Dr. Sam Bailey with Eric Coppolino — On the Monumental Task of Documenting & Examining the Covid-19 Chronology: “Knowledge Coming to Light Changes Things”
“Knowledge coming to light changes things.” ~ Eric Coppolino
Recently, I have been fortunate to have connected with the inspiring Eric Coppolino, who is based in New York State.
Eric has an incredible history of exposing scientific fraud and environmental pollution cover-ups. He was one of the first to start investigating the COVID-19 scam and is putting something big together to help all of us who are questioning the narrative.
GREENWICH, CT — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has acknowledged the controversy within his own community over whether SARS-CoV-2 physically exists, and whether any viruses exist, or make people sick. He made the comments at a fundraising event here Sunday, April 24, 2022.
Kennedy said that the issue erupts regularly on the email discussion list of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the vaccine safety and education organization that he founded in 2016.
“On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments” about how viruses allegedly don’t exist, Kennedy said in his remarks. “And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”
He made the remarks in reply to a question about why no government can produce evidence of having a sample of SARS-CoV-2 taken from a patient, rather than artificially created using a computer model.
Kennedy, the son of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of Pres. John F. Kennedy, is considered one of the leading voices in the international movement against covid-related mandates, lockdowns and safety issues over covid injections. It is the first time he has publicly commented on the virus-existence issue.
Scientists on all sides of the issue agree that viral particles have not been physically
isolated (with purified samples) and then sequenced.
What is Being Used to Prime the Covid Test?
The matter of whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus physically exists has dual significance. The obvious issue is that if there is not a virus, what then is making people sick? And what are they being vaccinated against?
Second, and less obvious: If the government cannot prove that it has a sample of natural SARS-CoV-2, then what is being used to prime the PCR test that is supposed to match and find the genetic code of an actual virus in a patient?
Scientists on all sides of the issue agree that viral particles have not been physically isolated (with purified samples) and then sequenced. Rather, hypothetical viruses are assembled from mixed biological samples, and these “in silico genomes” are then assumed to not only exist in nature but come from inside a pathogenic particle. They have many names: “mimicked human specimens” and “contrived viruses” (in the words of the CDC); or “synthetic nucleotide technology” (in the words words of the authors of the WHO test for covid).
One virologist told me in July 2020 that SARS-C0V- 2 was being assembled “like pages from a book,” necessary because no natural virus particle was available to sequence. The problem is that nobody has demonstrated these pages actually belong to the proposed book.
Covid tests look for sequences attributed to the “virus” merely via computer models —
but these “found” sequences almost always originate from somewhere else (including
the testing process itself).
CDC document pertaining to detection limits in the CDC “covid” test, admitting that
purified isolates of SARS-CoV-2 are not available. Yet this long, technical paragraph
admits something else: how they go about making their contrived virus (mimicked human
specimen), rather than sequencing actual virus. Were viruses available to anyone, it would
be the federal government of the United States. What they are admitting is that the virus
has not been isolated or purified; the writer admits outright that they are using made-up
samples that mimic clinical specimens. The technical notes describe the manufacturing
process for in silico sequences that are used in the “covid” test. The notes make reference
to MN908947, a synthetic, claimed, partial metagenomic transcript (not actual sequencing)
of the “N-gene” — which was later abandoned in its entirety in the Corman-Drosten assay.
Metagenomics: The Creation of Hypothetical Sequences
These hypothetical sequences are developed using technology called metageonomics — without any reference to actual purified suspected viruses. This artificial-intelligence process assembles a hypothetical “virus” from information gathered either from a crude human body fluid sample, or by making a “cell culture” experiment by mixing the fluid with monkey cells, cervical cancer cells, fetal calf serum, antibiotics and other poisons. In all cases where covid is concerned, scientists have used the latter. Because there is no actual virus available as a reference, there is no way to verify if the proposed sequences are valid. They are all theoretical, and no two are alike.
Said another way, in the absence of a real virus specimen, covid tests look for sequences attributed to the “virus” merely via computer models — but these “found” sequences almost always originate from somewhere else. And “positive” results can emerge from nearly anywhere, including the testing process itself). Yet if someone “tests positive” for one of these claimed viral sequences, they are said to be “infected” with SARS-CoV-2.
Previously, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that the polymerase chain reaction has had a 100% false positive rate and has caused several widely-documented “false epidemics.”
The claimed existence, transmissibility and pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 were used to declare a global pandemic that by March 31, 2020 had 4.5 billion people around the world living under a stay-at-home order or house arrest.
“On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments. And
other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them
and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Seeking Documents from Governments, Agencies and Institutions
At a Q-and-A session at a fundraising event here Sunday, April 24, I asked Kennedy about the work of Christine Massey in the Toronto area, a statistician who is coordinating the worldwide effort to officially query governments, agencies and institutions about whether they have a sample of the claimed virus taken from a human.
“Christine Massey in Toronto has amassed 182 responses under various Freedom of Information Law requests from institutions, provincial state, and federal, national governments, which all say that no one has a sample of SARS CoV-2 taken from a human. Would you please comment on that?”
Kennedy replied: “On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments. And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence. I actually saw an exchange yesterday, where somebody made that exact statement and then 10 people jumped on him on with examples, of where that’s not true.”
The issue over the nature and existence of viruses represents the single biggest split in the covid-truth and anti-mandates movements. I first documented this divide in May of 2020.
“RFK Jr. now relies on popular opinion and ridicule to evaluate science?
When did he declare incompetence with simple logic?” — Christine Massey, statistician and coordinator of the virus FOIA project
‘I Am Amused Reading These Exchanges’
He added: “I am kind of amused reading the exchanges, and my inclination is that the viruses do exist and they do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big hoax, but to me, it all seems like viruses are real.”
But Kennedy answered a different question than the one I asked. I did not present him with an argument, or ask him whether he thought viruses were real. He admits that he uses a kind of mob rule to make up his mind over critical scientific issues when he says, “And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”
Reading Kennedy’s response, Christine Massey said, “RFK Jr. now relies on popular opinion and ridicule to evaluate science? When did he declare incompetence with simple logic? And why is a man dedicated to protecting children from medical harm uninterested in one of the greatest medical frauds of all time?”
She also demanded the data from the 10 people on Kennedy’s list who claimed to prove that the virus had been isolated.
So far, no governments have produced a scientific paper saying that they or anyone
have such a sample, despite the claim that a contagious virus has killed more than
5 million people worldwide.
Asked About a Legal Issue — Not Scientific
Kennedy said he believed viruses exist, but I did not ask him about that. Rather, I presented him with a legal issue, asking him to comment about how someone well-known and established in covid truth circles over the past two years has collected 182 responses from top-level government agencies and institutions, all saying they do not have a sample of SARS-CoV-2 extracted from a human host.
So far, no governments have produced a scientific paper saying that they or anyone have such a sample, despite the claim that a contagious virus has killed more than 5 million people worldwide.
I followed up and said to him, “The governments have said they don’t have a sample.”
Kennedy, an attorney, responded: “Freedom Information Laws do not require the government agency to do science, or to answer specific questions. What they do is, the Freedom of Information Laws make it obligatory for the government to give you existing documents. So if you are telling the government, ‘I want you to verify these, there are documents’, they say, listen there’s nothing to verify it. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’ve got nothing.”
So far all have said no such records exist. This includes the U.S. CDC and the FDA, as
well as Health Canada and the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK. None of the
182 agencies and governments queried have replied in the affirmative.
‘Kennedy hasn’t read any of my records requests’
Massey replied to this in an email: “It appears that Kennedy hasn’t read any of my records requests. I didn’t ask governments to ‘do science’ or answer ‘specific questions’. All of my requests have been for studies/reports in the possession, custody or control of an institution.”
I asked Massey how she words her letters seeking documentation of a sample of the claimed virus from a human host.
She provided this example of what she is seeking, and what so far all governments she has queried deny having:
“All studies and/or reports in the possession, custody or control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and/or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describing the purification of any “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”, including any alleged “variants” i.e. “B.1.1.7”, “B.1.351”, “P.1”) (for example: via filtration, ultracentrifugation and chromatography), directly from a sample taken from a diseased human where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka Vero cells; fetal bovine serum).”
And so far all have said no such records exist. This includes the U.S. CDC and the FDA, as well as Health Canada and the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK. None of the 182 agencies and governments queried have replied in the affirmative.
“It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary
policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping
mandates.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
‘No Records Exist’ is an Important Response
Getting a “no records exist” reply is common, and seeking such a reply is a common strategy for establishing that there has not actually been a regulatory process for a policy issue. It is one of the most important uses of open records laws.
In late 2020, the New York State Department of Health (NYS-DOH) responded to an open records request saying it had no studies to prove that masks are safe or effective at preventing the spread of viruses or other diseases. For that same kind of “sorry no documents” FOIL reply, Kennedy was much more outspoken.
At the time, he wrote to his Instagram followers, “It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping mandates. This letter illustrates the hazard of abandoning due process.”
Previously, he had remained agnostic on the issue of masks and whether masks work. He finally took a position in response
New York State saying it had absolutely no data about whether masks are safe or effective.
“It’s a needlessly divisive issue, with people screaming, on both sides, as if it were
the key to this whole thing — which it isn’t.” — Prof. Mark Crispin Miller
“They did not isolate a virus,” Wallach said. “The reason it’s so confusing for people is that they claim to have done so in the titles of the key scientific papers, but if you read the methodology sections, it’s blatantly clear: they never isolated a virus. They never found anything. The evidence is overwhelming.”
He added: “I respect the importance of political leaders like RFK Jr. keeping an open tent, they have to. But at the same time, this is an issue that should be front and center for the world public, and nobody should be repeating this dogma about the existence of viruses.”
Mark Crispin Miller, professor of communication at New York University, said, “It’s a needlessly divisive issue, with people screaming, on both sides, as if it were the key to this whole thing — which it isn’t. What will make the whole narrative collapse is not the argument that there are no viruses, but the recognition that the authorities we’ve all been listening to — the medical establishment, Big Pharma, Academia, the media et al. — are malign, and intent on killing us.
“That’s it. Everything else is a distraction. Whether the ravages of COVID-19 have been exaggerated, or whether there’s no virus there at all, is ultimately beside the point. And since Bobby’s role is in large part political, as he attempts to keep this movement in one piece, his disinclination to take sides here ought to be respected.”
“Are all based on in-silico modeled synthetic phenomena, which has never been
scientifically proven as coming from an actual virus.” — Dr. Kevin Corbett, expert in diagnostic testing
‘This was what happened with HIV’
Dr. Kevin Corbett did his doctoral work on diagnostic testing associated with HIV and AIDS, including research into the PCR. He said this week that the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and associated tests, “Are all based on in-silico modeled synthetic phenomena, which has never been scientifically proven as coming from an actual virus.
“This was what happened with ‘HIV’, which The Perth Group of scientists [in the 1990s] first proved was never isolated or purified. Those powerful voices like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who sadly ignore this issue, are badly misguided, because they fail to address this fundamental caveat in ‘covid science’.”
Corbett cautioned, “Their efforts will only act to further socially embed the popular hysteria of there being a contagion, and therefore will enable further public health mandates forcing masks, social distancing and the latest covid killshot.”
‘World Localization Day’ will be celebrated on 20 June. Organised by the non-profit Local Futures, this annual coming together of people from across the world began in 2020 and focuses on the need to localise supply-chains and recover our connection with nature and community. The stated aim is to “galvanize the worldwide localization movement into a force for systemic change”.
Local Futures, founded by Helena Norberg-Hodge, urges us to imagine a very different world, one in which most of our food comes from nearby farmers who ensure food security year round and where the money we spend on everyday goods continues to recirculate in the local economy.
We are asked to imagine local businesses providing ample, meaningful employment opportunities, instead of our hard-earned cash being immediately siphoned off to some distant corporate headquarters.
Small farms would be key in this respect. They are integral to local markets and networks, short supply chains, food sovereignty, more diverse cropping systems and healthier diets. And they tend to serve the food requirements of communities rather than the interests of big business, institutional investors and shareholders half a world away.
If the COVID lockdowns and war in Ukraine tell us anything about our food system, it is that decentralised, regional and local community-owned food systems based on short(er) supply chains that can cope with future shocks are now needed more than ever.
Localization involves strengthening and rebuilding local economies and communities and restoring cultural and biological diversity. The ‘economics of happiness’ is central to this vision, rather than an endless quest for GDP growth and the alienation, conflict and misery this brings.
It is something we need to work towards because multi-billionaire globalists have a dystopian future mapped out for humanity which they want to impose on us all – and it is diametrically opposed to what is stated above.
The much-publicised ‘great reset’ is integral to this dystopia. It marks a shift away from ‘liberal democracy’ towards authoritarianism. At the same time, there is the relentless drive towards a distorted notion of a ‘green economy’, underpinned by the rhetoric of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.
The great reset is really about capitalism’s end-game. Those promoting it realise the economic and social system must undergo a reset to a ‘new normal’, something that might no longer resemble ‘capitalism’.
End-game capitalism
Capital can no longer maintain its profitability by exploiting labour alone. This much has been clear for some time. There is only so much surplus value to be extracted before the surplus is insufficient.
Historian Luciana Bohne notes that the shutting down of parts of the economy was already happening pre-COVID as there was insufficient growth, well below the minimum tolerable 3% level to maintain the viability of capitalism. This, despite a decades-long attack on workers and corporate tax cuts.
The system had been on life support for some time. Credit markets had been expanded and personal debt facilitated to maintain consumer demand as workers’ wages were squeezed. Financial products (derivatives, equities, debt, etc) and speculative capitalism were boosted, affording the rich a place to park their profits and make money off money. We have also seen the growth of unproductive rentier capitalism and stock buy backs and massive bail outs courtesy of taxpayers.
Moreover, in capitalism, there is also a tendency for the general rate of profit to fall over time. And this has certainly been the case according to writer Ted Reese, who notes it has trended downwards from an estimated 43% in the 1870s to 17% in the 2000s.
The 2008 financial crash was huge. But by late 2019, an even bigger meltdown was imminent. Many companies could not generate enough profit and falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflows and highly leveraged balance sheets were prevalent. In effect, economic growth was already grinding to a halt prior to the massive stock market crash in February 2020.
Fabio Vighi, professor of critical theory, describes how, in late 2019, the Swiss Bank of International Settlements, BlackRock (the world’s most powerful investment fund), G7 central bankers, leading politicians and others worked behind closed doors to avert a massive impending financial meltdown.
The Fed soon began an emergency monetary programme, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars per week into financial markets. Not long after, COVID hit and lockdowns were imposed. The stock market did not collapse because lockdowns occurred. Vighi argues lockdowns were rolled out because financial markets were collapsing.
Closing down the global economy under the guise of fighting a pathogen that mainly posed a risk to the over 80s and the chronically ill seemed illogical to many, but lockdowns allowed the Fed to flood financial markets (COVID relief) with freshly printed money without causing hyperinflation. Vighi says that lockdowns curtailed economic activity, thereby removing demand for the newly printed money (credit) in the physical economy and preventing ‘contagion’.
Using lockdowns and restrictions, smaller enterprises were driven out of business and large sections of the pre-COVID economy were shut down. This amounted to a controlled demolition of parts of the economy while the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, Meta (Facebook) and the online payment sector – platforms which are dictating what the ‘new normal’ will look like – were clear winners in all of this.
The rising inflation that we currently witness is being blamed on the wholly avoidable conflict in Ukraine. Although this tells only part of the story, the conflict and sanctions seem to be hitting Europe severely: if you wanted to demolish your own economy or impoverish large sections of the population, this might be a good way to go about it.
However, the massive ‘going direct’ helicopter money given to the financial sector and global conglomerates under the guise of COVID relief was always going to have an impact once the global economy reopened.
Similar extraordinary monetary policy (lockdowns) cannot be ruled out in the future: perhaps on the pretext of another ‘virus’ but possibly based on the notion of curtailing human activity due to ‘climate emergency’. This is because raising interests rates to manage inflation could rapidly disrupt the debt-bloated financial system (an inflated Ponzi scheme) and implode the entire economy.
Permanent austerity
But lockdowns, restrictions or creating mass unemployment and placing people on programmable digital currencies to micromanage spending and decrease inflationary pressures could help to manage the crisis. ‘Programmable’ means the government determining how much you can spend and what you can spend on.
How could governments legitimise such levels of control? By preaching about reduced consumption according to the creed of ‘sustainability’. This is how you would ‘own nothing and be happy’ if we are to believe this well-publicised slogan of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
But like neoliberal globalization in the 1980s – the great reset is being given a positive spin, something which supposedly symbolises a brave new techno-utopian future.
In the 1980s, to help legitimise the deregulated neoliberal globalisation agenda, government and media instigated an ideological onslaught, driving home the primacy of ‘free enterprise’, individual rights and responsibility and emphasising a shift away from the role of state, trade unions and the collective in society.
Today, we are seeing another ideological shift: individual rights (freedom to choose what is injected into your own body, for instance) are said to undermine the wider needs of society and – in a stark turnaround – individual freedom is now said to pose a threat to ‘national security’, ‘public health’ or ‘safety’.
A near-permanent state of ‘emergency’ due to public health threats, climate catastrophe or conflict (as with the situation in Ukraine) would conveniently place populations on an ongoing ‘war footing’. Notions of individual liberty and democratic principles would be usurped by placing the emphasis on the ‘public interest’ and protecting the population from ‘harm’. This would facilitate the march towards authoritarianism.
As in the 1980s, this messaging is being driven by economic impulses. Neoliberalism privatised, deregulated, exploited workers and optimised debt to the point whereby markets are now kept afloat by endless financial injections.
The WEF says the public will ‘rent’ everything they require: stripping the right of personal ownership under the guise of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘saving the planet’. Where the WEF is concerned, this is little more than code for permanent austerity to be imposed on the mass of the population.
Metaverse future
At the start of this article, readers were asked to imagine a future based on a certain set of principles associated with localization. For one moment, imagine another. The one being promoted by the WEF, the high-level talking shop and lobby group for elite interests headed by that avowed globalist and transhumanist Klaus Schwab.
As you sit all day unemployed in your high-rise, your ‘food’ will be delivered via an online platform bought courtesy of your programmable universal basic income digital money. Food courtesy of Gates-promoted farms manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce crops from patented GM seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be engineered, processed and constituted into something resembling food.
Enjoy and be happy eating your fake food, stripped of satisfying productive endeavour and genuine self-fulfilment. But really, it will not be a problem. You can sit all day and exist virtually in Zuckerberg’s fantasy metaverse. Property-less and happy in your open prison of mass unemployment, state dependency, track and chip health passports and financial exclusion via programmable currency.
A world also in which bodily integrity no longer exists courtesy of a mandatory vaccination agenda linked to emerging digital-biopharmaceutical technologies. The proposed World Health Organization pandemic treaty marks a worrying step in this direction.
This ‘new normal’ would be tyrannical, but the ‘old normal’ – which still thrives – was not something to be celebrated. Global inequality is severe and environmental devastation and human dislocation has been increasing. Dependency and dispossession remain at the core of the system, both on an individual level and at local, regional and national levels. New normal or old normal, these problems will persist and become worse.
Green imperialism
The ‘green economy’ being heavily promoted is based on the commodification of nature, through privatization, marketization and monetary valuation. Banks and corporations will set the agenda – dressed in the garb of ‘stakeholder capitalism’, a euphemism for governments facilitating the needs of powerful global interests. The fear is that the proposed system will weaken environmental protection laws and regulations to facilitate private capital.
The banking sector will engage in ‘green profiling’ and issue ‘green bonds’ and global corporations will be able to ‘offset’ (greenwash) their environment-degrading activities by, for example, protecting or planting a forest elsewhere (on indigenous people’s land) or perhaps even investing in (imposing) industrial agriculture which grows herbicide-resistant GMO commodity crop monocultures that are misleadingly portrayed as ‘climate friendly’. Imperialism wrapped in green.
Relying on the same thinking and the same interests that led the world to where it is now does not seem like a great idea. This type of ‘green’ is first and foremost a multi-trillion market opportunity for lining pockets and part of a strategy that may well be used to secure compliance required for the ‘new normal’.
The future needs to be rooted in the principles of localization. For this, we need look no further than the economics and the social relations that underpin tribal societies (for example, India’s indigenous peoples). The knowledge and value systems of indigenous peoples promote long-term genuine sustainability by living within the boundaries of nature and emphasise equality, communality and sharing rather than separation, domination and competition.
Self-sufficiency, solidarity, localization and cooperation is the antidote to globalism and the top-down tyranny of programmable digital currencies and unaccountable, monopolistic AI-driven platforms which aim to monitor and dictate every aspect of life.
*
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.
The author receives no payment from any media outlet or organization for his work. If you appreciated this article, consider sending a few coins his way: colintodhunter@outlook.com
On April 25th, a federal judge stuck down the mask mandate for mass transit.Part of the reasoning was based on fact that the CDC skipped the otherwise-mandatory public notice and comment period as required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). However, the main reasoning was to show that government officials do not recognize the limits of their power. Apparently, neither do the masses.
The ruling sent COVID doomsdayers into panic mode. Federal agencies are creatures of statute and are bound by law to operate within the law imposed by Congress. Agencies are not separate entities that may act as they wish.
Their authority is limited to what Congress grants them. So the CDC is governed by Congress – not by any President – and certainly not by career bureaucrats like Fauci. – Phillip Holloway, Esq
Up until COVID, it was illegal to wear a mask to conceal the face in public, with few exceptions. Under COVID, “the science” reversed the mask laws overnight, illegally. Few people questioned the authority of politicians practicing medicine without a license. Perhaps COVID is a lesson to understand that when “science” enters the political picture, its time to question authority. In other words, public health orders do not trump legal orders.
Science and Freedom Do Not Mix
Contrary to popular belief, the law is not based on the latest “science” because science and law are separate spheres of knowledge. Science cannot prove that something is true. Science tests theories, and explains what is observed under a specific set of conditions. Science is a tool. Like any tool, it is neither good or bad, but it can be used according to the will of the “scientist” who wields it. Science does not reveal truth.
Science cannot give you truth. All it can determine is internal self-consistency” based on data within the confines of time and distance. Everything else must be rejected. —William A. Tiller
Science does not usurp the law. Neither do mandates usurp the law. Mandates are public health policies, made by government agencies who use science and fear to manipulate behavior. Yet, federal agencies have NO authority under the law to tell people how to live when it comes to making health decisions.
For those who claim that science “raises awareness,” realize that awareness exercises do nothing to ensure freedom. Real freedom is preserved outside of science, lest people become slaves to a system that is set up to manipulate and engineer consent (as with mandates). Without true consent, there is only implied consent, the illusion of choice, based on the limited options you are provided. An illusion of choice brings an illusion of freedom.
The federal judge made clear that CDC and government officials violated the APA in issuing the mandate.
Despite the protestations by Fauci to the contrary, the CDC was created by a law, is governed by a law, and must act within the confines of that law. – Phil Holloway, Esq. Twitter
Live Exercise
The COVID exercise is a test of people’s ability to know truths from falsehoods. Did anyone investigate the legality of a mandate… or how it may differ from a man date? Did anyone question the blank package insert of the experimental injections? Did anyone know to separate the science from the law?
Early on, the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, disclosed, in the media, that COVID is a “live exercise.” Did anyone notice how the media then went back to its regularly scheduled programming; Tel-A-Vision?
Why did it take so long for the courts to intervene, especially when the CDC mask order was set to expire on May 3? Is this court opinion too little, too late? Many would argue the damage has already been done. People’s lives and minds have been altered. Kids breathed their own carbon dioxide to participate in school. Babies did not see the facial expressions of their parents.
What about the Covidians who continue to sport “the mask” in public places? Do they do it “to protect others” as the media tells them to do? Does the media guilt people into “taking responsibility” by wearing a mask? Is health no longer a personal responsibility? Can Fauci run a mile to help you lose weight? Can your doctor wear a life jacket to keep you afloat?
The law is supposed to protect the rights of people to decide for themselves…… but only if people know the laws! Know this: neither Congress, the CDC, nor the media can legislate choice when it comes to your body.
Stay tuned. The Department of Justice has filed a notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. This filing is expected to go nowhere, and do nothing, except to save face, since there was no motion for a stay included in the notice of appeal.
While the mask mandate may have ended, the live exercise continues…
College term paper referenced by Dr. Cowan was actually a published paper by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al. (Dr. Cowan made this correction at the start of a video on the snake venom controversy, streamed on 4/22/2022.)
On Saturday, Apr. 9, 2022, American Airlines (AA) flight 1067 departed Denver International Airport for its 1-hour and 46-minute flight to Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW). The nearly $100 million Airbus A321 aircraft and its 200 passengers were under the care of AA Captain Bob Snow, who has been with the company for over 31 years. Immediately after pulling into Gate 6 at DFW, Captain Snow—who was forced to get the COVID jab on Nov. 7, 2021, or lose his job—suffered a life-threatening cardiac arrest in the cockpit and almost died. If the tragic event had happened six minutes earlier, there could have been a mass casualty in the skies.
Swiftly, Captain Snow, who passed out and had to be shocked three times, was rushed to Baylor, Scott, and White Health Center ten minutes away. Thankfully, he survived. Snow, who spent time in the hospital’s Intensive Care Unit and is now home, is confident his heart attack directly resulted from the COVID-19 experimental “vaccine” he was mandated to receive. Tellingly, no one from AA or the airline union called Snow while he was in the hospital or stopped by to visit him. While in the hospital, he recorded a video, stating:
“My name is Bob Snow. I am an [American Airlines] Captain and have been a Captain for a number of years. My total service with the company is over 31 years. On Nov. 7, I was mandated to receive a vaccine. Quite literally, I was told if I did not receive the vaccination, I would be fired. This [order] was from our director of flight. So, under duress, I received the vaccine.
Now just a few days ago, after landing in Dallas, six minutes after we landed, I passed out. I coded. I required three shocks. I had to be intubated. I’m now in ICU in Dallas. This is what the vaccine has done for me. I will probably never fly again, based upon the criteria the FAA establishes for pilots. I was hoping to teach my daughter to fly; she wants to be a pilot. [Now] that will probably never happen, all courtesy of the vaccine. This is unacceptable, and I’m one of the victims.
You can see that this is an actual result of the vaccine for some of us. Mandatory, no questions asked, get the shot, or you’re fired. This is not the American way.”
American Airlines Told Captain Robert Snow to Get Vaccinated or Be Fired!
Remarkably, Captain Snow’s COVID-19 vaccine-related cardiac arrest and the myriad of pilot and flight attendant lawsuits currently underway against COVID mask and vaccine mandates are not being reported by mainstream media. Still, it is a subject that many concerned Americans, including Steve Kirsch, Executive Director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, are paying attention to.
