation of highly vaccinated groups being more susceptible.” Hmmm. When have I heard about vaccines undermining the immune system and rendering vaccinees more susceptible to illness?
While it wasn’t Hotez who made the absurd claim that vaccines are one of the best tested medicines available, I feel I’d be remiss by not correcting that whopper. The truth is vaccine safety studies do not use genuine placebos, they instead utilize another vaccine or solution containing mercury or aluminum as the placebo. Absent placebo-controlled studies, it is preposterous to claim that vaccines are well tested and one cannot make any claims about safety or efficacy without a proper placebo-controlled study. NONE. Not to mention that vaccine safety studies evaluate one vaccine but vaccines are administered in groups of as many as 8 doses of vaccines in a day. Nor are the health outcomes of vaccinated compared to those of the unvaccinated. To argue this is robust science is laughable. To understand the shortcomings of vaccine science, watch my movie, The Greater Good.
Hotez has deep ties to the pharmaceutical industry, spent his career developing vaccines and holds patents on vaccines, rendering him a seriously conflicted participant in any debate about vaccines. One would never ask someone from the coal industry about the safety of coal-fired power plants but when it comes to vaccine-connected physicians and scientists, we somehow give them a free pass. Perhaps worse still is the glaring lack of disclosure made by media when media presents these so-called experts with vested interests. Nary a word was mentioned about Hotez’ background in his introduction on the show.
In addition, Hotez makes disparaging remarks about those who deviate from the official orthodoxy of vaccines dispensed by the pharmaceutical industry and the health agencies that receive vast sums from that industry without any consequence or challenge from the compliant media.
As I wrap things up, let me share one last tidbit which illustrates the type of sick individual Hotez is; I did not have time to mention this during the show, but he has stated that the parents of vaccine injured children “hate their children and are a hate group.” Seriously.
It beggars belief that Hotez has any credibility as an expert but the pharma-influenced media doesn’t bat an eye at such outrageous comments.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would do the world a service by debating Hotez but my experience speaks volumes about Hotez’ true colors – he’s not interested in an exchange of different views, respectable debate, or an examination of the body of science. You can hear it yourself in the show, all he does is disparage me and those who have concerns about the safety of vaccines likely in the hopes that others will dismiss our concerns without further investigation.
Hopefully, his latest antics will undermine any vestigial credibility he may have had.
[TCTL editor’s note: To keep up with growing amount of money being offered to Peter Hotez (for his favorite charity) for a debate with RFK Jr., see Joe Rogan’s twitter feed. TCTL is still suspended from twitter (that happened years ago) but you can view JRE’s feed whether you have an account or not.]
According to the science we learn in our indoctrination center called the educational system, leukemia or blood cancer is a disease in which an overproduction of white blood cells is created. Many of those cells are damaged or not developed enough, and this is caused by the damaged bone marrow which produces them.
We are educated/indoctrinated to believe that white blood cells are our immune system, created to protect us from the pathogen that has attacked our body. So, when the pathogen occurs, the white blood cell blood count increases. As the pathogen gets gobbled up by the white blood cells/macrophage, (the process science has named autophagy), the threat no longer exists, and the number of white blood cells reduces to the ”normal” levels.
When the blood count of white blood cells is high and no pathogen is detected, and the situation persists without the white blood cell count dropping to the normal level, this is when the body is declared by our experts to be diseased with leukemia.
Is this what really happens?
We are “educated” to recognize leukemia through the symptoms that accompany it. Those symptoms are; fever or chills, persistent fatigue, frequent infections, losing weight, swollen lymph nodes, easy bleeding or bruising, tiny red spots in the skin, excessive sweating, and bone pain and tenderness.
In which way an increased white blood cell count causes such symptoms? This makes no sense.
When we look at those symptoms, everyone who is familiar with my work immediately comes to the conclusion that those are symptoms of toxic blood and a toxic body in general.
Since white blood cells are not what we are told, a defense mechanism created to attack the intruder/pathogen, instead, they are a garbage disposal system, as the level of the garbage increases in the blood, the body increases the production of white blood cells to dispose of this garbage.
This means that the body is functioning correctly in the given circumstance. Since doctors cannot identify any pathogen and the blood level of white blood cells remains high, they blame the bone, thymus, and lymph nodes for overproducing white blood cells for no apparent reason, and through the implementation of toxic chemicals, they attack those organs to suppress white blood cell production.
Through their action, doctors increase the blood´s toxicity which stimulates the body to further increase the white blood cell count, and the battle with the “disease” becomes eventually lost because the overly toxic patient dies.
Doctors proudly declare that they have extended the patient’s life/suffering for as long as they could and without their intervention, the patient would have died sooner.
Well, it is obvious that doctors are incompetent and they are the reason why their patient has died.
What is the cause of increased white blood cell count and why it remains high?
The symptoms reveal that the blood is toxic. Since the white blood cell count has increased, this means that the body senses a toxin that can be eliminated by disposing of it through white blood cells (most likely an organic compound).
The bone marrow thymus and lymph nodes start to produce white blood cells, but they cannot recognize the “garbage” because it is not labeled. Since the toxic level is not dropping, the body continues producing white blood cells and at the same time, some of them are expiring and undergo autophagy and appear damaged or undeveloped.
The reason why the poison is not labeled is the lack of GcMAF because of the incorrect genetic expression caused by eating starches/glucose. The cells are forced to produce nagalase to be able to hydrolyze glucose and use it as fuel. This prevents them to produce GcMAF since the same pair of genes is responsible for the signaling to the cell what the cell should manufacture in this given environment.
This is another example of how eating starches contributes to a diseased state of our body.
Since those people that follow the SHP are forbidden to consume starches, their cells start to produce GcMAF marker, the toxins become marked and eliminated through macrophage, and as the blood toxic level drops, the production of the white blood cells stops and leukemia miraculously disappears.
I have noticed that green tea has toxins that stimulate white cell production, and preservatives of meat in canned food and sausages do the same. This is why we see leukemia often in people that consume large quantities of green tea and children that eat colorful cereals, frankfurters or ham, or other types of salami.
Also, cats fed with can foods and dry food loaded with carbohydrates will develop leukemia.
They all heal when their food is corrected.
It was brought to my attention that by July people will be able to start scheduling their med bed appointments. They will be free so if someone wants to sell you an appointment, this is a fraudster, do not fall for it.
“Is this intentional? Are we subjected to this slow genocide as part of the global eugenic effort to rid the world of useless eaters?—or even more horrifying, to rid the world of all humans who are made in the image of God along with nature herself? An agenda chillingly made clear in C.S. Lewis’ tome That Hideous Strength seen as well in the works of numerous others such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.
“Probably not everything I have mentioned here has come about as part of this nefarious evil intention. But I would be willing to bet a lot of it has (see the work of David Icke). It may just have become the nature of the beast to create a culture in its atheistic hubris that ignores the subtleties of life and living.”
We have, for quite some time, been exposed to a myriad of silent killers. These are the subtle murderers of both the physical body as well as the spirit.
I used to think most of these killers were unintentional and merely the result of ignorance or a non-existent understanding of the non-material world of spirit. I also felt that science was rather inept in detecting subtle shifts of emotion, such as depression or “just not feeling well.” All such “measurements” were simply too nuanced to show up in their metrics.
Now I believe a lot of what I am speaking of is intentional. We are intentionally being eliminated or, at the very least, intentionally being made ill. Humanity is purposefully being murdered.
That’s a rather radical assumption, eh? Well, let’s just put it aside for the moment if this bothers you. I can make a good argument even if you are unwilling to accept that extreme notion. And, as the eminent Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung used to often say to his patients, “Well, I could be wrong.”
There are many obvious things out in the world that are killing us softly…and not all of them so softly. Pollution is a big one; the air we breathe and the water we drink are toxic—probably more toxic than we are led to believe (that’s the “softly” part). Then on the toxic list we’ve got most of what we eat, the obvious being fast food, the not so obvious being processed food, and the really soft culprit being GMO. There are more “obvious killers” out there as well, I just don’t have the space to include all of them.
Some of the more “not so obvious” things, which some of you may have issue with, are things like 5G, and really any EMF pollution, which even includes radio waves. Most medicine is toxic, doctors themselves can be quite toxic and guilty of killing us softly, although I still would bet most of them do this unintentionally (how many times have you read statistics that “deaths due to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals” rank in the top five of global killers?) There are so many things on this list it would take volumes to present them all.
Actually, I would not be surprised if every single thing we encounter every day is chemically toxic in some way (meaning it is responsible for destroying the tissue of our physical body). Fun stuff.
I think a lot of people out there are not really aware of most of these things, or think the damage they may inflict is so minimal it really doesn’t amount to much. Well, as they say, things add up.
Again, this is all stuff that most people at least have heard of possibly being bad news. Most of those people, again, probably figure that the powers that be would not allow things out there that could really hurt us. I mean, really, there are so many government agencies that regulate this stuff, and do whatever they can to keep us from being harmed. Cough, cough. Really? Like I’ve said before, if you believe that, I’ve got beachfront property in Nevada I’ll sell you cheap. Or is it Kansas?
We’ve all seen movies like Erin Brockovich (2000) and Dark Waters (2019) that show the heroics of individuals fighting the big bad polluting evil ones and winning millions of bucks for their victims. That’s great, more power to them. But the bad guys in these movies are for the most part a few levels down from the real culprits. Sure, there are evil corporations and CEOs who run them. They are indeed part of the agenda. But again, I won’t get into that here.
Some of the biggest soft killers out there are mental health killers, as well as the drugs that accompany them. I would also put the aforementioned EMF killers in this group, and maybe even some of the pollutants that attack our minds rather than our bodies—nobody pays much attention to that—to subtle effects of personality, cognition, etc. For example most of the talk about the Covid vaccines hurting us is how it hurts us physically. You hear little about the effects they may have on the brain (other than physical), the personality, or the spirit. Oh God no, none of that woo woo stuff please, it just isn’t important.
Human beings are pretty subtle bio systems, and that is just the physical part of us. The mental/emotional part is pretty subtle too, and the spiritual part is so subtle it is ignored entirely. Even the first two of these, physical and mental, are largely ignored. The only part of them that is given much attention at all is the tip of the iceberg part. The majority of these systems lie below the level of gross awareness, yet this hidden level(s) has more influence on the well being of the person than the relatively small portion of the iceberg that is given all of the attention.
Let me be a bit clearer here.
Modern medicine is mostly a science of statistics. The majority rules here, the middle of the bell curve is what is given consideration. Nearly every medical “statement” is given as a percentage. What percent will survive a particular cancer, disease, or treatment modality, what percentage will still be alive in 5 years, what percentage will suffer side effects—on and on. Very little thought is given to the outliers. In fact, certain side effects fall so far below a relevant statistic, that these side effects are completely ignored; yet these ignored side effects could have a huge impact on quality of life.
Here is an example: I have dozens of clients who come to me with the common complaint of depression. Most of them are not suicidal; they simply have what they define as a crappy life. Their life just isn’t the life they envisioned. Maybe they don’t even know they are depressed, but after further evaluation, it seems clear they are just not capable of being fully happy, motivated, curious about life, or even interested in life.
These patients don’t really possess any of the typical traumas in their experience that can bring on such complaints. What is it then? The environment (I don’t mean climate change)? Yes. The culture? Yes. The societal decadence and immorality? Yes. The food they eat? Yes. The over the counter drugs they take? Yes. The prescription drugs they take? Most definitely yes.
All these things are killing them—some obviously, but the real dangers are the things killing them softly—the things we are told are unimportant.
None of these things are considered by modern medicine to have a significant enough influence on the body, the mind, or the spirit (which of course no medical practitioner pays any attention to) to be dangerous. If we, as humans, fall above a certain line with our complaints and ailments, we are considered “normal” and the complaints and ailments that fall below that are not statistically relevant. But they add up.
We then die younger than we should, we become weaker earlier than we should, and even if our body can stay physically functioning through modern medical miracles, we are dead inside with a poisoned soul as well as with a body and brain that is barely functioning to par, but functioning enough that most people think is good enough.
Living a life that has meaning and purpose is actually more important than living a life with a fully healthy body—and we are getting neither in this current world setting. Our souls are slowly being killed by a meaningless, materially focused culture where consumerism is the name of the life game. I need not list the problems present in this soul killing culture, but at the head of slow death is the movement toward transhumanism and the deliberate creation of a world without a moral foundation.
The physical body is being killed softly as well with all of the aforementioned toxic killers we are exposed to day in and day out. Most of them are slow and soft, and operate unhindered below the radar of most people—and certainly below the radar of those who should be monitoring such things.
Is this intentional? Are we subjected to this slow genocide as part of the global eugenic effort to rid the world of useless eaters?—or even more horrifying, to rid the world of all humans who are made in the image of God along with nature herself? An agenda chillingly made clear in C.S. Lewis’ tome That Hideous Strength seen as well in the works of numerous others such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.
Probably not everything I have mentioned here has come about as part of this nefarious evil intention. But I would be willing to bet a lot of it has (see the work of David Icke). It may just have become the nature of the beast to create a culture in its atheistic hubris that ignores the subtleties of life and living.
Most of these toxic examples I have presented here have come about through omission—e.g., by omitting any sort of diligence to avoid their toxic effects, or by entirely doing away with things that fall into the lower material resolutions of our experience, making them statistically irrelevant—if you can’t clearly see it then just ignore it. Obviously anything “unseen,” such as love, beauty, art, God, unity, and the essence of life, is completely and almost savagely ignored. Such is our world—a humanity that is quietly, and softly, dying.
I think it is generally accepted that the practice of medicine has changed radically over the past fifty or so years. The medicalization and corporatization of life have “progressed” simultaneously as most doctors have become obedient servants of the corporate state.
But wait, one may object, and with some justification.
The development of micro-surgical techniques has significantly improved the methods of many operations that were formally very invasive and posed a great risk to the elderly and chronically sick. Many people have had knee, hip, and heart surgeries – to name a few – that would have been problematic or impossible in the past. Body part replacements are now common. Soon everyone will be half-mechanical on the way to full robotization with a bit of pig and cow thrown in for good measure. Whether this is good is debatable on many levels, but the “procedures” (a word that seems to have replaced the more gruesome sounding words “operations” or “surgeries”) have clearly become more efficient and less invasive. These micro-surgical techniques have surely saved lives and improved the quality of life for many.
So much for the technology. I have a little medical tale to tell.
My best friend, an athletic man in his mid-seventies in excellent health and athletic shape, went to a new doctor at a medical practice since his doctor of thirty-five years had retired. The visit was for an annual physical that was required under the practice’s rules. He had previously met this doctor for a required brief meet-and-greet introduction and all seemed copacetic.
This time, he was ushered into the examination room where he sat and waited for the doctor. A nurse took his blood pressure and pulse and departed. The doctor soon arrived with an iPad and sat down next to him. He put the man’s records up on the screen. He then proceeded to review a list of inoculations my friend did or didn’t have. My friend – let’s call him Joe – has always been a guy who took very little medicine and was rarely sick; at the most he would take an aspirin or a few ibuprofen after a vigorous workout.
“I see you had a tetanus shot,” said the doctor.
“Yes, after I cut my hand.”
“And at your age it’s good you had a pneumonia vaccine.”
“I did,” said Joe, “but I kind of regret it.”
“Oh no, at your age you are at great risk from dying from pneumonia,” replied the doctor. He added, “And you haven’t had your shingles vaccination, which I highly recommend. It’s covered by Medicare now. You don’t want to get shingles; it’s terrifying.”
Joe said nothing.
“And you are due for a flu vaccine.”
“I never had one and never will,” said Joe.
“At your age you can die from the flu. It’s very dangerous. I definitely recommend you get it.”
“No thanks.”
“You really should.”
His voice rising, the doctor said, “And I see you have not gotten any Covid vaccines. You are really risking your life by not doing so. You must get them.”
Joe then succinctly explained his deep knowledge about Covid, the “vaccines,” their lack of testing, the mRNA technique, the deaths and injuries, etc. – all the reasons he opposed them.
The doctor became agitated. He argued back; explained how he had gone to Yale and studied the mRNA process under Drs. F. Teufelmeister and A. E. Newman and that he knew the vaccines were very safe and effective blah blah blah.
Joe said, “It doesn’t matter that you went to Yale. I emphatically disagree.”
This incensed the doctor, who blurted out, “If it was allowed, I would hold you down and inject you right now.”
“Is that so?” said Joe, incredulous.
The annual physical ended soon thereafter.
The doctor never laid a hand on Joe to examine him. No stethoscope; no ear, throat or nose checks; no hands on any part of his body – the exam was exclusively about vaccinations, read off a screen. Technical in all regards. All about how Joe was so very vulnerable and could die without them. The doctor was Big Pharma’s mouthpiece. Death threats devoid of any human touch, cold and sterile, and a wish that he could hold Joe down and forcibly inject him, the touch of the fascist mind expressed in a wish.
When Joe told me this story, I, being a student of the sociology of medicine, was reminded of the history of eugenics and the sick minds of people who think they can cull the herd because of their power and prestige. The sordid history that continues under euphemisms such as genetic research. Here was a doctor who dared to say what others no doubt think as well: “I would hold you down and inject you right now,” if only I could. But since he can’t, the state must find other ways to coerce, such as compulsory medical requirements. Such are totalitarian dreams made of, when death has become a commodity used to sell the dreams of reason, and the healer’s art, once linked to working with nature, has become an adjunct of state propaganda.
Thumbing through it, Joe came to a page where I had underlined the following:
The ritualization of crisis, a general trait of a morbid society, does three things for the medical functionary. It provides him with a license that usually only the military can claim. Under the stress of crisis, the professional who is believed to be in command can easily presume immunity from the ordinary rules of decency and justice. He who is assigned control over death ceases to be an ordinary human. As with the director of a triage, his killing is covered by policy. More important, his entire performance takes place in an aura of crisis.
On my way home I stopped to pick up my sister’s mail. The AARP Bulletin was in the box with her letters. This is one of two publications of the AARP organization, a powerful lobbying group and medical insurance company with 38 million members for people fifty years-old and over. The AARP Bulletin and AARP The Magazine are the largest circulation publications in the United States with a combined distribution of approximately 67 million.
Is there anything not to fear in this morbid culture where crises are promoted faster than the therapeutic and hygienic “remedies” offered to deal with them? Create the diseases and all the bogeymen and then offer pseudo-solutions straight from the sorcerer’s playbook.
Build the fear and they will come, knocking at the sorcerers’ doors.
If it were allowed, I would lift you up with a simple truth.
What makes us sick and what doesn’t make us sick? To answer that question, our first step is to understand how we as human beings come to know something. There are two basic ways. First, we can have a sensory experience of something that tells us that this thing is real. We might study a particular tree in its habitat and see whether it produces fruit or observe what type of birds it attracts. Or we could study frogs and learn about where they live, what they eat and their interaction with the wider ecosystem.
But there are also things for which no sensory experience is possible, perhaps because they’re too small to see. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but in this situation, we have to do something called “science”— meaning looking for and establishing the existence of things that we don’t experience directly through our senses.
When we do science—and this is important—we have to make sure, during every single step of the process, that we haven’t altered the nature of the thing we’re studying, or even brought that thing into existence through our intervention. Analytical chemists understand this; they tell me that in their line of work (which amounts to finding things they cannot experience through their senses), they have to validate that their procedures—taking something out of its habitat and shining a light on it or adding chemicals—didn’t in fact actually create what they ended up with. Otherwise, they can’t know whether or not the thing actually exists. Stated another way, when researchers test cause and effect by changing an independent variable to see whether it has an effect on a dependent variable, they have to make sure, every step of the way, that they are measuring just the relationship between those two variables. This is the essence of the “scientific method.” When we don’t follow the true scientific method, we can end up in a world of illusions, delusions and make-believe.
What if there is no possible way to do an experiment? In that case, you are relying on something that is more like faith, and you should acknowledge that. You should state, “This is what I believe to be true and I’m going to dedicate myself to figuring out whether I can validate that it actually is true.” In other words, the goal is to go from “I believe” to “I know.”
How Do Viruses Make You Ill
AWOL Viruses
What is the agreed-on definition of a virus? A virus is described as a disease-causing microbe with a piece of either DNA or RNA in the middle surrounded by a protein coat, and is said to be self-replicating in a host. It gets into the host’s cells, makes more of itself and then causes disease by bursting open the cells.
According to the definition, the expected natural habitat of this organism is the lungs, the blood, the lymph nodes, the urine, the cerebrospinal fluid and so on. However—and there is no scientific disagreement on this important point whatsoever—there is not a single study in the published medical literature for the past one hundred years that reports finding such a particle in any biological fluid of any plant, animal or human being. This is true whether you’re talking about the fluid from someone’s “herpes” lesion, or the lungs of someone with “Covid-19,” or the snot from a person with “measles,” or the blood of someone with “Ebola” or the lymph nodes of a person with “AIDS.” There is not one published study in the scientific/medical literature showing that someone found such a particle in any one of those bodily fluids—and nobody disagrees with that! This should make you suspicious. As Mark Twain once stated, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
WC Fields said, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit,” and I think he was talking about virology. Consider this: we now have over two hundred ten responses from various health departments around the world to the question, “Do you have any published study that shows that you directly isolated SARS-CoV-2 from any human being on the planet?”1 (SARS-CoV-2 is the alleged virus, and Covid-19 is the disease alleged to be caused by the virus.) They all say the same thing: “We have no record of SARS-CoV-2 having been purified.” They’ve never found it, nor have they found any of the other pathogenic viruses. (We also have around forty or fifty similar responses pertaining to Ebola, Zika, HIV, measles and the like.)
Colleagues of mine have asked the authors of four of the most important papers written about SARS-CoV-2, some of which bafflingly have the word “isolation” in the title, “Did you isolate this virus in your study?” Their answer was not only “No” but also, “We didn’t even try to find it in any biological fluid of any person who was sick.” In the early days of virology, scientists did look, but they were never able to find such a particle using the very tool—the electron microscope—that should have allowed them to find it. After twenty years, they abandoned ship and said, “There’s nothing to this theory.” But then later, it got resurrected.
What Are You Sick With
A Belief System
Note that virology has methods and techniques to truly isolate a virus.2 Using ultracentrifugation and something called a “sucrose density gradient,” virologists can separate a fluid sample into bands by molecular weight. Ultracentrifugation will spin viruses out into their own band, which virologists can then extract with a pipette and check for purity.
But they don’t use these techniques! Instead, I’ll give an example of what a virologist says if you ask, “Why do you think this virus exists? If you can’t find it, why do you think it’s in the lungs?” A virologist told me that someone would have to be “incredibly ill and shedding extremely large amounts of virus, and the fluid from their lungs would have to have a large amount of virus—and even then, it wouldn’t be possible.” In other words, “There’s not enough virus to find.”
Think about this. Your lungs are said to be the perfect culture medium—at the ideal temperature (thirty-seven degrees Celsius) for viruses to reproduce—and the lung environment is, therefore, supposedly teeming with viruses. After they reproduce, viruses reportedly kill millions and billions of cells, and that, we are told, is how they cause disease. Supposedly, there are twenty million copies of a virus in a single sneeze. But the virologist’s answer is, “There’s not enough to see.”