Pilots Are Speaking Up About Adverse Events From COVID Jab
Kirsch, who believes that “vaccine injury cover-up is in the interest of all affected parties (except the flying public),” recently interviewed Josh Yoder of US Freedom Flyers about AA Captain Bob Snow. Yoder, a pilot himself, has been a staunch advocate against “vaccine” mandates in the airline industries.
In the interview, Yoder shared with Kirsch that his group has received hundreds of reports about pilots flying planes while suffering from adverse side effects from the COVID jabs. He also noted that cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told him that if the airlines were conducting health screenings, 30 percent of the pilots currently flying would most likely be disqualified due to vaccine-induced heart conditions. Yoder told Kirsch:
“He [McCullough] said that if every vaccinated pilot were to be screened, there would be somewhere around a 30 percent loss in manpower.”
Yoder mentioned that the most prominent health issues reported include chest pains, myocarditis, and pericarditis. He noted that “three vaccinated pilots called him yesterday” and said they’re “currently flying with chest pains.” Another said a cardiologist is treating him. Yoder added that the pilots want to remain anonymous because they don’t want to lose their jobs.
Airline pilot Latane Campbell interview: A pilot’s view of COVID policies
On Dec. 15, 2021, McCullough, joined by other experts, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole, and Lt. Col. Teresa Long, M.D., signed a 53-page letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and major airlines, urging them to flag all vaccinated pilots and administer D-dimer tests, troponin tests, cardiac MRIs, and EKGs to assess their health.
The letter—noting that pilots have died post-vaccination—describes the side effects suffered by numerous pilots, many of whom have been afraid to report them for fear of being grounded. Some have had to seek medical attention and report their injuries due to the significance of the COVID-19 “vaccine” related adverse event. A professional agricultural pilot explained his horrible ordeal, stating in part:
“I am a 33-year-old husband and father of two young boys. I have been healthy my whole life, with no underlying conditions. I received my first dose of the Pfizer COVID Vaccine on February 1. Within thirty minutes, I developed a severe stabbing headache, which later became a burning sensation in the back of my neck. Two days after my vaccination, I got in my airplane to do a job that would only take a few hours.
Immediately after taking off, I knew that something was not right with me. I was starting to develop tunnel vision, and my headache was getting worse. Approximately two hours into flying, I pulled my airplane up to turn around and felt an extreme burst of pressure in my ears.
Instantly, I was nearly blacked out, dizzy, disoriented, nauseous and shaking uncontrollably. By the grace of God, I was able to land my plane without incident, although I do not remember doing this.”
Cody Flint: 33 Y/O Airline Pilot Develops Brain Swelling, Can No Longer Fly Following Jab
Yoder argued that the overall behavior of the FAA, the airlines, and the pilots’ unions demonstrate a contempt for the safety of the flying public and the well-being of airline employees. Kirsch agrees, adding that we have seen a general tone of “belligerence” from nearly all hospitals towards patients who seek second opinions on vaccine-related injury issues. Yoder told Kirsch that the airline industry seems unwilling to address the potentially catastrophic incident.
Yoder pointed out that “AA is trying to create as much distance between themselves and this incident as possible,” adding, “so are the unions. We can’t even get a response.” Still, according to Yoder, Snow will be speaking out soon. When he does, Yoder warned:
“You’re going to hear some very interesting details that are going to be very damning for American Airlines, the Allied Pilots Association, the FAA, and everyone else involved.”
Steve Kirsch, Full Interview with Josh Yoder re: American Airlines Captain Bob Snow vax injury
The Biden administration’s vaccine mandates purporting to force U.S. military members to take the experimental Covid injections are unconstitutional and, because of the potential for genetic changes, may have implications involving patents and intellectual property, super lawyer Todd Callender tells The New American magazine’s Alex Newman in this episode of Conversations That Matter.
To protect the U.S. military, the rights of troops, and the U.S. Constitution, Callender has joined forces with other attorneys such as Tom Renz to sue the Department of Defense. The case is beyond fascinating, and you won’t want to miss this powerful interview.
Transcript of Dr. Sam Bailey’s introduction, provided by TCTL editor:
Last month, we were fortunate to have microbiologist and colloidal chemistry expert Dr. Robin Wakeling present his analysis of Pfizer Comirnaty under the microscope. Since that time Dr. Wakeling has continued to investigate the injections and is also linked up with other New Zealand teams who have shared their findings with him.
In Part 1 of his analysis, Dr. Wakeling presented the appearances of Comirnaty straight from the vial and has some new information regarding how these complexes form.
But perhaps, more importantly, in this video for the first time he is going to analyze the blood of some Pfizer-injected subjects who have suffered adverse reactions.
He’ll explain what he thinks is happening to the red blood cells and some of the most bizarre images he has ever seen in his long career.
In addition to Comirnaty, the teams have also been investigating recent influenza vaccines under the microscope, with some surprising findings that the officially disclosed ingredient don’t appear to explain.
Dr. Wakeling joins my husband, Dr. Mark Bailey, to present round two of Pfizer Under the Microscope.
Terra Madre, Gaia, Pachamama, Vasundhara… The Living Earth is a self-organised, self-regulating living system. She is autopoeitic, writing the poetry of life, creating the symphony of life, through the harmony of every participating living organism, from the microbes to the mammals.
From the molecule, to the cell, to the organism, to ecosystems, and the planet, life is based on non-separation, harmony and quantum coherence. Self-organised resonance with other beings who are self-organised.
“Life, in the ideal, is a domain that captures and stores energy and mobilises its quantum coherently in perfectly coupled cycles that generate no entropy… In a quantum coherent universe, all beings are both localised as particle/solid objects and delocalised as quantum wave functions spread ultimately throughout the universe. Hence all beings are mutually entangled and mutually constitutive. Thus harming others effectively harms ourselves, and the best way to benefit oneself may be to benefit others”. – Mae Wan Ho[1]
The Living Earth has evolved the biodiversity of our living planet, from viruses and biomes, to ecosystems, and species for over 4 billion years. Gaia weaves the web of life, the threads and relationships that connect the biodiversity of her Earth Family– Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam. Through her biodiversity and biosphere the Living Earth has self regulated her climate, cooling temperatures down from the 290 degree hot planet without life, to 13 degrees. Through the processes of life, the Earth reduced the 98% carbon dioxide rich atmosphere with 4000 ppm carbon dioxide, to 0. 03% at 270 ppm.[2]
Mother Earth evolved her sophisticated “carbon capture and sequestration” technology of photosynthesis which allows plants and microbes to capture the sunlight and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and transform it into oxygen, our breath. Oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere and the earth was transformed from the original heat-trapping CO2 rich atmosphere to the reduced CO2 atmosphere through the oxidising process of plants and living organisms. This allowed temperatures to be regulated at levels that support human and other biological life on earth.
Through her biodiversity and biosphere she creates, maintains and sustains, regenerates and renews her Infrastructure of Life including the Climate System. Mother Earth is inviting us to participate in her biosphere of microbes and plants, animals in co-creating the harmony that is the symphony of life.
We are a strand in the Web of Life.
We are Children of the Earth, Not her Masters and Owners.
We are members of One Earth Family.
200,000 years ago, the living Earth created the conditions for our species to evolve, sustain ourselves and provide for our basic needs of food, clothing and shelter as members of the biosphere.
We are alive because the Earth is Alive. Learning to live as part of the biosphere as indigenous people, women, small peasants have done is our work for the Earth, for the human future.
Mother Earth is Living and Has Rights.
“Mother Earth is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom we share a common destiny and to whom we must relate in ways that benefit Mother Earth”.[3]
Diversity is nature’s organising principle, the basis of emergence, evolution, and resilience. Diversity in forms and expressions, flows and relations are how nature creates value and strength. Nature does not create monocultures and uniformity. Nature does not create fences and walls of division and separation, of ownership and private property.
We are a living, conscious strand in the pulsating web of life. We are all members of One Earth Family, interconnected through life. We are part of the Earth, and not separate from her. We are children of Mother Earth, not her masters and owners. We are among the youngest siblings in the Earth family and have much to learn from our elders, the microbes, and plants.
Nature’s gifts are for the sustenance of all beings in the Earth Family, not just for humans. All beings have a right to the Earth’s Gifts of sustenance. We are not a privileged species who can take others’ share and drive other species to extinction, or deprive our fellow human beings of food and water.
Nature’s Economy and the ecological processes of Regeneration that sustain life, is a Commons of Life.
The Earth’s biodiversity and soil, land, and water are not “human inventions”, they are not the “private property” of a few billionaires and their corporations. They are the commons, the infrastructure of life, not industrial “raw material” to be extracted for profits, or financial assets to be traded.
Every organism, from the smallest microbe to the largest mammal is part of the web of life. All living beings are sentient beings and have intrinsic value and worth. They are not objects to be owned and manipulated. Their value does not come from the market and cannot be reduced to money.
Earth-centred paradigms and worldviews do not put humans at the centre. They do not put the dis-economy of extractivism at the centre. They put life and the living processes that support life at the centre. They put the currencies of life at the centre.
Giving back to the Earth for regeneration, and sharing her gifts among others is at the heart of being members of one Earth family.
Life is a Circular Regenerative Flow. Living is participating in the cycles of life. Caring and Sharing is the Regenerative Economy – Oikonomia, or the Art of Living
Nature’s Economy is the economy of life, nourishing all in permanent renewal and regeneration.
Participating in nature’s Cycles of Renewal and Regeneration based on the living currencies and flows of energy, food, water, air, life is Oikonomia, the Art of Living.
Nature does not work in linear extractive flows of one way taking. Mother Earth works in complex, multiple Living Circular Economies based on ecological cycles of renewal, recycling and the law of return, the law of giving. Living circular economies create economies of permanence through regeneration and renewal. The Earth’s gifts do not get exhausted. Seed becomes plants, plants give seeds. Food is the currency of the nutrition cycle, nourishing all beings in the web of life. Water is the currency in the hydrological cycle, quenching the thirst of the soil, the plants, the animals, the atmosphere.
Nature’s Economy is an autopoietic, negative entropy economy, unlike mechanical, industrial systems which are allopoetic, based on external inputs of energy and resources and create wasted energy as entropy.
Nature’s cycles are zero waste and zero pollution systems, unlike the waste and pollution creating industrial systems driven by external energy.
Care for the Earth and her biodiversity is the Real Economy in which we participate, providing for the needs of others in our Earth Family who provide for us.
Cooperation, Mutuality, Synergy are the principles of Nature’s Economy, not competition and extractivism. Scarcity is a construct that is used to grab people’s lands and resources. The construct of scarcity and greed are the basis of conflicts and wars. Peace flows when all beings cooperate in mutuality and Gift Giving to create abundance and sustenance for all, making conservation and regeneration the basis of living economies and livelihoods.
That is why we pray, “May the peace of the earth, the air, the atmosphere, the waters, the plants, the trees … May that peace be with you”.
Cocreating nonviolently with Mother Earth is weaving peace, and providing for the basic needs of food and water, life and livelihoods of the last person. As Gandhi said: “The Earth has enough for everyone’s needs, not for a few people’s greed.”
We have a duty to protect the Earth‘s living systems and the infrastructure of life that provides us clean air, clean water and clean food. All beings have the right to the gifts of the Earth. All beings have a right to be alive, and to their share of ecological space. No person, no matter how rich they have become through extractivism, has the right to appropriate the share of others in participation in Nature’s Economy, the Economy of Life.
Living is participating in the processes of life.
Living is Commoning. Living is Reclaiming the commons of life and resisting the new enclosures through the financialisation of nature.
“The Currency of Life is Life, not Money”
Mother Earth connects us to her life and the Earth Family through flows of living currencies of energy and breath, water and nourishment.
Currency means flow. It is the flow of life and love through the web of life in nature and society which sustains us as one. As I have often repeated: “The currency of life is life, not money”. Food is the currency of life. Water is the currency of life. Breath is the currency of life. Living energy is the currency of life. Care is the currency of life. The diverse currencies of life grow the infrastructure of life so all lives thrive.
The ecological emergency is a consequence of the economy of Greed, of extractivism to make money, and making money the measure of value, and even the measure of being human. It is the basis of inhumanity, of violence and wars against the Earth and against people, in the name of grabbing resources for the market.
Colonial commerce was based on commodification and commercialisation of nature, leaving nothing for nature and local communities. Colonisers grew richer. Nature and colonised people became poorer.
The disease is now being offered as the cure. Markets and money are being offered as the solution to the ecological catastrophes they have caused. Economic growth, which is merely a measure of how much was extracted from nature and society to convert into money, capital, finances, is being offered as a solution to the ecological crises money-making and extractivism has led to.
The laws of Gaia are the basis of life on earth. They precede production, they precede trade, and they precede the market. The market depends on Gaia. Gaia does not depend on the market. Both the earth and society come first. They are sovereign and autonomous. They cannot be commoditised, and reduced to the market.
In a short 500 years of colonialism, the Robber Barons reduced Terra Madre, Mother Earth to Terra Nullius, dead, Empty Earth, property to be owned, raw material to be exploited. Earth centred communities living in peace with the Earth as part of the Earth were declared “primitive”. Oikonomia, the Art of Living was violently transformed into Chrematistics, the Art of Money Making.
They made the currencies of life disappear and replaced it with money and finance.
In 100 years of the Age of Oil, the Robber Barons displaced the living carbon of biodiversity with the counterfeit energy from fossilised dead carbon, disrupting the self regulation of Earth Systems, giving us pollution, wars and climate catastrophe.
Climate Change, the Extinction Emergency, the economic catastrophes and wars are rooted in greed and wars against the Earth and her Peoples. They are rooted in control of life by controlling the flow of seed going from farmer to farmer, the flow of water in a river, the flow of food to nourish all beings in the food web, the flow of money reflecting embodiment of real goods and resources, the flow of freedom and democracy, of knowledge and information. Controlling the flow is controlling life and freedom. This is how money is made, and power accumulated in the hands of a few.
Now the Robber Barons who gave us oil want to create new markets of carbon, new property in nature’s ecological services, by reducing Biodiversity and Nature into financial assets to be owned and traded[4].
In 2021, Rockefeller and the New York Stock Exchange launched Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG)[5] whose mission focuses on “pioneering a new asset class based on natural assets and the mechanism to convert them to financial capital”[6]. A new colonialism, a new ownership, a new enclosure of the commons is being worked out by the Robber Barons who do not merely want to own nature, but also her ecological services. The assets include “Biological systems that provide clean air, water, foods, medicines, a stable climate, human health and societal potential”[7].
The Robber Barons of today, the philanthrocapitalists, the Blackrocks and Vanguards, are trying to own and privatise all of nature and our lives. They are mutating into life lords to whom we will have to pay rents to breathe, eat, drink. What nature provides for free as a Gift will now be a commodity we “buy” at high cost and through digital social credits in the new economy which builds on the old colonisation.
The money machine is trying to own the last seed, the last drop of water, the last river, extinguish the last forest and last farm, the last insect and blade of grass. Creating fictitious currencies, and fictitious finance, nature is being reduced to a “financial asset”, to be miraculously multiplied to $4000 trillion.
The 2008 financial crisis was the result of the financial Robber Barons magically expanding the $90 trillion economy of real goods and services like homes and food into a fictitious $512 trillion financial economy. The financial economy grew at the cost of millions who were unhoused and unfed as a result. The more the real world is turned into a financial asset, the more homelessness and hunger grows.
Wall Street and the financial asset companies are now seeing a $4000 trillion fictitious economy of finance by extracting profits from “Nature’s assets”, or the goods and services that the Earth produces. This commodification is an enclosure of the commons of life. It is an attempt to own the last river, the last forest and the last acre of land. It is a recipe to displace and dispossess the real custodians of nature, the indigenous people and small farmers leaving them without access to land, forests and water and their Earth-centred cultures and livelihoods. Hunger, poverty, disposability, and dispossession will grow. This is a violation of Nature’s Economy, Rights of Mother Earth, Rights of all beings and Human Rights.
Creating new algorithms to multiply finances and increase financial resources cannot regenerate the life lost in nature through ecological destruction. You can convert nature into cash through extractivism. But you cannot turn cash into nature.
An African peasant captured the ontological and ecological difference between money and life with a simple metaphor:
“You cannot turn a calf into a cow by plastering it with mud”[8]
Financialisation of Mother Nature, reducing her to an “asset” and commodity for sale continues the ontological blindness to how Mother Earth creates and sustains life through her auto-poetic currencies and life flows.
Money is a mere means of exchange of real goods and services produced through real work. Money mutated into the mysterious construct of “capital”, which could create wealth by denying the creativity of nature, women, farmers, workers, could enclose the commons and own the commons as private property. “Capital” then mutated into “investment”. Investment mutated, through multiple constructions into “returns on investment”, where those who do no real work but control wealth created by exploitation of nature and people accumulate more wealth, and use the wealth to further exploit nature and society. The ecological crisis grows. Poverty, misery, exclusion grows.
Financialisation of Nature is the latest step in the mutation of “invest” from giving care to profits and money making.
The original meaning of “invest” was to make something beautiful, to clothe. A mere ten years after the creation of the East India Company by 1610 the meaning of investment changed from being diverse ways of “clothing “ and “surrounding” to “use money to produce profit” in connection with corporate colonial trade.
It was John Locke who extended it to “circulation of money” to suit the needs of private property, money-centred structures being built by colonial commerce. And the delusion that money is the currency of life has allowed money-making and money-makers to be rewarded and even worshipped, while our sense of interconnectedness is extinguished, and with it our potential for compassion.
For them ‘Invest in the planet” means extract the last drop of life from the Earth Systems, extract the last freedom from humans and other species to be sustained by the earth, her flows, her currencies.
We need to return to the original meaning of “invest”, as clothing, and making beauty. We need to clothe the Earth with biodiversity of trees on our farms and forests, biodiversity of crops in our fields and gardens. We need to intensify biodiversity, to intensify photosynthesis, to intensify nature’s flows of life. We need to plant seeds and care for the living soil so the seed, soil and sun can intensify the flow of their living energies, healing broken cycles. We need to invest Love, Care and Compassion to Regenerate the Earth and stop the wars against the Earth and her peoples.
Peace, sustainability and justice call for an end to wars against the Earth in our minds, our lives.
The Colonial Age has enslaved our minds and broken our relationship with the Earth. The Fossil Fuel Age has fossilised our minds and hearts, making us helpless cogs in the oil machine, the money machine, cogs the machine is ready to substitute with robots and AI.
Mother Earth is waking us up to break free of the anthropocentric arrogance that makes rich and powerful humans blind to nature’s life, creativity, technologies, economy and allows them to deny us our rightful share and place as Earth Beings in Mother Earth’s Economy of Life to ensure life and well being, food and water for all.
As money and finance becomes more removed from nature’s economy and the real economies of sustenance that people create, as finance multiplies mysteriously, gets concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires, their Asset Management Funds, and the corporations they own, it is time to remember the prophecy of the Cree Native Americans.
“When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realise that you cannot eat money. ”
Seeding Our Common Future with Mother Earth
We are biological beings, ecological beings, earth beings, inter beings, spiritual beings. We are one Earth Family. Seeds are not machines. Plants are not machines. Animals are not machines. We are not machines. Our minds are not machines. We are conscious, intelligent caring beings with a potential to imagine and cultivate a future of peace and non violence, of abundance and well being.
Life is self-organised complexity and intelligence in constant evolution, interaction, change and emergence. From the seed I have learnt the power of autopoiesis, organised from within. Biodiversity of Seeds and Plants have been my teacher of abundance and freedom, of cooperation and mutual giving.
Seed, uncontaminated seed, Bija, Seme, Semilla- is the source of life, of regeneration and abundance. Seed renews and multiples. Seed Regenerates. On its own. Forever and ever and ever… Seed embodies the continuity of evolution.
From the Seed we can learn self-organisation, co-creation, regeneration. We can return to Earth to grow life in diversity and participate in the flow of life to provide for our needs. At a time when the Robber Barons have plans to own all of nature, all of the Earth, and force us to buy our needs, we need to follow the example of my sisters in Chipko who reminded us that the forests were not timber mines, they were sources of soil, water, and oxygen. They declared they would hug the trees to protect them and not let them be cut.
On Mother Earth Day and every day we live and breathe, whoever we are, where we are, let us hug Mother Earth in gratitude for the breath, food, water, life she gives and declare our deep love for life.
Mother Earth is Not for Sale
When I started the movement for Seed Freedom for saving seeds I travelled the country to create awareness about the Intellectual Property laws of Gatt/WTO through which corporations wanted to own seed as property. The tribals of Chattisgarh who evolved 200,000 varieties of rice told me how seed is a commons which has to be regenerated through sharing. Rice is called Akshat, the unbroken, the timeless, the breath of life. They asked me to return and join them for the festival of Akti, Akshaya Tritiya, a festival for celebrating the unbroken cycle of life, not as observers, but as participants in the cycle of regeneration and care. In a prayer that is said at Akshaya Tritiya, Mother Earth gives us instruction that the purpose of our lives is love and compassion for all beings.
“Relating to all living beings through love and compassion is the purpose of life”
सभी जीवों ( विविध जीवों) के प्रति सहृदयता का परिचय देना ही जीवन का लक्षण है।
David Korten awakens us to the potential we have to participate in the, “joyful exhilaration that comes from fulfilling our responsibility to share in the care of life”[9]
References
[1] A late and dear friend and a geneticist who worked on a quantum theory of biology.
Hunt, Tam. (2013). The rainbow and the worm: Establishing a new physics of life. Communicative & integrative biology. 6. e23149. 10.4161/cib.23149.
[2] Prentice, IC, Farquhar, GD, Fasham, MJR, Goulden, ML, Heimann, M, Jaramillo, VJ, Kheshgi, HS, Le Quere, C, Scholes, RJ & Wallace, DWR 2001, The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide. in JT Houghton, Y Ding, DJ Griggs, M Noguer, PJ van der Linden, X Dai, K Maskell & CA Johnson (eds), Climate change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
This video looks at the paper cited by Dr Bryan Ardis as the main evidence that snake venom plays a role in the current plandemic. The paper purports to have found a potential association between venom-like peptides found from various animals and Covid-19. Dr. Kaufman gives an overview of the relevant issues related to the snake venom controversy and gives a critical appraisal of the experiment and conclusions.
OTTAWA: After repeatedly calling on the University of Ottawa (U of O) to end its abusive and discriminatory practices, the Justice Centre is pleased announce that the University has stated it will cancel its mandatory vaccine policy for students as of May 1, 2022.
The Justice Centre represented a pregnant student who was suspended from her university program after deciding against the Covid vaccine. Her doctor advised her that her pregnancy was at high-risk for reasons unrelated to Covid and recommended that she complete her mandatory internship virtually, which was allowed by the curriculum.
However, the University of Ottawa refused to accommodate her, falsely claiming that she was trying to circumvent the vaccination policy and that there were no places available for a virtual internship.
Throughout the process, U of O made little to no effort to find a mutually acceptable solution, the student alleges, and refused to justify its decisions in light of the facts of the case.
“It is clear that the University of Ottawa did not intend to follow the ‘reasonable accommodation’ basic criteria set out by the Supreme Court of Canada more than 15 years ago,” notes Samuel Bachand senior external counsel for the Justice Centre in the province of Québec.
After negotiations and discussions with lawyers from the Justice Centre, the student managed to find a suitable placement for virtual internship on her own, which was finally approved by the University.
“The brazenness and bad faith of the University in this matter are appalling. There are clearly, among the people in authority there, bureaucrats who are willing to sacrifice the mission of their institution to irrational health concerns,” comments Mr. Bachand,
“It is well accepted in the scientific community that the Covid vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus. There was no basis for the vaccine mandate at the University of Ottawa or any other post-secondary institution given that being vaccinated confers no special status or protection,” concludes Mr. Bachand.
“The snake venom theory by Dr. Bryan Ardis is built upon the interpretation of the unpurified fraudulent
“SARS-COV-2” genome which is itself built upon references to other fraudulent genomes of human and
animal “coronaviruses” created in the very same way. Attempting to claim any connections between the
random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is a useless and pointless exercise as the RNA that was fabricated
into the genome of a “virus” was never purified, isolated, and proven to physically exist in the first place.
Thus any connections between the protein codes said to belong to a “virus” which are then said to be closely
related to supposed snake “coronaviruses” is immediately invalid.
Using this invalid premise to then claim that people have been poisoned by snake venom in the vaccines,
the drugs, and the water supply is nothing but unsubstantiated science fiction that seems designed to have
a few purposes:
To keep people engaged in the lie that a new disease known as “Covid-19” exists and that there is a
singular cause.
To restore faith in monoclonal antibodies and other toxic alternative treatments.
To use the theory to promote and sell anti-venom supplements.
To divide and distract those questioning the official narrative.
To make the “Truther” community look foolish by falling for loosely tied-together circumstantial
evidence that is easily debunked.”
“My story has never been to create fear, panic, and anxiety about water.” He said he told Peters that he believes “there’s actually a snake venom connection to all of COVID-19, and I think that’s the weapon.” – Dr. Bryan Ardis
Summarizing his theory, Dr. Ardis said, “They are using Krait venom and Cobra venom, calling it Covid-19, you’re drinking it, it’s getting into your brainstem and it’s paralyzing your diaphragm’s ability to breathe.”
I really didn’t want to write this article. I was hopeful that people would easily see right through the unsubstantiated claims of Dr. Bryan Ardis that snake venom is the cause of “Covid.” I was hopeful that people would take the time to research the information presented in support of the snake venom theory to see if it held any merit at all. I thought his whirlwind alternative media tour on the who’s who of questionable sources (including the likes of Stew Peters, Mike Adams, and Infowars) would have people questioning why this theory was allowed to be so heavily promoted so quickly. I thought that the fact that the man who created the “Covid” snake venom theory was actually selling his own anti-venom line of supplements would be enough grounds to be skeptical of his motive and his claims.
It seems I was wrong. Just like the baseless vaccine shedding and gain of function/bioweapons narratives, this new snake venom theory has sadly spread through the “Truther” community like wildfire, with many who rightfully challenge the existence of “viruses” clinging to the idea of a new invisible enemy to defeat. They believe that it must be a new toxin. It can’t possibly be the same factors we have seen each and every year leading to disease. This toxin must be hiding in the vaccines, the drugs, and/or even the very water we drink. What these “Truthers” do not realize is that this very line of thinking gives credibility to the idea of a new disease which requires new treatments in order to combat it. This is exactly what the pharmaceutical companies want you to believe.
However, there is NO NEW DISEASE. There is no need for any new or even existing pharmaceutical interventions to treat the same symptoms of detoxification people go through each and every year. In fact, the current treatments can easily be shown to have led to numerous unnecessary deaths. There is no new threat known as “Covid-19” which is being caused by any one factor. The factors leading to the symptoms of disease people are experiencing are multi-causal as they are every year.
Now this is not to say that the vaccines, the drugs, or even the water supply are free of toxins. These are all sources of toxicity and should be investigated as to their composition and effects on our health. However, the theory that there is one factor in all of these sources, i.e. snake venom, and this one factor is leading to the symptoms of disease people are experiencing is, at present time, completely baseless. And it all begins at the very foundation of the fraudulent genome.
The Fradulent Genome
You take that snake or that serpent and you figure out how to isolate genes from that serpent and get those genes of that serpent to insert itself into your God-given created DNA. I think this is the plan all along, was to get the serpents’, the evil one’s DNA, into your God-created DNA.”
He also said genetic sequence testing done on sick patients in Wuhan found their genetic sequence matched two snakes, the Chinese Krait and King Cobra, not bats.”
From Dr. Ardis’ interview with Mike Adams, he supplied the article “Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak” from CNN as his starting point for the “Covid”/snake connection. Within the article, you can see that this claim originates from the fraudulent genomes:
“The researchers used an analysis of the protein codes favored by the new coronavirus and compared it to the protein codes from coronaviruses found in different animal hosts, like birds, snakes, marmots, hedgehogs, manis, bats and humans. Surprisingly, they found that the protein codes in the 2019-nCoV are most similar to those used in snakes.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/
To anyone who actually researched the creation of the original “SARS-COV-2” genome, it is readily apparent that it is a fraudulent computer-generated creation stemming from the unpurified lung fluid of a single patient. The sequenced material could have come from multiple sources, including host DNA/RNA, bacteria, and microbes/microorganisms. It could have even come from outside contamination. There is no way to tell what the origin of the RNA is or even if it was a single source as no particles assumed to be “SARS-COV-2” were ever properly purified and isolated directly from the fluids of the sick patient before being sequenced. Thus, any relation this fabricated sequence has to any other sequence is invalid as the source was never identified to exist as a physical entity to begin with. Considering that the bat and snake “coronavirus” sequences for which the “SARS-COV-2” sequence was then compared to also come from unpurified sources, it is easy to see that any claims as to the origins of the sequenced material is a horrible foundation to build upon for an origin theory of a nonexistent “virus” and/or disease.
Even if this snake-venom connection was valid, the enzyme phospholipase A2 group IIA or sPLA2-IIA, which Dr. Ardis bases much of his claims on, only has similarities to rattlesnake venom. These peptides are “almost identical” to the venoms of animals and yet they are regularly found in healthy humans and other mammals. From his own source:
Like Venom Coursing Through the Body: Researchers Identify Mechanism Driving COVID-19 Mortality
“Researchers from the University of Arizona, in collaboration with Stony Brook University and Wake Forest School of Medicine, analyzed blood samples from two COVID-19 patient cohorts and found that circulation of the enzyme – secreted phospholipase A2 group IIA, or sPLA2-IIA, – may be the most important factor in predicting which patients with severe COVID-19 eventually succumb to the virus.
The sPLA2-IIA enzyme, which has similarities to an active enzyme in rattlesnake venom, is found in low concentrations in healthy individuals and has long been known to play a critical role in defense against bacterial infections, destroying microbial cell membranes.”
Thus, the snake enzymes are in fact normal human enzymes that are regularly found in healthy individuals. There is no mystery as to why these would be present in a sample. We should be able to put this “Covid” snake venom nonsense to bed right here. However, let’s press on a see what else we can uncover.
Antivenom = Monoclonal Antibodies
One thing I will give Dr. Ardis credit for is spotlighting the connection between the creation of antivenoms with the creation of monoclonal antibodies. The processes for both are very similar and the desired outcome is the exact same: the creation of theoretical antibodies. In the case of snake antivenom, it is normally created by a series of injections of the venom of a snake into an animal and then collecting the blood after a period of time. This is usually done through horses but other animals can be used as the host as well. Thus, the antivenom used for a snakebite victim is typically an injection of horse blood.
Both of these therapies have their basis in animal blood and the creation of the theoretical antibodies. Both are associated with toxic side effects. Sadly, while he was originally right about the fact that monoclonal antibodies are toxic and should not be used to treat the symptoms now collectively known as “Covid,” Dr. Ardis changed his tune when another doctor texted him asking if he would use antivenom for a snake bite:
“Last December, Dr Bryan Ardis received a text message from an Emergency Room physician friend of his that sent him down an unexpected and bizarre rabbit hole that may explain the adverse events from the vaccines that we’ve been reporting. The text read: “Hey Dr Ardis…If you got bit by a rattlesnake, would you go to a hospital and get anti-venom?”
“He says, “I realized, all of a sudden, monoclonal antibodies ARE anti-venom. The Federal Government doesn’t want us using anti-venom. Why are they fighting anti-venom and why are we finding anti-venom works against COVID? Is it not a virus? Is it a venom? This is what I want to know: Is COVID a venom and is this why they don’t want you using monoclonal antibodies?”
Do you see the trick? They want you to equate monoclonal antibodies with antivenom. This is supposed to be an “aha” moment where you realize that there is no way that you would not inject antivenom (i.e. horse blood) into yourself if bitten by a snake. It’s a no-brainer, right? We have all seen the movies where a person is bitten by a venomous snake and quickly dies if not given the antivenom.
If you are willing to accept the injection of horse blood into your body to survive a snake bite, why wouldn’t you also inject the cancer-cell cultured blood of genetically altered mice in order to combat “Covid?”
As Dr. Ardis points out, monoclonal antibodies are essentially antivenom. However, he wrongly states that monoclonal antibodies are an effective therapy. According to a September 2021 Cochrane review of the available studies, they found insufficient evidence to claim that monoclonal antibodies are an effective treatment for “SARS-COV-2:”
Are laboratory-made, COVID-19-specific monoclonal antibodies an effective treatment for COVID-19?
“The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate.We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.”
In other words, the evidence for the usefulness of monoclonal antibodies is non-existent. Unfortunately, the Cochrane Review failed to point out that there are various risks and adverse reactions associated with their use:
Do mAbs have risks?
“Therapeutic mAbs, typically administered by intravenous (IV) infusion, have been a valuable and generally safe treatment option for a variety of conditions for many years. However, they are also known to cause a range of side effects and reactions, which can be immediate or delayed.Serious adverse events associated with mAbs include infusion reactions, acute anaphylaxis, and serum sickness, as well as longer-term complications such as infections, cancer, autoimmune disease, and cardiotoxicity.”
In January 2022, the FDA restricted the use of some monoclonal therapies (Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab) that are authorized against “Covid-19” as they were shown to be ineffective:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Limits Use of Certain Monoclonal Antibodies to Treat COVID-19 Due to the Omicron Variant
“In light of the most recent information and data available, today, the FDA revised the authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments– bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) – to limit their use to only when the patient is likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments.
Because data show these treatments are highly unlikely to be active against the omicron variant,which is circulating at a very high frequency throughout the United States, these treatments are not authorized for use in any U.S. states, territories, and jurisdictions at this time. In the future, if patients in certain geographic regions are likely to be infected or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments, then use of these treatments may be authorized in these regions.
Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-made proteins that mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off harmful pathogens such as viruses, like SARS-CoV-2. And like other infectious organisms, SARS-CoV-2 can mutate over time, resulting in certain treatments not working against certain variants such as omicron. This is the case with these two treatments for which we’re making changes today.”
On April 16th, 2022, the FDA revoked the use of Bamlanivimab alone as it’s benefits were shown not to outweigh its risks. Somehow despite this evidence, the FDA still allows for it to be used in combination with Etesevimab, even though they previously revoked their use together in January 2022:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Monoclonal Antibody Bamlanivimab
“Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab, when administered alone, to be used for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults and certain pediatric patients. Based on its ongoing analysis of emerging scientific data, specifically the sustained increase of SARS-CoV-2 viral variants that are resistant to bamlanivimab alone resulting in the increased risk for treatment failure,the FDA has determined that the known and potential benefits of bamlanivimab, when administered alone, no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for its authorized use. Therefore, the agency determined that the criteria for issuance of an authorization are no longer met and has revoked the EUA.
On Nov. 9, 2020, based on the totality of scientific evidence available at the time, the FDA issued an EUA to Eli Lilly and Co. authorizing the emergency use of bamlanivimab alone for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct SARS-CoV-2 viral testing, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. Importantly, although the FDA is now revoking this EUA, alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain available under EUA, including REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab, administered together), and bamlanivimab and etesevimab, administered together, for the same uses as previously authorized for bamlanivimab alone. The FDA believes that these alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain appropriate to treat patients with COVID-19 when used in accordance with the authorized labeling based on information available at this time.”
If the FDA’s confusing revoking of the EUA’s of these monoclonal antibodies has you concerned that you will not be able to use them against an imaginary “virus,” don’t worry. The FDA authorized the use of a new “Omicron-specific” monoclonal antibody called Bebtelovimab on February 11th, 2022. Granted, it still carries the same risks, adverse side effects, and uncertainty over clinical worsening listed for the previously ineffective antibody therapies. From the FDA fact sheet:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes New Monoclonal Antibody for Treatment of COVID-19 that Retains Activity Against Omicron Variant
“Possible side effects of bebtelovimab include itching, rash, infusion-related reactions, nausea and vomiting. Serious and unexpected adverse events including hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions have been observed with other SARS-CoV2 monoclonal antibodies and could occur with bebtelovimab. In addition, clinical worsening following administration of other SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and therefore is possible with bebtelovimab. It is not known if these events were related to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of COVID-19.”
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes New Monoclonal Antibody for Treatment of COVID-19 that Retains Activity Against Omicron Variant
Hypersensitivity Including Anaphylaxis and Infusion-Related Reactions: Serious hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, have been observed with administration of other SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and could occur with administration of bebtelovimab. If clinically significant hypersensitivity reactions occur, discontinue and initiate appropriate supportive care. Infusion-related reactions may occur up to 24 hours post injection. These reactions may be severe or life threatening. (5.1)
Clinical Worsening After SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibody Administration: Clinical worsening of COVID-19 after administration of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and may include signs or symptoms of fever, hypoxia or increased respiratory difficulty, arrhythmia (e.g., atrial fibrillation, sinus tachycardia, bradycardia), fatigue, and altered mental status. Some of these events required hospitalization. It is not known if these events were related to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of COVID-19. (5.2)
Limitations of Benefit and Potential for Risk in Patients with Severe COVID-19: Treatment with bebtelovimab has not been studied in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. Monoclonal antibodies, such as bebtelovimab, may be associated with worse clinical outcomes when administered to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation. (5.3)
It should be fairly clear that, unlike Dr. Ardis’ claims, monoclonal antibodies are not effective, carry numerous risky side effects, and can actually worsen the disease they are supposed to treat. Interestingly, this same risk of dangerous side effects and worsening disease outcomes is associated with snake antivenom as well. From the fact sheet of a commonly used antivenom for rattlesnake bites, we find these admitted side effects:
Rattlesnake Antivenin Side Effects Center
“Rattlesnake Antivenin (antivenin crotalidae polyvalent) is an antivenin product used only to treat envenomation caused by bites of crotalids (pit vipers) including rattlesnakes, copperhead and cottonmouth moccasins, and others. Common side effects of Rattlesnake Antivenin include allergic reactions such as flushing, itching, hives, swelling of the face/tongue/throat, cough, shortness of breath, blue color to the skin, vomiting, and anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction).”
“Immediate systemic reactions (allergic reactions or anaphylaxis) can occur whenever a horse-serum-containing product is administered. An immediate reaction (e.g. shock, anaphylaxis) usually occurs within 30 minutes. Symptoms and signs may develop before the needle is withdrawn and may include apprehension, flushing, itching, urticaria; edema of the face, tongue, and throat; cough, dyspnea, cyanosis, vomiting, and collapse. There have been isolated reports of cardiac arrest and death associated with Antivenin (Crotalidae) Polyvalent (equine origin) use.”
“Serum sickness usually occurs 5 to 24 days after administration and its frequency may be related to the number of Antivenin vials administered.30 The incubation period may be less than 5 days, especially in those who have received horse-serum-containing preparations in the past. The usual symptoms and signs are malaise, fever, urticaria, lymphadenopathy, edema, arthralgia, nausea, and vomiting. Occasionally, neurological manifestations develop, such as meningismus or peripheral neuritis. Peripheral neuritis usually involves the shoulders and arms. Pain and muscle weakness are frequently present, and permanent atrophy may develop.”
Maybe the use of antivenom to treat a snakebite isn’t the super cure it has been sold to be? Is it possible that, as with many pharmaceutical products and interventions, the antivenom itself is creating the very symptoms it is said to treat? For some further insight, let’s look at a few highlights from an paper from September 2019, right before this “crisis,” which reviewed the use of antivenom and had a few revealing claims about the “anti” toxin. You will see it reiterated that the injection of antivenom created from either horse, sheep, goats, and/or rabbits can cause immediate hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis or a delayed “serum sickness” which can occur weeks after the treatment. It is stated that the antivenom has limited efficacy and can be entirely ineffective based on the geographic location. Improper use of antivenom contributes to increased servere outcomes and the production of antibodies in animals leads to a large number (70%) of immunoglobulins that do not react to snake venom:
Perspective on the Therapeutics of Anti-Snake Venom
3. Current Information in the Design of New Antivenoms
“Currently, the only accepted treatment for snakebite envenomation involves intravenous administration of conventional antivenoms comprising antibodies or antibody fragments derived from the plasma of large mammals (generally horses, but also sheep, goats, or rabbits) that have been previously immunized with non-lethal venomous doses [14,15]. Hyperimmunized animals produce antibodies against the venom proteins and serum is extracted from their blood for the treatment of envenomation [6,16]. Conventional serum therapy aims to bind and neutralize the snake venom proteins [17]. It is a fact that the antivenom allows the body to try to reverse the damage caused by the venom. However, it is known that such therapy can cause problems related to different antivenom characteristics, such as:
Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to the alien immunoglobulins, including anaphylactic and pyrogenic reactions such as chills, rigor, headache, and tachycardia. Delayed antivenom reactions or serum sickness is observed after 8 to 12 days of treatment; these are characterized by cutaneous eruptions, fever, and allergies, among other effects [18];
Limited efficacy of antivenom therapy to protect the affected organ/s against immediate local tissue damage and low stability;
Ineffectiveness of the antivenom due to significant geographic variation in the composition of the venom;
Antigenic reactivity due to the taxonomic diversity of the snakes;
Improper use of the antivenom due to incorrect medical management, which contributes to a high incidence of adverse reactions, a low toxin neutralizing potency, or both.
“Current antibody production faces challenges during the immunization of the animal (equine or ovine), leading to the production of a huge number of antibodies that are not related to the snake venom. Around 70% of the immunoglobulins obtained do not act directly against venom toxins [26]. Despite the abovementioned facts, this is the only FDA approved therapy to treat snake venom.”
A few other studies also point out the severe reactions regularly attributed to the use of antivenom. The first is a study from 2016 which points out that not only are adverse reactions common, they occur at a high rate. It is stated that this is due to poor quality control and manufacturing problems:
Adverse reactions to snake antivenom, and their prevention and treatment
“Antivenom is the mainstay of treatment of snakebite envenoming. However, adverse reactions to snake antivenom that is available are common in many parts of the world where snakebite is prevalent. Both acute (anaphylactic or pyrogenic) and delayed (serum sickness type) reactions occur. Acute reactions are usually mild but severe systemic anaphylaxis may develop, often within an hour or so of exposure to antivenom. Serum sickness after antivenom has a delayed onset between 5 and 14 days after its administration. Ultimately, the prevention reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom.”
“The high rate of acute adverse reactions to antivenom is an example of how poor manufacturing and quality control by antivenom producers cause problems for patients and their doctors. This highlights the importance of addressing issues related to poor quality and potentially unsafe antivenom. Ultimately, the prevention of reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom. Until these improvements take place, doctors will have to depend on pharmacological prophylaxis as well as careful observation of patients receiving antivenom in preparation for prompt management of acute as well as delayed reactions when they occur.”
This next source is from 2018 and it points out that early antivenoms were unsafe and caused severe life-threatening events. While they now have “acceptable” safety profiles, antivenoms still have varying quality and range from 10% adverse reactions to greater than 50%. This same variation in quality is seen in the production of monoclonal antibodies:
Antivenom therapy: efficacy of premedication for the prevention of adverse reactions
“However, in their initial applications, antivenoms did not exhibit good safety results and could even cause life-threatening side effects [8]. The main reason was that first antivenoms were poorly purified preparations or crude sera. Over the years, for many of the original applications, heterologous serums were replaced by other drugs with better safety profiles, such as antibiotics, vaccines and homologous serums. However, in cases of envenomation by snakes, scorpions or arachnids, antivenoms remain the only effective treatment [4]. Currently, after many improvements, antivenoms exhibit acceptable safety profiles [1, 9, 10]. Nevertheless, antivenom quality still varies widely depending on the producer, while some antivenoms exhibit adverse reaction rates of less than 10%, others have values of greater than 50% [11, 12].”
In is interesting to note that there are many factors that are said to influence the severity of a venomous snakebite including the age, sex, and health of the person bitten as well as the type of snake, the geographical location of the snake, the season the bite occurred in, what the snake ate, and how recently the snake released its venom. Antivenoms themselves have been shown to have varying effects in quality due to the geographical location of the snake which somehow renders the antivenom ineffective and even dangerous in different countries and continents, even against the same type of snake. It is said that this has kept locals from seeking out medical care and sticking to traditional healers:
“Snake venoms are highly complicated. At least 26 separate enzymes have been identified with 10 of these enzymes common to all snake venoms (though in different concentrations). All snake bites are not equal. The quality of venom depends not only on the type of snake but on the season, the geographical region, the age of the snake, and how recently it has released venom previously.”
“A study led by Dr Fry has found that antivenoms produced using snakes from one region may perform poorly or fail completely against the same species of snakes from other regions.
Researchers tested the effectiveness of two African and two Indian saw-scaled viper antivenoms against saw-scaled vipers from 10 regions.
The results showed that the two African antivenoms were only effective against snakes from restricted ranges.
One antivenom performed well against West African saw-scaled vipers and the other performed best against the East African saw-scaled vipers.
The Indian antivenom only worked against saw-scaled vipers from the region where the antidote was produced and failed against toxins from other Indian regions. It failed completely against African saw-scaled vipers.
“These antivenoms are being sold and used interchangeably to treat all saw-scaled viper bites, and in many cases they are not working,” Dr Fry says.
“In Kenya, snakebite deaths have increased dramatically after hospitals switched supplies of a very effective African antivenom with a cheaper Indian variety.”
“This creates a knock-on effect in these communities. It’s hard enough to convince people living in these regions not to go to traditional healers to treat snakebite. And if someone does seek proper medical care but dies because of ineffective antivenom, it will be even harder to convince the next victim to seek out antivenom.”
Viper venom’s lethal evolution
It’s the variety of the saw-scaled viper’s prey, from rodents to insects, that researchers say could be the reason why antivenom from one region might not work in another.
“Antivenom is effective and reliable when venom composition does not vary greatly between individual snakes,” UQ PhD candidate in Toxinology Bianca op den Brouw wrote in an article for The Conversation.
“Unfortunately, the venom composition from saw-scaled vipers varies between populations and is thought to be partly due to an evolutionary adaptation linked to their diet.
“Different saw-scaled viper populations feed on different prey. The physiology of these prey animals differs, and this dictates what makes a toxin effective.
“From a medical perspective, this means that the antibodies in an antivenom may not be able to adequately recognise and fight all the harmful toxins in the venom.”
Maybe the proceeding information on how snakebite antivenoms are created as well as the high rate of adverse events from the antibodies used for antivenom now has you questioning that initial “no-brainer” thought: “Of course I would use antivenom if bit by a snake.” If so, you are on the right track as, based on information from the African Snakebite Institute, in most snake bite cases, antivenom is not used and many snake bites are often unattended and/or unreported. In fact, it is apparently a well-known “myth” (i.e. truth in this case) that the antivenom kills more people than the snake venom itself. Most people (over 80%) never receive antivenom as, like the previous sources stated, it can have disastrous side-effects. Most snake bites do not cause symptoms warranting the use of something so toxic. In fact, snake bite victims are not immediately injected with antivenom and typically are sent home after observation:
“Yet people often have a poor understanding of how it works and there are endless myths about antivenom killing more people than the snake venom itself.”
“Few snakebite victims are treated with antivenom (less than 20 % of those hospitalised after a snakebite) as most victims are not severely envenomated or the bite may be from a snake that is not considered potentially deadly or is not covered by the antivenom (Rhombic Night Adder, Berg Adder and Stiletto Snake). Antivenom is relatively scarce, expensive and can have disastrous side-effects. The biggest danger is an acute allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) or, to a lesser degree, serum sickness that can affect the immune system several days after treatment.”
“Snakebite victims are not automatically injected with antivenom as most of them never experience symptoms severe enough to justify its use. The majority of snakes have control over their venom glands and are quite reluctant to waste their venom on humans. They very often give ‘dry’ bites with no subsequent symptoms of envenomation or the snake might inject a little bit of venom that will cause discomfort or some symptoms but nothing serious. Such patients are usually hospitalised for a day, carefully monitored and then sent home.”
“As already mentioned, some snakebite victims quickly have an allergic reaction to antivenom and this happens in more than 40% of all cases where antivenom is used. Some of those victims go into anaphylactic shock which is a life-threatening medical condition and must be treated with adrenaline. This has to do with the fact that our antivenom is made from horse blood and the allergy is basically an allergy to horse proteins.”
Bill Haast – repeated snake bite victim from the world’s deadliest snakes tragically died at the young age of 100 from natural causes. ?
If snake bites regularly do not cause symptoms and do not require the use of antivenom, are snake bites really as toxic and harmful as we previously thought? Are the dangerous side effects linked to snake bites really just the reactions to having horse blood injected into the body as treatment? Is this another case where the treatment causes the symptoms of disease it was supposed to prevent? If the examples of these next few individuals are taken into consideration, it’s entirely plausible to conclude that we have been misled about the dangers stemming from snakebites in order to cover for the toxic effects of the treatment:
Repeated snake bite for recreation: Mechanisms and implications
“There is a debate in the fatality/immunity due to repeated snake bites in human beings either accidentally or incidentally. Haast and Winer[11] reported complete recovery of a patient without any specific therapy even after bitten by a deadly snake Bangarus Caeruleus[11] and the authors attributed it to cross protection of existing antibody between species of Bangarus and Indian, African and Egyptian cobras, as he had a history of bites from these snakes earlier.”
This snake-man got himself bitten over 200 times to become immune to venom
“Bill Haast, a scientist turned snake-man from America, was bitten at least 173 times by poisonous snakes in his life till mid-2008 of which he was fatally injured about 20 times.”
“In the 1950s, he had few ill-effects and didnt need any anti-venom in spite of the fact that he was bitten by the cobras about 20 times as per the report published in Today I Found Out.“
Man makes deadly snakes bite him 160 times in hunt for human antidote
“An amateur scientist has deliberately endured more than 160 self-inflicted snake bites in a bid to become immune to venom.
Tim Friede is obsessed by finding a human antidote to poisonous snake bites, which kill an estimated 100,000 people every year.
Mr Friede was recently bitten by a taipan and a black mamba, two deadly snakes he keeps at his home in Wisconsin, USA, in addition to his two rattlesnakes and water cobra.
He said he experienced a “real throbbing sensation” but he “felt great” after the bites.
“It really hurts and it swells but that’s it,” he said.”
Poison pass: the man who became immune to snake venom
“A lot has been written about Steve Ludwin, widely known as the man who injects snake venom, and lately his life has turned into a non-stop frenzy of international journalists and film crews revelling in the seeming sheer insanity of it.”
“He’s been shooting, swallowing and scratching venom into his skin from some of the world’s deadliest snakes for 30 years. “Snakes are fucking everywhere. The symbol for medicine is two snakes. They’re ingrained in our brain and DNA,” he tells me, proudly insisting that he hasn’t been ill for decades and has developed “a superhuman immune system”. And it’s tempting to believe him. He does look undeniably fit.”
The Photographer Who Was Bitten by a Black Mamba… and Got the Shot “After several minutes and then hours passed and Laita was still feeling fine — experts recommend heading straight for a hospital, by the way — the crew concluded that Laita didn’t have any venom in his system. The photographer believes that it was either a “dry bite,” when a snake doesn’t release any venom, or that his heavy flow of blood pushed out the venom.”
As can be seen, there are numerous examples of people being deliberately and accidentally bitten by the world’s deadliest snakes who are completely fine and do not require treatment from antivenom whatsoever. Are we to conclude that these people are the lucky few who somehow have amazing super-human “immune” systems that render snake venom ineffective? Or have snake bites and the associated symptoms of venom toxicity been blown out of proportion? Could this be a case where some have had bad reactions to a snake bite just as there are those who have severe allergic reactions to bee stings while the majority of snake bite and bee sting victims come away unscathed? Could this be similar to the supposed rabies cases where the majority of those who were bitten by “rabid” animals actually went on to be just fine without getting the rabies vaccination?
The Treatments Are Worse Than the Disease
It’s very apparent that in the case of monoclonal antibodies and anivenom, the adverse effects of the drugs are actually worse than the supposed diseases they are meant to treat. Could this be due to the fact that, like “viruses,” so-called antibodies have never been properly purified, isolated, and proven to exist? The results of studies using antibodies are regularly unreproducible and irreplicable. It is well-known that antibodies are in fact not as specific as are they are claimed to be and are said to regularly bind to the wrong proteins. Perhaps it is difficult to produce safe and effective products when the entities that are supposed to be produced and supplied in the animal blood are entirely theoretical? Maybe the ridiculous snake venom theory should be viewed in the context that it is a bad idea to be injecting anything, let alone animal blood, into our bodies in an attempt to make ourselves feel better when trusting the body and allowing it to heal is often times the best course of action we can take.