Remember, a virus is described as incredibly tiny—something like one-thousandth of a pinhead or less—which means that when viruses explode, they are exploding perhaps one hundredth of a pinhead of your lungs. Yet you could take out even a baseball-sized piece of your lungs, and while that might be called “having a bad day,” you won’t die. The body also isn’t crazy enough to make an abnormal and excessive immune response to losing less than a pinhead size of the lungs. So, it is logical to ask, “If the virus is exploding the cells in a portion of your lungs that is the equivalent of less than a pinhead, how is it causing disease?”
There is a second reason virologists give for not using the tools at their disposal to isolate a virus. They say that the virus is an intracellular parasite organism, meaning it is only inside the cell and doesn’t go outside the cell. But if that is the case, how does it get to the next person? This starts to strain credulity. Here’s how that nutty conversation might go:
Q: “Why can’t you catch the virus when it goes from one person to another person?”
A: “Well, it’s not there for more than about six hours. We don’t have enough money to pay someone to look every six hours to find the organism in the snot.”
We asked one eminent virologist, “If you put ten thousand people together and collected all their sputum, would that be enough to find the virus?” His answer: “No, that’s not enough.”
Poisoning, Not Purification
There are something like ten thousand published papers that refer to the “isolation” of such-and-such a virus. Virologists will show you the title of these papers and say, “See, how can you say this isn’t true?” But since they aren’t using the proper steps, you have to know what they did instead. And you have to ask, did they rigorously validate every step of their process?
In 1954, a researcher named John Franklin Enders established the procedures that rejuvenated the then-languishing field of virology.3 Here are Enders’ basic steps:
Virologists take snot from somebody alleged to have a certain disease (such as measles or Covid-19).
Sometimes they centrifuge (not ultracentrifuge) or filter the mixture to get rid of cells, fungi and debris. That has become a sticking point because some people call this “purification.” However, purifying the snot a little is not equivalent to purifying out a virus.
Next, they put the snot in a cell culture of green monkey kidney cells—cells that happen to be highly inbred and tend to break down easily.
Then they mix in antibiotics—and specifically antibiotics that are kidney-toxic (gentamicin and amphotericin)—and they take away the cell culture medium’s nutrients. (This is the equivalent of being forced onto a standard American diet after thriving on a Wise Traditions diet.)
Next, they mix in fetal bovine serum, a product sucked out of the heart of a newborn calf.
Maintaining the cell culture at a steady temperature, they then watch what happens. In about five days, the cells break down— which is called a cytopathic effect (CPE)—and they call the CPE the “proof” that the virus exists and causes damage.
Understand that virologists consider this process—which inevitably generates cell breakdown—not “a” proof but “the” proof for the existence of all pathogenic viruses. You might reasonably ask, “How do you know the CPE is not due to starving the cells, or poisoning them with gentamicin and amphotericin, or using fetal bovine serum, or because of some other toxin in the sick person’s snot?” Virologists’ answer is that they do a “mock infection” as a control. However, if you go to the hundreds of papers I and my colleagues have read over the past two years, you will not find even one actual mock infection. In fact, it can’t be done because the independent variable would necessarily need to be the very virus that they have not isolated. Often, the study authors don’t even provide details, and if you try to obtain more information, you invariably learn that they did not conduct a properly controlled experiment.
Interestingly, Enders’ procedures are also how pharmaceutical companies make viral vaccines.4 For example, they take someone with measles and put their unpurified snot into a monkey kidney cell culture, add fetal bovine serum, gentamicin, and amphotericin, and then when the cells break down, they call that “isolation” of the measles virus. They put that goop into a vial—and that is called a “live” virus vaccine. They can also cycle the goop over and over in huge vats, removing some of the proteins, and that is an “attenuated” viral vaccine. But at no point did they ever demonstrate there is a virus in there. With mRNA and newer technologies, they are just putting different stuff—known and unknown—in their vaccines. In short, vaccines are biotoxins, and they make people sick. How could biotoxins possibly prevent people from getting sick?
The Lanka Experiments
There is one scientist, Stefan Lanka, who contracted with an independent professional lab to try to answer the question of whether the culturing process itself, rather than a pathogenic virus, might be causing the CPE.
The lab conducted four experiments. In the first, they cultured normal cells with a normal nutrient medium, adding only a small amount of antibiotics—and no snot from a sick person. Five days later, the cell growth was perfectly normal. The second experiment was the same as the first, but with the addition of 10 percent fetal bovine serum. Again, five days later there was no cell breakdown.
The third experiment replicated Enders’ procedures, lowering the percentage of fetal bovine serum from 10 percent to 1 percent (that is, starving the cells) and tripling the amount of antibiotics. On day five, the characteristic CPE that “proves” the existence and pathogenicity of a virus was evident—except that Lanka had not added any fluid from a sick person or anything else that could have had a virus in it.
The fourth experiment repeated the third but with the addition of RNA from yeast. It so happens that monkey kidney cells don’t like yeast any more than they like kidney-toxic antibiotics. Unsurprisingly, the fourth experiment produced the same CPE result—clearly showing that the CPE is the result of the culturing technique rather than any virus.
After they “prove” the existence of a virus using their cell culturing process, virologists “find” the genome of the virus using fragments of the RNA in the broken-down cell culture to create the assembled genome of the alleged virus. This is called “sequencing.” What is important to understand is that this process generates a genome that is purely theoretical (“in silico”). As I explain in my booklet Breaking the Spell:
“This genome never exists in any person, and it never exists intact even in the culture results; it exists only inside the computer, based on an alignment process that arranges these short pieces [of RNA] into an entire ‘genome.’”5
In the case of SARS-CoV-2, sequencing software generated anywhere from three hundred forty-two thousand to one million different possibilities of how to arrange the fragments. A small group of scientists then decided which arrangement they liked—by “consensus”—and then, for every subsequent analysis, they put that first consensus-derived genome in and told the computer to make another one along the same lines. When they turn out a sequence that is a bit different from the original consensus-derived “genome,” that’s called a “variant.”
Note that all of this applies both to so-called “natural” viruses and to so-called lab-engineered “gain-of-function” viruses—which no more exist than any “natural” virus exists. So, here you have biologists in their hazmat suits, protecting themselves against a genome from a virus that exists only in a computer.
As for the PCR test, the whole premise of the test is also nonsense. You cannot say that a PCR sequence came from a thing you have not isolated. It makes no sense to even talk about “false-positives,” because the results are just plain false.
Identical Pictures, Delusional Thoughts
At some point, people say to me, “But Tom, we’ve seen electron microscope pictures of SARS-CoV-2,” complete with “spikes” and something that looks like a “corona”! However, I have a picture from a kidney biopsy produced before the year 2000 (when there was no possibility that it was SARS-CoV-2) that looks just the same. In fact, I have eleven electron microscope pictures—labeled as kidney biopsies, lung biopsies or SARS-CoV-2—and there is no way to tell the difference between them. They are morphologically indistinguishable—they all look the same. In fact, the CDC has known since the 1970s that electron microscopy cannot tell the difference between a kidney biopsy, lung cancer, cellular debris, SARS-CoV-2 or any so-called pathogenic virus; it simply is not possible.
The cellular debris, by the way, comes from poisoning—whether from putting yeast, antibiotics or fetal bovine serum on a culture, or from EMFs, or from not eating a Wise Traditions diet. It can even be from “wonky” or delusional thinking. For example, I knew an anthroposophical doctor who spent his career giving AIDS drugs to so-called “HIV-positive” people because he believed in the delusional germ theory, and then, because of this belief, he took four Covid shots. Five days after the fourth one, he was dead. You could say he died from the shots, but I say he died because he spent his entire life believing in something that is completely make-believe.
An Even Bigger Delusion
It turns out that the delusion is even bigger than viruses—we didn’t just make up viruses, we made up diseases. Consider what happens if you get a splinter in your finger. In medical school, I was taught that pus is a sign of infection, but actually, the pus is the body’s therapeutic response to the splinter; if you suppress the pus, you will never get the splinter out. We need to stop thinking of the body’s responses as “diseases”; they are the wisdom of the body coming through.
We can look at many other conditions—and the body’s wise therapies—in the same way. For example, if you put toxic junk in your lungs, the body will cough it up because it wants to get rid of dead, dying and poisoned tissue. In Wuhan, which has some of the worst air pollution in the world, bronchitis is the therapy for breathing air. It’s not a disease.
Or consider chickenpox, which might have something to do with malnutrition or a collagen deficiency or a toxic environment—but is also a normal maturation and cleansing process. If you come along and poison a child with a chickenpox vaccine so they cannot go through that cleansing process, they will instead have a life of asthma, allergies, eczema and all these other made-up terms that really mean you stopped the process of healing. It may look like you lessened the incidence of “chickenpox,” but by interfering with the cleansing process you have increased lots of chronic things, which never go away.
There are no vaccines that are exceptions to that rule—they all poison you, and you end up worse. When you cannot go through the normal maturation and healing steps, you eventually may end up with cancer. You’re depositing one poison after another throughout your life, and now you’ve got a garbage can of poisons otherwise known as a “tumor.” What would you do if you kept being poisoned over and over, and someone prevented you from getting the poisons out? It’s very simple: you would buy a garbage can and put the poison in there. But what happens if you keep putting in garbage, and it starts piling up in your basement, garage, kitchen and bedroom until you can’t live? That’s called “metastasis,” and then you die.
What Are We Made Of?
To examine more deeply the question of what makes us sick, let’s consider what we’re made of. To start on safe ground, let’s accept that we’re made of a head, ears, eyes, mouth, chest, arms, fingers, legs, toes and a bunch of other things. Inside, we also have things like a heart, bones, blood vessels, nerves, a liver, kidneys and other things. As far as I can tell, older healing traditions like Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine also believe there is a heart and liver and spleen and all the rest of it. In fact, not only do they believe it, they put huge stock in the energy flow through those organs.
Now remember, there are two ways of knowing. In the first instance, you can observe, but if you can’t observe, you have to do science—and you have to be sure that any science you do isn’t affecting what you’re seeing. And if it is, you have to control for that.
We’re told that hepatocytes are the main functional cells of the liver, but we might ask, “How do we know that?” How many of us have actually seen hepatocytes in the liver of an intact living organism? Nobody. That may not mean they’re not there, but it means we’ve got a question that requires further experimentation. We can take someone and anesthetize them (or at least some part of them), and stick a needle in, and suck out a piece of the liver, and stain it with toxic chemicals, and shine a high-powered light on it, and then say that what we see are the hepatocytes.
But how do we know that the process of anesthetizing (that is, poisoning) the person, removing the sample from a living organism and putting chemical stains on it didn’t create the structures we’re seeing?
For example, we know that bacteria, when stressed, will create a storage form called bacteriophages, and the same is true for other organisms like fungus spores. How do we know that stressing the liver by removing it from the living organism that nourishes it didn’t create the appearance of the liver cells? I’m not necessarily saying that this proves there are no liver cells, but I’m saying you need to ask the question if you want to do real science.
My thinking on these matters owes a lot to thinkers like the British biologist Harold Hillman, who spent fifty years and thousands of pages asking these kinds of questions.6 If you really want to understand biology, read Hillman. Another influence is Gilbert Ling, a brilliant Chinese-born American scientist who challenged the accepted view of the cell.7
Let’s remember that in addition to sensory observations and science, you may get to a point where you simply can’t know something. Going back to virology, if you can’t take the virus out of the sample that you inoculate, the best you might be able to say is, “We have no actual evidence that the virus exists. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t, but we have no evidence.” How different would the world be if, in March 2020, they had announced: “We did some experiments, and we have some idea there might be a virus, but we can’t really prove it, and all the experiments have shown it’s not really there—but we think we should lock you down and make you wear a mask and starve you anyway.” Of course, they don’t say it like that. My point is that it may not be possible to prove the existence of those liver cells—or any cells.
What is also interesting is that of the approximately one hundred eighty-four different tissue types, we know that forty-four don’t have any cells. Examples are the crystalline lens of the eye, and the bursae—sacs of fluid (colorfully described as “miniature water balloons”) that facilitate the frictionless movement of the joints.8 The absence of cells makes sense because this organized water tissue is much stronger and more coherent than if it were broken up into little cells.
Historically, what did Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine have to say about cells? Nothing. There is no mention of cells in either of those traditions. By the way, they never mentioned contagion or germ theory either. It was the German physician Rudolf Virchow who popularized the idea that we are made of cells. In the 1850s, Virchow wrote a book about cellular physiology essentially based on his dissection of an onion; he saw that it had compartments and from there he asserted that all living things were made of cells and that “all cells come from cells.” Although many people initially thought he was nuts, somehow that became the cellular theory of biology and medicine, despite the theory never having been “proven” in any meaningful sense of the word.
Ribosome Fairy Tales?
For the time being, let’s assume that cells do exist in those one hundred forty or so human tissues. Then we can ask, what is a cell made of? In addition to a cell membrane, standard textbooks show pictures with structures called organelles that include a nucleus, an endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes, mitochondria, lysosomes, the Golgi apparatus and others (see Figure 1). This definition of a cell is the basis of all medicine and biology.
Now, let’s consider the ribosomes. Cell biology tells us that ribosomes are the place where mRNA is translated into proteins, describing ribosomes as the cells’ protein-making “factories” or “machinery.” Ribosomes also happen to be an important part of the Covid story— remember, the official rationale for putting mRNA in the injections was so it could instruct the ribosomes to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.9
As an aside, if you say, “I’m going to make tires out of rubber,” it would not be unusual to be asked, “How do you know that works?” Then you could describe the process, including the quantity of rubber needed to produce a set number of tires, and they could repeat the process to see whether they end up with the same number of tires from the same amount of rubber. Along these lines, you would expect there to be hundreds of studies showing that if you put “X” amount of mRNA into a human being, you get “Y” amount of spike protein. But do you know how many studies there are like that? Zero. Instead, we just heard, “We had to move at the speed of science,”10 which really means “We made it up.”
There is an interesting thing going on with the ribosomes, because we’re talking about the place in a cell where the essence of you, biologically, is made. We are made of proteins. The creation of you, we’re told, is in the ribosomes. The question is, is there such a thing as a ribosome, or did they make it up?
FIGURE 1. A standard (make-believe) cell diagram.
One clue that there is something fishy going on is that no one can tell you how many ribosomes a cell contains, other than a vague “millions.” However, we can do some basic arithmetic (which will be an approximation because we’re mixing volume and linear measurement). We’re told that a ribosome measures about twenty-five nanometers (0.025 micrometers)—and if we conservatively estimate that a mammalian cell has about four million ribosomes, then that would equal one hundred thousand micrometers. However, a typical mammalian cell is something like one hundred micrometers, and the cytoplasm (which contains the ribosomes) is only 70 percent of the cell, meaning that its volume is seventy micrometers. Not only that, but the mitochondria—which are hundreds or thousands of times bigger than the putative ribosomes—are also in there. So, how does something that is one hundred thousand micrometers fit into a space that is seventy micrometers and also houses millions of mitochondria? Doesn’t anybody study arithmetic?
A second clue that ribosomes are imaginary comes from electron microscope pictures, which always show the ribosome as a perfect circle. If it is a perfect circle on a two-dimensional picture, that means it had to have been a sphere in real life. Now think about how biologists obtain these pictures: they take some tissue, put it in a blender, grind and macerate it, freeze it to minus one hundred twenty degrees centigrade, stain it with heavy metals and shoot a high-energy electron beam at it to evaporate all the water from the tissue. How does a sphere that has been ground up in a blender, frozen, poisoned and had all its water evaporated end up—every single time—as a perfect circle? It is not possible for those circles to be real cellular structures. (This is a good time to remember WC Fields’ quote about “baffling them with bullshit.”)
Fortunately, Harold Hillman had the genius to take something that could not possibly have ribosomes in it and put it through the same process (staining and so forth), and he got the exact same pictures. It turns out that those are just typical images of dead and dying tissue (remember that pictures of “viruses” also come from stained tissue that is dead and dying), and those perfect circles are gas bubbles—in which case, there are no ribosomes. And if there are no ribosomes, there is no place for the translation of RNA into protein to occur. And if that is the case, what the heck is going on, and how do we actually make the stuff that we’re made of?
More Cell Make-Believe
For another example, let’s look at the cell component called the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Textbooks describe the ER as “a netlike labyrinth of branching tubules and flattened sacs”11 that serve as the cell’s “transportation system.” The millions of ribosomes in a cell are said to line the surface of the “rough” part of the ER.
Why does the ER even have to be there? Before I answer that question, let’s consider that the cytoplasm of a cell (which is the gel-like liquid inside a cell membrane but external to the nucleus) has a different pH level than the pH inside the cell nucleus—and that is a verifiable, measurable phenomenon. You can measure the two pH values one hundred times and they will never be the same. Why is the pH different? The reason can only be due to the cytoplasm and nucleus having different concentrations of hydrogen ions—because that is where pH comes from. And for the pH values to be different, there has to be an impenetrable barrier between the cytoplasm and nucleus, or some other mechanism that keeps the hydrogen ions from equilibrating across the two. If there were no mechanism, they would equilibrate and their pH would be the same—but it never is.
Now, we run into the conceptual problem of the mRNA. They say DNA makes mRNA in the nucleus; then, the mRNA exits the nucleus through pores in the nuclear membrane and heads to the imaginary ribosomes, where it is translated into protein. So, how does the mRNA get out without letting any hydrogen ions in to equilibrate? An mRNA molecule is at least thousands and maybe millions of times bigger than a hydrogen ion. Picture the problem this way: Something the size of an elephant can go out, but something the size of a mosquito can’t get in.
Believe it or not, we’re expected to believe that there is something like a whirligig that attaches to the mRNA (the “elephant”) and spins around like a conveyor belt and takes the mRNA to the other side of the cell. Meanwhile, no one has ever seen the whirligig. (“But it must be a whirligig, because how else did the elephant get out?”) But then you have to ask, how does it go round and round and not tangle up the “branching” components of the ER? If you picture them like ropes, wouldn’t you have to untangle the ropes? (Didn’t any scientist ever go on a merry-go-round?) Once again, Hillman provided a common-sense answer. He showed that when you take tissue and quickly freeze it, it makes fracture lines—and that’s what we call the endoplasmic reticulum. The ER doesn’t exist.
In short, using basic principles of geometry, mathematics and logic, you can go through the same process with every component of the cell. Nothing on a standard cell diagram—with the exception of the nucleus, the mitochondria and a thin cell wall—has ever been proven to exist. It’s all make-believe.
Other Things That Just Ain’t So
In addition to the imaginary cell components, there are a lot of other things in science that, as Mark Twain put it, “we believe in but just ain’t so.” Consider “Neurology 101.” A neurologist’s explanation of how nerves work goes like this: We have nerves made up of nerve cells called “neurons”; they transmit electrical and chemical signals via “axons” that end in “synapses.” Something called the “presynaptic junction” releases chemical messengers called “neurotransmitters” (such as serotonin and dopamine), which swim across the junction and attach to “postsynaptic receptors,” where they “depolarize” the next neuron and start the next impulse—and so on, until the nerve ends at its destination and “fires.” But the process can’t work like that; it’s nonsense. This becomes immediately obvious if you ask someone to wiggle the tip of their right or left index finger as soon as they hear the word “right” or “left”; they do it virtually instantaneously, with no lag time for this hypothesized neurotransmitter journey.12
In addition, if you dissect a nerve, you never see a synapse. Now, you could have the problem of “maybe it’s just too small to see,” but most things aren’t too small to see with an electron microscope. If you hunt down a picture of what an anatomical synapse is supposed to look like, what you’ll find are pictures of stained nerves. That’s not a synapse—because there are no synapses. The nerve is continuous.
Think about how much in medicine is based on neurotransmitters and receptors (such as the famed “ACE2 receptors,” “opiate receptors,” “dopamine receptors,” or “serotonin receptors”). They even tell us that it is oxytocin, a hormone that “acts as a neurotransmitter,” that makes us love someone. It couldn’t be because they’re a nice person or they give you a backrub—no, it’s the “love hormone” oxytocin.
Here is another example. How many of you have heard of the “blood-brain barrier” or believe there is such a barrier? We often hear about it from people opposed to vaccination, who say that vaccines make your blood-brain barrier “leaky.” The implication is that we’re talking about an actual anatomical structure—a physical barrier that stretches out like a piece of cellophane along the border between the blood vessels and your brain tissue so that nothing gets in or out—except vaccines. . . and except anesthetics because drug-makers “know how to get anesthetics through the blood-brain barrier.” Nonetheless, no one has ever proven the existence of such a barrier.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that there aren’t substances that get into the brain in a different way than they get into the liver. The liver and the brain each have a different composition of water and lipids, so logically, some things will dissolve and get into the liver differently from how they get into the brain. But just because things get in the brain differently does not mean there is an anatomical barrier.
Finally, we can scrutinize the notion that DNA is the mechanism of heredity. The premise of genetics is that you have a stable fixed code that is the same in every cell of your body. That fixed, stable DNA makes proteins, and the proteins make you. But there are probably two hundred thousand different types of protein, and only twenty thousand genes or units that code for these proteins. We’re told that one gene makes one protein, so how does that work? Where did the other one hundred eighty thousand proteins come from? The central dogma that one gene makes one protein cannot be true. So, how we are made can’t have anything to do with DNA and, therefore, DNA cannot be the code for biological systems. In fact, DNA changes from minute to minute—Barbara McClintock proved this decades ago13—so there is no stable DNA. We do not have the same DNA in all the tissues and cells of our body. These things have been 100 percent disproven.
It’s the Structured Water
The ribosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, synapses, neurotransmitters and blood-brain barrier represent just a partial list—and I do mean partial—of things of which I either doubt the existence or suspect their function is different from what we have been told. If you are still wondering what we are made up of, the reality is more beautiful, simpler, easier to understand and more logical and rational. The real answer to what we’re made of is structured water. Structured water, which creates free electrons, is the only possible explanation for how we’re able to instantaneously wiggle our index finger when we hear the word “right” or left.”
FIGURE 2. Dark-field microscope image of cells showing cell membrane, nucleus, mitochondria and structured water.
Figure 2 is an image of a cell produced with dark-field microscopy, which is the most reliable technique for viewing live, unstained biological samples. In the image, you see a thin membrane (the outer coating); you see organized water (also called structured water, coherent water, EZ water, the fourth phase of water or liquid crystalline water); you see little black dots in the structured water (the mitochondria) and you see a nucleus that is always circular or dome-shaped—and that’s it.
Note that the mitochondria help structure our water by making ATP—which is not “energy” as we’ve been told. Think of structured water like jello. If you add water to gelatin proteins, nothing happens, but if you heat the mixture, the heat unfolds the proteins and you get water that gels. As for us, we have all these proteins, and the mitochondria make the ATP that unfolds them so that the proteins can interact with water and form gels. All gels create a negative charge and an electromagnetic field around them, which is the voltage—the energy—of life. To put it simply, we are living liquid crystals.