In Summary:
Dr. Bryan Ardis put forth a theory that snake venom is the cause of “Covid-19” primarily based on fraudulent genomic data
The snake connection stems from research linking proteins from the fabricated “SARS-COV-2” genome to bat and snake “coronavirus” proteins
The enzyme phospholipase A2 group IIA or sPLA2-IIA, which Dr. Ardis bases much of his claims on, only has similarities to rattlesnake venom
These peptides are “almost identical” to the venoms of animals and are regularly found in healthy humans and other mammals
Dr. Ardis pointed out that, based on a text, he uncovered the connection between antivenom and monoclonal antibodies and stated that theyare the same thing
He wrongly concluded that monoclonal antibodies are an effective treatment for snake poisons that could be in the vaccines, Remdesivir, and water
According to a Sept 2021 Cochrane Review, their certainty in the evidence for the use of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of “Covid” for all non-hospitalised individuals was low, and for hospitalised individuals was very low to moderate
They considered the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with “SARS-CoV-2-neutralising” mAbs
Monoclonal antibodies are known to cause a range of side effects and reactions, which can be immediate or delayed
Serious adverse events associated with mAbs include infusion reactions, acute anaphylaxis, and serum sickness, as well as longer-term complications such as infections, cancer, autoimmune disease, and cardiotoxicity
In February 2022, the FDA revised the authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments – bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) – to limit their use to only when the patient is likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments
The data showed these treatments are highly unlikely to be active against the omicron variant which is circulating at a very high frequency throughout the United States
These treatments are not authorized for use in any U.S. states, territories, and jurisdictions at this time
Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-made proteins that mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off harmful pathogens
In April 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab, when administered alone, to be used for the treatment of mild-to-moderate “COVID-19” in adults and certain pediatric patients
Based on its ongoing analysis of emerging scientific data, specifically the sustained increase of “SARS-CoV-2 viral” variants that are resistant to bamlanivimab alone resulting in the increased risk for treatment failure, the FDA determined that the known and potential benefits of bamlanivimab, when administered alone, no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for its authorized use
Importantly, although the FDA revoked this EUA, alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain available under EUA, including REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab, administered together), and bamlanivimab and etesevimab, administered together, for the same uses as previously authorized for bamlanivimab alone
In other words, the use of Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab was revoked as well as the use of Bamlanivimab but they can still be used together as an alternative to Bamlanivimab alone…
For the Omicron-specific Bebtelovimab authorized by the FDA in February 2022, possible side effects include
Itching
Rash
Infusion-related reactions
Nausea
Vomiting
Serious and unexpected adverse events including hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions have been observed with other “SARS-CoV2” monoclonal antibodies and could occur with bebtelovimab
In addition, clinical worsening following administration of other “SARS-CoV-2” monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and therefore is possible with bebtelovimab
The FDA claims that it is not known if these events were related to “SARS-CoV-2” monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of “COVID-19”
Treatment with Bebtelovimab has not been studied in patients hospitalized due to “COVID-19”
Monoclonal antibodies, such as Bebtelovimab, may be associated with worse clinical outcomes when administered to hospitalized patients with “COVID-19” requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation
Antivenom carries the same risks of severe side effects and worsening condition as monoclonal antibodies
The listing for common side effects of Rattlesnake Antivenin include allergic reactions such as:
Flushing
Iitching
Hives
Swelling of the face/tongue/throat
Cough
Shortness of breath
Blue color to the skin
Vomiting, and anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction)
Immediate systemic reactions (allergic reactions or anaphylaxis) can occur whenever a horse-serum-containing product is administered
There have been isolated reports of cardiac arrest and death associated with Antivenin (Crotalidae) Polyvalent (equine origin) use
Serum sickness usually occurs 5 to 24 days after administration and its frequency may be related to the number of Antivenin vials administered
The usual symptoms and signs are:
Malaise
Fever
Urticaria
Lymphadenopathy
Edema
Arthralgia
Nausea
Vomiting
Occasionally, neurological manifestations develop, such as meningismus or peripheral neuritis
Peripheral neuritis usually involves the shoulders and arms and pain and muscle weakness are frequently present, and permanent atrophy may develop
A 2019 review on antivenom stated that currently, the only accepted treatment for snakebite envenomation involves intravenous administration of conventional antivenoms comprising antibodies or antibody fragments derived from the plasma of large mammals (generally horses, but also sheep, goats, or rabbits) that have been previously immunized with non-lethal venomous doses
It is known that such therapy can cause problems related to different antivenom characteristics, such as:
Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to the alien immunoglobulins, including anaphylactic and pyrogenic reactions such as chills, rigor, headache, and tachycardia.
Delayed antivenom reactions or serum sickness is observed after 8 to 12 days of treatment; these are characterized by cutaneous eruptions, fever, and allergies, among other effects
Limited efficacy of antivenom therapy to protect the affected organ/s against immediate local tissue damage and low stability
Ineffectiveness of the antivenom due to significant geographic variation in the composition of the venom;
Antigenic reactivity due to the taxonomic diversity of the snakes
Improper use of the antivenom due to incorrect medical management, which contributes to a high incidence of adverse reactions, a low toxin neutralizing potency, or both
Current antibody production faces challenges during the immunization of the animal (equine or ovine), leading to the production of a huge number of antibodies that are not related to the snake venom
Around 70% of the immunoglobulins obtained do not act directly against venom toxins
According to a 2016 study, adverse reactions to snake antivenom that is available are common in many parts of the world where snakebite is prevalent
The high rate of acute adverse reactions to antivenom is an example of how poor manufacturing and quality control by antivenom producers cause problems for patients and their doctors
The prevention of reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom
According to their initial applications, antivenoms did not exhibit good safety results and could even cause life-threatening side effects
Currently, after many improvements, antivenoms exhibit “acceptable” safety profiles yet antivenom quality still varies widely depending on the producer, while some antivenoms exhibit adverse reaction rates of less than 10%, others have values of greater than 50%
All snake bites are not equal and the quality of venom depends not only on the type of snake but on the season, the geographical region, the age of the snake, and how recently it has released venom previously
A study led by Dr. Fry found that antivenoms produced using snakes from one region may perform poorly or fail completely against the same species of snakes from other regions
The results showed that the two African antivenoms were only effective against snakes from restricted ranges
One antivenom performed well against West African saw-scaled vipers and the other performed best against the East African saw-scaled vipers
The Indian antivenom only worked against saw-scaled vipers from the region where the antidote was produced and failed against toxins from other Indian regionand it failed completely against African saw-scaled vipers
“These antivenoms are being sold and used interchangeably to treat all saw-scaled viper bites, and in many cases they are not working,” Dr Fry said
If someone does seek proper medical care but dies because of ineffective antivenom,it will be even harder to convince the next victim to seek out antivenom
Antivenom is effective and reliable when venom composition does not vary greatly between individual snakes
Unfortunately, the venom composition from saw-scaled vipers varies between populations and is thought to be partly due to an evolutionary adaptation linked to their diet
From a medical perspective, this means that the antibodies in an antivenom may not be able to adequately recognise and fight all the harmful toxins in the venom
There are endless myths about antivenom killing more people than the snake venom itself
Few snakebite victims are treated with antivenom (less than 20 % of those hospitalised after a snakebite
Antivenom is relatively scarce, expensive and can have disastrous side-effects
Snakebite victims are not automatically injected with antivenom as most of them never experience symptoms severe enough to justify its use
Snakes very often give ‘dry’ bites with no subsequent symptoms of envenomation or the snake might inject a little bit of venom that will cause discomfort or some symptoms but nothing serious
Such patients are usually hospitalised for a day, carefully monitored and then sent home
Some snakebite victims quickly have an allergic reaction to antivenom and this happens in more than 40% of all cases where antivenom is used
This has to do with the fact that antivenom is made from horse blood and the allergy is basically an allergy to horse proteins
Haast and Winer reported complete recovery of a patient without any specific therapy even after bitten by a deadly snake Bangarus Caeruleus and the authors attributed it to cross protection of existing antibody between species of Bangarus and Indian, African and Egyptian cobras, as he had a history of bites from these snakes earlier
Bill Haast, a scientist turned snake-man from America, was bitten at least 173 times by poisonous snakes in his life till mid-2008 of which he was seriously injured about 20 times
In the 1950s, he had few ill-effects and didnt need any anti-venom in spite of the fact that he was bitten by the cobras about 20 times
An amateur scientist named Tim Friede deliberately endured more than 160 self-inflicted snake bites in a bid to become immune to venom
Mr Friede was recently bitten by a taipan and a black mamba, two deadly snakes he keeps at his home in Wisconsin, USA, in addition to his two rattlesnakes and water cobra
He said he experienced a “real throbbing sensation” but he “felt great” after the bites
Steve Ludwin, widely known as the man who injects snake venom, has been shooting, swallowing and scratching venom into his skin from some of the world’s deadliest snakes for 30 years
He hasn’t been ill for decades and has developed “a superhuman immune system”
A photographer was bit by the deadliest snake, a Black Mamba, and after hours passed, he was still feeling fine and needed no treatment
The snake venom theory by Dr. Bryan Ardis is built upon the interpretation of the unpurified fraudulent “SARS-COV-2” genome which is itself built upon references to other fraudulent genomes of human and animal “coronaviruses” created in the very same way. Attempting to claim any connections between the random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is a useless and pointless exercise as the RNA that was fabricated into the genome of a “virus” was never purified, isolated, and proven to physically exist in the first place. Thus any connections between the protein codes said to belong to a “virus” which are then said to be closely related to supposed snake “coronaviruses” is immediately invalid.
Using this invalid premise to then claim that people have been poisoned by snake venom in the vaccines, the drugs, and the water supply is nothing but unsubstantiated science fiction that seems designed to have a few purposes:
To keep people engaged in the lie that a new disease known as “Covid-19” exists and that there is a singular cause.
To restore faith in monoclonal antibodies and other toxic alternative treatments.
To use the theory to promote and sell anti-venom supplements.
To divide and distract those questioning the official narrative.
To make the “Truther” community look foolish by falling for loosely tied-together circumstantial evidence that is easily debunked.
If we are to take the claims of Dr. Ardis seriously that the symptoms associated with snake venom is the true cause of a disease known as “Covid-19,” how does his theory explain for the fact that the antivenom and monoclonal antibody treatments cause the exact same symptoms of the disease they are supposed to treat? How would it be determined that the worsening clinical outcomes after injection are from the snake bites/venom rather than the antivenom/monoclonal antibodies given as treatment? How does his theory account for the numerous instances where people have been deliberately bitten by snakes, injected with the venom of snakes, and drank of the venom of the snakes with little to no harmful effects whatsoever? How does his theory account for the fact that the vast majority of “Covid” cases are asymptomatic and the vast majority of snake bite cases need no treatment at all? There are many holes in this theory which will easily be picked apart to make those who follow it look foolish for having done so.
There is no “SARS-COV-2.” There is no “Covid-19.” There is no new disease nor any new symptoms of disease requiring treatment from vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, NAC, nor any other treatment. There is no need for any anti-venom supplements.
Beware those who will sell you the cause of the disease and the solution.
In a stunning move – soon to be filed under the “completely lost touch with America” folder – the Biden administration is reportedly planning to appeal the ruling that lifted the COVID mask mandate on travel, just hours after most major airlines and airports (and ground transportation) has dropped their mask rules.
It was evident this was coming earlier in the day after White House spokesperson Jen Psaki warned and Xavier Becerra, Biden’s health secretary, told reporters in Nevada, that “we are right now in the process of deciding, and we likely will appeal that ruling, but stay tuned.”
Jonathan Turley offered some insight before the actual decision was made to appeal if CDC thinks it necessary:
The Administration is going to have a hard time making this cat walks backwards. The cheering of passengers and pilots seemed as much as a communication to the Administration as it was a celebration. A large number of airlines immediately declared the mandate to be dead and unenforceable. It is like throwing a retirement party for an employee before they have decided to go. It is a tad awkward to express doubts when someone is showing you the door.
That is why those cheering videos could have a greater impact on the White House than any CDC or DOJ recommendation. The Biden Administration could still appeal as it has in past such cases. There will certainly be many DOJ lawyers asserting that they could win on appeal on the basis of agency deference. The question is who would tell the public. They may have to wait for the “ding, dong” parties to end.
But, given all that, they decided it was worth it…
Justice Department Issues Statement on Ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund Inc, et. al. v. Biden, et. al.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Justice today released the following statement on Health Freedom Defense Fund Inc., et. al. v. Biden, et. al. from spokesman Anthony Colev:
“The Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) disagree with the district court’s decision and will appeal, subject to CDC’s conclusion that the order remains necessary for public health. The Department continues to believe that the order requiring masking in the transportation corridor is a valid exercise of the authority Congress has given CDC to protect the public health. That is an important authority the Department will continue to work to preserve.
“On April 13,2022, before the district court’s decision, CDC explained that the order w’ould remain in effect while it assessed current public health conditions, and that the Transportation Security Administration would extend its directive implementing the order until May 3 to facilitate CDC’s assessment.
“If CDC concludes that a mandatory order remains necessary for the public’s health after that assessment, the Department of Justice wall appeal the district court’s decision.“
So, if the CDC – against all the actual science – concludes that wearing a mask should remain mandatory, instead of leaving it as a personal decision, the Biden DoJ will appeal the ruling that was celebrated by most.
The more we ponder this decision, the more this smells like The DoJ throwing The CDC under the bus. The reason being that The CDC now has to come up with some “science” reason to re-mandate the masks (which we know they can’t) and therefore The DoJ is therefore covered if people try to blame them for not appealing.
And the winner of the most ironic sentence of the day goes to White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, who after relying on court ruling after court ruling to enforce varying levels of health tyranny for the last 15 months, uttered the following in her out-loud voice…
“Public health decisions shouldn’t be made by the courts. They should be made by public health experts.”
Who said the left doesn’t do humor… talking of which…
Babylon Bee has some advice for those still living in fear:
It can be difficult, though, to suddenly see all those triggering human faces after the government coddled you and fed your psychotic delusion and fear for the last two years.
Here are seven ways to cope:
Close your eyes and imagine everyone is wearing a full hazmat suit. – It’s a neat little trick that actually works.
Scream at the sky. – This is a well-known coping mechanism. It works especially well if you record your scream onto your TikTok account.
Play The Sims 4 and manage other people’s lives like you’re an all-powerful god to your heart’s content. – Now you can drown people by surrounding their swimming pools with an impenetrable wall of potted plants. You’re in charge here!
Upgrade to 3 or 4 masks, or just roll around in a giant hamster ball. – Keep upping the number of masks you wear, but if that’s not enough, go the hamster ball route.
Get your pilot’s license and start your own airline. – aIrLiNeS aRe PrIvAtE cOmPaNiEs ThEy CaN dO wHaT tHeY wAnT!
Just remember, we’re all in this together. – It’s just for a little while. It’s a small sacrifice to make. If it saves one toddler from a speech impediment it’s all worth it.
Never go outside again. – Curl up in a ball and live out the rest of your days in the corner of your home, completely safe from COVID.
Bear in mind that nothing is stopping the fearful from ‘masking up’ against the virus…
“you are free to wear masks if you like… if they work, they will protect you, if they don’t why mandate them?”
Presumably there are a number of “political science” reasons for the appeal:
1) “Trump” judge
2) Offering a bone to whatever is left on the ‘Democratic base’ amid the unhinged rantings of the blue-checks on Twitter as the dissonance suddenly strikes that they have been wearing face diapers for 2 years for no reason.
3) Making sure to maintain the role as the “party of science“…
4) …ok we couldn’t think of any more… apart from ‘scream to the sky’
Following a federal judge vacating the federal mask mandate on transportation, the TSA responded, “TSA (Transportation Security Administration) will not enforce its Security Directives and Emergency Amendment requiring mask use on public transportation and transportation hubs at this time.”
Within hours various airlines began notifying customers the mask mandate is gone:
♦ American Airlines – “In accordance with the Transportation Security Administration no longer enforcing the federal face mask mandate, face masks will no longer be required for our customers and team members at U.S. airports and on domestic flights.” (link)
♦ Southwest Airlines – “As a result of this development, effectively immediately, Southwest Employees and Customers will be able to choose whether they would like to wear a mask, and we encourage individuals to make the best decision to support their personal wellbeing.” (link)
♦ Delta Airlines – “Effective immediately, masks are optional for all airport employees, crew members and customers inside U.S. airports and on board all aircraft domestically, as well as on most international flights.” (link)
♦ Alaska Airlines – “Effective immediately, all Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air guests and employees have the option to wear a mask while traveling in the U.S. and at work. Masks are no longer required for travel and will be optional.” (link)
♦ United Airlines – No press release. “Masks are no longer required on domestic flights, select international flights (dependent upon the arrival country’s requirements) or at U.S. airports. More comfortable keeping yours on? Go right ahead… the choice is yours (you look dino-mite either way)!” ~Twitter
Various videos show airline employees in a state of jubilation cheering the announcements.
The professional political left is very sad, apoplectic and filled with anxiety. However, the overwhelming majority are happy. This example again reflects how small that minority of rabid maskers was. Easily a 4:1 ratio. Additionally, with all the major carriers and the TSA making official statements, it would be almost impossible to reinstate the mask mandate now. It’s over.
Plane applauded as the stewardess announced the end of the mandate. She broke into tears as she got to take off her mask for the first time in 2 years pic.twitter.com/WlCpZk30QM
“Ladies and gentlemen, this is your pilot speaking. This is the most important announcement I’ve ever made. The federal mask mandate is over. Take off your mask if you choose!”
A federal judge in Tampa, Florida has vacated the federal transportation mask mandate for planes, trains, buses and public Transportation. [PDF Ruling Available Here]
In essence, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle found the CDC exceeded its statutory authority with the mask mandate and violated the rules that guide CDC regulations. After Joe Biden arbitrarily announced the federal transportation mandate, the CDC triggered enforcement of the mask mandate without any required time for public feedback on a new regulation.
Within the ruling, one of the commonsense arguments against the federal mandate was noted. Prior to Joe Biden taking office there was no mask mandate. At the time Joe Biden took office and invoked the mask mandate, there was nothing substantively different in/around the spread of COVID-19 and the mitigation efforts underway.
The federal mask mandate was arbitrary and capricious with no justification from the CDC and no required time for the public to provide feedback. The government’s legal argument was that public feedback, comments on rulemaking, was irrelevant because the mandate was going to be enforced regardless of public opinion. That argument was summarily dispatched by the judge saying, just because the government has a pre-determined outcome in mind does not relinquish them from the obligation to follow the rules.
Sensing they were going to lose the case, remarkably the government lawyers argued that only the original plaintiffs in the lawsuit should be granted relief. Meaning, only the two people who filed the lawsuit should be exempt from the federal mask mandate. That didn’t work.
The federal transportation mask mandate is vacated.
Over the past week or so many people have sent us links to the documentary Watch the Water, a 50 minute interview with retired chiropractor Dr Bryan Ardis, who details his theory that “Covid” is caused by chemicals extracted from snake venom being added to the water supply.
Further, Dr Ardis claims that the same venom-based chemicals are in the vaccines and the drug remisdevir, and that researching the venom connection has already got one scientist killed.
Some notable names in the alternate media are giving it some air time, even Dr Reiner Fuellmich has said he will look into it.
He shouldn’t. It is pure nonsense.
A ridiculous theory that flies in the face of observed reality, supported only by anecdotal evidence, biblical metaphors and clips from an episode of The Blacklist.
But good news, if there IS snake venom in the water Dr Ardis can cure you – just spend 120 bucks on his antidote through his website. That’ll drive the venom right out of you.
They are literally selling snake oil.
The blurb alone tells you this is manipulation:
The plandemic continues, but its origins are still a nefarious mystery. How did the world get sick, how did Covid really spread, and did the Satanic elite tell the world about this bioweapon ahead of time?
Reality check – “The world” DIDN’T “get sick”. “Covid” was NOT a “bioweapon”. It DIDN’T “spread”.
The Powers That Be (PTB) just want you to think all this is true, and these guys are, knowingly or not, helping that along.
The whole thing looks very much like the latest attempt at introducing mainstream COVID fear porn through an “alternative” back door.
The superficial narrative in these cases may vary, but the underlying message is always the same – “Be afraid of COVID, because it is a real thing”
The PTB don’t really care if you’re afraid of a virus, a MANMADE virus, 5G…or snake venom in the water. Just so long as you believe COVID is real, new and deadly
The only really inadmissible thing has always been the truth – COVID is a scam. A pea-and-thimble game on a massive scale. Because you can’t govern through fear if no one is afraid.
Is someone dumping “snake venom” in the water?
Maybe. Who knows. The world is insane.
But it has ZERO to do with the “COVID pandemic” because the covid pandemic was made up.
“Darkness has the ability to cover up; light has the ability to uncover! Darkness is the enemy of truth; light is the friend of truth!
~ Mehet Murat ildan
Sometimes acceptance of obvious truth is so stark and thought to be fraught with treachery, that it is literally ignored by the many; making it more comfortable to remain hidden in madness amidst the shadows of deception and lies. While taking responsibility is the only way forward, fear of the truth often wins out, as reliance on collective ignorance gives the false illusion of safety. This behavior is always severely destructive over time, and any psychological relief always temporary, but much more often than not, it is the easy way out for the non-thinking and frightened societal herd. This natural flaw in the makeup of man is well known by the ruling class, and therefore taken advantage of in order to quell dissent and rebellion while gaining further control.
Considering our recent and current history, this was the tactic used for the entirety of the ‘covid’ scam. So long as voluntary acceptance of state propaganda by the masses prevails, this strategy will continually be used going forward in order to perpetuate the advancement of the takeover of humanity in the name of the “Great Reset.” That brings us to the latest threat by the purveyors of evil who have been allowed to rule without resistance. They claim, as voiced by former Trump appointed director of the CDC, Robert Redfield, that the next wave of monumental death worldwide will be due to a non-existent mystery bird flu. This approach by government to manufactured threats, has been around for a very long time, and in the past has been used to frighten the weak, but it is simply a lie.
Threats of avian bird flu, swine flu, including SARS, among many others, have been weapons of the state meant to accelerate panic where none is warranted for very many years. It is imperative to understand that these toxic concoctions are all manmade in labs using gain of function to create bio-weapons. They are not natural, or some lethal strain that just so-happened to affect birds or other animals by accident, and magically jumped to humans. Even the idea of this is ludicrous. If in fact, any such sickness or disease of these types were actually causing mass death, it would only be due to a purposeful release of a bio-weapon by the state, not any innate strain of a normal malady. Knowing this, how could entire populations continue to be so fooled by propaganda?
In 1997, the CDC said that “avian influenza A(H5N1) viruses first spread from poultry to infect humans in Hong Kong resulting in the deaths of 6 of 18 infected persons.” Because of this, the evil WHO and the U.S. sought to increase pandemic preparedness, obviously knowing that this would be useful indoctrination in order to create panic due to future plans to gain power over society. All of this was aligned with the WHO’s “global framework.”
In 2002, SARS was said to be the new disease to fear, and SARS-CoV was to be the “model for future pandemics.” In March of 2003, the ‘novel’ coronavirus, SARS-CoV, was said to be isolated, a lie, and identified and sequenced by nothing other than PCR, an impossibility. There was even the spectre of a future “catastrophic pandemic,” and investigations of live animal markets, as the supposed first case was found in Hong Kong, and said to be able to spread by infected persons traveling by airplane. Does this sound familiar or suspicious to any thinking individual? Is this not the same exact fraud that took place beginning in 2020, two decades later?
In March of 2006, Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security, an obvious expert on bird flu, was worried about a bird flu strike any day. “I can’t predict, but I certainly have to say that we should be prepared for the possibility that at some point in the next few months, a wild fowl will come over the migratory pathway and will be infected with H5N1.”
As far back as 1976, the H1N1 Swine Flu hoax took center stage, as the government and its controlled media propaganda campaign went into high gear in order to create a pandemic fraud so as to mass-vaccinate the U.S. population against a non-existent ‘swine flu.’ This conspiracy was also used as a way to get all ‘vaccinations’ available into every person possible. This led directly to 45 million people getting unnecessary injections. At the time, the CDC stated that 80% of the population needed to be ‘vaccinated,’ just as was sought in the ‘covid’ scam.
Again in 2009, the H1N1 fraud was revived, and another government call for mass ‘vaccination’ was issued. As always, the collusion between national and global ‘health organizations, government and government officials, pharmaceutical companies, and corporate insiders was evident. Nothing today has changed, it has only gotten worse, and in fact, the risk now due to the world takeover plot is much more sinister, and globally structured.
In the distant past, while control was a key factor, money from mass ‘vaccination’ was the primary goal. Today, money is a factor, but control of the minds and bodies of the proletariat herds is the result most desired by the ruling ‘elites.’ In addition, depopulation and eugenic transformation of the rest of society, all by way of controlling and lethal injection of a bio-weapon, is what is needed in order to finish the global takeover agenda.
This is a long-term plot to fool the public into believing and expecting that a future pandemic of epoch proportions is imminent. The very idea that ‘natural’ pandemics are inevitable has long been planned and embedded in the minds of the people. This is a multi-decade brainwashing of the common people in order to prepare them for not only mass sickness and death, but also for acceptance of a global governing body with unlimited power.
The most sought-after goal at this time is mass ‘vaccination,’ but this time is different in that the preferred injections are much more dangerous, much more able to physically and psychologically control large numbers of those who have taken the jab, and cause mass death beyond anything seen before. In order to accomplish such a deadly and evil agenda, the people will need to be fooled once again. They will have to believe the lies, and accept that all the impending deaths due to the weaponized ‘covid’ injections, are in fact due to a fraudulent and purposely crafted plot to place blame on a non-existent ‘virus’ that is being called an “avian bird flu.”
The ‘warning’, or more accurately, the foretelling of mass death by the ruling class, as outlined by the ex-CDC commandant Robert Redfield, is that 800 million to 4 billion of us will die due to some mystery bird flu. When the mass deaths occur, it will not be due to any flu or ‘virus,’ it will be due only to the toxic poison that has been previously injected into billions of unsuspecting, order-following slaves to the state.
What type of contamination might be found in a spiked COVID vaccine?
“A foreign body.”
The lot is being recalled due to a foreign body being found in one vial in the lot manufactured at the company’s contract manufacturing site, ROVI – Moderna and ROVI Pharma Industrial Services
Moderna Pharmaceutical, formerly named ModeRNA Therapeutics, became a public company in 2018, specializing in infectious diseases. Prior to the IPO, AstraZeneca was its third-largest investor.
Moderna’s coronavirus shot, known as “SPIKEVAX,” was said to have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for adults 18 and older on Jan. 31, 2022. But according the the FDA Factsheet, the shot is still only Emergency Use Authorized or EUA. Not approved!
Since November 2020, two of the 4 Biotech companies working to manufacture mRNA “therapies,” — Johnson & Johnson and AstraZenica — had to halt trials over safety concerns. And now the spotlight shines on Moderna’s mRNA vaccine deployment in Europe.
The contaminated lot in question was manufactured at the ROVI site in Spain, and distributed in Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden from 13-14 January 2022. Reports tie the recalled batches to the Spanish company, ROVI.
Criminal Acts
Will Moderna be investigated for fraud, product safety, death by vaccine?
In February 2021, US officials investigated and acknowledged a “likely association” between Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and myocarditis in adolescents and young people. Of course, the PREP Act and CARES Act both limit liability for death or serious physical injury resulting from these products. See also Moderna’s disclosure in the SPIKEVAX package insert, referencing Myocarditis and Pericarditis, Section 5.2.
All Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trails are ongoing and not due to conclude until late 2022/early 2023. The treatments are currently experimental with only 1 year of short-term data and no long term safety data available.
In November 2020 Dr Andreas Noack, a German chemist and one of the EU’s top graphene experts, released a video explaining that he had discovered graphene hydroxide contained in the COVID-19 experimental treatments. He described how the graphene hydroxide nano structures injected into the human body act as ‘razor blades’ inside the veins of recipients and how they would not show up on an autopsy or normal toxicology tests given their atomic size. On 26th November 2021, just hours after publishing his latest video about graphene hydroxide, he died in suspicious circumstances. [See Summary].
Professor Dr Pablo Campra, University of Almeria, Spain also examined Covid-19 experimental treatments in November 2021 using Micro-Raman Spectroscopy, the study of frequencies. He also confirmed the presence of graphene oxide.
Today’s high drug prices show little has changed since 1963, when The Federal Trade Commission ruled that six of the nation’s largest drug companies were conspiring to fix prices on tetracycline, the most widely used antibiotic. The Kefauver drug hearings confirmed the existence of a national crime syndicate and revealed lax enforcement that continues to this day. Note, one of the “big six” criminals, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, was absorbed by Pfizer.
Gene Therapy or Gene Reset?
Experts contend that the technology in the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna shots are not “gene therapy.” But that is not how the experimental products had first been marketed.
According to a November 2021 article at LifeSiteNews, during the 2021 Global Health Summit in Berlin, Bayer executive, Stefan Oelrich, told fellow “experts” that the mRNA COVID “vaccines” are actually “cell and gene therapy” that would have otherwise been rejected by the public if not for a “pandemic” and favorable marketing.
Oelrich also highlighted the term, “Bio Revolution” as:
a confluence of advances in biological science and accelerating development of computing, automation, and artificial intelligence [that] is fueling a new wave of innovation.
As part of his company’s role for “sustainability” Bayer also pledged to push contraception on 100 million women across the world. This rhetoric fits hand-in-glove with Klaus Schwab’s Socialist plan for the “Great Reset.”
Damage from the mRNA injectables are surfacing. According to an October 2021 study in the American Journal of Cardiology:
Sixty percent of the myocarditis related COVID-19 vaccine cases were associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 33% were associated with the Moderna vaccine, and 7% were associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
According to a November 2021 abstract published in the Journal Circulation titled, “Observational Findings of PULS Cardiac Test Findings for Inflammatory Markers in Patients Receiving mRNA Vaccines:”
…the mRNA vacs numerically increase all markers previously described by others for denoting inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle…
Ignorance Is No Excuse
Ignorance is no excuse in the Age of Information. As more information surfaces, do not expect drug companies to change their criminal ways.
The information is available and viewable for anyone who can do a Google search. Drug companies have subtly disclosed the information if you can read about it here.
If any change will come of these revelations, that change rests with each of us. There are no “good” or “bad” experiences. There is only “experience” from which we all choose to learn more.
Children today are being systematically and deliberately destroyed – both mentally and physically.
We are horrified at the way children were pushed up chimneys in the 19th century. Making children work long, arduous hours was considered normal at the time but the children abused in this way were scarred physically and mentally for life.
Today, we like to think that that sort of cruelty is today confined to those parts of the world where children are employed as slave labour in order to dig out the rare minerals needed to make batteries for electric cars.
And, of course, to the factories where slave labourers make overpriced plimsolls or manufacture mobile phones – all at such a low prices that billionaires can progress up the ladder and become even richer.
We like to think that most countries in the so-called developed world have moved on. We close our eyes to the billionaires growing ever richer on the backs of slave labour children.
Those pulling down statues of 19th century slave traders still buy the electric cars, the mobile phones and the absurd shoes and ignore the uncomfortable truths about how they were made.
In the 19th century, child labour was seen as normal and acceptable. In both physical and psychological terms what we are doing now is even worse.
For no sensible, medical reason our world has been turned upside down and millions of children will never recover. (In Africa, of course, millions of children will die as a result of the lockdowns and deliberately staged global panic.)
There is evidence that as a result of the covid hysteria many children have become withdrawn and frightened of approaching strangers – especially if they are not wearing masks.
A children’s charity has seen a massive rise in the incidence of mental and emotional problems in children under 11 years of age. Children are worried about dying, about their friends and family dying, about their future, about missing school, about loneliness, about future epidemics. The AIDS hysteria of the 20th century has become the covid hysteria of the 21st century.
As a result many are either not eating, or eating too much, and they are not sleeping. Panic attacks are becoming commonplace. A study of 10,000 parents showed that 30% of children were worried about catching the virus and 30% were worried about missing their education. Even more worrying 16% were afraid to leave their homes. More than half of the parents were worried about their children.
And yet deaths among healthy children are so rare that it has been suggested that lightning is a bigger threat to children and that it would make more sense to tell children to wear helmets to protect them against meteors than to recommend that they wore masks or practised social distancing.
Nevertheless, schools introduced masks and social distancing, and many teachers and parents want the restrictions to continue indefinitely – until the very last virus on earth has disappeared.
In Ohio, electronic beams were introduced to track school pupils and to enforce social distancing.
In China, robots have been installed to ensure that children wash their hands properly.
Some schools have installed thermal imaging cameras to see if children have a temperature. (This is entirely pointless).
One educational establishment in the US made a viral tracking app mandatory and students were constantly tracked. Students who turned off the app or tried to leave the campus without permission were expelled.
Under normal circumstances, young children touch and hug one another and derive great comfort from this.
Forcing children to remain isolated has created huge psychological problems. Children from poorer families or where there is an unhappy home life have suffered most. Also, the lack of exercise will result in health problems and obesity.
The problems have been exacerbated by threats that children who do not obey the rules `may kill granny’. (The irony is that their government wants to kill granny with blanket DNR notices in hospitals and care homes and by denying medical treatment to older citizens.) Children have seen adults frightened and as a result child terror has been exacerbated.
Many children have become socio-phobic and are developing OCD.
Figures for suicide are nigh on impossible to obtain but suicide is widely recognised to be a leading cause of death in the 5-19 age group, and one survey showed a 50% increase in suicides in 2020 compared to 2019. I suspect the figure will grow.
In an attempt to escape from reality, children are spending vast amounts of time on the internet. Gaming addiction is becoming an increasing problem with cyberbullying adding to anxiety and depression. Sports and out of school activities have been abandoned or disrupted leading to increased boredom, loneliness and depression.
Equally worrying is the fact that altered behaviour in children will frequently be diagnosed as ADHD and drugs such as Ritalin will be prescribed as a long-term remedy.
All this for an infection which children hardly ever catch and hardly ever transmit.
It’s all madness.
The whole fraud was deliberately designed by billionaires and their evil supporters.
And although politicians, their advisors and the medical establishment are guilty of mass genocide for the part they have played, parents and school teachers must also be held responsible.
If parents and teachers had done a little research, they would have known (and would know) that the covid-19 scare is fraudulent.
Their children’s lives have been sacrificed for nothing.
Last week we reported over 4000 police officers are slated to have their religious exemptions to vaccination denied and they will eventually be fired. Yesterday NYPD sources told us nearly 180 police officers had their exemptions officially denied and will be fired within 7 days if they don’t get vaccinated or voluntarily retire. If an officer is fired they give up all rights to their pension and are left with nothing.
These denials were announced the same day 18 people were shot by a gunman in NYC subways and there was not a single transit officer to be found on the scene.
The number of 4,000 we reported last week was incorrect. It is actually 4,875 cops and 1,112 civilians at NYPD that are currently unvaccinated, according to reliable sources in the NYPD. These officers and employees are currently working everyday with a weekly testing option in effect. All of these numbers are coming from NYPD Officers I am in direct contact with who are following the situation extremely closely because their careers are on the line.
Mayor Eric Adams has effectively admitted all of these NYPD officers and employees are slated to be fired. In an interview on CBS News with Marcia Kramer the following exchange occurred discussing the recent firings of NYC workers for declining covid vacciantion:
MarciaKramer: So, if the money permits, would you ever consider rehiring some of the 1,400 people who’ve lost their jobs because they refuse to get the COVID vaccine. Because it looks to me like given the fact that there’s about 5,000 others who have asked for exemptions and didn’t get them and now are appealing, that you could lose a lot more people including a large number of police, fire, and emergency service workers...
Mayor Adams: Well, people should really understand the numbers, the overwhelming number of civil service and city workers. They complied. Under the second wave that we just saw, we did not lose any police officers-
Kramer: You’re about to.
Mayor Adams: I’m sorry?
Kramer: I think you’re about to, because their appeals are now being denied.
Mayor Adams: No, I am hoping that they are smart enough to know that it is imperative to take the vaccine for themselves and their families …
Kramer: So you’re asking them to change their mind?
Mayor Adams: Yes, I am.
[emphasis added]
***
NYPD employees have no first amendment rights of free speech when it comes to their job. If they speak, they get fired. As police officers are now finally directly facing the loss of their jobs, leaks are starting to come forward:
Look at this reply to Mayor Eric Adams regarding the coming firing of nearly 200 Police Oficers due to religious exemption denials:
We need the mainstream media to hold Mayor Eric Adams accountable. The NYPD has massive staffing shortages already! The city cannot afford losing thousands of police officers.
Last November, 2021, news reports threatened that if people who die of COVID were not vaccinated, their families may not get death benefits they would otherwise have received.
If the only guarantee in life is death, then at least there is life insurance, right?
Wrong! Fast forward to the Post-COVID Era, and the fallout from Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) vaccines. According to Forbes Magazine, if today you choose to receive a COVID-19 injection, it could prevent you from receiving a death benefit from your life insurance.
Say what?
No More Death Benefit
According to an article by Brain Peckford, a recent post-Covid vaccine death in France was ruled to be “a suicide” by a judge, due to the experimental nature of the “vaccine.” The insurance company refused to pay. No death benefit. The article reads:
A wealthy elderly man with a high value Life Insurance policy to the amount of millions of euros… dies from the covid jab. His death as a consequence of being jabbed is not disputed by the doctors, nor his life insurers. The Insurance company refused to pay the policy, citing that the taking of experimental drugs, treatments, etc., is excluded from the policy. The family takes the insurance company to court and they have just lost the case.
The judge stated, “the experimental vaccine side effects are publicised and the deceased could not claim not to have known about them when he voluntarily took the jab. There is no law or mandate in France which forced him to be jabbed. Therefore, his death is essentially suicide”.
Suicide is explicitly excluded from this particular policy and in fact from all life insurance policies in general.
This has been the finding of a major western world court system and there is zero doubt that insurance companies world wide will cite this case as legal fact.
Therefore, if anyone ever challenges you on whether these jabs are experimental or not, and that neither the pharma companies, nor govts, nor anyone else but YOU are responsible for accepting them and if you die, legally you have committed suicide.
No insurance, no payouts, no refunds. You are on your own!
Listen to Dr. Pierre describe the same story and explain the view of the American Council of Life Insurers; that insurance companies may deny payment of death benefit if death results from the experimental COVID injection.
How could this possibly be? One moment the experimental vaccine and the boosters protect you against COVID, but the next moment they do not? One moment you are insured with the injection, but the next moment, you are not? As the French say, “C’est la vie. C’est la guerre!” Meaning? Such is life! That’s war. It can’t be helped!
Changing Narratives
Changing narratives happen by design. Those who own the narrative control the outcome. Moreover, in America, under the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, the media is free to legally propagandize Americans. The EUA vaccines, once advertised to “save lives by preventing deaths” from COVID-19 coronavirus infections, are now “suicidal.”
In May 2021 it was a different story. According to the American Council of Life Insurers, life insurers could not deny a death benefit because the deceased was vaccinated against COVID-19:
A social media post appears to be behind the spread of entirely false information, suggesting a COVID-19 vaccine could be a factor a life insurer considers in the claims-paying process. The fact is that life insurers do not consider whether or not a policyholder has received a COVID vaccine when deciding whether to pay a claim. Life insurance policy contracts are very clear on how policies work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a benefit. A vaccine for COVID-19 is not one of them. Policyholders should rest assured that nothing has changed in the claims-paying process as a result of COVID-19 vaccinations.
But good propaganda shifts with the winds. Today’s America is not yesterday’s America. America has been hijacked, morally corrupted, debauched, and sold to the highest bidder.
In fact, if you received the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, you received a vaccine deemed “emergency use authorization” (EUA) from the FDA. No EUA injections are FDA-approved vaccines. Further, the first injections deployed were labelled “experimental.” Thus, participants who consented, without proper Informed Consent, became subjects in an ongoing clinical study. Note: Life insurance companies do not cover experiments.
In other news, if you are unvaccinated and hospitalized, insurance may not pay either. A news release from the University of Michigan states:
“Many insurers claim that it is justified to charge patients for COVID-19 hospitalizations now that COVID-19 vaccines are widely available,” said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, M.D., Ph.D., a health policy researcher and pediatrician at Michigan Medicine and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation Research Center. “However, some people hospitalized for COVID-19 aren’t eligible for vaccines, such as young children, while others are vaccinated patients who experienced a severe breakthrough infection. Our study suggests these patients could substantial bills.”
To recap: if you are 1) Unvaccinated and hospitalized, or 2) vaccinated pre-death, then life Insurance does not pay what you might expect, if at all.
The Double-edged Sword
Read the article Dissolving a Pandemic of Fear, to understand that this trend first began in distant lands during the summer of 2021 with unusual side effects to the globally-deployed experimental vaccines:
Because of the uncertainties from unauthorized tests and experimental vaccines, insurance companies in India and Korea are limiting what they will cover if someone becomes sick from the COVID injections:
Contrary to popular perception, existing health insurance policies are unlikely to cover the cost of vaccination and adverse reactions, if any. Only policies designed purely for the COVID vaccination process — there is none at the moment — will cover the costs.
If you consented to an EUA injection, your life insurance policy has changed. You can’t win for losing, and you can’t claim your life insurance for dying. Something that cuts both ways is known as a double-edged sword.
Justice Through the Courts?
The federal PREP Act and CARES Act prevent practically all civil litigation, ranging from COVID “vaccines” to “tests,” to doctors/pharmacists/nurses. All have blanket civil (but not criminal) protections. All prosecutions are 100.0% discretionary, meaning that even if one admits to a criminal (COVID) act, no private citizen has the power to prosecute any alleged criminal act. That power rests solely with the district attorney and attorney generals — not citizens.
What does this mean? ALL prosecutions are political. In other words, The ONLY way to legally challenge all the “COVID” treason is confined to CRIMINAL prosecutions. Evidence proving criminal fraud has been submitted to the appropriate authorities, and yet there have been no criminal prosecutions through the Department of Justice. Why not? Good question.
What about life insurance fraud? Can insurers be prosecuted in the courts if the Life Insurance Council COVID policy is against the policy holder?
In response to a FOIA request, a federal district judge recently ordered Pfizer Inc. to release 55,000 pages of documents each month, after Pfizer claimed it would not disclose any data for 75 years. That means all the Pfizer vaccine data should be made public by the end of September 2022, rather than the year 2097.
Yet, who is in charge of sifting through the flood of information? What are the consequences of learning the truth that was meant to be hidden? No one knows. What about the fact that government appears to be practicing medicine without a license? How could this possibly be?
Because the narrative is always written by those who control the pen, you must do your own research and captain your own ship. Call your insurance company directly. Ask an “expert” if getting the vaccine will affect your life insurance coverage in any way. Ask if future EUA jabs will affect your premiums or payouts.
Then ask yourself if paying those high insurance premiums is worth the outcome in The COVIDIAN Age, or if it is better to put your money elsewhere.
As the World Council for Health (WCH), our partners and allies have already sought to draw attention to, the World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed a global pandemic agreement that will give it undemocratic rights over sovereign people. See the WCH Open Letter in response to this attempted power grab here.
WHO has quietly opened the floor for comments on the agreement but has provided little time to do so ahead of the first round of hearings scheduled for April 12 and 13.
We encourage everyone to share their thoughts with World Health Organization before the deadline.
1. Go to the World Health Organization website to submit a written submission now
Written submissions are short and can be up to 250 words/1250 characters. The deadline for written submissions is 3 pm UTC on Wednesday, April 13.
Submissions must be in response to the provided guiding question: What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?
The prompt provided by the WHO does not ask the people of the world whether or not they believe a global agreement is necessary. Instead, the organization has decided for itself that this measure is warranted and is asking for input on what people believe should be included in it.
Refrain from making any statements unrelated to the topic at hand; and
Be presented in a respectful manner, free of any profanity, ad hominem attacks, vulgarity, or other inappropriate language.
If participation, spoken or written, does not conform with these requirements, as determined solely by WHO, the participation will not be receivable. This means that WHO may call speakers to order, and/or discontinue speakers’ connections, and elect to not post written statements.
Why do I need to frame my submission using WHO’s provided context?
Because the WHO reserves the right to judge the relevancy of submissions, it is important to respond to the prompt in an appropriate yet constructive manner. As such, the World Council for Health suggests the following elements be addressed:
National and local leadership retain full autonomy, reserving the right to make decisions based on what is best for their own people.
The ability of nations and local municipalities to opt out of any and all portions of the agreement as they see fit, without consequence.
An open and transparent process with the ability for all people of the world to vote on including failsafe measures that will prevent the application of the global agreement in places where a majority of the people do not want it.
Measures that do not allow for influence in the process by any and all pharmaceutical companies or other global health profiteers.
The hearing will be livestreamed here on Tuesday, April 12.
cover image based on creative commons work of Caniceus
Dr. Naomi Wolf at Defeat the Mandates Rally: “You Hurt Our Kids & Watch Out. Because You Have Never Faced the Rage of Thousands of Mothers & Stepmothers”
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Jeffrey Beauchine said his mother, Carol, knew her Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease was related to the Moderna shot. Watching her death was like “something you see out of a movie,” he said.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Carol’s son, Jeffrey Beauchine, said it was excruciating to watch his 70-year-old mother — who was healthy until she got the vaccine — die from a disease he believes the vaccine caused.
“I’ve seen a lot in my 20 years as a police officer,” Beauchine said. “I’ve seen hundreds of people shot and this affected me more than anything.”
Beauchine said Carol received her first dose of Moderna on Feb. 16, 2021, and didn’t report any complaints. After getting the second dose on March 17, Carol immediately said she “felt different.”
Beauchine said:
“On March 17, she got her second dose and immediately started having reactions to the second dose. She just had this malaise. She just didn’t feel right and said she just felt ‘off.’ She had what she described as pain and burning at the injection site — like someone was tying a hot rope around her arm. Then she explained it as this numbness setting in around the injection site.”
Beauchine said he and his family members didn’t think it was a usual side effect, but they also didn’t think it was unusual.
“We just thought it was a result of the jab working through the system,” Beauchine said. “Then the numbness spread up through her neck and down her left arm.”
The numbness altered Carol’s hearing and spread “down through her hands” until the left hand lost sensation and mobility.
Beauchine said:
“At this point, it was her entire left arm. She started to develop insomnia. She would go a couple of days at a time without sleep and then she was fatigued. This numbness continued to spread. It went down to her hip and moved to her knees, then the entire left side. You could almost bisect her body and the left side was numb and the right side was normal.”
Beauchine said Carol went to the doctors — who initially thought she had suffered a stroke — but her MRI scans were completely normal.
“Nobody could find anything wrong with her so they sent her home,” Beauchine said. “It was almost like reassurance, while at the same time I wondered why they couldn’t.”
Carol then developed tremors in her left arm.
“It was almost like her arm would start jerking involuntarily,” Beauchine said. “Then the tremors moved on to the left leg.”
Beauchine added:
“My mother began to complain that something was wrong with her brain. She said she couldn’t put thoughts together or make sense of things but she could still communicate. Over the phone, you wouldn’t see the altered version of my mom I knew for 44 years.”
Then Carol developed double vision that ultimately led to blindness, and she began to hallucinate.
“She would see herself falling out of the chair and she would physically see herself on the ground,” Beauchine said. “It was weird to understand. She developed a fear of water and would become scared she was near a body of water.”
Doctors believed Carol was suffering from anxiety because of the shot and started treating her for anxiety. Meanwhile, Carol lost the ability to walk.
Beauchine said:
“She was still at home at this time because the hospital couldn’t find anything wrong with her. She was pretty much in a wheelchair. She went from the one who takes care of everybody to my 70-year-old father taking care of her. Then it got too hard for him and during one doctor’s visit they admitted her to see if they could dive into it further.
Beauchine said doctors ran every test “under the sun,” including an MRI, but couldn’t find anything. The only things doctors noticed were the obvious mobility problems on the left side of her body and balance problems.
The doctors also said there was “something off with her cerebellum but they didn’t know what it was,” he added. Carol tried to explain to the doctors that there was something “internally” wrong with her.
“She was then released to a nursing home,” Beauchine said. “It was the first time I saw my mom really sick.”
He said:
“She was in a nursing home where all this COVID was going on and we had to stand outside the window and yell through the air conditioner hole to talk to my mom. She felt defeated and scared, and my father cared for her 18 hours a day — spoon-feeding her — until the end. It just happened so fast.”
Eventually, Carol was able to get into a skilled nursing home, but she deteriorated rapidly.
“She lost the ability to feed herself because she couldn’t get the food on her fork to put it in her mouth,” Beauchine said. “It crushed me because I could see in her eyes without us having any convo, the fear and like she was defeated.”
Beauchine said there were no more good days and his mother lost the ability to communicate.
“By mid-end of July my mom was just a complete rigid person,” he said. “Lips stopped moving. She could only get a couple of syllables out. She would almost be falling out of a wheelchair in a forward position. She couldn’t tell if she was sitting up.”
Beauchine said his mother knew from the very beginning her condition was related to the shot.
“We all knew from the very beginning it was related to the shot, but we didn’t know the future significance of how bad this would get,” Beauchine said. “People have bad reactions all the time but you get over them. She didn’t get over them.”
Beauchine said the doctors didn’t know what to do because “it was just so new.”
“I’m more content with a doctor telling me they don’t know if it’s the shot because there’s no research than the doctors who say it’s definitely not the shot,” he said. “I got more ‘I don’t knows’ than denials.”
By the end of July, Carol’s husband couldn’t wake her up at the nursing home and the family had a meeting and decided their mother needed to go back to the hospital.
Beauchine said:
“When I rounded the corner, I saw my mom and it was like she was like yelling or howling. Her eyes were completely fixed in the open position. Her mouth was stuck in the open position and she had violent tremors that wouldn’t stop. She didn’t understand what was going on. The only way I can put it is a bomb went off inside of her head.
“It was excruciating for all of us. My dad was like a deer in the headlights — a blank look I had never seen before. And I’ve seen a lot of stuff in my life with my job but this was like … a bomb went off in my mom’s head and all of her limbs were convulsing and tremoring.
“It’s like something you see out of a movie. They say with this disease you come to the cliff and it’s just a drop-off and once you drop off you’re able to physically see that dropping point — and you could see it that night.”
Doctors sent Carol to Strong Memorial in Rochester, New York, and within weeks they confirmed she had CJD.
“We didn’t know what CJD was, but we were told it was like mad cow disease but like a different variant or different mode of getting it,” Beauchine said. “Same disease but a different way of getting it.”
Carol’s prognosis was fatal and the family was told she had only days left. Beauchine said a panel consisting of doctors and students who were overseeing Carol’s case were open to the fact they did not know what caused her CJD.
“People were learning and they said ‘we don’t know if this is related to the vaccine or not. We don’t know because the vaccine is new and there weren’t a lot of studies on the vaccine. We won’t know until the long-term.’”
Carol passed away on Aug. 2, 202, from CJD — a condition she did not have prior to receiving her second dose of Moderna a few months earlier. Her doctors filed a report with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS I.D. 2180699).
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting vaccine adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. According to the CDC’s website, “CDC and [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy and medical records.”
Beauchine confirmed the family has never received any contact from the CDC regarding his mother’s death, and to his knowledge, her doctors haven’t either.
Beauchine said Carol was a relatively healthy person with no previous history of COVID. Her only underlying condition was arthritis.
“She was always taking care of other people and when the whole COVID thing broke out in the media, she wanted to stay protected so she could see her kids and grandkids,” Beauchine said. “She didn’t want to be hindered by the virus, so when the opportunity arose for her age group, she got the first dose with no complaints.”
Beauchine said he also received the COVID vaccine because it was required for his job.
“At the time, there was a little smidgeon of excitement because they had you so feared over COVID-19 and finally there was a little light at the end of the tunnel,” he said. “And it was going to be okay.”
He added:
“I got the vax. My wife got the vax. My father got the vax. My children will never get the vax. I’m not against a COVID-19 vaccine but it takes years and years and years of clinical trials and studies to deem something safe to put in the human body, and that wasn’t done. We all turned a blind eye to it at the time in moments of hope.
“I didn’t know any of this stuff that we know now, and then you come to find out that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been used off label for years, but to get the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), you have to show there’s no treatment available to be able to give that authorization, so they killed the treatments, gave the EUA, but there’s no liability on their end.
“It’s just scary nobody knew that at the time. If somebody wants to make an informed decision, let them know what they’re up against.”
Beauchine said when he talks to people, or his mother comes up in conversation, everyone seems to know someone who had a very serious reaction to a COVID vaccine.
“I am not an anti-vaxxer. I’m not crazy or anything like that,” Beauchine said. “But if I or my family can do anything to help somebody or inform somebody or even be a statistic that could come to some sort of positive resolution in all of this, so be it.”
He added:
“Watching someone slowly walk this path and their health degrading right before your eyes from day to day over a few months is terrible. It’s awful. No one should have to go through this. We all just felt for my mom the whole time. It affected us all.”
The Defender has received numerous reports of people who died from sporadic CJD after receiving a COVID vaccine — all women who were between the ages of 60 and 70. This includes Cheryl Cohen and Jennifer Deason Sprague.
According to the latest data from VAERS, between December 14, 2020, and April 1, 2022, there were 19 reported deaths due to CJD attributed to COVID vaccines. The majority of cases occurred in the 65 to 75 age range and involved a sudden onset of symptoms.
That should be everyone’s starting point – with everything, really – assume the media is lying and wait for them to prove they’re not.
Always doubt the press.
Always.
Especially when the fates seem to converge and every single item in the “news” herds public opinion in the same direction and serves the same agenda
…which bird flu definitely does.
Food shortages. Soaring poverty. Rationing. The cost of living crisis. They’re all part of the Great Reset agenda.
In pursuit of that agenda, over the last two years, they destroyed small businesses and wrecked the economy, they have driven truckers out of work and broken supply lines, they have started a war between two of the biggest exporters of wheat in the world and driven up the price of petrol and natural gas.