The dome in the middle (the nucleus) also has something sticking out that collects energy from the world. It may be DNA, but it is not a double helix—it’s a spiral sticking out of the nucleus. The way it works is similar to a radio antenna. It “downloads” information coming in through “radio waves” that get picked up by the “antenna,” and out of that emerge proteins and life (or sound and song in the case of a radio). And this dynamic, tunable, responsive, liquid crystalline medium pervades the whole body—from the organs and tissues to the interior of every cell.
Note that in Genesis, before God created the Earth, plants or people, he created water and light energy. No one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of the water and the Spirit. The Spirit is the information field that comes in through our antenna. Every scriptural tradition says that all living things and the universe itself are made of water.
What Does Make Us Sick?
If we now circle back to “what doesn’t make us sick,” we could summarize the answer in one word: “viruses.” And if we ask, “What does make us sick?”, the answer is also straightforward. We get sick when we mess up our structured water. If we disturb the gels by putting “schmutz” in them—which could be aluminum, mercury, glyphosate, bad food, EMFs, or even negative emotions like anger, fear, shame or guilt—that will distort or dissolve the gels. If we do that in our eye, we get a distorted gel that has a film on it, and we call that a “cataract.” If we distort the bursa in our knee, so that the gels that are supposed to protect both sides of the knee start sticking together, then we have bone on bone and we call that “arthritis.” Public health officials create epidemics by pulling different manifestations of distorted water into a single diagnosis—such as AIDS or Covid-19—and when they are ready to make the epidemic go away, they separate them back out into twenty different diagnoses. It’s very clever—and it’s nothing new.
Without describing it as such, medicine does sometimes assess the coherence of your water to see if you are sick. For example, doctors use MRIs to diagnose cancer. What is the MRI measuring? It’s measuring the coherence of your water. When your water goes from a gel-like jello to a puddle-like liquid, it sends a different signal to the MRI.
Imagine you have a poison grape in your “jello.” Your body heats up the gel and you get a fever—that’s hyperthermia. The heat dissolves the gel and makes it runny, creating mucus that you can spit out or cough up, or creating something you can push out through your skin. That’s what we call “being sick.” It makes perfect sense. If you want to flush out the poison grape, all you have to do is clean your gels—which is what detoxification approaches like the Gerson diet and water fasting are all about—and clean up the field and you will heal. If you want to know why you are sick, think about how you are structuring your water, what you’re putting into your water, the quality of the water and the quality or composition of the field that you’re exposed to.
I’m not the first person to say that water creates life. Mae Wan-Ho, a past speaker at Weston A. Price Foundation conferences, wrote books about “the role of biological water in organising living processes.”14 Marcel Vogel,15 who knew more about crystals than any human being ever alive and who invented liquid crystal screens, discovered that he could use the energetic fields of quartz crystals to structure water.16
We are made of a living, evolving, changing crystal, which is why we are not made of quartz. One way of viewing Covid-related events is that people like Bill Gates are trying to make us be made of quartz, not water. In some ways, that is what this is all about. As a fixed, perfect quartz crystal, they tell us, nothing will ever change and we can live forever. But that is not what I want. I want to change, grow, evolve and be a human being who has to be watered.
We’re swimming along with misconceptions in a make-believe world—and we have to get rid of this garbage. We can find a much better way once we explore and learn what we’re really made of and how it all works. Every reason we get sick has to do with a distortion of the field coming in.
Continuing with the radio analogy, you need to find the good signal instead of the distorted signal. The good signal is the sun, moon and the earth; good friends; your dog; community; clean, nutrient-dense food, clean water and clean air; good music; and love, safety and freedom. That is the field that you “download” into the gel to give it information to organize progressively into the more and more perfect crystal that is you.
Sidebar
No Deathbed Confession
How have virology’s luminaries been able to claim they found a virus when we know they have never found one in any biological fluid? Let’s consider Luc Montagnier, the prestigious virologist who won a Nobel Prize for discovering HIV. He died in 2022. Montagnier acknowledged that purification was a necessary step to prove the existence of a virus (or, in the case of HIV, a retrovirus) but admitted, “We did not purify.”17 The technician who performed his electron microscopy for twenty years even said, “It turns out we never saw a virus. All we saw was junk.” But to his dying day, Montagnier never “fessed up” or acknowledged, “We don’t have a real virus.”
On what did Montagnier base his claim that he had found HIV? It’s very simple:
• He took lymphocytes from the lymph nodes of a person said to have AIDS.
• He stimulated them to grow with a chemical called PHA (phytohaemagglutinin).
• When the lymphocytes grew, he assayed them for an enzyme called reverse transcriptase.
• When he found reverse transcriptase, he said that it proved the existence of a new retrovirus eventually called HIV.
• To “prove” that HIV was transmissible to other people, Montagnier took his PHA-stimulated lymphocyte culture and put it in a lymphocyte culture from a healthy person. When he found reverse transcriptase in that culture as well, that was the “proof” that HIV is a transmissible disease.
There was only one problem. Ten years previously, Robert Gallo had written a paper reporting reverse transcriptase in every single culture from anybody with lymphocytes stimulated with PHA. Both Gallo and Montagnier knew that his experiment had nothing to do with proving that there was a retrovirus or any kind of virus at all. Later, the scientist credited with discovering the reverse transcriptase enzyme, David Baltimore, also admitted as much.18
Water Pictures
Veda Austin, a “water researcher,” has dedicated many years to observing the life of water, which she describes as “fluid intelligence.”19
Veda has developed techniques for photographing water in its “state of creation.” This work explores whether, if she asks water a question, the water can take in and download the information and, given the right circumstances, make structures that essentially answer that question. And what she has found is that if she puts the water in a dish and freezes it, the water organizes its crystals and makes pictures.
For example, when she showed the dish of water a wedding invitation and said, “Water, show me the wedding invitation,” the frozen water created an amazing artistic depiction of a wedding ring. But my favorite example is when she said, “Water, what is falling down?” The water did not create anything as straightforward as an image of rain; instead, the water produced an image of “London Bridge is falling down.”
“Safe and Free” by Jude Roberts20
In the last two years, I’ve learned important things from my cat Pumpkin. One stormy evening, with coyotes howling in the distance, I walked with Pumpkin toward the greenhouse where he sleeps, but Pumpkin started heading for the woods instead. When I called him, he gave me a look that seemed to say, “There’s no point in being safe if I can’t be free.” My friend Jude Roberts understands this, too. His song “Safe and Free” reminds us what this is all about.
I got up to go to work today,
there was no work for me.
Governor closed my shop, he say
to keep me safe and free
I’ve had my shop for twenty years,
It feeds my family,
And now we have to stay inside,
To keep us safe and free
To keep us safe and free
Called my dear old mother,
My mother said to me
“Son, I miss you dearly,
But you cannot come to tea”
“The children miss you, Mamma,
They’re healthy as can be.”
“A hug could kill their Grandma,
Keep them away from me.
Keep me safe and free.”
Giant tech and billionaires
And pharmacology
Spinning like a top to move
The wheels of industry
Amazon and Walmart,
The consumer pedigree,
They can do their business,
Because anyone can see
They keep us safe and free
Technocrats and robot gods
And blind authority,
Sell your soul and pray to them,
They’ll keep you safe and free
Biotech behemoths say
They have a shot for me.
I trust them with my body,
And forgive them for their greed
If it keeps me safe and free
Keep us safe from terrorists,
Keep us free from germs,
Keep us from the danger
Of the wisdom we have learned
Until the books are burned
Governor says to wear a mask
I cannot disagree
I cannot breathe or speak my mind,
But at least I’m safe and free
I’ll wear my mask for you my friend,
You wear your mask for me.
Worried eyes and faceless fear
Is all that we can see.
Sure feel safe and free
Keep us free from choices,
Keep us stuck in blame,
Keep us in a toxic state,
Of poverty and shame
While they run their game
I’ll open up my shop today
Even if they come for me.
If I can’t feed my family,
We’re neither safe nor free.
I may not be a scientist,
And I’m damn sure not a priest
Ain’t a fool on God’s green Earth
Can keep life safe for me.
So better I live free.
Alberts B. et al. “The endoplasmic reticulum.” In Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th edition. New York: Garland Science; 2002.
Cowan T. Human Heart, Cosmic Heart: A Doctor’s Quest to Understand, Treat, and Prevent Cardiovascular Disease. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2016, pp. 102- 105.
Halpern ME. Barbara McClintock on defining the unstable genome. Genetics. 2016;204:3-4.
Dr. Tom Cowan has been one of the leading voices speaking out against the mainstream medical narrative and coordinated agenda of masking, social distancing and forced vaccinations. His messages of health freedom and personal autonomy have resonated with millions of people around the world. Dr. Cowan challenges conventional medicine to explore health and wellness in holistic terms, seeking to provide a collaborative forum for the exchange of knowledge, products and practices that enable us to forge a new world together, governed by truth.
“Therefore, one of the answers I would provide to the question of why the ‘no virus’ issue is so important is: that fear of ‘germs’ makes people believe that ‘disease’ can be transmitted between people, which means that we have to continue being afraid of each other.
“In fact, one of the fundamental problems with all of this is that it keeps people in a state of unjustified fear, which is disempowering. Releasing unjustified fear is empowering.”
It seems that many people wonder why the ‘no virus’ issue remains important now that the ‘pandemic’ is over.
To add to that, there are some people in the ‘freedom movement’ who have recently asserted that there are many aspects of the globalists’ agenda that are not related to health and are far more dangerous to humanity, such as technocracy, transhumanism, digital currencies, smart cities etc.
Yes, these are important issues – really important issues, I totally agree – but so is the idea that ‘pathogenic agents’ exist because it has tentacles that reach into many aspects of our lives, so it cannot be brushed aside as if irrelevant, especially in view of the complete lack of evidence to support this idea.
I would therefore recommend that people who believe in ‘pathogenic agents’ become aware of the various reports that claim there will be ‘future pandemics’. For just one example, a 22nd May 2023 ‘News’ item on the UN website states,
“Although COVID-19 may no longer be a global public health emergency, countries must still strengthen response to the disease and prepare for future pandemics and other threats, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Monday in Geneva.”
There has never been a ‘pandemic’ due to an infectious agent and there never could be. But, whilst people believe that pathogenic infectious agents exist, they will believe in the possibility of other ‘pandemics’.
Therefore, one of the answers I would provide to the question of why the ‘no virus’ issue is so important is: that fear of ‘germs’ makes people believe that ‘disease’ can be transmitted between people, which means that we have to continue being afraid of each other.
In fact, one of the fundamental problems with all of this is that it keeps people in a state of unjustified fear, which is disempowering. Releasing unjustified fear is empowering.
Furthermore, fear of ‘germs’ makes people acquiesce to measures that are claimed to be for their benefit but are far more likely to be harmful, and in many cases potentially or even actually fatal.
For example, the maintenance of a belief in pathogens permits the maintenance of a belief in the idea that STIs are real, as demonstrated by a recent BBC article Gonorrhoea and syphilis sex infections reach record levels in England,
“England is seeing record high levels of gonorrhoea and syphilis sexually transmitted infections, following a dip during Covid years, new figures reveal.”
Is the claim that these STIs ‘dipped’ during the Covid years intended to suggest that people maintaining their distance from one another was beneficial? This point is not elaborated upon, so maybe it was not intended to imply that. Still, the point was stated, so maybe it was intended to be drawn into the sub-conscious mind.
One of the key messages in the BBC article is that people should ‘practise safe sex’ – whatever that means. In order to be ‘safe’, people are encouraged to ‘get themselves tested’ – does this sound familiar?
In addition, the article states that,
“The age group most likely to be diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) is people who are 15-24.”
The reason for STIs to mainly affect young people is not explained, although it is possibly because this age group is more likely to be tested, as the article indicates,
“Some of the rise will be due to increased testing, but the scale of the surge strongly suggests that there are more of the infections around, says the UKHSA.”
A particularly significant comment made by the spokesperson for the UKHSA, and reported in the article, is that,
“Testing is important because you may not have any symptoms of an STI.”
Yet, according to the CDC,
“An infection occurs when germs enter the body, increase in number, and cause a reaction of the body.”
In other words, an infection causes a reaction or ‘symptoms’, but infected people may not have symptoms. A contradiction in terms, surely!
Just to be clear, the definition of ‘symptom’ according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary is,
“…subjective evidence of disease or physical disturbance.”
So, to summarise: according to the medical establishment, a symptom is evidence of disease and ‘germs’ are pathogens, which means they cause disease, which is defined by the presence of symptoms. Yet ‘germs’ are said to be able to cause an infection even in the complete absence of symptoms.
Confused? You should be, because this is all nonsense!
But it is nonsense that people are not only expected to believe without question, but are not allowed to question.
Maybe it is because this is all so confusing that people are likely to just switch off their thinking, because they don’t understand it, and instead defer to the so-called ‘experts’. I am not being disrespectful. I do wonder, however, whether this approach may be intentional and that those in control of the narrative intentionally promote contradictory information to ensure that people are confused.
Deferring to ‘experts’ is however, a serious error of judgement, because it means people will believe the experts’ reports about ‘germs’ and become trapped in a false narrative that they may have been ‘infected’. This in turn will make them believe that they need to take certain drugs and act in a certain way to ‘protect’ themselves from other people or protect other people from them, especially people with whom they are in a loving relationship. They are made to believe the idea that they could cause harm to their partner or vice versa, and they therefore live in fear.
This fear is fuelled by a variety of statements, such as the claim in the BBC article that,
“An untreated infection can lead to infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease and can be passed on to a child during pregnancy.”
There is no evidence for this claim. Yet, this is exactly the kind of message that will encourage people to want to be tested to make sure they are ‘safe’. Again, does this sound familiar?
An even deeper problem is highlighted by the comment from the Chief Executive of the Terrence Higgins who is reported to have said that,
“Sexual health services and public health budgets have been cut to the bone.”
This comment was followed by his statement that,
“This was exacerbated and laid bare by last year’s mpox outbreak, which left sexual health clinics in the most affected areas unable to provide HIV and STI testing, HIV prevention and access to contraception due to the displacement of these core and vital services. Until sexual health is properly resourced – with an appointment easier to access than a (sic) – we won’t see the number of STIs heading in the right direction.”
Where do I start with this?
OK, so the Terrence Higgins Trust web page About our charity states,
“We’re the UK’s leading HIV and sexual health charity. We support people living with HIV and amplify their voices, and help the people using our services to achieve good sexual health.”
I realise that I don’t have a Substack article specifically about HIV, but this is one I wrote about STDs,
HIV is a huge topic, but the fundamental point to convey here is that there is no evidence, and there never was, that there is such a thing as a ‘virus’ called HIV that is the cause of a health problem called AIDS – or any other health problem for that matter.
It is abundantly clear that there is a lot at stake here. It is also crystal clear that belief in the existence of any kind of pathogenic agent is absolutely essential for organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust (THT), as well as ‘health’ institutions, such as the WHO, CDC, NHS, and all the other alphabet agencies.
I have no idea of the motives of those who are in charge of the THT, nor do I intend to speculate on them. However, whether they know it or not, what they are promoting on their website is fully supportive of Agenda 2030 and the ‘Global Goals’, as the message at the foot of their website claims,
“Time is running out. Donate now and together we can end new cases of HIV in the UK by 2030.”
To those in the ‘truther’ community who claim that the 2030 Agenda has nothing to do with the ‘virus’ issue I would strongly suggest that they read SDG3, especially target 3.3.
And target 3b
The ‘no virus’ issue – and the associated understanding that there is no proof that any ‘diseases’ are caused by any ‘microorganism’, whether bacteria, fungi or parasites (‘viruses’ aren’t relevant in this context) – is and remains an extremely important issue; especially in view of the intended 2030 Agenda rollout of vaccines, because vaccines rely on the existence of pathogenic infectious agents.
Another reason to understand its importance is because the idea that ‘germs’ cause illness that only the medical establishment can address supports the idea that we need a ‘health service’ to look after us when we become ill, which is not the case. To this, I would add a caveat that accident and emergency services ARE important and should remain in place, although those who work in that sector should receive further training to teach them how the body actually works, and how it can and does heal itself; this knowledge will certainly improve patient recovery times and outcomes.
We may not reach everyone, but the importance of the ‘no virus’ issue cannot be underestimated. When people lose their fear of ‘germs’ of all descriptions, they will be able to concentrate their efforts on all the other aspects of their lives.
People can only make informed decisions when they are in possession of all the relevant information.
Technology expert Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., told The Defender that, under the guise of preserving freedom, a digital passport system “means restraints on movement and living for the unvaccinated and forced vaccination to participate in life.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission — the executive branch of the European Union (EU) — on Monday launched a “landmark digital health partnership” marking the beginning of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) to promote a global interoperable digital vaccine passport.
Beginning this month, the WHO will adopt the EU’s system of digital COVID-19 certification “to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics,” according to Monday’s announcements by the WHO and the European Commission.
WHO & @EU_Commission launch landmark digital health initiative to help protect people across the world from on-going & future health threats
This is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network that will develop a wide range of digital products… pic.twitter.com/IPlxn8wAXv
— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) June 5, 2023
The WHO and European Commission claim the GDHCN initiative, which has been in the works since 2021, “will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver better health for all.”
The organizations said the WHO will not collect individuals’ personal data via these digital passports — stating that such data collection “would continue to be the exclusive domain of governments.”
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus lauded the new agreement:
“Building on the EU’s highly successful digital certification network, WHO aims to offer all WHO Member States access to an open-source digital health tool, which is based on the principles of equity, innovation, transparency and data protection and privacy.
“New digital health products in development aim to help people everywhere receive quality health services quickly and more effectively.”
However, experts who spoke with The Defender said the ramifications of such a system for human liberty and freedom of movement raised concerns.
Independent journalist James Roguski told The Defender the WHO is not waiting for a successful conclusion of these negotiations in order to implement initiatives such as a global digital vaccine passport. He said:
“The announcement by the WHO and the European Commission regarding the launch of their digital health partnership was hardly a surprise. Over a month ago, the WHO quietly published that they were working on ‘operationalizing’ the very things that were being ‘negotiated.’
“This is just one example that clearly shows that the super-secret ‘negotiations’ regarding the International Health Regulations (IHR) are a charade.”
Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom,” told The Defender that, under the guise of preserving freedom, a digital passport system “means restraints on movement and living for the unvaccinated and forced vaccination to participate in life.”
The announcement of the WHO-European Commission collaboration came just days after the conclusion of the WHO’s annual World Health Assembly (WHA).
While the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments were not finalized at this year’s meeting, high-level WHO officials warned of the risk of a future pandemic and spread of a deadly “Disease X,” and expressed the need to “restrict personal liberties” during a future health emergency.
The EU has been a strong proponent of digital vaccine passports, first launched for its member states in late 2020 — concurrent with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines — under the name “Green Pass.” The EU’s experience with the digital passes is noted in Monday’s announcement, which states:
“One of the key elements in the European Union’s work against the COVID-19 pandemic has been digital COVID-19 certificates. To facilitate free movement within its borders, the EU swiftly established interoperable COVID-19 certificates.
“Based on open-source technologies and standards it allowed also for the connection of non-EU countries that issue certificates … becoming the most widely used solution around the world.”
Roguski told The Defender the EU also was among the strongest proponents of vaccine passports during ongoing negotiations for the WHO’s “pandemic treaty” and amendments to the IHR.
“They really want the global digital health certificate,” Roguski told The Defender in March. “Primarily, that’s coming from the European Union.”
‘Pandemic passports a death sentence for millions’
According to Roguski, the EU, during negotiations for the IHR amendments, put forth proposals that seek to “‘normalize’ the implementation of a global digital health certificate.”
The Czech Republic called for Passenger Locator Forms “containing information concerning traveller’s destination,” preferably in digital form, for the purpose of contact tracing.
They also proposed that the WHO’s Health Assembly “may adopt, in cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] … and other relevant organisations, the requirements that documents in digital or paper form shall fulfill with regard to interoperability of information technology platforms, technical requirements of health documents, as well as safeguards to reduce the risk of abuse and falsification.”
The Czech Republic and the EU proposed documentation not just for vaccination, but “test certificates and recovery certificates” in cases “where a vaccine or prophylaxis has not yet been made available for a disease in respect of which a public health emergency of international concern has been declared.”
Plans for the WHO’s GDHCN have been in the works since at least August 2021, when the WHO released a document titled “Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: technical specifications and implementation guidance, 27 August 2021.”
“The Secretariat has developed SMART (Standards-based, Machine-readable, Adaptive, Requirements-based, and Testable) Guidelines on the digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates, comprising recommendations on the data, digital functionality, ethics, and trust architecture needed to ensure the interoperability of immunization and health records globally.”
The WHO also announced the successful completion of a “technical feasibility study for establishing a federated global trust network, which tested the ability to interoperate the health content and trust networks across existing regional efforts.”
EU officials have frequently praised themselves over the launch of the bloc’s “Green Pass,” touting how individuals’ privacy would be protected on the app. The introduction of the “Green Pass” was accompanied by statements by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling for a “discussion” on mandatory vaccinations in the EU.
One of the EU’s stated priorities as part of its 2019-2024 five-year plan is to create a “Digital Identity for all Europeans.” Namely, each EU citizen and resident would have access to a “personal digital wallet,” which would include national ID cards, birth and medical certificates, and drivers’ licenses.
These proposals and initiatives appear to be closely aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in particular, Target 16.9, which calls for the provision of a digital legal identity for all, including newborns, by 2030.
Tedros said the SDGs are “our north star,” while addressing this year’s WHA.
Rectenwald called “pandemic passports” a “death sentence for millions.” He told The Defender:
“Despite the studies demonstrating that vaccines to curb pandemics have been deadly and useless, the WHO is doubling down on vaccine mandates.
“Pandemic passports equal a death sentence for millions and the abrogation of rights for the non-compliant. The WHO should be stopped before it completes the construction of a global totalitarian system.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
Video available at La Quinta Columna Odysee & Rumble channels. Follow at La Quinta Columna telegram channel: https://t.me/laquintacolumnainternational
They are introducing nanotechnology into all sorts of injectable products, especially in what they call vaccines for Covid.
Self-assembled nanotechnologies, based on graphene, are advanced non-human technologies, but implemented by humans.
The parasitization of our species ordered by “them” will lead to the extinction of human beings as we know them, who will become transhuman, monitored, with non-human thoughts that can in turn be read remotely via electromagnetic waves. Managed by AI, we will become what they call enhanced humans. Augmented humans.
Helpful list from FDA, found while doing research and organizing my files on:
Public Health Emergency (PHE), Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and PREP Act notices, declarations, determinations and authorizations issued by HHS Secretaries and their delegees from Jan. 2020 to the present;
Legal advisory opinions about PREP Act liability immunity, issued by the HHS Office of General Counsel from Jan. 2020 to the present; and
Guidance to pharmacists about PREP Act liability immunity, issued by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, from Jan. 2020 to the present; and
May biochemical weapon uptake rates approach zero in coming months and years, as rational popular response to the truth rendered much more visible since January 2020, and in firm opposition to all “recommendations” of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
Biochemical weapons deployed by injection have been intrinsically injurious from the start of government campaigns promoting their use more than a century ago.
The “Covid-19” weapons have been the most deadly to date, with some lots deadlier than others, and contents of many lots still unidentified.
A poultry farm in Yaroslavl has been ordered to cull 800,000 chickens, as regions introduce arbitrary “public health” measures to stop the spread of “bird flu”
On May 12, Russian media reported that an “infected” gull had been discovered near a pond in a village in Moscow Oblast.
What happened next was practically preordained.
Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin—the poster boy for New Normal Russia—issued a decree on May 18 imposing “quarantine” measures on 11 districts in the capital.
The order placed restrictions on public events where birds might be congregating, and also banned the transportation of feathered creatures in the aforementioned districts.
Of course, birds could always just, you know, fly into one of these “quarantined” districts, and spread their devilish flu, but that’s neither here nor there.
Moscow is the trend-setter when it comes to enterprising public health policy in Russia, so of course other regions have been eager to follow suit with their own arbitrary bird flu edicts.
Just hours after Sobyanin’s decree was published, Kaliningrad imposed its own “quarantine” on a 10km perimeter around another bird flu Ground Zero.
The restrictions, which will remain in place until August 1, included a ban on the “import and export of birds and hatching eggs, the relocation of birds, procurement and export of bird feed, as well as holding agricultural fairs, exhibitions, auctions and other events.”
A week later, the discovery of dead, flu-riddled gulls in Nizhny Novgorod prompted officials to introduce a 30-day quarantine in one of the region’s districts.
Health authorities “seized poultry within a radius of five kilometers [from where the dead gulls were found], and poultry farms in the region were transferred to enhanced security protocols.”
Locals were also advised to only buy poultry from “verified” sources—the good, factory-farmed corporate stuff; don’t even think about buying poultry from your unverified neighbor!
But confiscating all chickens in a 5km radius is amateur hour compared to the health-boosting measures adopted in Yaroslavl.
The Romanovskaya poultry farm in Yaroslavl has been instructed to cull its livestock, and destroy all animal products on its premises, following an alleged bird flu outbreak:
All birds, more than 800 thousand in total, will be killed … The destruction of the carcasses, along with poultry products (eggs), will be carried out via incineration at a specially designated site. […]
The poultry farm has not disclosed any details about the order. When a 76.RU correspondent tried to contact company representatives, they declined to comment.
“We are in quarantine. That’s all,” a receptionist said, before hanging up.
The region is a major agricultural hub, so there’s no reason to believe that this bird-liquidation will cause a shortage of poultry or eggs. But…it’s also 800,000 chickens?
Finally, like a bad omen, Tatarstan (which was arguably the most Virus Crazy region in Russia after Moscow/St. Petersburg) is already bracing for the bird flu apocalypse:
It was clear that the COVID grift was rapidly losing its potency when Virus Nanny Anna Popova announced an imminent wave of “Arcturus”.
How many waves of severe-sounding Greek letters and words are possible, before people stop paying attention? Or worse, starting asking questions?
Well, now Russia is sacrificing 800,000 chickens to the Global Health Gods.
By the way: Where did this scary outbreak of bird flu begin? Hard to say for sure, but China recorded the world’s first human death from the new and improved “H3N8 avian influenza strain” in mid-April.
The bird flu scam actually predates COVID by many years. In fact, many of the trusted experts who demanded large-scale chicken slaughter (for public health) later went on to become celebrated “coronavirus experts” who championed worldwide house arrest for the proles—resulting in another mass culling.
Have you ever heard of a psychopath named David Nabarro?
source / source (to be fair to Nabarro, he later described lockdown as a “last resort”, which makes him slightly less disgusting than the typical WHO-certified Neanderthal.)
Let’s not deceive ourselves, friends. Global Biosecurity Theater is forever.
Self Assembly Hydrogel Polymers, Historical Research Context of Hydrogel Smart Materials and Nano Worms That Rapidly Grow From Nanometers to Visible Size
Scientists from NTU and CMU created a leaf-like hydrogel structure through a process similar to how real leaf tissues grow. Credit: CMU and NTU
In this article, I wanted to explain more about Hydrogel. There have been scientists and doctors saying that you cannot see nanotechnology grow from nanoscale to microscopic scale and that we cannot possibly see what we claim to see in the blood.
Our latest research findings show however that we are seeing what we claim:
Image: Four vaccinated Blood Samples left to sit for 4 hours I have posted the work of Clifford Carnicom and myself showing that Near Infrared Spectroscopy performed on C19 vaccinated and unvaccinated blood repetitively identified the spectral signature of functional chemical groups indicating polymer hydrogels.
There are people who do live blood analysis who call the hydrogel containing filaments parasites, biofilm, other lifeforms explicable via terrain theory. They dismiss the filaments because they were seen before historically, so they cannot have anything to do with the C19 injections. These are incorrect claims and I wish to explain the scientific background here.
We have discussed extensively that the Transhumanist assault of synthetic biology has been going on for decades and that historically the same filaments have been found in people’s blood before the C19 injections – they were then called Morgellons or Cross Doman Bacteria (CDB) and sprayed via geoengineering and bioengineering for people to inhale and get sick. The symptom complex experienced by CDB/ Morgellons has enormous overlap to “long Covid” poisoning – including chronic fatigue, brain fog, multi organ dysfunction, accelerated aging, mood disorders and more.
In the image above, you can see hydrogel used to grow like a leaf. In the article below, it is discussed that hydrogels can grow like biological tissues and that oxygen tension can control the growth. The more oxygen there is the faster they grow. Normal blood is carrying oxygen. There are many more ways to control the growth, this is just one example:
The team’s findings, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences today, suggest new applications in areas such as tissue engineering and soft robotics where hydrogel is commonly used. The team has also filed a patent at CMU and NTU. In nature, plant or animal tissues are formed as new biomass is added to existing structures. Their shape is the result of different parts of those tissues growing at different rates.
Mimicking this behaviour of biological tissues in nature, the research team comprising CMU scientists Changjin Huang, David Quinn, K. Jimmy Hsia and NTU President-designate Prof Subra Suresh, showed that through manipulation of oxygen concentration, one can pattern and control the growth rate of hydrogels to create the desired complex 3-D shapes. The team found that higher oxygen concentrations slow down the cross-linking of chemicals in the hydrogel, inhibiting growth in that specific area.
Hydrogel research has gone on for many decades. Here is an article from 1977 discussing the interactions of hydrogel and blood:
Here is an article explaining how fast the hydrogel can change its volume or size. What we have been seeing in human blood and in the analysis of C19 vials nanotechnology is entirely consistent with the literature.
Abstract
Smart hydrogels, or stimuli-responsive hydrogels, are three-dimensional networks composed of crosslinked hydrophilic polymer chains that are able to dramatically change their volume and other properties in response to environmental stimuli such as temperature, pH and certain chemicals. Rapid and significant response to environmental stimuli and high elasticity are critical for the versatility of such smart hydrogels. Here we report the synthesis of smart hydrogels which are rapidly responsive, highly swellable and stretchable, by constructing a nano-structured architecture with activated nanogels as nano-crosslinkers.
You can control the growth of hydrogels by many different chemical means. Here is an article from 2001 – just to show how long the scientific community has worked on perfecting this technology:
Environmentally sensitive hydrogels have enormous potential in various applications. Some environmental variables, such as low pH and elevated temperatures, are found in the body. For this reason, either pH-sensitive and/or temperature-sensitive hydrogels can be used for site-specific controlled drug delivery. Hydrogels that are responsive to specific molecules, such as glucose or antigens, can be used as biosensors as well as drug delivery systems. Light-sensitive, pressure-responsive and electro-sensitive hydrogels also have the potential to be used in drug delivery and bio separation. Hydrogels containing such ‘sensor’ properties can undergo reversible volume phase transitions or gel–sol phase transitions upon only minute changes in the environmental condition. The types of environment-sensitive hydrogels are also called ‘Intelligent’ or ‘smart’ hydrogels. Many physical and chemical stimuli have been applied to induce various responses of the smart hydrogel systems. The physical stimuli include temperature, electric fields, solvent composition, light, pressure, sound and magnetic fields, while the chemical or biochemical stimuli include pH, ions and specific molecular recognition events. Smart hydrogels have been used in diverse applications, such as in making artificial muscles, chemical valves, immobilization of enzymes and cells , and concentrating dilute solutions in bioseparation.
The worm like appearance we are seeing in the blood is not a parasite but a self assembly polymer nano worm which has been developed by science for over 2 decades (thanks to Shimon Yanowitz for sending this to me):
Filomicelles and nanoworms are an emerging subclass of nanomaterials with a special elongated shape. The physical properties of a filomicelle are distinct from a traditional spherical micelle, and as such have attracted tremendous interest in a variety of research areas. In this review, we highlight the substantial progress in the synthesis and application of polymeric nanoworms over the past two decades. Synthetic techniques summarized in this review are particle replication in nonwetting templates (PRINT), film stretching, self-assembly (SA), crystallization-driven self-assembly (CDSA), polymerization-induced selfassembly (PISA), and temperature-induced morphological transformation (TIMT). The applications of filomicelles as (i) templates for inorganic nanoparticles, (ii) building blocks for superstructures, (iii) synthetic dendritic cells for immunotherapy, (iv) constituents of thermoresponsive gels for biomedical applications, and (v) nanocarriers for cancer drug delivery are subsequently discussed. In the conclusion, we describe the current trajectory of research in the field and identify areas where further developments are of urgent need.
Note how the researchers consider self assembly as a “living” process.
Please note that these can grow from nanometer to macroscopic size, visible with the naked eye:
In this episode, a successful career government pharmaceuticals and vaccines testing expert with Health Canada explains why COVID-19 is not proven to exist in applied science. As such, no vaccine will treat a nonexistent pathogen.
Dr. Qureshi has a Ph.D. in fundamental science (chemistry) specializing in analytical chemistry, which covers the science of substances, isolation, identification, characterization, purification, tests developments, validation, and their uses.
For over three years Dr Qureshi has collaborated with other independent scientists and researchers at Principia Scientific International to provide objective, independent analysis to expose the most significant medical fraud in history.
Working with Dr Judy Wilyman – Australia’s most prominent qualified expert in vaccine injury – co-authors, Qureshi, Beatty, and O’Sullivan have compiled an important new book that among other things shows how corrupt policymakers, a controlled media and government ‘experts’ combined to scare us onto surrendering our freedoms – all premised on junk science.
Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon reveals how a coordinated international medical hoax – just like the climate scare – is a dystopian population control strategy implemented by a psychopathic billionaire cult pursuing UN Agenda 21(Agenda 2030) to depopulate the planet.
About Dr. Saeed Qureshi
As a senior research scientist for 30 years with Health Canada, Dr. Qureshi conducted experimental studies relating to drug applications for product marketing—undertaking hands-on experimental (scientific) studies for both in vitro and in vivo (animal/human) evaluations.
He has extensively published in peer-reviewed journals and made numerous invited national and international presentations on these topics.
For his scientific accomplishments he has received several high-profile awards including the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Indus Foundation, India); from the Deputy Minister’s Award of Excellence in Science at Health Canada) plus the Excellence in Science Award also at Health Canada
Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon identifies that modern democracies commonly suffer from a fatal weakness, in that they rely on politicians and government scientists to maintain high ethical standards, indefinitely.
“…This is a pseudoscientific concept that is also an oxymoron as two entirely contradictory terms were put together in order to create this illogical state. Asymptomatic is characterized by a lack of signs and symptoms of illness, whereas disease is characterized by signs and symptoms of illness…
Asymptomatic carriers are nothing but healthy people who have been labelled with disease minus signs of any disease who are then told that they can infect others. They are treated as a sick individual based upon results generated using fraudulent tests.
[…]
The “viral” theory is a load of BS, and there is no such thing as a healthy sick person capable of transmitting disease. We have no reason to fear the walking healthy.”
“In areas where there are limited number of new cases, State or local public health officials may request to test a small number of asymptomatic ‘healthy people,’ particularly from vulnerable populations”
In the not so distant past, when we walked around feeling healthy without any symptoms of disease, most of us would consider that we were, in fact, free of any disease. There would be no thoughts about going to the doctor for a PCR test in order to determine whether or not we were unknowingly a walking talking “virus” spewing host harboring billions of “infectious” particles capable of transmitting disease to our loved ones. We would not subject ourselves to quarantines and daily testing due to the remote possibility of being around someone who tested positive with symptoms, let alone for anyone testing positive without any signs of disease. We did not go around covering our faces with masks out of fear that those around us may be silent spreaders. We didn’t bust out our rulers in order to measure 6 feet of distance between us and another living soul. None of these irrational actions were ever even a glimmer of a thought until the well-orchestrated fear propaganda campaign promoted the pseudoscientific concept of the asymptomatic carrier of disease and catapulted it into the public consciousness.
Even though this idea has been effectively weaponized against us over the last few years, it is not a new one. In fact, as will be shown later, the notion of the asymptomatic carrier began at the same time germ theory was born. The idea is that one can be silently harboring and able to transmit a pathogen without displaying any symptoms of disease whatsoever. This has resulted in the highly illogical creation of asymptomatic disease:
What Does it Mean to Have an Asymptomatic Disease?
“Asymptomatic disease is where a person is infected with a disease (or develops a disease; diagnosed) but fails to display any noticeable symptoms.”
Asymptomatic until symptomatic – silent diseases
“Many diseases and infections can be asymptomatic, including those that may be potentially fatal in some people. These include (but are not limited to): tuberculosis, breast cancer, endometriosis, HIV/AIDS, herpes, hepatitis, chlamydia, hypertension, common colds/flu, and type-2 diabetes mellitus. Many of these conditions remain largely asymptomatic until very advanced disease stages when they suddenly become symptomatic. Others can remain more or less asymptomatic throughout their disease course.”
“Infectious diseases can also be completely asymptomatic (with no symptoms ever manifesting), particularly in younger and healthier individuals. For example, hepatitis (hepatitis C) infections can take up to 6 months to develop, and even then, approximately 80% of infected individuals may not experience any symptoms. Other examples include cholera, herpes, measles, and rubella which can be completely asymptomatic.”
“In summary, asymptomatic disease refers to diseases and infections which do not lead to any symptoms in patients (subclinical) for the whole disease course or until they develop symptoms in which the asymptomatic phase is referred to as pre-symptomatic.
In many respiratory infections including COVID-19, asymptomatic disease is common and may be a source of transmission within the community, though more research is needed to establish the exact contribution asymptomatic transmission has on the community rates of infection.”
As can be seen, many so-called “infectious diseases” are said to be asymptomatic. If one is labelled as asymptomatic, one never develops the disease at any point in time even though they are diagnosed with asymptomatic disease. This is a pseudoscientific concept that is also an oxymoron as two entirely contradictory terms were put together in order to create this illogical state. Asymptomatic is characterized by a lack of signs and symptoms of illness, whereas disease is characterized by signs and symptoms of illness. One can not have disease if one is not displaying signs of disease:
Asymptomatic carriers are nothing but healthy people who have been labelled with disease minus signs of any disease who are then told that they can infect others. They are treated as a sick individual based upon results generated using fraudulent tests. In the past, most would have scoffed at this idea and never willingly subjected themselves to quarantines and further testing. In fact, they would have never tested to begin with. However, in the face of a “pandemic” with a “novel virus,” many lined up for the mass testing agenda in order to ensure that they were amongst the “uninfected.” This willingness to subject to testing despite a clear lack of symptoms was primarily driven by fear. This old concept was thrust onto a frightened population and then ramped up in a way that had never been done so before.
In order to understand why there was never any reason to ever participate in this irrational belief of such a ridiculous concept, let’s examine how the asymptomatic carrier first came about at the dawn of germ theory. We will then examine how this idea was weaponized against the public during the “pandemic” despite a complete lack of any scientific evidence in support of the asymptomatic disease carrier.
When German bacteriologist Robert Koch was looking for the causative agents of certain diseases in the late 1800’s, he formulated a series of four logical requirements that needed to be met in order for anyone to claim that a certain microbe caused a specific disease. These were as follows:
The microorganism must be found in abundance in all hosts suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy hosts.
The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased host and grown in pure culture.
The cultured microorganism should cause the same symptoms of disease when introduced into a healthy host.
The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and shown to be identical to the original causative agent.
While these logic-based postulates were accepted by and large within the scientific community, Koch quickly discovered a problem with his very first criterion. Whether it was tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria, or cholera, the microbe that he was claiming as causative agents were regularly found in healthy individuals. Thus, Koch was unable to satisfy his very own first Postulate. However, rather than realize that his criteria had worked as he had envisioned and had actually ruled out bacteria and other microbes as a causative agent of disease, Koch allowed for himself and others to bend not only his first postulate, but the others as well. Allowing for the bacteria and other microbes claimed to be causative agents of disease to be found in those without disease lead to the creation of the illogical concept that became known as the asymptomatic carrier of disease. Koch’s entire claim to fame rested entirely on the perception that he was a microbe-hunter. Bending his own rules saved Koch from giving up his prestige, kept his findings intact, and helped to establish the germ theory on unfalsifiable pseudoscientific grounds.
Koch’s idea of asymptomatic “infection” received a big push shortly afterwards when the media released propaganda promoting the idea of an asymptomatic carrier in 1907 by targeting an Irish immigrant by the name of Mary Mollen. Mary was a cook for wealthy families and ended up employed by banker Charles Henry Warren when he rented a summer home for himself and his family. When 6 of the 11 family members came down with the symptoms of typhoid fever over the last week of August, the property owners feared that no one would rent the house again if they believed that the property was the source of the outbreak. A man named George Roper was hired to investigate the situation and he came to the conclusion that it was Mary who had passed on the bacteria to the family through her cooking. This led to a modern day witch-hunt for Mary who refused to believe that she was the source of illness. Sadly, Mary was eventually involuntarily quarantined for the majority of the rest of her life. This ordeal led to Mary being notoriously and unfairly known by the moniker Typhoid Mary, even though many of her stool samples came back negative for the bacterium:
Typhoid Mary: the Tragedy of Mary Mallon
“On 11 November 1938, a 69 year old Irishwoman died on North Brother Island, New York. She had been held in isolation for 23 years, yet she had not been charged or convicted with any criminal offence.
Mary Mallon was born in Cookstown, Ireland in 1869. She immigrated to America when she was a teenager and found employment in domestic service. She developed an aptitude for cooking, and as this paid more than basic service, Mary accepted several jobs as a cook for the wealthy. In 1906, Charles Henry Warren, a New York banker, rented a summer home for himself and his family on Long Island. Mary Mallon was engaged as a cook for the duration of their stay. From the end of August, one by one people began to fall ill with typhoid fever, in all, six of the eleven occupants of the house developed typhoid fever.
The owners of the property feared that they would be unable to secure further tenants if the public believed that the source of the outbreak was their property and so hired Dr George Soper to investigate the cause. Soper came to the conclusion that Mary Mallon was to blame for the spread of disease. Hindering his efforts, Mary had left their employment three weeks after the outbreak. Soper started to investigate the previous situations held by Mary Mallon. From 1900 to 1907 there had been seven jobs where, it was reported, somewhere between twenty-three and thirty-eight people became ill and one person, a child, died. Soper believed that Mary was the source of typhoid fever that had followed her employment history, but he needed biological samples to affirm his hypothesis.”
“The Greater New York Charter allowed for ‘all reasonable means for ascertaining the existence and cause of disease’. It essentially gave health officials the authority to remove Mary Mallon and quarantine her against her will. After two years of isolation, with only a dog for company, Mary sued the health department. They had tested her stools approximately weekly and 120 out of 163 samples proved positive. Yet Mary countered with her own private analysis, sampled over the preceding year, all coming back negative. Mary’s laboratory results proved for her, her healthy status and she failed to understand that she was diagnosed a healthy typhoid carrier. She was arguably the first person identified as such, and having not been charged with a criminal offence she felt it was barbaric to be treated like a criminal (and a ‘leper’) when she was innocent of any crime.”
Mary was falsely quarantined against her will due to one man’s suspicion and hypothesis that rested solely on correlation equaling causation. No scientific experiments were ever carried out proving that Mary was spreading disease to her patrons. As with all claims of asymptomatic transmission, it was a circumstantial case built upon faulty epidemiological data. George Roper is the man who ultimately condemned Mary by labeling her as the cause without any scientific evidence proving his hypothesis. Based upon his own words presented below, he assumed certain premises, such as the bacterium should be in the urine (which it was not) and in the feces. He claimed that stool examinations only failed twice over the course of two weeks to find the bacterium. However, he later recounted several instances of failure to detect the bacterium over the course of several months. In the summer months, few bacterial colonies were found and in the month of July, there were five consecutive negative tests. During the month of August, no typhoid was ever found in Mary’s stools. In September, they began to appear again. However, from September 11 to October 14, 1907, the stools failed to yield any typhoid bacilli. From October 16, 1907, to February 5, 1908, weekly examinations of the stools showed anywhere from 25 to 50 percent “typhoid-like” colonies on the culture plates. There were two instances within that period where no bacilli were found. Taking into account that Mary’s own independent lab results showed that no bacilli were found within her stools, Soper’s consistently contradictory evidence should have been questioned.
After recounting these failures, Soper shared his thoughts on how Mary transmitted the bacterium through having not washed her hands properly while preparing the food. He based his conclusion upon his interviews where he stated that no housekeeper ever told him that Mary was a clean cook. He did not say whether he asked them or not or rather just assumed that their lack of addressing it was proof that Mary was unsanitary. Soper then stated that, in the most thorough “investigation,” he believed that the bacterium was carried from Mary’s hands to the people who ate ice cream containing cut-up peaches that she had prepared. Again, no evidence was provided beyond his belief. Soper was amazed that no one had ever discovered an asymptomatic carrier in America before him. Interestingly, Soper revealed that he was long interested in the transmission of typhoid fever and knew of Robert Koch’s work. He stated that his interest in this area was longstanding and that Koch’s work was the basis for his own investigation. He admitted that he had read several papers on the probable role of healthy carriers in producing typhoid. Soper was made aware by Dr. Simon Flexner, of the infamous Flexner report, to some of these references after he had concluded his work on the Mary Mallon case. It is very clear that Soper went looking for evidence to fit his preconceived conclusions as to what the cause was. He was also potentially guided along the way:
The Military Surgeon Vol. XLV July, 1919 Number 1 Original Articles Typhoid Mary
By Major GEORGE A. SOPER
“It was expected by me that the germs might be found in the urine, but more probably in the stools. None was found in the urine. The stools contained the germs in great numbers. Daily examinations made for over two weeks failed only twice to reveal the presence of the Bacillus typhoid and on these occasions the sample taken was perhaps too small to reveal them. The blood gave a positive Widal reaction. The cook appeared to be in perfect health.
The feces were examined on an average of three times a week from March 20 to November 16, 1907, and in only a comparatively few instances did the investigators fail to find the bacilli. During the summer months the culture plates contained only a few typhoid-like colonies. In July there were five consecutive negative tests followed by a positive one.