Bird flu fits this pattern perfectly. The price of poultry and eggs is set to skyrocket…and just days before Easter.
We know they just faked a pandemic in humans. You think they can’t – or won’t – do the same for chickens?
Now, maybe some of you still have faith in the headlines, maybe you haven’t developed that spidey sense that lets you just know when something is total bollocks. And maybe we should make an argument, lest we fall victim to the “fact-checkers”.
So, let’s talk evidence for a quick minute.
*
First, let’s talk about how the US government “detects” bird flu outbreaks.
To detect [avian influenza], the US Department of Agriculture oversees routine testing of flocks done by farmers and carries out federal inspection programs to ensure that eggs and birds are safe and free of virus […] using molecular diagnostics such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests – the same method labs use to detect COVID-19 infections.
The USDA does routine testing of poultry farms using PCR tests.
Remind you of anything?
Second, let’s talk about how world governments are handling the “crisis”.
The mainstream media are reporting a “deadly” bird flu outbreak, The Guardian claims [emphasis added]:
US officials believe nearly 24m poultry birds, mostly chickens and turkeys, have died of flu since virus strain identified in February
All mainstream outlets are taking the same line – reporting million of birds dying of flu.
However, The Conversation article quoted above says [emphasis added]:
As of early April, the outbreak had CAUSED THE CULLING of some 23 million birds from Maine to Wyoming”
And this article in The Scientist claims [again, emphasis added]…
So far this season, tens of millions of birds have died of disease OR BEEN CULLED
So, there is some inconsistency here. Essentially, we don’t know how many died of “bird flu”, or how many were culled with “bird flu”.
Sound familiar?
Now, let’s do some simple math to try and clear up the confusion.
We know the press are reporting roughly 24 million poultry deaths in the US.
Well, that’s already 16 million out of our 24 million. Or 67% of the alleged total “killed by the flu” in the US.
So, at least two thirds of the dead birds – and potentially all of them – were killed in culls, and NOT by the flu at all.
And that’s just the US numbers. Other countries are culling too.
France has had two huge culls of poultry, totalling over 11 million birds.
The UK has culled at least 2 million since October, despite detecting just 108 cases by late March.
Governments are killing millions of birds, and these deaths are being blamed on the flu.
*
To sum up, the backbone of this “bird flu” outbreak is:
Routine testing done using unreliable PCR tests, which can be manipulated to create false-positive results.
Linguistic ambiguity over causes of death, and unreliable reporting of casualty numbers.
Governmental over-reactions which “accidentally” make the problem worse.
…seriously, any of this ringing a bell yet?
Bird flu is just like Covid. The same people, telling the same lies, for the same reasons.
We all know where it goes from here.
Just as with everything else, this will lead to more talk of a food crisis. France is already warning of poultry shortages, and since the US is the worlds biggest exporter of eggs and chicken any disruption there has huge knock effects. The price of eggs and chicken is already going up.
Just as with lockdowns, the bird flu “crisis” will hit small local businesses harder and faster than Big Farma giants (we’re already seeing reports of family farms being destroyed).
They are reporting that free-range birds are more at risk from bird flu (what with being allowed to go outside and live like normal birds), so organic sustainable and ethical farming practices will be hit with new rules that don’t apply to corporate meat factories who treat animals as inanimate objects.
Meanwhile, this will be used to further advance the war on meat, boosting both veganism and backers of lab-grown “meat”.
Inevitably they are already talking about a new bird flu vaccine for people and/or birds. In fact, a UK firm announced a new bird flu vaccine for chicks just three days ago. That’s some well-timed research, great work.
Good luck being an “anti-vaxxer” when they make it law to literally inject all your food with spike proteins or experimental mRNA modifiers or who knows what else.
And, of course, if they ever need it to, the “bird flu” can jump from chickens to humans, and we can have a brand new pandemic, just as the former head of the CDC predicted the other day.
Like I said at the beginning, there is no “bird flu” outbreak, it’s just Covid for chickens. Just more building back better. Just more new normal.
It’s all the Great Reset. That’s all there is these days.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have funded the development and distribution of polio vaccines in developing regions like Asia and Africa (Image Source: GRAIN)
Current NHS information describes it as a ‘serious viral infection’ but adds that most people won’t even know they are infected. While some will experience ‘flu-like’ symptoms, others may become temporarily or permanently paralysed.
The term ‘polio’ is a description of spinal pathology: an inflammation of the grey marrow (polio muelos) of the brain stem and spinal cord. Symptoms vary wildly from none to fever, vomiting, bowel irritation, back pain, neck stiffness, problems with swallowing and breathing, paralysis, and death.
Poliovirus is an enterovirus that is activated in the human gut. The corporate science machine maintains that it is a dangerous pathogen spread by infected faecal matter but Dr Suzanne Humphries explains in her book, Dissolving Illusions, that it is a naturally occurring common bowel irritant that existed for millennia before it began crippling people — which poses the question: what changed?
One factor is pesticide usage, which is implicated in other neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. Polio incidence and pesticide usage closely correlate; if you plot them on a graph, they follow the same lines.
What came to be known as polio was once called ‘summer diarrhoea’ because local outbreaks occurred after crop spraying had taken place in the spring. Children played in contaminated soils and ate unwashed fruit; their parents reported finding them paralysed in apple orchards.
High consumption of sugary foods in the summer lowered immunity by suppressing white blood cell activity, creating the perfect environment for toxic pesticides to interact with viruses in the gut and cause illness.
Doctors noted that symptoms of polio resembled food poisoning.
Poor diet increased susceptibility to poliovirus infection – especially a diet full of refined sugar, white flour, and processed foods, which were introduced to the public during the industrial revolution, around the time that polio began to emerge.
British physician Michael Underwood first observed ‘debility of the lower extremities’ in children in 1789. It was the height of the industrial and agricultural revolutions in Europe and pesticide use skyrocketed. Most pesticides contained toxic metals such as lead and arsenic.
Lead and arsenic bind tightly to soil and do not deteriorate; they remain within the first 12-18 inches of topsoil for generations and contaminate waterways. Redevelopment of former rural sites without proper clearance of toxic soil has the potential to poison whole areas of people.
Crops were heavily sprayed with pesticides that were designed to attack the nervous systems of insects — unfortunately they had the same effect on humans. They were inhaled and absorbed through the skin and oral cavity, causing nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, brain dysfunction, and bone malformation – all of which are common symptoms of heavy metal poisoning and polio.
Heavy metals were present in everyday products in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Arsenic was used in synthetic dyes and syphilis treatments; mercury was used in teething powders, dental fillings, and medical preparations.
Lead, arsenic, and mercury are neurotoxic environmental poisons – all are fat-soluble and therefore can affect fatty areas of the body such as the brain and nerves.
Orthopaedist Jacob von Heine observed ‘infantile spinal paralysis’ in 1840 and speculated that it was a contagious disease. It was named ‘acute anterior poliomyelitis’ by Wilhelm Heinrich Erb in 1875, by which time outbreaks had started to occur.
Regional patterns of disease led physicians to believe that polio was a contagious virus, but it was an unproven assumption. Scientists had no idea what a virus was in the nineteenth century — nobody had seen one because the electron microscope, which enabled observation of viruses, was not invented until 1931.
A study of 2,000 case histories carried out by Harvard Infantile Paralysis Commission concluded that tonsillectomies (introduced in 1909 and carried out routinely as a preventative measure) provoked respiratory paralysis due to bulbar polio. This was known at the time as authorities prohibited removal of tonsils and adenoids during epidemics. Bulbar polio was the type that required use of an iron lung and had the highest death rate.
The case fatality rate in the early 1900s was very high. England and Wales made polio a notifiable disease in 1912, and it was endemic from then on. The New York epidemic of 1916 saw patients experimented on with spinal injections of disinfectant and adrenaline. Roughly half of those treated died and were recorded as polio deaths.
A new pesticide, DDT — labeled ‘the killer of killers’ — was introduced just as WW2 began. People were led to believe it was good for them and even sprayed it on their children’s lunches. It is a cumulative poison and can be absorbed through the skin and mucosa. Governments started to ban DDT in the early 1950s, but the damage was done. The UK outlawed it in 1986, and it was banned worldwide in 2001, though it continues to be used in areas with high malaria incidence.
Epidemics peaked in the 1940s and 50s and physicians began to notice a correlation between certain medical interventions and polio paralysis. Children treated for congenital syphilis with arsenic-based Salvarsan often developed paralysis in their injected limbs.
Cases of polio rose in line with the expansion of vaccination programmes for diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus.
The diphtheria vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1942 and was noted for its adverse effects. The British Medical Association published news on the 10th of April 1950 that the diphtheria vaccine was responsible for childhood paralysis attributed to polio.
A doctor at Guy’s Hospital in London found that 80 children developed paralysis within a month of receiving the shots; a health ministry doctor reported that another 65 children had developed paralysis within a fortnight; the St. Pancras medical officer found 40 more cases. Some children recovered from the paralysis, but others were still paralysed 18 months after onset. Two of the cases followed injection of penicillin.
Anne McLaren, writing for Cambridge University Press in 1957, stated that, “It is now well established that intramuscular inoculation with combined diphtheria-pertussis prophylactics can affect the course of poliomyelitic infection in children. Localisation of paralysis in the limb injected with vaccines was reported by McCloskey, Martin, Geffen, Hill & Knowelden, and Benjamin in 1950.”
In 1951, Dr Ralph Scobey and Dr Mortind Biskind testified in front of the U.S Congress that the paralysis around the country known as ‘polio’ was being caused by industrial poisons, and that a virus theory was purposely fabricated by the chemical industry and the government to deflect litigation away from both parties.
The diagnostic criteria for polio were very loose prior to trials for the vaccine in 1954.Only after the vaccine was introduced was there any effort to distinguish polio from other types of paralytic disease.
The first polio vaccine, created by Jonas Salk in 1955, caused a great deal of controversy. The ‘Cutter Incident’ happened when 120,000 children were injected with a live virus instead of a weakened one: 40,000 developed polio, 200 were paralysed, and ten died. When the immunisation program was eventually rolled out to the public, a different, untested, rapidly approved formula was used.
Salk later admitted that live virus vaccines against influenza or poliomyelitis might produce the diseases they intended to prevent (Science, 4th March 1977).
In 1956, the American Medical Association ordered that doctors could no longer diagnose paralysis as polio – it had to be called ‘acute flaccid paralysis’. This reduced polio statistics dramatically and gave the appearance that the vaccine programme had succeeded, when really the definition of the disease had just changed.
Simple, timely changes to diagnostic criteria meant the number of paralytic cases dropped irrespective of the vaccine programme.
Laboratory testing for polio wasn’t introduced until 1958. Before then, all manner of other diseases could be classed as polio, including other enteroviruses, lead, arsenic, and DDT poisoning, Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, post-polio syndrome, viral or aseptic meningitis, traumatic neuritis, and Reye’s syndrome. How many were misdiagnosed and put on the wrong path of treatment as a result?
It is claimed that the polio vaccine eradicated polio due to overblown, tightly controlled propaganda campaigns, but the truth is that cases plummeted because of changes in pesticide use, elimination of toxic metals in everyday products, improved diets and sanitary behaviour, and redefinition of the disease.
There is no convincing evidence of polio as a contagious viral disease. Naturally occurring polio is all but obsolete in the modern world and the only ‘polio’ we see nowadays is vaccine-induced, courtesy of immunisation programmes run by the World Health Organisation.
There has been a huge rise in vaccine-induced polio paralysis in India. In 2011 there were an extra 47,000 cases, which were directly proportionate to the amount of oral vaccines administered. In 2018 a vaccine tainted with eradicated type-2 polio was given to children in Uttar Pradesh. The country remains vulnerable to polio due to its continued use of DDT, intramuscular injection of antibiotics, and diets high in sugar and low in vitamins.
Research scientist Viera Scheibner says that modern day vaccine advocates have forgotten the ‘polio provocation’ of the past. She believes that vaccines represent a assault on the immune system, which seems to be clearly implicated in the shadowy history of polio.
Vaccines were not needed to combat polio. Dr Fred Klenner published results of a study that used intravenous vitamin C to cure polio and other viral diseases 73 years ago — six years before the vaccine was introduced. With a success rate of 100%, we have to ask why this simple, non-toxic, affordable cure was completely overlooked and ignored by the medical community. Why is it still ignored?
The answer may lie in the criminal deceptions peddled by medical-industrial-pharmaceutical cartels that control the narrative of disease in order to sustain their gravy train of ill-gotten gain. A customer cured is a customer lost and there is no profit to be made from a healthy population.
Over the past year-plus, athletes across the world have been dropping like flies as they compete in games. If they aren’t passed out cold, they are seen gripping their chests in agony, unable to breathe due to sudden cardiac events that hit in the heat of the competition.
This wave of heart issues is unprecedented, to say the least. Never before have we seen young, healthy, world-class athletes experiencing heart issues en masse like this. It has never happened, ever. Furthermore, the timing of this sweeping phenomenon could not be more relevant, coinciding perfectly with the rollout of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines.
In December nearly 300 athletes reportedly collapsed or suffered cardiac arrests after taking the COVID vaccines.
But it gets worse. Thanks to a new explosive report by OAN that pegs the number of affected athletes in the hundreds.
In all, their investigation found a jaw-dropping 769 men and women who collapsed with heart issues during competition over the past year (between March 2021 and March 2022).
Most shockingly, the average age of those who experienced full-blown cardiac arrest was just 23.
Considering the timing of this never-before-seen issue in healthy athletes, and the universal push for Covid jabs, all signs point to one culprit: the experimental vaccine.
After detailing two recent high-profile cases, in which two tennis players were forced to recuse themselves from last month’s Miami Open, OAN’s Pearson Sharp reviewed their shocking investigation and asked a few pressing questions that should be answered if you are still questioning what is driving these heart issues in young individuals:
“These are just two o more than 769 athletes who have collapsed during a game on the field over the last year. From March of 2021 to March of this year. The average age of the players suffering cardiac arrest is just 23-years-old.
How many 23-year-old athletes were collapsing and suffering heart attacks before this year? Do you know any 23-year-old people who had heart attacks before now?
And these are just the ones we know about. How many have gone unreported? Nearly 800 athletes – young, fit people in the prime of life falling down on the field. In fact, 500% more soccer players in the EU are dropping dead from heart attacks than just one year ago.”
Just in case there is any lingering inclination to call this a coincidence, Sharp sets the record straight.
“Coincidence? When the Pfizer vaccine is known to cause heart inflamation? No. In fact, many doctors treating these players list their injuries and deaths as being directly caused by the vaccine…
This is not a coincidence – healthy teenagers dying after getting the Pfizer injection. Doctors warned the FDA before they released the experimental vaccine that it would ‘almost certainly cause terrible organ damage.’”
The only question left is: when do we see some accountability?
This video taken yesterday in Shanghai, China, by the father of a close friend of mine. She verified its authenticity: People screaming out of their windows after a week of total lockdown, no leaving your apartment for any reason.
Videos circulating on social media show an eerie cityscape at night filled with the anguished screams of residents forcibly quarantined in their apartment buildings for over a week.
Haunting video out of Shanghai shows thousands of frustrated residents screaming from apartment buildings after being locked down again following another alleged COVID-19 outbreak.
What the?? This video taken yesterday in Shanghai, China, by the father of a close friend of mine. She verified its authenticity: People screaming out of their windows after a week of total lockdown, no leaving your apartment for any reason. pic.twitter.com/iHGOO8D8Cz
‘It’s Shanghai, everyone is screaming, started with a couple now everyone is screaming, after a week of lockdown, something is going to happen, no one knows when this is going to end.’ He says they can’t even step outside their apartments.”
Another dystopian video shows a drone hovering around the buildings with a prerecorded message discouraging residents from crying for help: “Please comply with COVID restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.”
As seen on Weibo: Shanghai residents go to their balconies to sing & protest lack of supplies. A drone appears: “Please comply w covid restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.” https://t.co/0ZTc8fznaVpic.twitter.com/pAnEGOlBIh
The Chinese Communist Party extended its citywide “zero tolerance” lockdown for 26 million residents in Shanghai earlier this week after thousands of new COVID cases were detected in the city.
“The city will continue to implement seal and control management and strictly implement ‘staying at home,’ except for medical treatment,” the city wrote in its official WeChat account.
The People’s Liberation Army has deployed 2,000 medical personnel to Shanghai with an additional 38,000 medical workers to carry out a mass mitigation effort to test all 26 million city residents for COVID.
Authorities had initially locked down Shanghai, China’s largest city, on March 28 amid a surge of mostly asymptomatic COVID cases.
Former CDC Director Robert Redfield has stated that Bird Flu will jump to humans and be highly fatal in the coming “Great Pandemic,” for which C19 was a mere warm-up.
Airplane leaving jet contrails with COVID-19 word inside. Symbolizing the global spread of the coronavirus through global air traffic.
A few months ago, I wrote an article exploring the connection between the symptoms of disease known as “Covid-19” and air pollution. While air pollution is not the only factor currently causing disease, I laid out why I believe that this is the most likely explanation for any perceived increase in respiratory symptoms of disease. I provided a general overview on the problem of air pollution and how it can impact our health and environment. Within the article, I touched upon the issue of persistent contrails, a.k.a. chemtrails, and provided information directly from Government sources admitting the impact that these trails have on our health and environment. Even though this information is readily available to anyone willing to look, there are many out there who still seem to believe that these trails are harmless. They claim that I am promoting nothing but a baseless conspiracy theory.
The fact of the matter is that these trails are admitted to be harmful to our health and environment by both sides of the “chemtrail” debate. There is no conspiracy theory here. This is a FACT. We can speculate as to who is doing this and why but that is ultimately irrelevant. While pollution from automobiles, factories, power plants, forest fires, etc. all contribute to this air pollution health crisis, the harmful effects from the aviation industry are regularly glossed over and/or omitted when this issue is discussed. However, if you dig deep enough and actually search for the information, what can be found to be admitted by official Government sources regarding the health consequences from these trails is very telling and disturbing.
To start with, I want to provide a quick breakdown of the negative health impact of just one component that is admitted to be found within these persistent trails left in the wake of aircrafts. This is known as particulate matter, the most dangerous of which is PM2.5. From the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), you will see that PM2.5 is a known toxin potentially made up of hundreds of different chemicals that is so small that it can collect deep within the lungs and even enter the bloodstream. It has been associated with cardiovascular and respiratory disease, irritation of the eyes, throat, and lungs, and premature death:
Particulate Matter (PM) Basics
What is PM, and how does it get into the air?
“PM stands for particulate matter (also called particle pollution): the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye. Others are so small they can only be detected using an electron microscope.
Particle pollution includes:
PM10: inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller; and
PM2.5: fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller.
How small is 2.5 micrometers? Think about a single hair from your head. The average human hair is about 70 micrometers in diameter – making it 30 times larger than the largest fine particle.
Sources of PM
These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals.
Some are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks or fires.
Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are pollutants emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles.
What are the Harmful Effects of PM?
Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems. Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream. Of these, particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles or PM2.5, pose the greatest risk to health.
Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States, including many of our treasured national parks and wilderness areas.”
Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM)
Health Effects
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Small particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream.
Exposure to such particles can affectboth your lungs and your heart. Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including:
premature death in people with heart or lung disease
nonfatal heart attacks
irregular heartbeat
aggravated asthma
decreased lung function
increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing.
People with heart or lung diseases,children, and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure.
PM2.5 and other particulate matter is only part of the dangerous substances found in these persistent contrails. Other admitted substances include carbon dioxide (CO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), black carbon soot, and other trace metals. It is simply beyond logic and reasoning to believe that the inhalation of these substances on a daily basis is not harmful to one’s health.
Recently, some members of Congress were interested in addressing the health and environmental problems associated with aviation. On February 8th, 2022, the Congressional Research Service released a report describing the problem and how to address it. A few highlights showcase that aviation pollution is the fastest-growing pollutant over the past decade and that there are numerous toxic substances found within these trails: Aviation, Air Pollution, and Climate Change
Emissions from Aircraft
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that transportation—including passenger cars and light trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, trains, ships, and aircraft—accounted for 35% of carbon dioxide (CO2, the principal GHG) emissions in 2018. While CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light trucks exceed those from aircraft in the United States, CO2 emissions from aviation are currently experiencing a faster rate of growth. All aircraft, including military, commercial, and privately chartered, accounted for 13% of the U.S. transportation sector’s CO2 emissions and 5% of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2018. Commercial aircraft, including those operated by passenger and all-cargo airlines, accounted for 11% of transportation sector and 4% of all emissions. These estimates include emissions from U.S. domestic flights and emissions from international flights departing the United States, referred to as “international bunkering.”
In the United States, aggregate CO2 emissions from aircraft have fluctuated due to changes in technology, the economy, travel frequency, and military activity, among other reasons. However, since the global financial crisis in 2009,aggregate CO2 emissions from all aircraft types have grown steadily, increasing by almost 22% between 2009 and 2018. This increase makes aircraft one of the faster-growing sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the past decade. This trend is likely to be affected, at least temporarily, by reduced air travel in 2020 and 2021 due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The effects of aircraft emissions on the atmosphere are complex, reflecting differing altitudes, geography, time horizons, and environmental conditions. Research has shown that in addition to CO2 emissions, other factors increase the climate change impacts of aviation. These factors include the contribution of aircraft emissions to ozone production; the formation of water condensation trails and cirrus clouds; the emission of various gases and particles, including water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulfates, and particulates from jet fuel combustion; and the high altitude location of the bulk of these emissions. In examining the warming and cooling influences of these factors, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated aviation’s total climate change impact could be from two to four times that of its past CO2 emissions alone.
Aside from GHG emissions, aircraft engines emit a number of criteria—or common—pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, oxides of sulfur, unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), particulates, and other trace compounds. A subset of the VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants.”
In case you wanted a visual representation of how this pollution is said to form and impact our health.
As can be seen, the pollution coming from the aviation industry is a fast-growing problem that is impacting our health and environment in numerous ways. While this has been known for decades and solutions have been presented to try and reverse the impact, nothing is ever implemented to fix the problem. Solutions are only useful if they are enacted upon. While Congress gathers reports, there is little action taken in regards to those reports. It is one thing to acknowledge the negative health and environmental impact yet it is another thing entirely to actually shake up the industry by doing something about it. This seems not to be a major concern as these trails have become worse over time, increasingly contributing to erratic weather, disease, and premature death.
For further evidence of the impact that these trails have on our health and environment, we can turn once again to the EPA to provide more detail. In a document from January 11th, 2021, the EPA enacted standards that are supposed to combat greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation industry. In this document are findings from reports they had compiled in 2016 which call out the dangers these trails have on the public health and welfare:
Control of Air Pollution From Airplanes and Airplane Engines: GHG Emission Standards and Test Procedures
“In August 2016, the EPA issued two findings regarding GHG emissions from aircraft engines (the 2016 Findings).[7]First, the EPA found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Second, EPA found that emissions of GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Additional details of the 2016 Findings are described in Section III. As a result of the 2016 Findings, CAA sections 231(a)(2)(A) and (3) obligate the EPA to propose and adopt, respectively, GHG standards for these covered aircraft engines.”
III. Summary of the 2016 Findings
“On August 15, 2016,[46] the EPA issued two findings regarding GHG emissions from aircraft engines. First, the EPA found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. The EPA made this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane, N2 O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009 Endangerment Finding [47] under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together were found to constitute the primary cause of climate change. Second, the EPA found that emissions of those six well-mixed GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft [48] cause or contribute to the air pollution—the aggregate group of the same six GHGs—that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).”
In February of 2022, the EPA proposed standards that would reflect the importance of the control of PM emissions in aviation. They were looking to secure the highest practicable degree of uniformity in aviation regulations and standards. Within this proposal, the EPA provided plenty of insight into the potential health impacts of PM2.5 on human health such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, neurological disorders, asthma, cancer, ferility/reproductive problems, and premature death. They also outlined the impact the chemicals in the trails have on the environment such as affecting the metabolic processes of plant foliage, altering the soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, disrupting plant and animal growth and reproduction, and the corrosion of metals and soil. They even provided more detail on the make-up of the composition of the dangerous toxins inside these trails with the addition of carcinogens such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and certain metals such as chromium, manganese, and nickel. Judging by this information alone, it should be rather clear that these trails are negatively impacting our health and environment in numerous ways:
Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft Engines: Emission Standards and Test Procedures
III. Particulate Matter Impacts on Air Quality and Health
A. Background on Particulate Matter
“Particulate matter (PM) is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles range in size from those smaller than 1 nanometer (10−9 meter) to over 100 micrometers (μm, or 10−6 meter) in diameter (for reference, a typical strand of human hair is 70 μm in diameter and a grain of salt is about 100 μm). Atmospheric particles can be grouped into several classes according to their aerodynamic and physical sizes. Generally, the three broad classes of particles include ultrafine particles (UFPs, generally considered as particulates with a diameter less than or equal to 0.1 μm (typically based on physical size, thermal diffusivity or electrical mobility)), “fine” particles (PM2.5; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm), and “thoracic” particles (PM10; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm). Particles that fall within the size range between PM2.5 and PM10, are referred to as “thoracic coarse particles” (PM10-2.5, particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm and greater than 2.5 μm).
Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions between PM precursors; the former are often referred to as “primary” particles, and the latter as “secondary” particles. Particle concentration and composition varies by time of year and location, and, in addition to differences in source emissions, is affected by several weather-related factors, such as temperature, clouds, humidity, and wind. Ambient levels of PM are also impacted by particles’ ability to shift between solid/liquid and gaseous phases, which is influenced by concentration, meteorology, and especially temperature.
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions ( e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region, meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon, and metal compounds. These particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers.
Particulate matter is comprised of both volatile and non-volatile PM. PM emitted from the engine is known as non-volatile PM (nvPM), and PM formed from transformation of an engine’s gaseous emissions are defined as volatile PM.[35] Because of the difficulty in measuring volatile PM, which is formed in the engine’s exhaust plume and is significantly influenced by ambient conditions, the EPA is proposing standards only for the emission of nvPM.
B. Health Effects of Particulate Matter
Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM is associated with a broad range of health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA), which was finalized in December 2019.[36]The PM ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient PM2.5 are associated with a number of adverse health effects and characterizes the weight of evidence for broad health categories ( e.g., cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, etc.).[37] The PM ISA additionally notes that stratified analyses ( i.e., analyses that directly compare PM-related health effects across groups) provide strong evidence for racial and ethnic differences in PM2.5 exposures and in PM2.5 -related health risk. As described in Section III.D, concentrations of PM increase with proximity to an airport. Further, studies described in Section III.G report that many communities in close proximity to airports are disproportionately represented by people of color and low-income populations.
EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA supports a “causal relationship” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects and a “likely to be causal relationship” between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects.[38]Additionally, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a “likely to be causal relationship” between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer. In addition, EPA noted that there was more limited and uncertain evidence for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and developmental effects ( i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility; pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects resulting in the ISA concluding “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship.”
More detailed information on the health effects of PM can be found in a memorandum to the docket.[39]
C. Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter
Environmental effects that can result from particulate matter emissions include visibility degradation, plant and ecosystem effects, deposition effects, and materials damage and soiling. These effects are briefly summarized here and discussed in more detail in the memo to the docket cited above.
PM2.5 emissions also adversely impact visibility.[40]In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized visibility’s value to society by establishing a national goal to protect national parks and wilderness areas from visibility impairment caused by manmade pollution.[41] In 1999, EPA finalized the regional haze program (64 FR 35714) to protect the visibility in Mandatory Class I Federal areas. There are 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas (62 FR 38680-38681, July 18, 1997). These areas are defined in CAA section 162 as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. EPA has also concluded that PM2.5 causes adverse effects on visibility in other areas that are not targeted by the Regional Haze Rule, such as urban areas, depending on PM2.5 concentrations and other factors such as dry chemical composition and relative humidity ( i.e., an indicator of the water composition of the particles). EPA established the secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 1997 and has retained the standard in subsequent reviews.[42] This standard is expected to provide protection against visibility effects through attainment of the existing secondary standards for PM2.5 . EPA is reconsidering the 2020 decision, as announced on June 10, 2021.[43]
1. Deposition of Metallic and Organic Constituents of PM
Several significant ecological effects are associated with deposition of chemical constituents of ambient PM such as metals and organics.[44]Like all internal combustion engines, turbine engines covered by this rule may emit trace amounts of metals due to fuel contamination or engine wear. Ecological effects of PM include direct effects to metabolic processes of plant foliage; contribution to total metal loading resulting in alteration of soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, plant and animal growth and reproduction; and contribution to total organics loading resulting in bioaccumulation and biomagnification.
2. Materials Damage and Soiling
Deposition of PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects) and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects). Wet and dry deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by deteriorating building materials such as stone, concrete and marble.[45]
D. Near-Source Impacts on Air Quality and Public Health
Airport activity can adversely impact air quality in the vicinity of airports. Furthermore, these adverse impacts may disproportionately impact sensitive subpopulations. A recent study by Yim et al. (2015) assessed global, regional, and local health impacts of civil aviation emissions, using modeling tools that address environmental impacts at different spatial scales.[46] The study attributed approximately 16,000 premature deaths per year globally to global aviation emissions, with 87 percent attributable to PM2.5 . The study concludes that about a third of these mortalities are attributable to PM2.5 exposures within 20 kilometers of an airport. Another study focused on the continental United States estimated 210 deaths per year attributable to PM2.5 from aircraft.[47] While there are considerable uncertainties associated with such estimates, these results suggest that in addition to the contributions of PM2.5 emissions to regional air quality, impacts on public health of these emissions in the vicinity of airports are an important public health concern.
A significant body of research has addressed pollutant levels and potential health effects in the vicinity of airports. Much of this research was synthesized in a 2015 report published by the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), conducted by the Transportation Research Board.[48]The report concluded that PM2.5 concentrations in and around airports vary considerably, ranging from “relatively low levels to those that are close to the NAAQS, and in some cases, exceeding the standards.” [49]
Furthermore, the report states (p. 40) that “existing studies indicate that ultrafine particle concentrations are highly elevated at an airport ( i.e., near a runway) with particle counts that can be orders of magnitude higher than background with some persistence many meters downwind ( e.g., 600 m). Finally, the report concludes that PM2.5 dominates overall health risks posed by airport emissions. Moreover, one recently published study concluded that emissions from aircraft play an etiologic role in pre-term births, independent of noise and traffic-related air pollution exposures.[50]
Since the publication of the 2015 ACRP literature review, a number of studies conducted in the U. S. have been published which concluded that ultrafine particle number concentrations were elevated downwind of commercial airports, and that proximity to an airport also increased particle number concentrations within residences.Hudda et al. investigated ultrafine particle number concentrations (PNC) inside and outside 16 residences in the Boston metropolitan area. They found elevated outdoor PNC within several kilometers of the airport. They also found that aviation-related PNC infiltrated indoors and resulted in significantly higher indoor PNC.[51] In another study in the vicinity of Logan airport, Hudda et al. analyzed PNC impacts of aviation activities.[52] They found that, at sites 4.0 and 7.3 km from the airport, average PNCs were 2 and 1.33-fold higher, respectively, when winds were from the direction of the airport compared to other directions, indicating that aviation impacts on PNC extend many kilometers downwind of Logan airport. Stacey (2019) conducted a literature survey and concluded that the literature consistently reports that particle numbers close to airports are significantly higher than locations distant and upwind of airports, and that the particle size distribution is different from traditional road traffic, with more extremely fine particles.[53] Similar findings have been published from European studies.[54 55 56 57 58 59 ] Results of a monitoring study of communities near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport also found higher levels of ultrafine PM near the airport, and an impacted area larger than at near-roadway sites.[60] The PM associated with aircraft landing activity was also smaller in size, with lower black carbon concentrations than near-roadway samples. As discussed above, PM2.5 exposures are associated with a number of serious, adverse health effects. Further, the PM attributable to aircraft emissions has been associated with potential adverse health impacts.[61 62] For example, He et al. (2018) found that particle composition, size distribution and internalized amount of particles near airports all contributed to promotion of reactive organic species in bronchial epithelial cells.
Because of these potential impacts, a systematic literature review was recently conducted to identify peer-reviewed literature on air quality near commercial airports and assess the quality of the studies.[63] The systematic review identified seventy studies for evaluation. These studies consistently showed that particulate matter, in the form of ultrafine PM (UFP), is elevated in and around airports. Furthermore, many studies showed elevated levels of black carbon, criteria pollutants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well. Finally, the systematic review, while not focused on health effects, identified a limited number of references reporting adverse health effects impacts, including increased rates of premature death, pre-term births, decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage and childhood leukemia. More research is needed linking particle size distributions to specific airport activities, and proximity to airports, characterizing relationships between different pollutants, evaluating long-term impacts, and improving our understanding of health effects.
A systematic review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in the vicinity of airports was also recently published.[64] This study concluded that literature on health effects was sparse, but jet engine emissions have physicochemical properties similar to diesel exhaust particles, and that exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions.A 2010 systematic review by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) concluded that evidence was sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma among children, and suggestive of a causal relationship for childhood asthma, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function and cardiovascular mortality.[65]”
F. Other Pollutants Emitted by Aircraft
“In addition to particulate matter, a number of other criteria pollutants are emitted by the aircraft which are the subject of this proposed rule. These pollutants, which are not covered by the rule, include nitrogen oxides (NOX), including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Aircraft also contribute to ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), compounds that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects. These compounds include, but are not limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and certain metals. Some POM and HAP metals are components of PM2.5 mass measured in turbine engine aircraft emissions.[70]
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs). POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Metal compounds emitted from aircraft turbine engine combustion include chromium, manganese, and nickel. Several POM compounds, as well as hexavalent chromium, manganese compounds and nickel compounds are included in the National Air Toxics Assessment, based on potential carcinogenic risk.[71] In addition, as mentioned previously, deposition of metallic compounds can have ecological effects. Impacts of POM and metals are further discussed in the memorandum to the docket referenced above.”
PM stands for particulate matter – the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air
Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye while others are too small to be seen
PM10: inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller
PM2.5: fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller
These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals
Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems
Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream
Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems
Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart
Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including:
Premature death in people with heart or lung disease
Nonfatal heart attacks
Irregular heartbeat
Aggravated asthma
Decreased lung function
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing
People with heart or lung diseases,children, and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure
According to a Congressional Research Service report from February 8th, 2022, CO2 emissions from aviation are currently experiencing a faster rate of growth than other sources
All aircraft, including military, commercial, and privately chartered, accounted for 13% of the U.S. transportation sector’s CO2 emissions and 5% of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2018
Commercial aircraft, including those operated by passenger and all-cargo airlines, accounted for 11% of transportation sector and 4% of all emissions
Since the global financial crisis in 2009, aggregate CO2 emissions from all aircraft types have grown steadily, increasing by almost 22% between 2009 and 2018
This increase makes aircraft one of the faster-growing sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the past decade
The effects of aircraft emissions on the atmosphere are complex, reflecting differing altitudes, geography, time horizons, and environmental conditions
Research has shown that in addition to CO2 emissions, other factors increase the climate change impacts of aviation which include:
The contribution of aircraft emissions to ozone production
The formation of water condensation trails and cirrus clouds
The emission of various gases and particles, including water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulfates, and particulates from jet fuel combustion
The high altitude location of the bulk of these emissions
In examining the warming and cooling influences of these factors, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated aviation’s total climate change impact could be from two to four times that of its past CO2 emissions alone
Aside from GHG emissions, aircraft engines emit a number of criteria—or common—pollutants, including:
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Oxides of sulfur
Unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs])
Particulates
Other trace compounds
A subset of the VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants
According to a 2021 report by the EPA, they found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
Second, EPA found that emissions of GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
The EPA made this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009 Endangerment Finding under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together were found to constitute the primary cause of climate change
The EPA found that emissions of those six well-mixed GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft cause or contribute to the air pollution—the aggregate group of the same six GHGs—that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
Another report by the EPA from February 2022 states that particulate matter (PM) is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases
Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) in the atmosphere
PM2.5 may include a complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon, and metal compounds
These particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers
Particulate matter is comprised of both volatile and non-volatile PM
PM emitted from the engine is known as non-volatile PM (nvPM), and PM formed from transformation of an engine’s gaseous emissions are defined as volatile PM
Because of the difficulty in measuring volatile PM, which is formed in the engine’s exhaust plume and is significantly influenced by ambient conditions, the EPA is proposing standards only for the emission of nvPM
In other words, there are no standards proposed by the EPA for the transformation these chemicals go through after leaving the enginewhen they become lingering trails
Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM isassociated with a broad range of health effects
The PM ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient PM2.5 are associated with a number of adverse health effects and characterizes the weight of evidence for broad health categories ( e.g., cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, etc.)
EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA supports a “causal relationship” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects and a “likely to be causal relationship” between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects
Additionally, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a “likely to be causal relationship” between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer
In addition, EPA noted that there was more limited and uncertain evidence for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and developmental effects ( i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility; pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects resulting in the ISA concluding “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship”
Environmental effects that can result from particulate matter emissions include:
Visibility degradation
Plant and ecosystem effects
Deposition effects
Materials damage and soiling
PM2.5 emissions also adversely impact visibility
Like all internal combustion engines, turbine engines covered by this rule may emittrace amounts of metals due to fuel contamination or engine wear
Ecological effects of PM include:
Direct effects to metabolic processes of plant foliage
Contribution to total metal loading resulting in alteration of soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, plant and animal growth and reproduction
Contribution to total organics loading resulting in bioaccumulation and biomagnification
Deposition of PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects) and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects)
Wet and dry deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by deteriorating building materials such as stone, concrete and marble
A recent study by Yim et al. (2015) assessed global, regional, and local health impacts of civil aviation emissions, using modeling tools that address environmental impacts at different spatial scales
The study attributed approximately 16,000 premature deaths per year globally to global aviation emissions, with 87 percent attributable to PM2.5
The study concluded that about a third of these mortalities are attributable to PM2.5 exposures within 20 kilometers of an airport
Another study focused on the continental United States estimated 210 deaths per year attributable to PM2.5 from aircraft
Impacts on public health of these emissions in the vicinity of airports are an important public health concern
A 2015 report concluded that PM2.5 concentrations in and around airports vary considerably, ranging from “relatively low levels to those that are close to the NAAQS, and in some cases, exceeding the standards.”
Furthermore, the report stated (p. 40) that “existing studies indicate that ultrafine particle concentrations are highly elevated at an airport ( i.e., near a runway) with particle counts that can be orders of magnitude higher than background with some persistence many meters downwind ( e.g., 600 m)
Finally, the report concluded that PM2.5 dominates overall health risks posed by airport emissions
Hudda et al. investigated ultrafine particle number concentrations (PNC) inside and outside 16 residences in the Boston metropolitan area and found that aviation-related PNC infiltrated indoors and resulted in significantly higher indoor PNC
Stacey (2019) conducted a literature survey and concluded that the literature consistently reports that particle numbers close to airports are significantly higher than locations distant and upwind of airports, and that the particle size distribution is different from traditional road traffic, with more extremely fine particles
PM2.5 exposures are associated with a number of serious, adverse health effects and the PM attributable to aircraft emissions has been associated with potential adverse health impacts
He et al. (2018) found that particle composition, size distribution and internalized amount of particles near airports all contributed to promotion of reactive organic species in bronchial epithelial cells
A systematic review of 70 studies consistently showed that particulate matter, in the form of ultrafine PM (UFP), is elevated in and around airports
Furthermore, many studies showed elevated levels of black carbon, criteria pollutants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well
Finally, the systematic review, while not focused on health effects, identified a limited number of references reporting adverse health effects impacts, including increased rates of premature death, pre-term births, decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage and childhood leukemia
A systematic review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in the vicinity of airports found that jet engine emissions have physicochemical properties similar to diesel exhaust particles, and that exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions
A 2010 systematic review by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) concluded that evidence was sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma among children, and suggestive of a causal relationship for childhood asthma, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function and cardiovascular mortality
Besides PM2.5, other harmful pollutants, which are not covered by the rule, include:
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Aircraft also contribute to ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), compounds that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects
These compounds include, but are not limited to:
Benzene,
1,3-butadiene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Polycyclic organic matter (POM)
Certain metals
Some POM and HAP metals are components of PM2.5 mass measured in turbine engine aircraft emissions
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs)
Metal compounds emitted from aircraft turbine engine combustion include:
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Several POM compounds, as well as hexavalent chromium, manganese compounds and nickel compounds are included in the National Air Toxics Assessment, based on potential carcinogenic risk
When dealing with a potential health threat, we tend to jump to the conclusion that we are facing a new “virus” as this well-orchestrated lie has been drilled into our collective consciousness since birth. It is second nature to blame the new invisible boogeyman while overlooking the old visible threats that have been plaguing us for years with no end in sight. It seems too easy to admit to ourselves that any perceived increase in respiratory disease could be attributable to the continued increase in air pollution.
Yet from the start, “Covid-19” has been linked to air pollution. The areas hit the hardest were those with the highest levels of these harmful toxins in the air. As travel died down during the lockdowns, cases fell along with subsiding smog. As travel and pollution rose up again, so too did the “Covid” cases. Even small increases in air pollution has been shown to have an impact on “Covid” case numbers and deaths.
We know for a fact that air pollution is harmful to our health and environment. We know that every single symptom of disease associated with “Covid-19” can be linked to the PM2.5 particles which make up the majority of the dirty air we breathe. We know for a fact that automobiles, factories, power plants, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. all contribute to the harmful levels of toxins in the air. However, the one thing we have been told not to question as a contributor to our current problems are the lingering trails in the sky which form artificial clouds blocking out the beneficial rays of the sun. We are told that these are just regular old contrails from commercial airliners made up of ice crystals which eventually dissipate into a completely safe and harmless nothingness. Anyone questioning the trails is immediately labelled a conspiracy theorist.
It should be clear now, whether you call them chemtrails or not, that these persistent streaks in the sky are full of dangerous substances that attack the cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological systems. Thanks to government sources such as the EPA and the Congressional Research Service, we know that these trails are the fastest growing pollutant in the air and that they are contributing to even greater levels of smog and haze. The trails and the artificial cirrus clouds they form are a near constant sight in the sky these days and the problem is only growing worse with time. The damaging effects that these lines in the sky have on our health and environment is not even debatable. It is agreed upon by both sides of the debate. That these “persistent contrails” are harmful to our health and environment is a FACT. That the chemicals and toxins found within the vapors cause the exact same symptoms of disease as “Covid-19” is not a coincidence.
Thus we are left with two choices. We can either believe the official narrative that a new “virus” of unknown origin magically leapt from animal to man or somehow escaped from a lab and infected millions of people with a disease that causes the exact same symptoms associated with allergies, the common cold, the flu, and pneumonia. And with it’s rise, it has eliminated the majority of the cases of those previous ailments and can also constantly mutate (over 10 million versions now according to GISAID.org) in order to slip by every possible measure to contain it including masks, social distancing, lockdowns, quarantines, vaccines, etc.
Or we can believe that the ever-increasing and constant daily exposure to air pollution has taken a toll on the populace damaging the health and environment of everyone living within these dangerous levels of toxic fumes. While this is not the only explanation for any perceived increase in respiratory and other diseases, it is the most logical one over an invisible “virus.” According to Occam’s Razor, the simplest of competing theories should be preferred over those that are more complex and that explanations of unknown phenomena should be sought first in terms of known quantities. We know air pollution is harmful. We know that these trails are increasing at a faster rate than any other pollutant. We know that the chemicals residing within them are associated with the exact same symptoms of disease that are ascribed to “Covid.” Unlike a “virus,” we can see this boogeyman with our own two eyes.
All we have to do is look up.
From their own sources, the trails are a threat to our health and our environment. Contrary to what they want you to believe about “persistent contrails,” a.k.a. chemtrails, this is NOT a conspiracy.
You can see more of the slides from Government sources that were presented within this article here.
As avian influenza runs through the nation’s poultry flocks, with the current extermination of about 28 million laying hens and turkeys, I can’t help but wonder why we aren’t putting beak masks on the chickens.
If masks are so effective against viruses in the human population, why don’t we just make a chicken mask to stop this virus? Seems like a better fix than exterminating all these animals.
The problem is that Dr. Fauci isn’t in the chicken business. Rats. What a shame. If only he were in charge of chickens, he’d have this thing under control in a day. I think we need to expand his authority to the animals of America so he can take care of them like he’s taken care of the humans of America.
When avian flu broke out in our part of Virginia many years ago, two of the federal veterinarians sent in to exterminate chickens visited me just to chat. The independent visits shared an identical assessment: too many chickens crammed in too tight a space in too small a geographic area. Both said if they mentioned that publicly they would be fired.
Hmmmm, I wonder if decentralization of poultry would be better than centralization. Notice that on one farm, 5.8 million laying hens were destroyed—ON ONE FARM!
It’s all blamed on wildlife. Folks, whenever a culture views wildlife as a liability rather than asset, you know everything is wonky. It’s like blaming babies for drug addiction. Or blaming churches for drunkards. When wildlife is the enemy, something is out of whack in the culture’s thinking.
I don’t trust the tests. I don’t trust the experts. I don’t trust the bureaucrats. Isn’t it amazing that as a culture, we’re fixated on prolonging human life for a week or two with ultra-expensive, painful, and invasive intervention but at the first sign of sniffles in a chicken, the “only” cure, according to the experts, is mass extermination. Perhaps the wrong beings are being exterminated. Just sayin’.
The biggest tragedy is that these government gumshoes will come onto a property, without a warrant and unannounced, demanding to pull blood from pastured chickens. They’ll take that sample to a lab driven by political agendas and industrial paradigms (chickens locked in houses are healthier than chickens roaming on a pasture) to determine positive or negative.
Does this sound like incestuous fraternal collusion shenanigans to you?
In a World First on Maria Zeee Uncensored, Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts exposes the Nanotech found in the COVID-19 Vaccines, declaring this is genocide.
We discuss the incoming Digital Identity and the government’s plan to enslave humanity through their plans for a New World Order.
Dr. Naomi Wolf discusses the war on children and on Western values. Forcing children to wear masks is abusive because new studies show that this prevents them from developing normal facial recognition and the practice has a now-measurable effect on their IQ levels.
With all the new information surfacing from the WarRoom/DailyClout volunteers regarding the formerly secret Pfizer documents, and with attorney Stevan Looney’s new essay on the redacted documents in the secret Pfizer tranche now published on DailyClout.io, it is becoming clear that informed consent before receiving the vaccine was never even possible.
Bombshell: in order to process just the paperwork from the “large number of adverse events” — Pfizer’s own words — Pfizer had to hire 2,400 new, full-time employees and the company proudly informed the FDA of these thousands of new hires to grapple with the flood of adverse events they saw as early as February 28, 2021. Yet they did not disclose these adverse events to the public and neither did the FDA.
“The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica…
[….]
“What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice.”
virus, infectious agent of small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria. The name is from a Latin word meaning “slimy liquid” or “poison.”
I have purposefully stayed away from the whole “SARS-COV-2” as a gain of function/bioweapon disinformation campaign as it is obvious to anyone who has ever read any “virus” paper, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” or any of these other invisible entities. At no point has any virologist ever properly purified and isolated the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from a sick patient and then proven them pathogenic in a natural way. As this is a fact that is even admitted by virologists themselves, it should also be obvious that if they can not find the particles assumed to be “viruses” in nature, they can not tinker around and modify these fictional entities in a lab in order to create some sort of contagious bioweapon.
Somehow, this logic escapes many. Even though some have woken to the truth and accepted that “SARS-COV-2” does not exist in nature, they still believe that it must have been developed in a lab and unleashed upon the world in order to create a new contagious disease which is wrecking havoc on the elderly and immunocompromised. What they fail to realize is that there simply is no new disease and that none of the symptoms associated with “SARS-COV-2” are new, unique, or specific. There is zero proof of transmission and/or contagion beyond highly flawed epidemiological studies. There is no new “virus,” no new disease, and no contagious bioweapon. It is pure fiction based upon faulty cell culture and genomic experiments.
Before diving into the experimental evidence presented for gain of function studies, I figured it would be a good idea to get some background information on what exactly these kinds of studies entail first. From the October 2021 Nature article highlighted below, we learn that the gain of function concept earned widespread recognition in 2012 due to a pair of studies which both looked to tweak an avian influenza “virus” in order to make it transmissable by air between ferrets. Disregarding the contradictory fact that aerosol transmission is supposedly the way an upper respiratory “virus” is supposed to spread, many became concerned that this kind of work may eventually lead to the release of a super “virus” which could result in the next pandemic. These ferret studies were apparently pivotal with bringing virology into the gain of function field, even though it could be easily argued that virology has been performing these kinds of experiments throughout its existence.
The gain of function term refers to any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host. This is done by fiddling with cell culture material in a lab combined with genomic sequencing. They do this either by inserting genetic material into the cell culture or by way of animal models where the animal is said to be genetically altered in some way to be more susceptible to the “viral” material.
The article provides an example where mice were genetically modified to become susceptible to MERS. However, the mice did not become ill upon being challenged with the “virus.” Thus, the researchers resorted to passaging the “virus” between mice, which involved infecting a couple of mice, giving the “virus” two days to take hold, and then killing the mice and grinding up the lung tissue to inject into other mice. They repeated these steps at least 30 times which eventually made some mice sick. This process of culturing toxic material, injecting animals with the concoction, killing them and grinding up their remains, and then injecting this emulsified goop into other animals in an attenpt to make them sick is what GOF is all about. While this horrific process is getting recognized today, these kinds of experiments have been a staple of virology since the very beginning:
The shifting sands of ‘gain-of-function’ research
“The term first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza virus, using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets2,3. Many people were concerned that publishing the work would be tantamount to providing a recipe for a devastating pandemic, and in the years that followed, research funders, politicians and scientists debated whether such work required stricter oversight, lest someone accidentally or intentionally release a lab-created plague. Researchers around the world voluntarily paused some work, but the issue became particularly politicized in the United States.
US funding agencies, which also support research abroad, later imposed a moratorium on gain-of-function research with pathogens while they worked out new protocols to assess the risks and benefits. But many of the regulatory discussions have taken place out of the public eye.
Now, gain-of-function research is once again centre stage, thanks to SARS-CoV-2 and a divisive debate about where it came from. Most virologists say that the coronavirus probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the virus was first reported. But a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out. They are demanding investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where related bat coronaviruses have been extensively studied, to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 could have accidentally leaked from the lab or crossed into humans during collection or storage of samples.”
“The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term — and it stuck, says Gigi Gronvall,a biosecurity specialist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host.
Virologists do regularly fiddle with viral genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models. “People do all of these experiments all the time,” says Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. For example, her lab has made mouse viruses that are more harmful to mice than the originals. If only mice are at risk, should it be deemed GOF? And would it be worrying?
The answer is generally no. Morrison’s experiments, and many others like them, pose little threat to humans. GOF research starts to ring alarm bells when it involves dangerous human pathogens, such as those on the US government’s ‘select agents’ list, which includes Ebola virus and the bacteria responsible for anthrax and botulism. Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza viruses and coronaviruses. “For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory viruses because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School. GOF studies with those viruses are “a really tiny part” of virology, he adds.”
“Animal research — although fraught with its own set of ethical quandaries — allows scientists to study how pathogens work and to test potential treatments, a necessary precursor to trials in people. That’s what Perlman and his collaborators had in mind when they set out to study the coronavirus responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012. They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS.
The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells. So, the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4. The virus could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill. “Having a model of mild disease isn’t particularly helpful to understand why people get so sick,” says collaborator Paul McCray, a paediatric pulmonologist also at the University of Iowa.
So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance virulence. The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the virus two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice. They did this repeatedly — 30 times9. By the end of two months, the virus had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells. In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly, says McCray. That’s GOF of a sort because the virus became better at causing disease. But adapting a pathogen to one animal in this way often limits its ability to infect others, says Andrew Pekosz, a virologist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.”
“With all the challenges inherent in GOF studies, why do them? Because, some virologists say, the viruses are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match. “We can either wait for something to arise, and then fight it, or we can anticipate that certain things will arise, and instead we can preemptively build our arsenals,” says Morrison. “That’s where gain-of-function research can come in handy.”
This next source is from 2015. The authors admit that virology is heavily reliant on gain or loss of function studies. They offer an alternative definition for GOF research which is any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes. Obviously, this definition leans far more into the genomics side of the equation. This is due to the claim that these kinds of studies are used by virologists in order to understand a “viruses” genetic make-up. It is stated that researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA. In other words, they mix genetic material from different sources, poison and/or kill lab animals by injecting them with this toxic soup, and then analyze the resulting mixture using computers so that they can claim that the generated model is a new creation. However, it is admitted that these kinds of mutations happen “naturally” with “viruses” every time a person is infected, thus confirming what we already know: virologists can not sequence the same exact “virus” every time:
Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives
“The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function. In order to understand the role of such studies in virology, Dr. Kanta Subbarao from the Laboratory of Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave an overview of the current scientific and technical approaches to the research on pandemic strains of influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses (CoV). As discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, many participants argued that the word choice of “gain-of-function” to describe the limited type of experiments covered by the U.S. deliberative process, particularly when coupled with a pause on even a smaller number of research projects, had generated concern that the policy would affect much broader areas of virology research.