During August the stool showed no typhoid; in September they began to appear again; from September 11 to October 14, 1907, the feces failed to yield typhoid bacilli. During this time the patient’s diet was carefully regulated and she was receiving mild laxatives. On October 16, 1907, a very thorough test showed that the germs were again present. From October 16, 1907, to February 5, 1908, weekly examinations of the stools gave, with only two exceptions, from 25 to 50 per cent typhoid-like colonies on the culture plates. These exceptions were on November 13 and December 4, when no typhoid was found. The implication was plain. The cook was virtually a living culture tube in which the germs of typhoid multiplied and from which they escaped in the movements from her bowels. When at toilet her hands became soiled, perhaps unconsciously and invisibly so. When she pre-pared a meal, the germs were washed and rubbed from her fingers into the food. No housekeeper ever gave me to understand that Mary was a particularly clean cook. In the Oyster Bay outbreak, which was studied with more particularity than the others, the infectious matter is believed to have been carried from the cook’s hands to the people who were later taken sick by means of ice cream containing cut-up peaches. Mary prepared this herself. In this instance no heat sterilized the washings from her hands. Mary Mallon was kept virtually a prisoner by the Department of Health for three years. At first she was held at the hospital for contagious diseases at the foot of East 16th Street, Manhattan; later she was removed to Riverside Hospital on North Brother’s Island in the East River, between Hell Gate and Long Island Sound.”
“The case is least remarkable for the reason that it was the first of its kind to be worked out in America. It is surprising that nobody bad discovered a carrier before. They are now known to be rather common.
Somewhat similar investigations bad been made in Germany) and I make no claim of originality or for any other credit in her discovery. My interest and experience in the epidemiology of typhoid had been of long standing. I had read the address which Koch had delivered before the Kaiser Wilhelm’s Akademie, November 28, 1902, and his investigation into the prevalence of typhoid at Trier 3 and thought it was one of the most illuminating of documents.In fact it had been the basis of much of tile epidemic work with which I had been connected.
Koch’s address was not the only one printed about this time to show that healthy carriers might exist and give rise to typhoid. Conradi and Drigalski4 had anticipated Koch and it was probably on the suggestion contained in their paper to the effect that with their new culture medium they had found typhoid bacilli in the stools of several well persons that Koch’s flying laboratory was sent to Trier and the ground prepared for his Kaiser Wilhelm’s Akademic address.
In the Festschrift Zum SeclizigstenGeburstag von Robert Koch, which appeared in 1903, there are several papers on the probable role of healthy carriers in producing typhoid. About this time Kayser, Klinger and others were publishing in Arbeiten aus dem Kaiserlichen Gesundheit-smate reports of cases which they found to be due to persons whose condition was much like Typhoid Mary’s. Dr. Simon Flexner kindly called my attention to some of these references after I had concluded my work on the Mary Mallon case.”
After the highly publicized Typhoid Mary case, this idea of asymptomatic carriers simmered in the background over the next century. While there were claims of such a state in certain diseases, this has never been scientifically proven. However, that did not stop Koch’s escape clause from taking a prominent role in the “Covid crisis,” primarily due to a mass testing campaign that was bound to identify positive cases in healthy people using fraudulent tests never calibrated and validated to purified and isolated “virus.” Although all PCR results are false-positives, we can see that even the CDC noted that testing people without symptoms generates false-positive cases. They stated as much under their PCR guidelines for pertussis when recommending not to test those without symptoms:
Diagnosis PCR Best Practices
“However, only patients with signs and symptoms consistent with pertussis should be tested by PCR to confirm the diagnosis. Testing asymptomatic persons should be avoided as it increases the likelihood of obtaining falsely-positive results. Asymptomatic close contacts of confirmed cases should not be tested and testing of contacts should not be used for post-exposure prophylaxis decisions.”
Thus, we can see that the CDC were well aware that testing people without symptoms will lead to an influx of cases labelled as asymptomatic “infections” when they are, in fact, not “infected” or diseased at all. This massive amount of asymptomatic cases of “SARS-COV-2” based upon fraudulent test results has cemented the illogical concept of the asymptomatic carrier into the minds of the populace. A timely December 2020 review, while reiterating the history of the asymptomatic carrier described above, pointed out the fact that even though asymptomatic infection and transmission has always been a concept waiting it the wings, it has only recently been thrust into the limelight with this “pandemic:”
Invisible epidemics: ethics and asymptomatic infection
History
“Dr Robert Koch was one of the founders of modern microbiology, and his work is particularly well known for a set of postulates (first published in 1890) linking microbes with the causation of infectious disease (Gradmann 2010). Though variously expressed, one of Koch’s initial postulates was that the microbe putatively responsible for a disease should be found in all people suffering from the disease, but not in healthy individuals (Gradmann 2010). Koch soon realised that this did not hold true in all cases, since many potentially pathogenic organisms are frequently found in healthy people. For example, Koch observed that asymptomatic carriers of cholera, typhoid, and malaria could spread these diseases to others, and he is credited for inventing the concept of the carrier state (i.e., in which healthy people asymptomatically carry an infection) (Gradmann 2010).
Public awareness of asymptomatic carriage of infection increased, especially in English-speaking countries, with media reporting of the case of Mary Mallon (known as “Typhoid Mary”) beginning in 1907. Mallon was a cook working in New York who, although showing no signs of typhoid disease herself, spread typhoid bacteria to many other people, resulting in several deaths (Brooks 1996; Soper 1939). For the general population, this revealed an important truth: that “persons, rather than things” (Soper 1939) were the source of many infectious diseases. Despite this Copernican revolution in public health (an epidemiological parallel of the microbiological revolution of germ theory), Mary Mallon and many others found it difficult to believe that healthy people could spread disease. Mallon repeatedly resisted public health restrictions and refused to believe she was infected or posed risks to others. She spent the latter years of her life living in public health confinement on North Brother Island, working as an assistant in the local infectious disease laboratory (Soper 1939).”
Implications for outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics
“Asymptomatic infection was recognised to be a significant factor in the 2015–2016 Zika virus epidemic, particularly because many of those who were infected—including some women who acquired infection during pregnancy and gave birth to children severely affected by congenital Zika syndrome—showed few or no symptoms (Jamrozik and Selgelid 2018). Although less well recognised, transmission of asymptomatic Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus infection (perhaps both camel-human and human–human transmission) may play an important role in the epidemiology of MERS—which is all the more remarkable because people who develop symptomatic MERS infection have a high fatality risk of around 35% (Grant et al. 2019). Asymptomatic infection has also been reported for viruses closely related to the coronavirus that caused the earlier severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic. In one study from 2003, around 40% of Chinese wild animal traders had serological evidence of having been exposed to coronaviruses that closely resembled SARS-coronavirus, raising questions about whether people in high risk occupations should be screened for asymptomatic infection to detect potential “spillover” events of pathogens with epidemic potential (Guan et al. 2003). We initiated the November 2018 Brocher Foundation workshop upon which this Special Issue is based partly in light of the growing awareness of such cases of asymptomatic infection—and their ethical implications for policy and practice.
Since that time general awareness of asymptomatic infection has skyrocketed in light of its role in the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid19) pandemic, in virtue of which the term ‘asymptomatic infection’ has become highly familiar to ordinary members of the general public. Early data, which were later widely confirmed, suggested that asymptomatic transmission of Covid19 occurs both in cases where the individual transmitting the virus goes on to develop symptoms later (i.e., they were “pre-symptomatic” at the time of transmission) and in cases where they never develop symptoms (Hu et al. 2020). Asymptomatic individuals can, under certain conditions, transmit to large numbers of other people (e.g., one person was shown to infect 71 others) (Liu et al. 2020). The overall degree to which asymptomatic transmission contributes to local Covid19 epidemics likely varies in different contexts and has not always been well-characterised (in part because of the difficulties of identifying all asymptomatic infections during an epidemic). In any case, asymptomatic transmission of Covid19 raises a number of ethical issues similar to those discussed above, including those related to the justification of public health interventions such as screening and isolation for asymptomatic cases.”
While the asymptomatic carrier was made a star of the “Covid” show in order to generate fear and drive compliance towards quarantines, lockdowns, social-distancing, and masking, the message has been entirely inconsistent throughout, and the lack of any valid scientific evidence proving such a carrier state was on full display from the very beginning. At a White House press briefing on January 28th 2020, the idea of asymptomatically transmitting the “novel coronavirus” was floated out there as a possibility. The CDC claimed to have heard reports about asymptomatic cases but had not seen any of the data. At the time, poster boy Anthony Fauci stated that, based upon past evidence from respiratory “viruses” of any type, asymptomatic transmission was never a driver behind any outbreaks or spread of disease:
Asymptomatic transmission
“There’s a difference between someone who has the virus and is about to show symptoms and someone who gets it and never has any noticeable sign. The second type is purely asymptomatic and there was a lot of uncertainty on this point at a Jan. 28 White House briefing. The CDC said there were reports of it, but they hadn’t seen the data.
Fauci put the question into the context of past coronaviruses.
“We would really like to see the data because, if there is asymptomatic transmission, it impacts certain policies that you do regarding screening, etc. But the one thing historically people need to realize is that, even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory-born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.”
However, a few days later on February 3rd, 2020, Anthony Fauci had changed his tune and stated that, based upon a single paper, he had no doubt that asymptomatic transmission was occurring and that the study he had read had laid the case to rest. Unfortunately for Fauci, the conclusive evidence that asymptomatic transmission occurred was based upon false information. The study in question claimed that a woman, who had been in a meeting in Germany with four people who later became ill, was an asymptomatic carrier as she had no symptoms at the time of the meeting and became ill upon her flight home to China. For some reason, the authors of the paper failed to actually speak to the woman and wrote the paper solely based upon what the four patients told them. Ironically, the Robert Koch Institute actually spoke to the woman and confirmed that she was symptomatic at the time of the meeting, thus giving Fauci a nice serving of egg on his face:
“Chinese researchers had previously suggested asymptomatic people might transmit the virus but had not presented clear-cut evidence. “There’s no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring,” Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. “This study lays the question to rest.”
But now, it turns out that information was wrong.
The letter in NEJM described a cluster of infections that began after a businesswoman from Shanghai visited a company near Munich on 20 and 21 January, where she had a meeting with the first of four people who later fell ill. Crucially, she wasn’t sick at the time: “During her stay, she had been well with no sign or symptoms of infection but had become ill on her flight back to China,” the authors wrote. “The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak.
But the researchers didn’t actually speak to the woman before they published the paper. The last author, Michael Hoelscher of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Medical Center, says the paper relied on information from the four other patients: “They told us that the patient from China did not appear to have any symptoms.” Afterward, however, officials at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Germany’s federal public health agency, and the Health and Food Safety Authority of the state of Bavaria did talk to the Shanghai patient on the phone, and it turned out she did have symptoms while in Germany. According to people familiar with the call, she felt tired, suffered from muscle pain, and took paracetamol, a fever-lowering medication. (An RKI spokesperson would only confirm to Science that the woman had symptoms.)”
In March 2020, a top Chinese health official completely contradicted Fauci by stating that there was no evidence that asymptomatic carriers could spread illness to others:
‘No evidence’ asymptomatic carriers spread coronavirus, Chinese health official claims
“A top Chinese health official sought to allay growing fears over asymptomatic coronavirus carriers on Monday, saying there was “no evidence” they could spread the illness but medical workers should remain alert to the risk.”
Not one to be made the fool, in April 2020, Fauci suggested that there were millions of silent spreaders in the US. In fact, he claimed that asymptomatic infections made up anywhere from 25 to 50% of the infections. He backed his figures up by confidently stating that they were just guessing as they had no scientific data to support these guesstimates. Fauci stated that he wouldn’t have any “scientific” data until mass antibody testing was carried out. He said that it was impossible to know who is infected without symptoms until you test everyone who has no symptoms. This lends credence to the fact that testing people without symptoms will, as the CDC stated with pertussis, create nothing but false-positives:
Fauci once dismissed concerns about ‘silent carriers’ of coronavirus. Not anymore.
At Sunday’s White House briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, suggested that hundreds of thousands — or even millions — of “silent carriers” may be unwittingly spreading the coronavirus across the United States because they don’t realize they’re infected.
The idea that at least some coronavirus carriers don’t feel sick isn’t new. But the scale of Fauci’s estimate was.”
“It’s somewhere between 25 and 50 percent” of the total, Fauci said. But “right now,” he went on, “we’re just guessing.”
“The first thing to note is that Fauci himself expressed a high degree of uncertainty about his own numbers. “I don’t have any scientific data to say that,” he admitted Sunday. “You know when we’ll get the scientific data? When we get those antibody tests out there and we really know what the penetrance is. Then we can answer the questions in a scientifically sound way.”
“Fauci was right to be cautious. As he noted, it’s impossible to say how many carriers never showed symptoms until you’ve tested a bunch of people who never showed symptoms — something that will only happen after the worst of the pandemic is over and scientists start trying to determine, en masse, who does and doesn’t have immunity. (More on that later.)”
“Last week Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield told NPR that “one of the [pieces of] information that we have pretty much confirmed now is that a significant number of individuals that are infected actually remain a asymptomatic.”
In June 2020, the WHO’s Maria Van Kerkhove disagreed with Fauci’s assessment of asymptomatic transmission by claiming that it appears to be rare based upon the data that was seen. In fact, she claimed that investigators were not finding any cases of secondary transmission from an asymptomatic carrier to anyone else:
Coronavirus spread by asymptomatic people ‘appears to be rare,’ WHO official says
“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Van Kerkhove said on Monday.
“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They’re following asymptomatic cases, they’re following contacts and they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It is very rare — and much of that is not published in the literature,” she said. “We are constantly looking at this data and we’re trying to get more information from countries to truly answer this question. It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.”
However, by November 2020, Fauci was defiant against the WHO’s admittance that no secondary transmissions were occurring and stated that he was certain that 40-45% of the transmission was due to asymptomatic carriers. Fauci hammered home the point as to why masks, which he had claimed offered no protection in March 2020, were now essential in November 2020:
Anthony Fauci’s Thoughts on Covid-19 Transmission, Treatments, and Vaccines
“Speaking of asymptomatic spread, Fauci says that 40–45% of transmission is due to asymptomatic people unwittingly infecting others. This is why masks are so essential — by wearing one, you protect other people even if you don’t know that you’re infected.”
In December 2021, Fauci was defeated yet again when the “discoverer” of Omicron, Dr. Angelique Coetzee, questioned whether such a thing as an asymptomatic carrier even existed at all. She stated that they had seen no asymptomatic cases of Omicron and then recommended that those without symptoms need not test:
‘There’s no reason to test if you have no symptoms,’ and 2 other findings from the woman instrumental in first identifying omicron
“Notably, Coetzee suggested that asymptomatic cases of the omicron variant are rare, if such a condition exists at all.
Asked during a Christmas Eve interview on MSNBC if “there was not such a thing as an asymptomatic case of omicron,” Coetzee responded: “We haven’t seen it.”
Secondly, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association also told MSNBC on Friday that she doesn’t recommend testing by individuals until, and if, symptoms arise from the variant. “There’s no reason to test if you don’t have symptoms,” she said.”
In another blow to the ego of “Science,” an April 2021 study published by the CDC saw Fauci’s statements contradicted yet again when the researchers found no asymptomatic transmission. In fact, they stated that their findings were in line with other studies and that asymptomatic transmission was unlikely to contribute to the spread of “Covid,” which torpedoed Fauci’s claims of 40-45% of transmission being due to those without symptoms:
Analysis of Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic Transmission in SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak, Germany, 2020
“We determined secondary attack rates (SAR) among close contacts of 59 asymptomatic and symptomatic coronavirus disease case-patients by presymptomatic and symptomatic exposure. We observed no transmission from asymptomatic case-patients and highest SAR through presymptomatic exposure. Rapid quarantine of close contacts with or without symptoms is needed to prevent presymptomatic transmission.”
Conclusions
“In this cluster of COVID-19 cases, little to no transmission occurred from asymptomatic case-patients. Presymptomatic transmission was more frequent than symptomatic transmission. The serial interval was short; very short intervals occurred.
The fact that we did not detect any laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic case-patients is in line with multiple studies (9–11).”
“In conclusion, our study suggests that asymptomatic cases are unlikely to contribute substantially to the spread of SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 cases should be detected and managed early to quarantine close contacts immediately and prevent presymptomatic transmissions.”
While Fauci’s claims of asymptomatic transmission were obviously unfounded, there were many asymptomatic cases being generated due to the fraudulent testing, as predicted by the CDC with pertussis. Thus, the perception that asymptomatic people were spreading a “virus” was easily conveyed to the public based upon unscientific data. We can see evidence of the massive amounts of healthy people testing positive for a “virus” by way of the mandatory mass testing data that came out of China throughout the “pandemic.” For instance, in March of 2022, Shanghai reported that over 70% of their cases were asymptomatic.
Why is Shanghai seeing so many asymptomatic Covid-19 infections?
“China is in the grip of an Omicron wave, but about 70 percent of cases reported in March have not had any symptoms.”
“Of the 103,965 locally acquired cases reported in March, only 3,046 had symptoms, according to National Health Commission data. And most of the asymptomatic infections were reported in Shanghai.”
By November of 2022, China was seeing upwards of 90% of their reported cases described as asymptomatic.
China Reports Third Consecutive Daily Record for New COVID Cases
“China reported 35,183 new COVID-19 infections on Friday, of which 3,474 were symptomatic and 31,709 were asymptomatic, the National Health Commission said on Saturday, setting a new high for the third consecutive day.
That compared with 32,943 new cases a day earlier — 3,103 symptomatic and 29,840 asymptomatic infections, which China counts separately.
Excluding imported cases, China reported 34,909 new local cases on Friday, of which 3,405 were symptomatic and 31,504 were asymptomatic, up from 32,695 a day earlier.”
By December 2022, China had given up on reporting their overwhelming amount of asymptomatic cases in their daily Covid counts:
China stops publishing asymptomatic COVID cases, reports no deaths
“China’s National Health Commission (NHC) will as of Wednesday stop reporting new asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as many people without symptoms no longer participate in testing, making it hard to accurately tally the total count, it said.”
There were many reasons provided for why China had so many asymptomatic cases but it easily boiled down to their untargeted mass surveillance testing of the entire population. It is clear that if one goes looking for cases, one will find them whether symptomatic or not. In China, it was very much the latter as they were seeing over 98% asymptomatic rates in Shanghai based upon their testing data. This goes against the idea that mass testing would find more symptomatic cases. As more healthy people were subjected to a fraudulent test, the more “healthy sick” people that could be added to the overall totals:
Explainer-Why are Shanghai’s COVID infections nearly all asymptomatic?
“The number of new confirmed community transmitted cases in the major financial hub of Shanghai reached 4,477 on Tuesday, a record high, but only 2.1% showed symptoms. The share of symptomatic cases over the previous seven days was around 1.6%.”
“Following are some explanations for why the rate of asymptomatic cases is so high.
Surveillance Testing
China is also the only major country to do mass, untargeted surveillance testing, which is bound to uncover more asymptomatic cases, although it could also be expected to reveal more symptomatic cases.
“Surely, high levels of testing will pick up more rather than less asymptomatic cases,” said Adrian Esterman, an expert in biostatistics at the University of South Australia.”
Mass testing with fraudulent tests led to a surge in healthy people being fraudulently labelled as asymptomatic carriers. It doesn’t matter that this very act of mass testing, as the CDC stated, increases the likelihood of false-positives (even though they are all false-positives). This perception of a massive number of “infections” of a “virus” regardless of any disease being present only helped to further solidify this illogical concept into the minds of a fearful public as if it were a scientifically proven fact when it is anything but. Ironically, despite their “test, test, test” mantra, the WHO actually claimed that its guidelines never recommended mass testing of asymptomatic people as was being done in China due to high costs involved and the lack of data of its effectiveness:
Analysis: Test, test, test? Scientists question costly mass COVID checks
“WHO guidelines have never recommended mass screening of asymptomatic individuals – as is currently happening in China – because of the costs involved and the lack of data on its effectiveness.”
Thus, we can see that there truly is nothing behind the claim of an asymptomatic carrier of disease other than the fraudulent label provided by technology never meant for diagnostic use, especially on such a massive scale as we witnessed during this “pandemic.” PCR can find anything in anyone and the result is utterly meaningless, as stated by inventor Kary Mullis:
“Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough with PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”
“[PCR is] just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That’s what it is. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick, it doesn’t tell you that the thing you’ve ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.”
The asymptomatic excuse was created in face of conflicting evidence by a man who wanted nothing more than to protect his prestige and his findings. Robert Koch was under pressure from a growing field of researchers who were either contradicting his own findings or making new discoveries of their own. Koch needed a way to ensure that his own research would stand up to scrutiny. Bending his own logical postulates in order to allow for the asymptomatic carrier to exist allowed for his contradictory findings, as well as those put forward by later researchers, to persevere in the face of any further challenges by opponents:
“Whatever I undertake these days, there will be a bunch of the envious and jealous at hand. They will try to challenge me and if they don’t succeed, try to make me turn away from my work in disgust.”
“Those happy days are gone when the number of bacteriologists was small and each of them could research wide areas in an undisturbed manner…So now in making the most modest and most careful delineation of a research area you will step on the first colleagues’ toes or bump into a second one unintentionally, or come too close to the third’s field of work. Before you even realise it, you are surrounded by opponents.”
It is clear to anyone looking at the idea of an asymptomatic carrier of disease logically that this very notion does not stand up under scrutiny. This nonsense was summed up brilliantly by the late great Canadian researcher David Crowe:
“Someone who believes in the virus can explain this conundrum to me.
“It has been strongly stated that asymptomatic people can be infectious for quite a long time (I can provide references if you don’t believe me, but this has been widely stated). This means that for quite a long time their body has a large quantity of virus particles, otherwise infection wouldn’t be possible. But their body doesn’t react to these particles, an immune reaction would at least result in a fever. But without an immune reaction they can never get rid of the virus particles. And how is it that virus particles running around the body of some people don’t do anything, whereas other people get seriously ill and die? How do all the virus particles in one person know that they shouldn’t mess with the cells to cause symptoms, whereas in another person they all go crazy and cause devastation?
“So we can conclude that (1) Asymptomatic people never get rid of the virus and therefore must be quarantined forever; (2) It’s the virus that’s deficient, not the person, which must mean there are multiple dramatically different strains; or (3) the viral theory is a load of BS.
“Please help me.”
-David Crowe March 31st, 2020
It is obviously number 3. The “viral” theory is a load of BS, and there is no such thing as a healthy sick person capable of transmitting disease. We have no reason to fear the walking healthy.
New research from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health in the U.S. shows that childhood exposure to the world’s most widely used weed killer, glyphosate, is linked to liver inflammation and metabolic disorder in early adulthood, which could lead to liver cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease later in life.
The study of 480 mother-child duos from the Salinas Valley, California—a rich agricultural region that locals call “The World’s Salad bowl”—was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The researchers, led by Brenda Eskenazi, director of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health’s Center for Environmental Research and Community Health (CERCH), examined the agricultural use of glyphosate near the homes of the mothers during pregnancy and in the children up to age 5 years; and also measured glyphosate and AMPA, a degradation product of glyphosate and amino-polyphosphonates, in their urine (collected from mothers during pregnancy and from children at ages 5, 14, and 18 years). They assessed liver and metabolic health in the children when they were 18 years old.
The authors reported that higher levels of glyphosate residue and AMPA in urine in childhood and adolescence were associated with higher risk of liver inflammation and metabolic disorders in young adulthood. In addition, the investigators found that agricultural glyphosate use near participants’ homes from birth and up through age five was associated with metabolic disorders at age 18. They reported that diet was likely a major source of glyphosate and AMPA exposure among study participants, as indicated by higher urinary glyphosate or AMPA concentrations among those adolescents who ate more cereal, fruits, vegetables, bread, and in general, carbohydrates.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
Glyphosate is used routinely on genetically modified crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat, as well as oats, legumes and other produce. It is also present in many lawn care products for home and commercial use.
The debate over the impact of glyphosate and AMPA on human health has been contentious. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports no evidence of human health risk. However, most previous glyphosate research has focused on glyphosate’s potential carcinogenicity. This is the first time that researchers have examined the potential connection between early life exposure to glyphosate—whose use has markedly increased over the past two decades—and metabolic and liver disease, both of which are increasing among children and young adults.
The impetus for this study came from Salinas physician Charles Limbach, who was alarmed by the growing number of local youths with liver and metabolic diseases. Dr. Limbach wondered if the increasing public exposure to glyphosate might be a factor. He teamed up with Paul J. Mills, a UC San Diego professor and author of a previous study showing an association between higher levels of glyphosate residue and AMPA in adults and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The two men then approached Professor Eskenazi, who is also the founder of the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), the longest running longitudinal birth cohort investigation on the health effects of pesticides and other environmental exposures among children in a farmworker community. The CHAMACOS researchers reached back into their “library” of frozen biological samples from mother and child dyads, along with more than 20 years of exposure data and health records.
“The study’s implications are troubling,” said Dr. Ana Maria Mora, a CERCH investigator and coauthor, “as the levels of the chemicals found in our study participants are within the range reported for the general U.S. population.”
Professor Eskenazi recommends that the use of glyphosate should be limited to essential use while further studies are conducted. “There’s no reason why anyone should be using glyphosate on their lawn,” she said. “It shouldn’t be sold over the counter in a nursery.”
The study published in Environmental Health Perspectives was funded by NIH, NIEHS, NIDA, and the EPA. Additional support came from The Solomon Dutka Fund in the New York Community Trust and The Westreich Foundation.
“…And he described it as a kill box and then I looked that up and it turned out it’s a military term for establishing a geographic space or three-dimensional area for a military attack by air and by surface to kill the people who are in it and then dismantle the kind of framework and move on to the next campaign.
And what the DoD and the World Health Organization intend to do and have gotten quite far in doing, but not completely reached their goals, is to set up the entire world as their geographic terrain, their target population as all the people in the world, the duration of their campaign as permanent…”
Transcript: Jan. 24, 2023 Legal Walls of the Covid-19 Kill Box Presentation
…And the basic idea is that public health has been militarized and the military has been sort of turned into a public health front or Potemkin Village such that they are using public health language and public health laws to actually carry out a military campaign.
And I would not call them DoD vaccines.
I would call them DoD weapons.
So, I call it the kill box because the first sort of lead that I had was Todd Callender’s January 30th 2022 interview on Elizabeth Lee Vliet’s podcast called Truth for Health.
And he described it as a kill box and then I looked that up and it turned out it’s a military term for establishing a geographic space or three-dimensional area for a military attack by air and by surface to kill the people who are in it and then dismantle the kind of framework and move on to the next campaign.
And what the DoD and the World Health Organization intend to do and have gotten quite far in doing, but not completely reached their goals, is to set up the entire world as their geographic terrain, their target population as all the people in the world, the duration of their campaign as permanent.
And the weapons that they’re using are, number one, informational. That’s the propaganda piece and the censorship piece.
Number two, psychological. That’s the fear and terrorism piece of telling people they need to be afraid all the time and they need to listen to the government.
And then the third piece is the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear [CBRN] weapons, which are called in their campaign pharmaceuticals, vaccines but are actually toxins and pathogens.
So I started, after I heard that interview — I had already been wondering what was going on but I started trying to track down some of the things Todd Callender talked about in his interview and figure out what the legal frameworks were and how they were set up and what the financial coercion mechanisms were.
My finding, which many other people have found in various, from various other angles, was that this project has been going on for centuries.
It’s basically globalist central bankers and lots of related organizations trying to get complete control of human beings through banking programs and through military programs.
And they kicked it into higher gear in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act, and then they kicked the public health aspect of it into higher gear starting in the 1930s and 40s.
Before the 1960s, they mostly did it through orchestrated armed conflicts and financial depressions and wars, which are very loud and messy and destructive to infrastructure.
And it makes it difficult for them to have plausible deniability and legal impunity for what they’re doing.
So in the mid-60s they got much better at inducing suicide and homicide by fraudulently labeling poisons as medicines or as vaccines or as prophylactics and telling people that submitting to that poisoning process was their civic duty. And that’s — we saw that in Covid with the shorthand for “Do this or you’re going to kill your grandma.”
And the way that the pharmaceutical method is primarily useful to them is that plausible deniability is much easier and legal impunity is a lot easier.
They can achieve the same goal of killing lots of people without their fingerprints being all over it.
I looked into the coercion cascades, mostly financial. I’m not going to go into a lot of detail with that but it starts at the top with the Bank for International Settlements and they can use their control of other federal central banks, access to financial systems, and then all the way down through state governments, national governments, local, municipal, school districts, hospitals. Everything.
If you comply with what they’re telling you to do as far as masking and testing, isolating yourself, taking injections, then you will get the financial access that you need to run your business or to have a job. And if you don’t comply, they can cut you off from those services. And so that is one of the main mechanisms through which the whole thing was carried out.
The U.S. Congress passed the law to set up the Chemical and Biological Warfare program. And in that law, which is 50 USC Chapter 32, there are very important key terms including “protective,” “prophylactic” and “defensive,” which is how they justified doing it.
They were using those words because the international community of ordinary non-insane people were concerned about biological and chemical weapons and they were working on international treaties to prohibit them.
And so they needed to build in loopholes and the loopholes they built in were that, “We’re not going to do biological and chemical research and weapons development except for protective or prophylactic or defensive purposes.”
And that’s a false characterization because all biologically active products are intrinsically aggressive and toxic and lethal. And that’s where we get disciplines or, that’s the thing that disciplines like toxicology, pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, drug-drug interactions, are all related to that fact: that everything that goes into the human body or any living body has some effects which can be toxic. So that was the way they tried to get around that.
And then the foundational Public Health Emergencies platform came out in 1983 when Congress passed the Public Health Service Act Amendment and that set up the Public Health Emergencies program under the 1944 law that had originally set up the Public Health Service. Which is a branch of the military.
And it also, in 1983, Congress and Reagan set up a 30 million dollar slush fund and that has continued. It’s got a different name now than it did then, [Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund] but it’s still being funded as recently as the NDAA and the Consolidated Appropriations Act in December of 2022.
The other thing they did in the 80s was set up the 1986 National Vaccine Program and National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
And that’s the one that set up the liability exemption for manufacturers and funneled anyone who was injured by a vaccine into this different compensation program. And that’s been used as a model since Covid started, for the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.
So the international piece, the cornerstone, is the World Health Organization, which is not a health organization. It’s a military organization, because of this merger that I’m talking about. It’s sort of the military arm of the one-world government that they’re trying to set up.
And they did a set of amendments to the International Health Regulations in 2005 that entered into force in June 2007. But basically the IHR, which are currently going through another round of amendments to make them worse, called on national governments to strengthen their own domestic laws and fund more programs for surveillance, testing, detention and quarantine — physical control and forced treatment — during international outbreaks of communicable diseases.
And the pretext that they used, because it was bankers who were doing this, was that they needed to protect international trade from disruptions caused by disease outbreaks. But the real intent was to set up these legal systems that transferred sovereign government from the nation-state to the World Health Organization and the BIS automatically when a “public health emergency of international concern” [PHEIC] has been declared.
And Congress and U.S presidents and the cabinet complied with that demand from the World Health Organization.
So two of the key years were 1997 and 1998. That was when the beginnings of the emergency use authorization program was set up and when they transferred the CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear] weapons stockpile from DOD, classification I guess, to HHS or CDC classification and control.
It was the same products, as far as I can tell. It was just a relabeling and a re-homing of them.
The EUA [Emergency Use Authorization], that was kind of a two-step thing. At the time the public was really upset about the use of unapproved vaccines for anthrax on military troops and the horrible adverse effects they were having.
So Congress passed a law in November [1997] to kind of revoke authorization for testing or using unapproved products on military troops. But three days later in a different law, made it so that the same programs could be done but the target population would be expanded from just military troops to the entire American population.
Then around 2000 to 2002, using the momentum from 9/11 and the anthrax attacks on Congress, they set up, through the statutes again, program management sort of structures. They did that through the 2000 Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, [and] through the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
And people talked about this at the time. It was construed as putting the country into a permanent state of war — the Global War on Terror — with every other country in the world. So there was no geographic limitation. There was no time limitation. There was no identified enemy other than “terror” and through that — I think other people figured this out at the time and then it sort of got suppressed — but it made everyone in the world into a presumptive combatant or enemy target.
So it was essentially a de facto covert global martial law act by the US government.
And then in those early 2000s we also got the PATRIOT Act, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act and the Homeland Security Act.
And those were just more of the merging of the DHS [Department of Homeland Security], the DOJ [Department of Justice], the HHS [Health and Human Services], the Department of Defense: all of the cabinet agencies.
So since then, 2003 to [2019] there have been lots and lots of executive orders on these things. Lots more statutes and appropriations. Lots of agency regulations, guidance reports that were circulated to state, local and tribal authorities and law enforcement so that they would know that under a public health emergency, they are subordinated to the federal military.
FDA [Food and Drug Administration] issued a lot of Guidance for Industry documents and sent
those out to the pharmaceuticals and to the academic organizations and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] to let them know about how FDA was going to handle experimental products like “vaccines,” “gene therapies,” “biologics.”
And they did more test runs like 2003 SARS, 2006 MERS and 2009 H1N1.
That brings us up to the Other Transactions Authority [OTA]. And this was revealed through Pfizer’s April 2022 motion to dismiss whistleblower Brook Jackson’s False Claims Act case.
They said, “This was not a vaccine. It was a DoD prototype and we were never obligated to do valid clinical trials. We were never obligated to prove safety or efficacy to anyone. We never had to get FDA authorization through any of the normal guidance for industry channels, because it was a prototype.”
On October 4th, 2022, the US government endorsed that view and filed a statement of interest and support for the motion to dismiss, basically saying that clinical trials were never material or necessary for DOD to pay the contractors for producing and distributing the bioweapons known as Covid-19 vaccines.
And so all of this became visible from 2020 to the present when the World Health Organization Secretary-General issued the “public health emergency of international concern” [PHEIC] at the end of January 2020 and the HHS secretary immediately triggered the domestic frameworks through the “determination that a public health emergency exists” followed by PREP Act declarations for “medical countermeasures,” which are the weapons.
And then Congress and the presidents — Trump and Biden — passed several additional Congressional acts funding and reinforcing the structure of the kill box and issued more executive orders under the Defense Production Act, under the Stafford Act, under the National Emergencies Act, to sort of build out the program.
Basically what it built is a huge public and private funding stream for military-led bioweapons research and use; eliminated informed consent by reclassifying people who could potentially be carrying a disease as presumptive national security threats, so that you could do anything you want to them because you’re on a war footing.
And to shield the products and weapons from product liability, to shield all the people involved from criminal liability and civil liability, and to shield the government funders, developers and regulators from criminal prosecution under the other laws — which are in place but are sort-of superseded by this framework — for use of bioweapons [18 USC 175] use of chemical weapons [18 USC 229], terrorism [18 USC 2331] things like that.
…I see it as a joint project between the U.S Department of Defense — a coordinating committee of that, the Federal Reserve, and the World Health Organization, and the Bank for International Settlements and the United Nations. But the World Health Organization is like a subsidiary of the U.N.
And there are things that the globalists do not like. They don’t like constitutions and charters. They don’t like the conflicting statutory frameworks around bioterrorism, war crimes, genocide, torture. They don’t like any of that stuff.
They don’t like when states and provinces and counties and towns pass their own laws protecting informed consent, protecting people from, for consumer safety. They actually put out a report in October 2022, State Laws Limiting Public Health Protections: Hazardous for Our Health. And there’s a whole bunch of things in there that states have started doing that the globalists do not like.
So doing more of those things, more bringing control back to the state, more using Article 10 of the Constitution, to reclaim state authority, those are all extremely useful.
And I do think it’s going to break. I think there’s going to be a tipping point and the criminal prosecutions are going to start.
And we have all the evidence. And every time they try to answer what we’re talking about by saying national security, they reinforce that this is the right way to go.
This is what they’re doing.
They’re doing war crimes.
Links:
Jan. 24, 2023 – DoD ‘Vaccines’ Press Conference. (L4Atv1, 2 hrs — 0:00:30 Sam Dube – Host Open; 0:03:04 Glen Macko – Overview of DoD Vaccines; 0:05:28 Katherine Watt – Legal: Laws, Contracts, FOIA, SEC; 0:24:39 Sasha Latypova – Manufacturing, Safety, Quality, Intent; 0:33:32 Phillip Altman – Conformation of Skills/Knowledge of Katherine & Sasha; 0:38:08 LTC (Ret) Pete Chambers – Vaccine observations in Military; 0:46:13 Dr Sam Dube – Guidance on “Going Local” for personal protection; 0:56:47 Q&A)
Apeel is a plant-based protective coating that “helps the produce you love stay fresh for longer.” It retains moisture within the produce and keeps oxygen out, thereby slowing the spoilage rate
Apeel Sciences was founded with a $100,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Other investors include the Rockefeller Foundation; the World Bank Group; Anne Wojcicki, co-founder and CEO of the personal genomics company 23andMe; and Susan Wojcicki, former CEO of YouTube
Apeel Science’s founder, James Rogers, Ph.D., is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum (WEF). He’s hailed COVID lockdowns as a model for future action on climate change. In other words, climate lockdowns. Rogers is also a WEF Young Global Leader
Avocados, cucumbers, lemons and limes, mandarins, oranges, organic apples, grapefruit and mangos are listed as produce that are currently being treated with this coating. Apeel-treated produce can be identified by looking for the “Apeel Protected” produce sticker
The coating, which cannot be washed off, likely contains toxic contaminants, including heavy metals and carcinogens, as well as trans fats and, potentially, harmful linoleic acid
Do you know what Apeel is? In an April 24, 2023, Twitter thread,1 Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director at the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), lists the many patents associated with this mysterious synthetic fruit coating, which is even approved for use on produce certified as USDA Organic.
According to Apeel Sciences’ website,2 Apeel is a plant-based protective coating that “helps the produce you love stay fresh for longer.” It retains moisture within the produce and keeps oxygen out, thereby slowing the spoilage rate.
Avocados, cucumbers, lemons and limes, mandarins, oranges, organic apples, grapefruit and mangos are listed as produce that are currently being treated with this coating.
Apeel-treated produce can be found in several large grocery chains in the U.S., including Walmart, Costco, Kroger, Trader Joe’s, Harps Food and many others,3,4 as well as stores in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland5 and Canada.6 As of October 2020, the company had also received regulatory approval in Kenya, Uganda, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Ecuador.7 Apeel-treated produce can be identified by looking for the following produce stickers.
Red Flags
One of the warning flags that makes me question the safety of this product is the fact that Apeel Sciences (a DBA or “doing business as” of aPEEL Technology Inc.) was founded with a $100,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.8 That’s never a good sign. I can’t think of a single harmless product Gates has ever willingly poured his money into.
Other investors include the Rockefeller Foundation;9 the World Bank Group; Anne Wojcicki, co-founder and CEO of the personal genomics company 23andMe; and Susan Wojcicki, former CEO of YouTube10 (she stepped down in mid-February 202311). By May 2021, Apeel Sciences was valued at $1.1 billion.12
Apeel Science’s founder, James Rogers, Ph.D., is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum (WEF). He’s also a WEF Young Global Leader. In 2018, Rogers stated his company would transition to using synthetic biology rather than extracting its ingredients from real food.
What’s more, Apeel Science’s founder, James Rogers, Ph.D., is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum13 (WEF). Among the articles he has written for the WEF is one in which he hailed COVID lockdowns as a model for future action on climate change.14 In other words, climate lockdowns.
Rogers is also a WEF Young Global Leader15 — yet another red flag. And I’m not the only one questioning the motives behind this product. “Is [Apeel] another Gates/WEF plot to destroy our health? Or a distraction from worse plots?” Baden-Mayer asks.16
Is Apeel Part of President Biden’s GMO Agenda?
One of the first things that came to mind when I heard of Apeel is that it fits right into President Biden’s recently launched agenda to turn the U.S. food supply over to the biotechnology industry. I reviewed this agenda in “Executive Order Lays Foundation for Lab-Created Foods.”
In summary, Biden’s September 2022 “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy”17 makes biotechnology a national priority across agencies and branches of government, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
In late March 2023, Biden expanded on this premise in a “Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing” report.18 One of the specific goals listed in this report is “Reducing food waste by 50% by 2030.” Reducing food waste to combat climate change19 is also the premise upon which Apeel Sciences was founded, according to its website.20
Further evidence that Apeel Sciences fits into Biden’s biotech-driven food agenda is its acquisition of ImpactVision, “a software company that uses AI and machine learning to track the chemical composition of food throughout its shelf life.”21 The company has also promised to “double down on technology” through other tech acquisitions.
While reducing food waste and making fresh produce last longer are certainly sane and worthy goals, the question is, how is this being done? Seeing how Apeel’s emergence broadly coincides with Biden’s official transition into biotech-led foods, can we trust that it’s a food-based product? Or is it biotech in disguise?
What Does Apeel’s GRAS Notice Tell Us?
According to Apeel Sciences:
“Apeel adds a little extra peel on produce to slow the rate of water loss and oxidation … That extra peel is completely edible, tasteless and safe to eat. A variety of plant feedstocks can be used to create our formulations, and luckily these ingredients exist in the peels, seeds and pulp of all fruits an vegetables …
We think of these materials as building blocks, restructuring them in a way that allows us to iterate on what nature created, making our solution into a coating that can be applied to produce. So while nature is our foundation and inspiration, innovation and technology are how we apply these ingredients …”
Apeel Sciences’ Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notice22 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, submitted in October 2019, gives us a little more. The primary component of the coating is said to be a mixture of monoacylglycerides derived from grapeseed.
An earlier GRAS Notice,23 filed in April 2016, further specifies that the two primary components of Apeel is 2,3-dihydroxypropyl palmitate and 1,3-dihydroxypropan-2-yl palmitate. (In this notice, the product is called “Edipeel,” but the website now refers to it as “Apeel,” like the company name.) According to the 2016 GRAS Notice No. 648:
“Monoacylglycerol derivatives are components of dietary fats commonly found in food and are also endogenously formed in the human body … It is well established and recognized that monoacylglycerides, the subject of the present GRAS assessment, are formed in the gastrointestinal tract from the generally accepted metabolic pathway for the breakdown of triglycerides (i.e., lipolysis).
The hydrolysis of triglycerides by lipases proceeds through the formation of monoacylglycerides (i.e., monoglycerides). The free fatty acids released can be further used for triglyceride synthesis.
Given the metabolic sequel described above, and by applying scientific procedures, it can be concluded that a mixture of monoacylglycerides would not pose any health hazards different from commonly consumed dietary oils derived from plants or animals.”
Toxic Residues
However, just because something is made from all-natural ingredients doesn’t mean the final product is perfectly safe. It depends on what you’ve done to those ingredients.
In this case, in Part 3 of the 2019 GRAS notice,24 under Maximum Limit of Residues, we find that the grape seed oil that makes up the basis of this product contains residues of ethyl acetate, heptane and palladium, which are processing aids, as well as the heavy metals arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.
According to Apeel, the levels of these toxic residues are either below levels deemed safe by the FDA, the EU and/or the Joint FAO/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). The following table lists the maximum daily exposure limits based on a maximum daily (90th percentile) intake of 218 milligrams per person per day.
While the levels indeed appear to be very low, I would argue that any exposure to toxic chemicals and metals is an unnecessary risk. To me, intentionally coating fresh, unadulterated foods with something that contains toxins, even if in minute amounts, only adds to the toxic burden. We’re already dealing with pesticide residues on conventional fruits and vegetables. This coating will simply lock those toxins in and add additional ones on top.
One of the biggest question marks is whether this coating can penetrate the peel, as the coating cannot be washed off. Can toxic risks be eliminated by peeling the produce, or is the flesh of the fruit or vegetable also contaminated with residues? We do not have the answer to that question, even though it’s one of the most important ones.
According to Apeel Sciences, the coating is “not expected” to penetrate beyond the peel into the fruit.25 Not expected? That means they have no idea. They’re simply guessing.
More Open Questions
In Apeel Sciences’ 2019 GRAS notice, they referenced a 2017 EFSA review26 of E471 (mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids) but didn’t mention that this review warned about the possible presence of epichlorohydrin,27 a carcinogen, in E471 manufactured using glycerol or glycidol as a starting material. Apeel uses monoglycerides of glycerol.
According to this review, “The panel considered that the presence of epichlorohydrin and/or glycidol in mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E 471) would need further assessment as their presence could raise a safety concern.” Palladium, cadmium and arsenic are also carcinogenic, so there are at least four different carcinogenic contaminants in this coating.
What’s more, a 2021 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) re-review28 of monoacylglycerides found that “the potential exposure to toxic elements resulting from the consumption of E 471 could be substantial.” As a result, the review panel suggests it may be necessary to lower existing limits for arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury.
Apeel Plans to Switch to Synthetic Biology
Baden-Mayer also wonders whether Apeel’s coating is made with synthetic biology. Why else is Apeel Sciences listed as one of the best-funded synbio companies?29 Don’t you have to produce synthetic biology products to be considered a synbio company?
In 2018, the Apeel founder himself also told Food Navigator that his company would soon transition to using synthetic biology rather than extracting its ingredients from real food.30 So, even if they haven’t made that transition yet, this certainly suggests they intend to, eventually.
Apeel’s GRAS notice also leaves this door open, stating that “monoacylglycerides can be created by breaking down a triglyceride by removing two of its fatty acids or they can be manufactured synthetically.”
Finally, Apeel Sciences’ board of directors includes Vijay Pande,31,32 an adjunct professor of bioengineering at Stanford, who also serves on the board of Scribe Therapeutics, a company specializing in CRISPR technology and protein engineering. Pande is also the founder of Globavir Biosciences, an infectious disease start-up.
So, it certainly appears as though Apeel Sciences is geared up to move into genetically engineered synthetic biology, if they haven’t made that leap already. The company is even directly connected to a company specializing in infectious disease therapeutics, and we now know there are efforts underway to turn foods into vaccine vectors.
Invisipeel — Another Type of Coating
As mentioned earlier, aPEEL Technology Inc. is producing the Apeel coating for fresh produce under the business name Apeel Sciences. But that’s not aPEEL’s only product.
In August 2015 — three years after the Gates Foundation launched Apeel Sciences with a $100,000 grant — the Gates Foundation committed nearly 10 times that amount, $985,161, to aPEEL Technology Inc., not Apeel Sciences, to develop a crop coating:33
“… to extend the shelf-life of crops without refrigeration and protect them from being eaten by pests by developing a molecular camouflage that uses cutin from plant extracts to create an edible, ultrathin barrier on the crop surfaces.”
Cutin is a waxy polymer and a primary component of the plant cuticle. It covers all aerial surfaces of all plants. It’s insoluble and therefore has a waterproof quality. The Apeel product described in the GRAS applications filed by Apeel Sciences do not mention anything about cutin, so this is a different product.
According to Weston A. Price,34 this product is called Invisipeel, and is applied by growers while the crop is still in the field. Apeel is applied after harvest once the produce is ripe. In short, we may be eating food that has been coated not just once but twice.
Is Apeel Just Another Trans Fat Alternative?
Aside from potentially toxic contaminants, others who have investigated Apeel have highlighted other problems and warn that monoglycerides and diglycerides are a “go-to replacement for deadly trans fats.”35
In 2016, the FDA withdrew the GRAS status of trans fat as it was strongly linked to fatal heart attacks. Yet here we are again. Out with one toxic fat and in with another. The FDA ban doesn’t apply to mono- and diglycerides, even though they contain trans fat, because they’re classified as emulsifiers rather than lipids.
Mono- and diglycerides are byproducts from the processing of oil. In the case of Apeel, the monoacylglycerides are derived from grapeseed oil, which is loaded with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), including the highly problematic linoleic acid, which I’m convinced is one of the primary drivers of chronic disease. You can learn more about this in “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health.”
So, basically, what we’re looking at here is a way to turn fruits and vegetables, known for their beneficial impacts on heart health, into a source of harmful emulsifiers that increase your risk of heart disease, heart attack and stroke. This starts to feel even more diabolical when you consider that the Great Resetters of the world are pushing to replace meat and animal products with plant foods, which they are simultaneously making more toxic and less healthy.
Commonsense Ways to Make Produce Last Longer
As noted by Moms Across America, there are far safer, natural ways to extend the shelf life of your fruits and vegetables. Below are a few of their tips.36 Additional suggestions can be found in Almanac.com’s fruit and vegetable storage guide.37
“Take avocados for example … Once you bring them home and they get to their ‘sweet spot,’ you can store them in the refrigerator for up to two weeks. You can also freeze them whole, sliced, in chunks, or mashed. They will keep for three to six months.
Heavenly, succulent strawberries can be briefly soaked in a vinegar and water solution to be cleaned thoroughly. Let them dry completely, and store in a mason jar (with a paper towel at the bottom) in the refrigerator for three weeks or more. Sweet, colorful apples can be stored in a cool, humid place such as a basement, garage, or refrigerator for up to five months.”
I have also found that if you purchase avocados on sale you can select rock hard fruits and store them in the fridge for around one month. You only need to take them out of the fridge for around three days before they ripen.
It’s worth mentioning, in closing, that the best way to gauge the freshness of a fruit or vegetable is to inspect it visually. If it’s been sealed shut with a coating that delays the decay process, you can’t tell how long that produce has been sitting around.
What’s more, if the produce is coated before it’s ripe, will it ever fully ripen? Many fruits and vegetables are picked and shipped before they’re fully ripened. They ripen en route. This is one of the reasons why so many fruits are tasteless and don’t have the right texture. Will Apeel make this situation better or worse? Personally, I won’t be buying Apeel-treated produce, and if enough of us refuse to buy it, they’ll stop using it.
Modern industrial farming has created a food production model that is not only unhealthy, but unsustainable as well. The reliance on GMO-derived products and the toxic chemicals used alongside them are destroying the environment and the public’s health.
To combat the encroaching influence of big GMO companies, I encourage you to support farmers and businesses that practice organic, biodynamic and regenerative farming. This food production model benefits both humans and the environment because it:
Rebuilds topsoil by sequestering atmospheric carbon above ground and below ground
Protects water sources, runoff, and reduces water demand by increasing moisture in the soil
Promotes nutrition and health through nutrient-dense, organic food
Minimizes the risk of foodborne illnesses and drug-resistant disease by avoiding the use of industrial chemicals
Restores damaged ecosystems through regenerative methods
Helps local farmers by giving them larger profits compared to industrial counterparts
How can you play your part? The solution is actually quite simple — buy healthy, organic food. One of the best things you can do is to purchase your food from small-business farmers. To help you in your search, I recommend visiting these websites that point you to non-GMO food producers in your area:
I also urge you to support and donate to organizations like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as they are leading the way to promoting regenerative agriculture and sustainable farming practices. By advocating the innovative campaigns of these organizations, you are contributing to the future of regenerative agriculture.
Permaculture is an ecological design system focused on creating sustainable human habitats while promoting the preservation of natural resources.
It’s a philosophy.
The term “permaculture” was coined in the 1970s.
Permaculture has a few design principles that aim to create self-sustaining ecosystems that require minimal human intervention.
Diversity and abundance are key, as Jim Gale often explains.
You don’t have a snail infestation; you have a duck deficiency.
Jim Gale
The system involves creating a network of interconnected components such as plants, animals and structures that work together to produce food.
It’s about mimicking natural ecosystems.
Monoculture reminds me of a barren desert.
Not only is it pretty, but it is also pretty anti-establishment because it can have a significant impact on mega-farming which relies on large-scale monoculture practices that deplete soil nutrients and harm local ecosystems.
By using permaculture principles, farmers can create diverse ecosystems that produce food while preserving natural resources.
Permaculture can also lead to more resilient farming practices that can withstand droughts, floods, and other extreme weather conditions.
Jim has been on my show before, but this time he gave me a type of beginner’s guide.
Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford have founded an organization to address the forced treatments patients receive when they’re hospitalized for COVID-19, but the same strategy can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well
The Caregivers and Consent document they created is an “advance decision” document. So, the moment you enter the hospital, the hospital staff know what they can and cannot do to you; they are legally required to respect your current care decisions. And unlike an Advance Directive (which only kicks in when you are incapacitated) the Caregivers and Consent document goes into effect immediately
It’s important to complete and notarize your Caregivers and Consent document BEFORE you ever need to go to the hospital
Make sure you send the completed, signed and notarized document to the CEO of the hospital in two ways: (1) via a professional courier (one that specializes in delivering legal documents); and (2) via the Postal system with certified mail, return receipt requested. The CEO is responsible for all legal business relating to the hospital, including the medical records, so the CEO, not your attending physician, is the one whose responsibility it is to get your consent document entered into your electronic medical record
Make at least 10 copies of the signed, notarized document and keep one copy on your person, in case you ever have an accident or acute illness requiring hospitalization. Also provide copies to the attending physician and nurse once hospitalized
Also, should you become hospitalized (and therefore unable to personally send the document to the CEO), designate a family member or friend to send your Caregivers and Consent document on your behalf. Additional recommendations to ensure your safety are included
In this interview, Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford detail how you can protect yourself from one of the top contributors to premature death, namely conventional hospital care. The key here is to understand what the dangers are and take proactive measures to guard yourself and your family from them.
Nearly 10 years ago, I interviewed Dr. Andrew Saul, author of “Hospitals and Health: Your Orthomolecular Guide to a Shorter, Safer Hospital Stay,” in which he details how to minimize your risk of being a victim of a medical error.
First and foremost, Saul recommended making sure you have a patient advocate, someone who can speak on your behalf if you’re incapacitated and make sure you’re receiving the correct medication and treatment. During COVID, however, family or friends were not allowed into the hospital, and patients were routinely bullied into treatments they did not want or consent to.
The good news is, Bartlett and Crawford have developed a legal document that, when served to the hospital in the proper way, can ensure that your medical wishes are honored. By eliminating any confusion about your consent (or denial of consent), this document can literally save your life.
Why ProtocolKills.com Was Created
Bartlett and Crawford have founded an organization to address the lethal and, in many cases, forced treatments patients receive when they’re hospitalized for COVID-19, but the same strategy can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well. Crawford explains:
“I created a website called ProtocolKills.com. This came after I was in the hospital with COVID. In the process of going to the hospital, I was denied informed consent and was completely unaware of some of the things they were doing to me. I was given five rounds of remdesivir, which nearly took my life, and I did not even know that I was being poisoned at the time …
During that time in the hospital, I went from thinking I was going to go home after I got oxygen to actually feeling like that I was going to die. I was almost certain I was going to die after being given just the first dose of remdesivir …
[And then there was] the constant push for the vaccine in the hospital, the harassment for not getting vaxxed, and the fact that I was given medication without my knowledge at all, which led me to start the website to not only inform people about what was going on, but [as] a platform to allow other victims who were not as fortunate as me.
Many of them, the majority of them, did not make it out alive. So, it’s a platform for them to share their story. We have over 250 stories on there about what they faced in the hospital. We really wanted to get this information out there to the public, but we also wanted to give a solution, not just to scare people. And that’s where I ended up meeting Laura.”
National Hospital Hostage Hotline to the Rescue
Bartlett continues:
“Before I met Greta at the beginning of COVID, in early 2020, I started helping my brother, Dr. Richard Bartlett, who had a protocol utilizing inhaled budesonide steroid as part of his protocol to treat COVID early. We also found it very effective once people were in the hospital to help reverse [the infectious process] and also the scarring and the inflammation of the lungs.
There are instances where it even helped people who were on ventilators as long as 30 days come off the ventilator and go home. So, I was helping him get that message out in early 2020. I’m not a doctor. I’m not a nurse. I’m just somebody who could help get that known around the world. My background is in media PR …
In the process, people who knew my brother, knew me, started reaching out to both of us with stories that they were in the hospital and they were having a hard time getting the doctor to respect their right to informed consent. It was an overwhelming number of instances where people just felt like they were being bullied or coerced, that their right to try budesonide, for instance, was just dismissed.
And it was almost as if informed consent didn’t exist. But in fact, it never went away. Even during the COVID shielding for hospitals, informed consent between the doctor and the patient never went away. You always had the right to informed consent.
So that’s where my work started. In the process, since there were so many people reaching out for help, I thought, ‘Well, why doesn’t somebody come up with a way for people to quickly access some information of what their rights are and their patient rights?’
So, I started a nationwide hotline, called the Hospital Hostage Hotline [call or text 888-c19-emergency, or 888-219-3637]. It’s still in effect. I still get calls from all over the country. And I’ve been able to help people who went in even for non-COVID reasons like a urinary tract infection that was [also] diagnosed as COVID, and they were being pushed towards a protocol and told they couldn’t leave the hospital.
They needed to know they could, that they always had the right to leave AMA — Against Medical Advice — if that’s what they chose. They also have the right to either consent or not consent to things and it should be respected. I realized that one of the biggest tools for getting that informed consent notice to the doctor was not to just verbally say it, but to have it in writing. These aren’t my original ideas.
I actually had a hospital insider reach out … somebody who had been in the system and knew how to navigate the system at a high level in administration, give me some tips and tools on how to navigate the hospital system to make sure that informed consent was not only documented and delivered effectively to get into the electronic medical record, but also, what their basic patient rights were and how to advocate for them.”
You Have the Right to Leave
One drawback of signing an AMA is that insurance won’t pay for your treatment. That threat will often keep patients in the hospital because they’ll have to pay out of pocket. So, it can be used against you.
“Profit has been a big factor in a lot of suffering,” Bartlett says. “Patients were afraid to leave because they were told, like in the instance of a gentleman that I was helping in New Jersey who went in for a urinary tract infection.
He was an elderly man. This was early 2020. They quickly tested him for COVID and started him on that road towards a ventilator. And they told him flat out, ‘If you leave, none of this will be covered by insurance.’ So that was a big factor.”
Hospitals may also misinform you about your AMA rights, as we’ve seen repeatedly during COVID. More often than not, the hospital’s reluctance to release a patient has to do with protecting its revenues. Bartlett offers the following story to illustrate:
“Somebody that I was helping advocate for said the doctor actually said to them, ‘You cannot leave.’ This person was 15 or 16 days into their COVID diagnosis and they were feeling better. They were likely not COVID positive …
That’s where the name of the hotline came from. They actually felt like hostages. That’s what they were reporting to me. ‘I feel like I’m held prisoner.’ But in fact, they always had the right to leave a hospital whenever they chose to. It’s not up to the doctor when they can leave. They have to make that medical choice for themselves, whether or not they feel like they can leave.”
A Novel Consent Document That Can Save Your Life
Patients clearly need a way to put themselves back in the driver’s seat, and the novel medical consent document Bartlett and Crawford created, available on OurPatientRights.com, is the most powerful way I’ve seen so far to do that. As explained by Bartlett:
“What we learned from this whole ordeal over the last couple of years is that there was a need for a novel document that did not exist, to our knowledge, that covers your written consent. A document that documents your current consent, not an advance directive that kicks in after you’re incapacitated.
Before you go into the hospital, write down your consent wishes so that everybody involved in your care within the hospital will have eyes on it because it’s put into your electronic medical record. It’s notarized. It’s signed before you go in. That’s the key. So do it while you have full capacity.
It’s a novel strategy. I’m so grateful to the hospital insider who saw the problem and helped us navigate the system, so that we have an insider’s perspective on how to do this to keep people safe.”
As noted by Crawford, while COVID-19 may seem like a distant memory, people are still being hospitalized and diagnosed with COVID, and are being held hostage by a hostile medical system seemingly intent on milking them for all their worth, until death, if need be.
This is where filing a written medical consent form can help save your life. No doctor can override your written decision (consent) declining certain medications or treatments. Verbal communication is not enough. It must be in writing, notarized and delivered in a manner that formally serves the hospital and puts their physicians on notice.
General Consent Vs. Specific Consent
As explained by Bartlett, when you enter a hospital, you must sign a general consent authorization form. This is basically a contract between you and the hospital. Since you have bodily autonomy, they need your consent before they can do anything to you.
Typically, the general consent form authorizes hospital staff to test, treat and care for you in whatever way they see fit — and when a patient signs the general consent authorization, physicians feel justified that they can implement a hospital protocol without further explaining the risks, benefits or alternatives of that protocol to the patient.
Now, if you’re well enough to read the entire document, and see something in there that you don’t agree with, you can strike the sentence or paragraph and initial it, to indicate that you do not consent to that specific detail. However, that still doesn’t offer you much protection.
What you need is a much more specific document where you detail the types of treatments you consent to and the ones you don’t. You need to carve out a niche from the general consent form that specifies exactly what you do (and do not) consent to. And you need to be clear. Fortunately, the Caregivers and Consent document carves out that niche to communicate clearly to all physicians your exact consent wishes.
“You need a written consent document that, in addition to just the general consent, is a contract between you and the doctor, so he knows, he’s put on notice, what it is that you absolutely do not consent to. For instance, a COVID injection, if that’s your wishes,” Bartlett explains.
“They have a code of ethics, the American Medical Association guidance to physicians, per the ethics opinion 2.1.1, that when the patient surrogate has provided specific written consent, the consent form should be included in the record. This is key. Write it down. You don’t need an attorney. You don’t need any fancy training. You don’t need to be a doctor, don’t need to be a nurse.
You can write it down, and then, when you deliver it in our specific way — and it’s very important how you deliver it — it gets put into the electronic medical record for everybody to see. Now you’ve got receipts, that if you do something against consent, it’s intentional. OK?
So, here’s the website you can find a template for that.
What you’ll see there are two PDF documents. [On one of the PDFs there are two pages.] One is the actual template, the other one is instructions on how to deliver it. And you can edit the document by the way. You can write your own. It’s just a template. But there’s also very specific instructions on how you are going to deliver this so it’s not disregarded.
Here’s what you’re going to see in the document. ‘I [your name] advise all physicians, nurses, and other caregivers that this Caregivers and Consent document reflects my current wishes for my care and are carefully planned and intentional wishes.’ That’s very important because it’s current. It’s not going to kick in when I’m incapacitated.”
Your Written Consent Must Be Respected
Advance medical directives don’t kick in until or unless you’re incapacitated, so that’s another completely different kind of document reflecting current consent wishes. What Bartlett and Crawford have created is an “advance decision” document. So, the moment you enter the hospital, they know what they can and cannot do to you. And, they are legally required to respect your written directives. The following section of the document reads:
“Receipt of this Caregivers and Consent document by the hospital serves as notice that I will report to the Medical Board any physician who violates my carefully planned and intentional wishes that are based upon my deeply held religious and spiritual beliefs and are delineated within this Caregivers and Consent document.”
This puts the doctor on notice. This isn’t a threat. It’s merely a factual statement that if anyone goes against your wishes, they’re intentionally disregarding your consent. Once it’s in your electronic medical record, they can’t say they didn’t know that you did not consent to a specific test, drug, vaccine or procedure. So, ignoring your written consent is then actually a criminal offense akin to assault and battery. It’s also medical malpractice.
“Let me tell you, there are good physicians and they are clamoring for something like this,” Bartlett says. “They are thankful there is something they can use to push back against administration and say, ‘I’m not going to violate this person’s written consent. I’m not going to do this to this person …’
With these documents, if you are blatantly refusing to honor a patient’s wishes and religious beliefs, and you’re doing it against these documented legal forms, then you risk losing your license altogether as a physician and never working in medicine again …
But you need it in writing … and it needs to be served in a very specific way. You need to do this before you ever go to the hospital. Have it handy in case you get yourself into a predicament, like a multi-car pileup on the highway and an ambulance transports you to the hospital. The time to have this done is before there’s a problem.”
The document also specifies that “All items in this Caregivers and Consent document shall remain in effect unless I choose to revoke in writing; no one else may alter or amend this Caregivers and Consent document.” So there can be no misunderstanding. Your doctor or nurse cannot claim you gave implied consent because you mumbled something incoherent in your sleep. In other words, if you didn’t change your consent wishes in writing, you didn’t change your consent wishes. Period.
What’s in the Caregivers and Consent Document Template
As mentioned, you can customize your Caregivers and Consent document any way you like. But to give people a starting point, the template, available on OurPatientRights.com, includes things like:
“I do not consent to the use of medications without my being informed of each medication’s risks, benefits and alternatives before they are ordered. Only after that information is communicated shall I choose to either grant consent or to not grant consent for each and every medication that is ordered.”
“I do not consent to receiving any vaccine or booster for COVID-19 or COVID-19 variant.”
“I do not consent to receiving the seasonal flu vaccine.”
“I request and consent to the use of 1 mg of budesonide via nebulizer every 4 to 6 hours for COVID-19 or COVID-19 variant diagnosis with respiratory issues.”
If you want to, you could change the verbiage to state that you do not consent to ANY vaccine. If you have allergies, add that to the list. Personally, I would recommend adding the following dietary notice:
“I do not consent to receiving ANY processed food, such as high-fructose corn syrup or seed oils. The only acceptable oil for me is butter, ghee, beef tallow or coconut oil. Acceptable forms of protein would be eggs, lamb, bison, beef or non-farmed seafood; but they must not be prepared with seed oils. If the hospital is unable to provide this food for me, my family or friends will bring it for me.
Additionally, I do not consent to not being able to take my normal supplements while in the hospital.”
I would strongly recommend that you integrate this additional clause because it’s a stealth form of abuse. These kinds of foods can only impair your effort to get well, no matter what your problem is. You may also want to add a notice saying you do not consent to receive blood donations from COVID-19 vaccinated donors, and that all blood donations must be from donors confirmed to have not received any COVID-19 vaccines.
Important: Follow Proper Procedure!
As mentioned multiple times in this interview, it’s crucial to follow the proper procedure. Here’s a summary of the necessary steps:
1.Complete your customized and personalized Caregivers and Consent form BEFORE you ever need to go to the hospital.
2.Get the form notarized. Make sure you sign the form in front of the notary.
3.Send the completed, signed, notarized form to the CEO of the hospital in two ways: (1) via a professional courier (one that specializes in delivering legal documents); and (2) via the Postal system with certified mail, return receipt requested.
The CEO is responsible for all legal business relating to the hospital, including the medical records, so the CEO, not your attending physician, is the one whose responsibility it is to get your consent forms entered into your electronic medical record.
4.Make at least 10 copies of the signed, notarized form and keep one copy on your person or in your wallet or purse, and another in the glove compartment of your car, in case you ever have an accident. Also provide copies to family or friends. If you happen to be hospitalized before you’ve had the chance to send the documents, have one of them follow the delivery procedure outlined on the General Instructions form.
5.Once you’re hospitalized, you or one of your contacts will give one copy to your attending physician and another to your nurse, and inform them that this document is already in your electronic medical record, or that the hospital will be served the documents shortly. Distribute additional copies to other care providers as needed.
6.Also, upon hospitalization, request to see your electronic medical record to make sure your Caregivers and Consent form has been entered. It is your right to see your electronic medical record, and it’s available through an online portal, so don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Also routinely check your medical record (or have your patient advocate do it for you) to make sure your wishes are being followed and that you’re not being given something you’ve denied consent for.
Crawford notes:
“What we’ve experienced using these documents is a complete change in the attending physician, from being aggressive and maybe trying to push you, to being very helpful and efficient. Once they receive these documents, they just do a 180. As a matter of fact, one patient’s brother told me he’s getting treated better than he’s ever been treated at a hospital before.”
Again, having this document in your medical record virtually guarantees that they cannot harm you by doing something you don’t agree with. Of course, some psychopath might ignore your directives, but they’ll have to pay a hefty price, as they’re guaranteed to lose a malpractice suit and be stripped of their medical license. The legal consequences are so severe that the person doing it would have to be beyond irrational.
Keep in mind that while you can request and consent to certain treatments, such as ivermectin, for example, this document CANNOT force your doctor or hospital to use that treatment. They can still refuse to administer something you’ve consented to.
They cannot, however, administer something that you’ve declined consent for. The ace up your sleeve at that point is that you can still sign out AMA (against medical advice), get out alive, and seek desired treatment elsewhere. Getting out alive is the key goal.
More Information
Again, here are the three resources created by Bartlett and Crawford:
ProtocolKills.com — Here you can find a hospital protocol for COVID, information about remdesivir, patient rights information, alternative health care options and patient testimonies
OurPatientRights.com — Here you can download the template for the Caregivers and Consent document and general instructions
In closing, please share this information with everyone you know. Bring it to your church, synagogue and local community groups. Everyone needs to know they can secure their patient right to informed consent and how to do it so that their wishes cannot be ignored. This is the most effective way to empower yourself when it comes to your medical care. So please, help spread the word.
It’s worth asking why now, because by any objective measure, there has been no virus activity worthy of the words ‘pandemic’ or ‘emergency’ for a very long time. The answer seems to be the failure of Corona to return in the winter, as long-absent influenza succeeded in suppressing Corona infections (in accordance with my prediction), and the increasing disinterest of the public in obtaining official test results has put all virus statistics in the toilet. They’re ending it now, in other words, not because anything on the ground has changed, but because they no longer have any hope of the scary headlines necessary to keep the machine up and running.
As in the beginning, so in the end: The pandemicists will give you always and forever the maximum virus suppression and the maximum vaccination that is politically possible. Not what is prudent, or what has any hope of achieving anything, or what has evidence in its favour, but simply the maximum that they can give you, for as long as they can give it to you. That is a reason in itself, never to let the pandemicists anywhere near the levers of power ever again.
With the Covid vaccination campaigns concluded, the European Union is sitting on an enormous vaccine surplus – and hundreds of millions more doses are expected to arrive this year and next… Because they are not needed, EU member states have been trying for months to retroactively adjust the contracts, without much success.
One country has now lost patience in the face of the tough negotiations, and is venting its anger. The Polish Health Minister Adam Niedzielski on Tuesday sent a letter to the “shareholders of Pfizer” [which] says that the delivery of hundreds of millions of doses planned by Pfizer despite a “stable epidemic situation” is “completely pointless.”
The excess doses can no longer even be given away; there is no government “interested” in Covid vaccines, said the minister …
Niedzielski also breaks prior agreements on the confidentiality of talks between governments, pharmaceutical companies and the mediating EU Commission … [and] reveals what Pfizer is offering the states: They’ll reduce the total quantity of the outstanding orders, in exchange for half the price of each dose that is not produced: “That’s a charge for literally non-existent doses that were never produced and will never be produced and that don’t cost Pfizer a penny.”
No wonder there has been such urgency to keep these negotiations secret.
Niedzielski writes that he is “extremely” sorry, but he is forced to conclude that the company is not prepared to show “a satisfactory level of flexibility and make any realistic proposals.” … The health minister called on Pfizer to “live up to its responsibility towards EU citizens and member states and work in good faith towards a solution that is fair for everyone.” Poland wants to continue to believe that the pharmaceutical industry is not only about money.
If germ “theory” is wrong, there is no sense in pursuing alleged disease-causing sub-microscopic organisms. That’s why the germ theorists don’t want us scratching beneath the surface of the so-called ‘science‘ involving bacteria either.
Let’s have a look at why the concept of “pathogens” is a complete fail on their own terms from Koch’s Postulates through to some modern day animal experiments.
The residents of two Massachusetts towns on Monday voted to put a hold on 5G cell tower projects until the Federal Communications Commission completes a court-ordered review of the latest science related to the effect of radiofrequency radiation emissions on human health and the environment.
The residents of two Massachusetts towns on Monday voted to put a hold on 5G cell tower projects until the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) completes a court-ordered review of the latest science related to the effect of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emissions on human health and the environment.
The residents in Sheffield and Great Barrington said they will consider all applications from telecommunications companies seeking to build wireless infrastructure in their town as “incomplete” until the FCC reviews “studies from scientists independent from industry” who have “fully investigated” the “safety” of 5G small cell technology and until the agency has updated” its RF radiation regulations based on the review’s findings.
The citizens passed this warrant — listed as article 32 in Sheffield and article 38 in Great Barrington — at their annual town hall meeting.
In the warrant, the residents cited two separate rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that mandated the FCC conduct such a review and noted that the FCC has failed to comply with the court orders.
The District of Columbia Circuit in a 2019 ruling told the FCC it had to follow National Environmental Policy Act guidelines by conducting an environmental impact review for 5G small cell infrastructure projects.
The same court ruled in 2021 that the FCC had not adequately reviewed the scientific evidence regarding the safety of RF radiation and 5G for humans and the environment — and that it must do so.
By failing to comply with the two court orders, the FCC has failed to adequately show that 5G radiation is safe for the environment or humans, according to Cecelia Doucette, a technology safety educator and the director of Massachusetts for Safe Technology.
The agency needs to thoroughly examine the scientific evidence of harm and update its RF exposure guidelines, Doucette told The Defender.
“The harm from wireless radiation is happening right now,” she said. “It’s up to us as citizens to create the change and we are so inspired by the hard work the voters in Sheffield and Great Barrington have put in.”
She added:
“Every citizen should feel empowered to look at the science, work with their neighbors and towns, and put protections in place. It’s just common sense once you know the facts.
“Don’t wait for someone else to fix this for you, electropollution is too dangerous for us, our children and our pollinators.”
Nina Anderson, president of the Scientific Alliance for Education (S.A.F.E.) — a non-profit focused on “educating the public on health issues that may or may not be public knowledge” — called the vote “the first step in trying to protect our towns from intrusion by industry who has not complied with the court order and not proven this technology is safe.”
The court in its 2021 ruling said, “The FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment … The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms.”
“When citizens begin to look more deeply at the issues regarding wireless safety, including the conclusions that the Circuit Court reached in its 2021 ruling against the FCC, they realize that there is a problem.”
Burke said she was “so grateful to the sincere individuals who have been working behind the scenes in these towns and in others to facilitate conversations supporting necessary policy changes.”
Vote coincides with 1,000 days of Pittsfield residents’ battle with Verizon
The citizens of Sheffield and Great Barrington — both of which are agricultural communities — wanted “to be convinced that their crops will not suffer if the myriad of 5G transmitters negatively affect the bees,” according to a S.A.F.E press release.
The release stated:
“Their [the citizens’ warrant asks for input from scientists who are independent from the telecom industry who can give an unbiased report.
“The petitioners related telecom’s rollout of 5G without sufficient research as similar to big tobacco’s promotion of cigarettes. It was years later and many cancer deaths before regulations were enacted limiting smoking in public places and adding warning labels to packaging.”
Voters “spoke out” saying they wanted to know that a similar fate would not come to pass for those suffering from electro-hypersensitivity syndrome “with no recourse to remove the transmitters causing the problem,” the release added.
Monday’s vote coincided with residents of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, marking 1,000 days of being driven from their homes by a Verizon cell tower they allege made them sick.
The residents — who live in the “Shacktown” section of Pittsfield and are represented in court by lawyers supported by CHD — want Verizon to remove or relocate the tower and currently await a judge’s ruling on whether to allow their lawsuit to go forward or grant Verizon’s motion to dismiss the suit.
Some guests have argued why there is no such thing as an immune system.
Some guests have thought about alternative causes of illness.
The point is that there are good reasons to question the conventional model of “Rockefeller medicine”. Much of it doesn’t make sense and desperately requires critique.
Blindly believing what the pharmaceutical industry, governments and media preach from their pulpits, after observing the Covid™ scam, is utterly ludicrous. I have become an allopathic atheist. An apostate.
Climate science is drowning in pseudoscience and so is virology.
Andrew Kaufman, who has been on my show a few times before, joined me for the following conversation of conversations.
A beginner’s guide to Germ Theory.
He approached important concepts, including
virus definitions, isolation and fake existence claims;
understanding contagion and “catching” something from somebody;
bacteria and germs in general;
why all vaccines are toxic;
what is disease, actually;
shifting paradigms about health and wellbeing and
the significance of bringing down this house of germs cards.
All images are original artwork of Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
Dangerous Nanoparticles Hidden in Vaccines & Our Environment”: “Nanoparticles Are Extremely Reactive, Can Hardly Be Degraded, and Disrupt and Destroy All Tissues They Come in Contact With.”
“Nanoparticles Are Extremely Reactive, Can Hardly Be Degraded, and Disrupt and Destroy All Tissues They Come in Contact With.”
TCTL editor’s note: As a service to our readers, this article, written in German, has been translated to English with the aid of translation software. Please understand that this is not a perfect translation. I do not speak German. However, the key concepts come through very clearly.
The work of Stefan Lanka and ‘Next Level – Knowledge Reconsidered’ challenges the entire paradigm around western medicine’s understand of biology (and the make-believe “science” of virology).
It is vitally important that we come to understand the danger of this long-planned, destructive transformation and total control of humanity and all living beings. We need to awaken to the truth about our own biology and the totality of our multi-dimensional existence. The quality of life for all who inhabit earth depends on sharing real knowledge, questioning the old paradigms built on lies, and the rise of empowered humanity. ~ Kathleen
As has already been learned, the new corona vaccines come with accompanying substances declared as “additives”, the so-called nanoparticles.
Although their high risk potential has already been sufficiently investigated in the past, this is accepted with approval. No consideration is given to the health of the individual, and even possible long-term consequences for those affected are accepted.
By means of continuously running the epidemic mind-frame through clever propaganda, expensive advertising and the generation of social pressure, one pulls out all the stops to get each individual to “roll up their sleeves”.
Yes – to indulge in this vaccine!
One protects even scarcity, in order to awaken needs in the people. And all this despite the fact that it cannot be called effective, let alone safe.
In this article, I share with you various information revolving around the issue of nanoparticles, and can only appeal to your sanity to keep your hands (arm 😉 ) off this vaccine and let others know this as well.
In a nutshell:
Real biochemistry: nanoparticles are extremely reactive, can hardly be degraded and disrupt and destroy all tissues they come in contact with. The body reacts to this disruption for repair purposes by forming globulins, which are misinterpreted by conventional medicine as antibodies.
Why do those responsible claim that nanoparticles are necessary as an additive?
Of special importance are the RNA vaccines, which are additionally equipped with nanoparticles.
Nanoparticles as mini-transporters. But making the right RNA molecule does not mean you have a working vaccine.
” It is difficult to get the RNA into the human body cells,” says Cichutek.
Gene shuttles with nanoparticles are supposed to solve the problem. Measuring only a few millionths of a centimeter, they carry the packaged strands of genetic material through the cell wall and prevent the vaccine from degrading too quickly in the body.
One of the problems in the preparation and administration of mRNA vaccines is the natural instability of mRNA.
In order to prevent, or at least delay, the degradation of mRNA and to deliver the administered (e.g., injected) mRNA to the site of the claimed effect (i.e., into the cells where the ribosomes then carry out the desired protein synthesis), a variety of highly complex additives are used.
So far, meaningful safety studies are available for very few of these additives (Roier S. 2019. Trillium Immunology 3/2019. Retrieved 03.05.2020), and some of the most commonly used adjuvants are related to nanotechnology (e.g., lipid nanoparticles/LNPs), for which in any case only very limited and contradictory experience in human use is available.
The danger of nanoparticles used in food, vaccines and others
The fact that these nanoparticles are extremely controversial and known to pose a high risk is strangely swept under the rug.
But what shocks me personally the most: How can scientists, whose job it is to check how dangerous the use of these nanoparticles and other toxins is in a person’s organism, completely play this down and even endorse it, as if we were dealing with the most normal thing in the world?
Federal Environment Agency warns against nanotechnology, quote:
“In animal experiments, the particles have migrated right into the nucleus of body cells and damaged the genetic information there,”
or
“Their tininess, however, also poses the risk that they are much more likely to overcome natural barriers in the body – such as the blood-brain barrier.”
“It has already been established that when nanoparticles are inhaled, they cause inflammatory reactions in the lungs.”
[Rolf Buschmann, Technical Environmental Protection Officer, BUND]
[…]
“You always have to ask yourself the question: what happens to it in the organism then? That’s why we are particularly skeptical.”
[Rolf Buschmann, Technical Environmental Protection Officer, BUND]
-In a study published in the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON).
“Using transmission electron microscopy, nanoparticles were observed to settle in the cytoplasm and karyoplasm of lung epithelial and mesothelial cells, but were also found in the mammary fluid. These cases raise concerns that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles can cause severe damage to human lungs without protective measures. Pulmonary fibrosis and foreign body granulomas of the pleura.”
“There is increasing evidence that nanoparticles in polluted air can have a negative effect on our brains.
“Observational studies have shown, for example, that people who live near busy roads and breathe this air permanently have an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Toxicological studies must now prove whether there is a direct causal relationship.
“We are currently investigating this at our institute. But we are also wondering whether nanoparticles in products can have harmful effects on our brains.”
[…]
“We have studied several nanomaterials. We were able to detect conspicuous features in nanosilver. This substance is used for detergents or toothbrushes, for example, because it kills bacteria.”
[…]
“Of course, we can’t yet say whether this can lead to illness.”
[…]
“Too little is known yet about whether nanoparticles are toxic to nerve cells and tissue. We would like to help close this knowledge gap.”
[…]
“Toxicological tests unfortunately cannot always provide one hundred percent certainty. We are dealing here with complex mechanisms of action, some of which have not yet been elucidated. So it can’t be ruled out that a new substance comes onto the market that only afterwards proves to be harmful to health.”
This article from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research is dated 04/06/2019.
The Federal Government has knowledge of all this and yet – without regard for just one single life – has approved the new mRNA vaccine and is vaccinating people with it at this very moment and intends to use it on our youngest children as well.
Please forgive me, but the deliberate ignoring of such clear facts, which are known to all involved, can only be glossed over with a heavy heart as an oversight on the part of those responsible.
In this context, I would like to refer to the vaccine Pandemrix, which was used in the so-called “swine flu” pandemic and caused considerable side effects. [Cf. WDR]
Dr. Stefan Lanka (molecular biologist, virologist and winner of the measles trial [See our video]), had already warned in 2009, before the use of the then vaccine Pandemrix, shortly before its market launch:
“The strong destructive power of cells by nanoparticles, such as the so-called “auxiliary substance” (adjuvant) MF59 in the flu vaccine for the elderly, is based on the known fact that transport between cells in organs and tissues occurs with particles of this size and the cell cannot distinguish between ‘foreign’ and ‘own’.
“The penetration of the nanoparticles into the cell envelopes damages them and destroys the cells.
“Due to the fact that these nanoparticles are also very stable in the body, it is known that, for a longer time, cells in the body are destroyed. And this reacts with the formation of globulins as a sealing substance of the cells. And this increase of the globulin concentration is claimed by vaccine [manufacturers], against better knowledge, as antibodies and as protection against freely invented pathogens.
“When globulins are present in greater concentration, their binding to all kinds of proteins is detectable.”
The Paul Ehrlich Institute suppressed as long as possible the devastating and inconceivable fact that nanoparticles were already present in other vaccines. Only after diverse pressure was exerted, the PEI had to admit this fact.
“Even if some of these components are located in a size range that is in the nanometer range, they are not technologically targeted nanoparticles, especially not nanoparticles made of metals or plastics.”
Regulatory agencies, including the German Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), completely ignore this issue.
Note: Amazing that they first denied that nanoparticles were present at all and then, caught, manipulatively tried to wriggle out of it by pretending that they were “not purposefully” manufactured.
Let me tell you something: The task of the Paul Ehrlich Institute is to check from the outset whether harmful substances are present in a vaccination and not to determine only after the child has fallen into the well!
How can we continue to believe such institutions when it comes to our precious health? It is best to leave it alone. I don’t even want to mention the other outrages of the PEI, such as the concealment of the many dead vaccinated babies by the vaccine Hexavac (How safe are vaccines really? – Dr. med [medical doctor] Klaus Hartmann) …
The BioNTech mRNA vaccine is a danger for mankind, for whose side effects including death. Uğur Şahin is personally responsible.
From the point of view of orthodox medicine, the vaccination should not be used.
Because RNA is transformed into DNA by several mechanisms and damages chromosomes.
Because it will hit the body’s own enzymes, which are misinterpreted as components of the virus.
Strictly speaking, the BioNTech RNA vaccine is even more dangerous than nanoparticles themselves, because the RNA to be vaccinated is encased in lipid nanoparticles, and here we find a double-reactive mixture that will accumulate mainly in the brain and cause much more narcolepsy than was the case with the swine flu vaccine.
The vaccine from Mainz (mRNA) contains fats in their non-dissolvable and constantly-very-reactive nano-particle form, including the known allergen, the solvent PEG (polyethanol glycol).
In addition, the vaccine will cause chromosome strand breaks in an unknown number of people, resulting in energy depletion, infertility and disability of offspring if the chromosome breaks also happen in the “germ line” of males and females.
This is the shortest possible description of the vaccine damage for which Uğur Şahin is personally responsible. For sure, there will be an observable number of deaths, which will then be said to have happened as a result of the virus.
With the engrained belief in an evil biology (orthodox medicine), coupled with the collective compulsion for return on investment, one might almost assume that medical professionals actually believe that vaccination could help.
Most practicing physicians have never studied this information and trust the responsible scientists themselves and [do so] completely blindly.
So our task should not be to demonize those responsible, but to point out to them their error.
One of the simplest ways is to look to see if any studies at all have been done on the so-called pharmacokinetic properties.
“Pharmacokinetics describes the totality of processes that a drug undergoes in the body. This includes the drug’s uptake (absorption), distribution in the body (distribution), biochemical conversion and degradation (metabolization), and excretion (excretion).”
In short, what happens to all toxins (disguised as additives) within the organism?
We see that a simple “not applicable” was noted in the SUMMARY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEDICINE.
These studies are omitted for just about all vaccines. A statement about whether this vaccine potentially harms the body and how the mixture of the injected material behaves in the body is simply left to fate by those responsible!
If this information does not take your breath away, then I suspect you are not taking it very seriously in other respects either :).
New studies confirm: Various vaccines are contaminated by micro- and nanoscale particles and described as non-biodegradable and non-biocompatible.
Unknown to most people is the fact that today’s vaccines are already contaminated with nanoparticles, as random tests have shown:
“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity which, in any case, is still there, that typical of foreign bodies. For that reason, they induce an inflammatory reaction.”
[…]
“After injection, these microparticles, nanoparticles, and aggregates can remain at the injection site and form swellings and granulomas … However, they can also be transported through the bloodstream, eluding any attempt to guess their final destination … As with all foreign bodies, especially those so small, they trigger an inflammatory response that is chronic because most of these particles cannot be broken down. In addition, the protein corona effect can … due to a nano-bio interaction … generate organic/inorganic composite particles that can stimulate the immune system in undesirable ways…It is impossible not to add that particles of the size commonly observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with DNA …”
“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas.17 But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…
“As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect (due to a nanobio-interaction can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable ways. It is impossible not to add that particles, the size often observed in vaccines, can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA.”
Several important questions arise from the results of this 2017 study that demand answers:
Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally introduced into vaccines?
Does the standard manufacturing process for conventional vaccines UNFORTUNATELY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?
New nanotechnology is already being used to manufacture several vaccines – ostensibly to “improve efficacy.” In fact, the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine may be a nano-vaccine. Does this manufacturing process bring with it the inevitable effect of a hurricane of nanoparticle contamination?
How many cases of brain damage and autism in children can open the door to [seeing] nanoparticle contamination?
Finally, where are these contaminated vaccines being manufactured?
The above study did not attempt to find out. It was outside the scope of the research. It is common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the U.S., vaccines or their ingredients are not domestically produced in many cases. Where does this lead to control safety? For example, in China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals related to product contamination?
The vaccine company is not showing the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending that the questions do not exist.
It would be suicidal to trust the establishment.
Even more explosive in connection with RNA and nano-vaccines is the reference to the Gene Drive Files, which the Heinrich Böll Foundation uncovered a few years ago. These show that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation commissioned a PR firm to secretly undermine an important UN process on the subject of synthetic biology.
Although all this is well known, Christian Drosten (Berlin Charité) comes up with the following words: “Gene-based vaccines have potential“.
The only conclusion can be: Prof. Drosten does not know what he is talking about!
The Medical Research Center for Prophylaxis and Health Protection in Industrial Workers confirms “nanotoxicity” on human health
Combined subchronic toxicity of aluminum (III), titanium (IV), and silicon (IV) oxide nanoparticles and their alleviation with a complex of bioprotectors
Summary
“The use of nanoparticles-including metallic nanoparticles-has exploded in industry, commerce, and medicine in recent decades. A Russian research team studied the ‘nanotoxicity’ of three types of metal nanoparticles (titanium, silicon, and aluminum oxide) alone and in combination. Repeated injections in rats showed that all three were “toxic to multiple target organs.”
“For the majority of these effects,” however, the alumina nanoparticles were found to be “most harmful,” even though the aluminum dose was only half that of titanium and silicon. No other publications have reported on the combined toxicity of these metal nanoparticles, despite their ‘potentially hazardous nano-effects on human health’.”
The HELMHOLTZ Center for Infection Research has been exploring other avenues for years: Vaccination without a syringe via nanoparticles through creams to be applied to the skin or application via nasal spray.
Quote:
“The nanoparticles penetrate the skin through the hair follicles and trigger an immune response in the body,” says Hanzey Yasar of HIPS. “Such a vaccine would be very easy to administer and would certainly be well received by the population.”
In it, he describes not only how the safety claims of pharmaceutical manufacturers are made without any scientific study, but also how they can be completely refuted based on scientific evidence.
It is known from medicine that a high concentration of nanoparticles leads to fibrotic changes in lung tissue.
There is also evidence that these particles are associated with respiratory diseases as well as an increase in inflammatory markers and an increased tendency to blood clotting disorders, which can increase the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks and strokes.
Nanoparticles cross the blood-brain barrier and it is unexplored what may be triggered by this.
With the background knowledge that all vaccines are based on a false foundation and do little harm at best — adding to the fact that the dangers of the nanoparticles used are known to the entire science bench as well as to critical colleagues — these dangers must be addressed and cannot continue to be ignored, or suppressed.
Act. If not for yourself, then for the children!
The entire NEXT LEVEL – Knowledge Reconsidered team will support you and answer your questions.
Genetically modified Golden Rice and Bt eggplant will remain off the market in the Philippines after the country’s Supreme Court (SC) issued a writ in favor of farmers and scientists who sought to stop the government from commercially releasing the products, Phil Star Global reported.In a session last Tuesday, the SC granted a writ of Kalikasan to MASIPAG and other petitioners against officials of the Departments of Agriculture (DA), Environment and Natural Resources, and Health as well as the Bureau of Plant Industry, Philippine Rice Research Institute and University of the Philippines-Los Baños.
The writ of Kalikasan, a judicial mechanism in the Philippines, provides protection against ecological damage and disasters caused by human activities like mining.
The petitioners sought the issuance of the writ alongside a continuing mandamus before the SC last year for a temporary environmental protection order that mandates the DA to stop the commercial propagation of golden rice and issue biosafety permits for the commercial propagation of Bt Eggplant.
The SC has yet to disclose whether they also granted other requests in the petition including stopping the DA from commercially propagating the Golden Rice and the Bt Eggplant until proof of safety and compliance with legal requirements are presented.
The petitioners want all biosafety permits for Golden Rice and Bt Eggplant nullified and voided. They also sought independent risk and impact assessments, to secure prior and informed consent of farmers and indigenous peoples and to ensure liability mechanisms in case of damage as required by law.
While the SC has yet to release the full decision, a briefer on the case showed that the MASIPAG argued that the Golden Rice, which is patented to transnational agrochemical corporation Syngenta, is a rice variety that has been modified by inserting genes from maize and bacteria found in soil. The bacteria allows the plant to biosynthesize beta-carotene in the edible parts.
“They also argued that Bt Eggplant was designed so the plant would produce its own toxin to kill the fruit and shoot borer, which is one of several common pests that consume and damage eggplants,” the briefer added.