TYPES OF GAIN-OF-FUNCTION (GOF) RESEARCH
Subbarao explained that routine virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.
Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of viruses and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Subbarao introduced the key questions that virologists ask at all stages of research on the emergence or re-emergence of a virus and specifically adapted these general questions to the three viruses of interest in the symposium (see Box 3-1). To answer these questions, virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of viruses and the specifics of virus-host interaction. For instance, researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant viruses from cloned cDNA, and deep sequencing that are critical for studying how viruses escape the host immune system and antiviral controls. Researchers also use targeted host or viral genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool.
During Session 3 of the symposium, Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments. The first category, which he called “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature. The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A viruses that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type. The second category deals with the generation of viruses that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type viruses but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature. Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates will improve their replication in mammalian cells. Finally, the third category, which is somewhere in between the two first categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible viruses in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern. An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans. During the discussion, Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature.”
“Imperiale explained that, with respect to the GoF terminology, whenever researchers are working with RNA viruses, GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.” He also commented that the term GoF was understood a certain way by attendees of this symposium, but when the public hears this term “they can’t make that sort of nuanced distinction that we can make here” so the terminology should be revisited.”
Hopefully the above two sources have shown that GOF studies are nothing more than the exact same cell culture experiments utilizing the exact same genomic sequencing technologies and tricks that virologists have always used. The only difference is that they are combining different culture supernatant and genetic materials together into one in order to create a brand new synthetic computer-generated sequence. At no point in time are any purified/isolated particles ever used in these studies. In fact, there are no EM images of the new “virus” of any kind. It should therefore not be surprising that we can see the exact same pattern of unscientific methods and illogical reasoning in GOF studies as found in any of the original “virus” papers.
Seeing as to how the 2012 avian flu studies brought GOF research to the forefront, it seemed ideal to step into this area a bit more to see what actually transpired. The main study presented as evidence of GOF research was led by a man named Ron Fouchier. If that name sounds familiar, that’s because it should. Fouchier was involved in the 2003 “SARS-COV-1” study which proclaimed the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates for proving a microorganism causes disease yet it failed miserably by not only not being able to satisfy Koch’s four original Postulates, but also Thomas River’s six revised Postulates made strictly for virology. In other words, it was an epic fail.
In Fouchier’s 2012 avian flu GOF study, he attempted to make the H5N1 “virus” infectious through the air. This was done through a process involving cell culturing combined with genetic engineering as well as passaging the material through numerous ferrets. Sounds familiar to the mice example from before, correct? You also see this same process with the early polio and influenza studies as well as in many other virology papers. The main difference is the genomic narrative and the use of modern technology such as reverse genetics to claim the insertion of specific genes.
Highlights from the below paper provide an overview of what was done during this study. It details how the material was collected from a flu strain in Indonesia, genetically altered in a Petri dish, and then transferred to ferrets in a series of experiments using the “wildtype” strain along with different modified strains. Fouchier and Co. were repeatedly unsuccessful in their endeavors of infecting ferrets until they started passaging the “virus” in the animals by injecting them with the cultured soup, grinding up their lung tissues, and injecting other ferrets in the same manner. They repeated this process 6 times and then changed up the experiment by switching to nasal turbinates for the last 4 passage attempts. The only illness said to be achieved via airborne exposure was a loss of appetite, lethargy, and ruffled fur. Upon sequencing the “viruses,” there were only two amino acid switches shared by all six “viruses.” There were several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses.” In other words, they could not sequence the same “virus” at any point:
Fouchier study reveals changes enabling airborne spread of H5N1
“A study showing that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza virus into an airborne spreader in mammals—and that launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency—was released today in Science, spilling the full experimental details that many experts had sought to suppress out of concern that publishing them could lead to the unleashing of a dangerous virus.
In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 virus that can spread among ferrets without direct contact.
They say their findings show that H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve in mammals to gain airborne transmissibility, without having to mix with other flu viruses in intermediate hosts such as pigs, and thus pose a risk of launching a pandemic.”
Indonesian H5N1 strain used
Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 virus collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 viruses more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways. Avian flu viruses prefer to bind to alpha2,3-linked sialic acid receptors on cells, whereas human flu viruses prefer alpha2,6-linked receptors. In both humans and ferrets, alpha2,6 receptors are predominant in the upper respiratory tract, while alpha 2,6 receptors are found mainly in the lower respiratory tract.
The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the virus’s HA protein, the viral surface molecule that attaches to host cells. Q222L and G224S together change the binding preference of H2 and H3 subtype flu viruses, changes that contributed to the 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics, according to the report. And N182K was found in a human H5N1 case.
The scientists created three mutant H5N1 virus strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes, the report explains. They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 virus. Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type virus shed far more virus than those infected with the mutants.
In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different viral gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein. The mutation E627K in PB2 is linked to the acquisition by avian flu viruses of the ability to grow in the human respiratory tract, which is cooler than the intestinal tract of birds, where the viruses usually reside, according to the report.
The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a virus that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the virus did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones.
The passaging step
Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract—the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid,” according to a report of his initial description of the research at a European meeting last September.
They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type virus and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs). Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times. For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest viruses that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract.
The amount of mutant virus found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages, signaling that the virus was increasing its capacity to grow in the ferret upper airway. In contrast, viral titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type virus stayed the same.
The next step was to test whether the viruses produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission. Four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant virus, and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain. Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact.
The ferrets exposed to those with the wild virus remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant virus did get infected, the researchers found. Further, they took a sample from one of the “recipient” ferrets and used it to inoculate another ferret, which then transmitted the virus to two more ferrets that were placed near it.
Thus, a total of six ferrets became infected with the mutant virus via airborne transmission. However, the level of viral shedding indicated the airborne virus didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 virus does.
In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur. One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne viruses survived.
When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the viruses that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six viruses: H103Y and T156A. They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne viruses.
“Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of [highly pathogenic avian flu] H5N1 virus,” the researchers wrote.
In further steps, the researchers inoculated six ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible virus; after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund.” “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia,” the report notes.”
While the proceeding article did an excellent job of providing the main points from Fouchier’s 2012 GOF study, I wanted to showcase relevant highlights directly from the paper to flesh out the methods used even further. Here you will see that Fouchier’s team claimed that they genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. They used Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) which they said was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection. This was passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs which was followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000. They then used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce the desired amino acid substitutions. Site-directed mutagenesis is a synthetic process utilizing PCR to make artificial changes in a DNA sequence. They then took their synthetically-created cultured soup and experimented on ferrets while manipulating the methods until they achieved the results that they desired.
At no point in the paper was a “virus” of any kind ever purified and isolated. At no point were any electron microscope images of the newly mutated “viruses” ever shown. The only “evidence” of an airborne strain is genomic sequencing data from consensus genomes which did not match up. Fouchier and Co. even admitted that airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but even this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. They also stated that the mutations they had identified needed further testing to determine their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and that further experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals. In other words, their study only told them that they could create mutated genomes and not that they created more “virulent viruses” that are transmissable by air:
Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets
“Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus farhas not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”)between humans. To address the concern that the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions,we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage inferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimatelybecoming airborne transmissible in ferrets. None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection withthe mutant A/H5N1 viruses. Four amino acid substitutions in the host receptor-binding protein hemagglutinin, and one in the polymerase complex protein basic polymerase 2, were consistently present in airborne-transmitted viruses. The transmissible viruses were sensitive to the antiviral drug oseltamivir and reacted well with antisera raised against H5 influenza vaccine strains. Thus, avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses can acquire the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate host and therefore constitute a risk for human pandemic influenza.
Influenza A viruses have been isolated from many host species, including humans, pigs, horses, dogs, marine mammals, and a wide range of domestic birds, yet wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the virus reservoir in nature (1). Influenza A viruses belong to the family Orthomyxoviridae; these viruses have an RNA genome consisting of eight gene segments (2, 3). Segments 1 to 3 encode the polymerase proteins: basic polymerase 2 (PB2), basic polymerase 1 (PB1), and acidic polymerase (PA), respectively. These proteins form the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase complex responsible for transcription and replication of the viral genome.”
Since the late 1990s, HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have devastated the poultry industry of numerous countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. To date, A/H5N1 has spread from Asia to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, resulting in the death of hundreds of millions of domestic birds. In Hong Kong in 1997, the first human deaths directly attributable to avian A/H5N1 virus were recorded (11). Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 virus infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries (12). Although limited A/H5N1 virus transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus has not been detected (13–15). Whether this virus may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness. Although our knowledge of viral traits necessary for host switching and virulence has increased substantially in recent years (16, 17), the factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza viruses among mammals, a trait necessary for a virus to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown (18–21). Therefore, investigations of routes of influenza virus transmission between animals and on the determinants of airborne transmission are high on the influenza research agenda.
The viruses that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza viruses (22). However, given that viruses from only four pandemics are available for analyses, we cannot exclude the possibility that a futurepandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian virus without the requirement of reassortment. Several studies have shown that reassortment events between A/H5N1 and seasonal human influenza viruses do not yield viruses that are readily transmitted between ferrets (18–20, 23). In our work, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus could change its transmissibility characteristics without any requirement for reassortment.
We chose influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 for our study because the incidence of human A/H5N1 virus infections and fatalities in Indonesia remains fairly high (12), and there are concerns that this virus could acquire molecular characteristics that would allow it to become more readily transmissible between humans and initiate a pandemic. Because no reassortants between A/H5N1 viruses and seasonal or pandemic human influenza viruses have been detected in nature and because our goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza virus to become airborne transmissible in mammals, we decided to use the complete A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus that was isolated from a human case of HPAI A/H5N1 infection.
We chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for our studies. Ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza viruses (24). After infection with human influenza A virus, ferrets develop respiratory disease and lung pathology similar to that observed in humans. Ferrets can also transmit human influenza viruses to other ferrets that serve as sentinels with or without direct contact (fig. S1) (25–27).”
Human-to-human transmission of influenza viruses can occur through direct contact, indirect contact via fomites (contaminated environmental surfaces), and/or airborne transmission via small aerosols or large respiratory droplets. The pandemic and epidemic influenza viruses that have circulated in humans throughout the past century were all transmitted via the airborne route, in contrast to many other respiratory viruses that are exclusively transmitted via contact. There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols. However, it is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols. Because we did not measure particle size during our experiments, we will use the term “airborne transmission” throughout this Report.”
“Using a combination of targeted mutagenesis followed by serial virus passage in ferrets, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus can acquiremutations that would increase the risk of mammalian transmission (34). We have previously shown that several amino acid substitutions in the RBS of the HA surface glycoprotein of A/Indonesia/5/2005 change the binding preference from the avian a-2,3–linked SA receptors to the human a-2,6–linked SA receptors (35). A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus with amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S (numbers refer to amino acid positions in the mature H5 HA protein; N, Asn; Q, Gln; L, Leu; G, Gly; S, Ser) in HA display attachment patterns similar to those of human viruses to cells of the respiratory tract of ferrets and humans (35). Of these changes, we know that together, Q222L and G224S switch the receptor binding specificity of H2 and H3 subtype influenza viruses, as this switch contributed to the emergence of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics (36). N182K has been found in a human case of A/H5N1 virus infection (37).
Our experimental rationale to obtain transmissible A/H5N1 viruses was to select a mutant A/H5N1 virus with receptor specificity for a-2,6–linked SA shed at high titers from the URT of ferrets. Therefore, we used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit (Agilent Technologies, Amstelveen, the Netherlands) to introduce amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S in the HA of wild-type (WT) A/Indonesia/5/2005, resulting in A/H5N1HA N182K, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, and A/H5N1HA N182K,Q222L,G224S. Experimental details for experiments 1 to 9 are provided in the supplementary materials (25). For experiment 1, we inoculated these mutant viruses andthe A/H5N1wildtype virus intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each virus (fig. S3). Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and virus titerswere determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify virus shedding from the ferret URT. Three animals were euthanized after day 3 to enable tissue sample collection. All remaining animals were euthanized by day 7 when the same tissue samples were taken. Virus titers were determined in the nasal turbinates, trachea, and lungs collected post-mortem from the euthanized ferrets. Throughout the duration of experiment 1, ferrets inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype virus produced high titers in nose and throat swabs—up to 10 times more than A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, which yielded the highest virus titers of all three mutants during the 7-day period (Fig. 1). However, no significant difference was observed between the virus shedding of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L, G224S or A/H5N1HA N182K during the first 3 days when six animals per group were present. Thus, of the viruses with specificity for a-2,6–linked SA, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S yielded the highest virus titers in the ferret URT (Fig. 1).
As described above, amino acid substitution E627K in PB2 is one of the most consistent host-range determinants of influenza viruses (29–31). For experiment 2 (fig. S4), we introduced E627K into the PB2 gene of A/Indonesia/5/2005 by site-directed mutagenesis and produced the recombinant virus A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. The introduction of E627K in PB2 did not significantly affect virus shedding in ferrets, because virus titers in the URT were similar to those seen in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S-inoculated animals [up to 1 × 104 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50)] (Mann-Whitney U rank-sum test, P = 0.476) (Fig. 1 and fig. S5). When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously (27), A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted (fig. S5).
Because the mutant virus harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, we designed an experiment to force the virus to adaptto replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select virus variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructedA/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus and A/H5N1wildtype virus in the ferret URT (Fig. 2 and fig. S6). In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs. The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of virus-transport medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate thenext ferret intranasally (passage 2). This procedure was repeated until passage 6.
From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi. To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise tothe nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing. Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml. The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10. We changed the source of inoculum during the course of theexperiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of viruses that were secreted from the URT. Because influenza viruses mutate rapidly, we anticipated that 10 passages would be sufficient for the virus to adapt to efficient replication in mammals.
Virus titers in the nasal turbinates of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1wildtype ranged from ~1 × 105 to 1 × 107 TCID50/gram tissue throughout 10 serial passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). In ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus, a moderate increase in virus titers in the nasal turbinates was observed as the passage number increased. These titers ranged from 1 × 104 TCID50/gram tissue at the start of the experiment to 3.2 × 105 to 1 × 106 TCID50/gram tissue in the final passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). Notably, virus titers in the nose swabs of animals inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K also increased during the successive passages, with peak virus shedding of 1 × 105 TCID50 at 2 dpi after 10 passages (Fig. 3B).These data indicate that A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was developing greater capacity to replicate in the ferret URT after repeated passage, with evidence for such adaptation becoming apparent by passage number 4. In contrast, virus titers in the nose swabs of the ferrets collected at 1 to 4 dpi throughout 10 serial passages with A/H5N1wildtype revealed no changes in patterns of virus shedding.
Passaging of influenza viruses in ferrets should result in the natural selection of heterogeneous mixtures of viruses in each animal with a variety of mutations: so-called viral quasi-species (38). The genetic composition of the viral quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform (Roche, Woerden, the Netherlands) (tables S1 and S2). The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the virus population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5% (Fig. 4 and table S1). Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all viral gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kafter passaging, except in segment 7 (tables S1 and S2). Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions.The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kwas T156A (T, Thr; A, Ala) in HA. This substitution removes a potential N-linked glycosylation site (Asn-X-Thr/Ser; X, any amino acid) in HA and was detected in 99.6% of the A/H5N1wildtype sequences after 10 passages. T156A was detected in 89% of the A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K sequences after 10 passages, and the other 11% of sequences possessed the substitution N154K, which removes the same potential N-linked glycosylation site in HA.
In experiment 4 (see supplementary materials), we investigated whether airborne-transmissible viruses were present in the heterogeneous virus population generated during virus passaging in ferrets (fig. S4). Nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were usedin transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible virus was present in the virus quasi-species. For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally: two for passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype and four for passage 10 A/H5N1HA-Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus.
The following day, a naïve recipient ferret was placed in a cage adjacent to each inoculated donor ferret. These cages are designed to prevent direct contact between animals but allow airflow from a donor ferret to a neighboring recipient ferret (fig. S1) (27). Although mutations had accumulated in the viral genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, we did not detect replicating virus upon inoculation of MDCKcells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype virus(Fig. 5, A and B). In contrast, we did detect virus in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kvirus.Three (F1 to F3) out of four (F1 to F4) naïve recipient ferrets became infected as confirmed by the presence of replicating virus in the collected nasal and throat swabs (Fig. 5, C and D). A throat-swab sample obtained from recipient ferret F2, which contained the highest virus titer among the ferrets in the first transmission experiment, was subsequently used for intranasal inoculation of two additional donor ferrets. Both of these animals, when placed in the transmission cage setup (fig. S1), again transmitted the virus to the recipient ferrets (F5 and F6) (Fig. 6, A and B). Avirus isolate was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi. The virus from F5 was inoculated intranasally into two more donor ferrets. One day later, these animals were paired with two recipient ferrets (F7 and F8) in transmission cages, one of which (F7) subsequently became infected (Fig. 6, C and D).
We used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences ofviruses recovered from the six ferrets (F1 to F3 and F5 to F7) that acquired virus via airborne transmission (Fig. 4 and table S3). All six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S,and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics. Surprisingly, only two additional amino acid substitutions, both in HA, were consistently detected in all six airborne-transmissible viruses: (i) H103Y (H, His; Y, Tyr), which forms part of the HA trimer interface, and (ii) T156A, which is proximal but not immediately adjacent to the RBS (fig. S8). Although we observed severalother mutations, their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne viruses, indicating that of the heterogeneous virus populations generated by passaging in ferrets, viruses with different genotypes were transmissible. In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible viruses because, for example, the consensus sequence of virus isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental virus isolated from F2.
Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus between mammals. The airborne-transmissible virus isolate with the least number of amino acid substitutions, compared with the A/H5N1wildtype, was recovered from ferret F5. This virus isolate had a total of nine amino acid substitutions; in addition to the three mutations that we introduced (Q222L and G224S in HA and E627K in PB2), this virus harbored H103Y and T156A in HA, H99Y and I368V (I, Ile; V, Val) in PB1, and R99K (R, Arg) and S345N in NP (table S3). Reverse genetics will be needed to identify which of the five to nine amino acid substitutions in this virus are essential to confer airborne transmission.
During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible viruses, ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation. One of eight inoculated animals died upon intranasal inoculation (Table 1). In previously published experiments, ferrets inoculated intranasally with WTA/ Indonesia/5/2005 virus at a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 showed neurological disease and/or death (39, 40). It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 virus and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans.Importantly, although the six ferrets that became infected via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment. Moreover, previous infections of humans with seasonal influenza viruses are likely to induce heterosubtypic immunity that would offer some protection against the development of severe disease (41, 42). It has been shown that mice and ferrets previously infected with an A/H3N2 virus are clinically protected against intranasal challenge infection with an A/H5N1 virus (43, 44).
After intratracheal inoculation (experiment 5; fig. S9), six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible virus F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBS died or were moribund at day 3. Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia (45), as is done for vaccination-challenge studies. At necropsy, the six ferrets revealed macroscopic lesions affecting 80 to 100% of the lung parenchyma with average virus titers of 7.9 × 106 TCID50/gram lung (fig. S10). These data are similar to those described previously for A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets (Table 1). Thus, although the airborne-transmissible virus is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the virus was not lethal after airborne transmission.”
“Although our experiments showed that A/H5N1 virus can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear. Previous data have indicated that the 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 virus transmits efficiently among ferrets and that naïve animals shed high amounts of virus as early as 1 or 2 days after exposure (27). When we compare the A/H5N1 transmission data with that of reference (27), keeping in mind that our experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative, the data shown in Figs. 5 and 6 suggest that A/H5N1 airborne transmission was less robust, with less and delayed virus shedding compared with pandemic A/H1N1 virus.
Airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs (59), but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. The mutations we identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 virus lineages (60), and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect viral fitness and virulence in birds and mammals. For pandemic preparedness, antiviral drugs and vaccine candidates against airborne-transmissible virus should be evaluated in depth. Mechanistic studies on the phenotypic traits associated with each of the identified amino acid substitutions should provide insights into the key determinants of airborne virus transmission. Our findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in humans. Identification of the minimal requirements for virus transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness (34).”
“Influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI virus infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a singlepassage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000 (63-64). Mutations of interest (N182K, Q222L, G224S in HA and E627K in PB2) were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit (Aligent, Amstelveen, The Netherlands) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Recombinant viruses were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and virus stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells as described (63).
Cells
MDCK cells were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium (EMEM, Lonza Benelux BV, Breda, the Netherlands) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS), 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2 mM glutamine, 1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate (Lonza), 10 mM Hepes (Lonza), and non-essential amino acids (MP Biomedicals Europe, Illkirch, France). 293T cells were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM, Lonza) supplemented with 10% FCS, 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 mg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1mM sodium pyruvate, and non-essential amino acids.
Virus titration in MDCK cells
Virus titrations were performed as described previously (27). Briefly, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of virus preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs.Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with 100 U/mlpenicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate, 10mM Hepes, non-essential amino acids, and 20 μg/ml trypsin (Lonza). Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of virus replication in the cells. Infectious virus titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the virus preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber (65).”
The term “Gain of Function” first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza “virus,” using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets
Most virologists say that the “coronavirus” probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the “virus” was first reported
However, a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out
The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade when the ferret influenza studies came along
From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host
Virologists regularly fiddle with “viral” genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models
Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza “viruses” and “coronaviruses”
“For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory “viruses” because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School
He added that GOF studies with those “viruses” are “a really tiny part” of virology
Perlman and his collaborators set out to study the “coronavirus” responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012
They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS
The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells and so the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4
The “virus” could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill
So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance “virulence”
The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the “virus” two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice
They did this repeatedly — 30 times and by the end of two months, the “virus” had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells
In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly
Some virologists say “viruses” are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match
The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function
Any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research
Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of “viruses” and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for “SARS-CoV” and “MERS-CoV”
Virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of “viruses” and the specifics of “virus-host” interaction
Researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA (i.e. they are synthetic lab creations)
Researchers also use targeted host or “viral” genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool
Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments:
The fisrt category is “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of “viruses” with properties that do not exist in nature
The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A “viruses” that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type
The second category deals with the generation of “viruses” that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type “viruses” but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature (which is odd considering no “viruses” have been found in nature…)
Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates (there are no natural isolates) will improve their replication in mammalian cells
The third category, which is somewhere in between the first two categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible “viruses” in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern
An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans
Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature
GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.”
In other words, they can never sequence the same “virus” every time so what they do in the lab in GoF studies is no different than how they culture and “isolate viruses” in order to sequence the genomes in the first place
A 2012 study supposedly showed that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza “virus” into an airborne spreader in mammals—and this launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency
In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 “virus” that can spread among ferrets without direct contact
Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 “virus” collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 “viruses” more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways
The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the “virus’s” HA protein, the “viral” surface molecule that attaches to host cells
The scientists created three mutant H5N1 “virus” strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes
They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 “virus”
Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” shed far more “virus” than those infected with the mutants
In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different “viral” gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein
The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a “virus” that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the “virus” did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones
Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract
This was the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid” (are we sure he wasn’t referring to the whole study?)
They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type “virus” and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs)
Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times
For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest “viruses” that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract
In other words, they completely changed the source material from tissue to nasal secretions more than halfway through the experiment
It was said that the amount of mutant “virus” found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages while “viral” titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” stayed the same
Quick Sidenote From the Supplemtary Materials:
“After inoculation with A/H5N1wildtype, virus titers in the nasal turbinates were variable but high, ranging from 1.6 x 105 to 7.9 x 106 TCID50/gram tissue (panel A), with no further increase observed with repeated passage. After inoculation with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K, virus titers in nasal turbinates averaged 1.6 x 104 in the first three passages, 2.5 x 105 in passage four to seven and 6.3 x 105 TCID50/gram tissue in the last three passages, suggestive of improved replication and virus adaptation. In the lungs, no apparent adaptation was observed for animals inoculated with either virus. Virus titers in lungs were highly variable; presumably it was a matter of chance whether the virus reached the lower airways.”
In other words, the “wildtype virus” titers remained and stayed high while the “mutant virus” started low and elevated throughout passaging yet was still underneath the amount seen in the “wildtype” strain. They also note that finding “virus” in the lungs was a “matter of chance” with either “virus.”
End Quick Sidenote.
The next step was to test whether the “viruses” produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission so four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant “virus,” and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain
Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact
The ferrets exposed to those with the wild “virus” remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant “virus” did get infected (“infected” meaning they found “viral” RNA)
Thus, a total of six ferrets became “infected” with the mutant “virus” via airborne transmission
However, the level of “viral” shedding indicated the airborne “virus” didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 “virus”
In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur (no consideration is given to the fact that the animals were caged, tortured, and experimented on)
One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne “viruses” survived
When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the “viruses” that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six “viruses:” H103Y and T156A
They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses”
In other words, once again they were unable to sequence the exact same genome in the samples from each ferret
In further steps, the researchers inoculated intratracheallysix ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible “virus;” after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund”
They stated: “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia”
Highly “pathogenic” avian influenza A/H5N1 “virus” can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”) between humans
To address the concern that the “virus” could acquire this ability under natural conditions, the researchers genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets
In other words, in order to test whether the “virus” could mutate naturally, they mutated it synthetically…
The genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets (all “viruses” aquire mutations every time they are sequenced as no “viral” genome is ever the same as the original)
None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection with the mutant A/H5N1 “viruses”
Wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the “virus” reservoir in nature
Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries
Although limited A/H5N1 “virus” transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” has not been detected
Whether this “virus” may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness
The factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza “viruses” among mammals, a trait necessary for a “virus” to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown
The “viruses” that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza “viruses”
However, given that “viruses” from only four pandemics are available for analyses, they cannot exclude the possibility that a future pandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian “virus” without the requirement of reassortment
No reassortants between A/H5N1 “viruses” and seasonal or pandemic human influenza “viruses” have been detected in nature and their goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza “virus” to become airborne transmissible in mammals
They chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for the studies as ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza “viruses”
There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols
It is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols
The researchers used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce amino acid substitutions in the HA of wild-type “virus”
For experiment 1, they inoculated these mutant “viruses” and the A/H5N1wildtype “virus” intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each “virus”
Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and “virus” titers were determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify “virus” shedding from the ferret URT
When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted
Because the mutant “virus” harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, they designed an experiment to force the “virus” to adapt to replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select “virus” variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructed A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus” and A/H5N1wildtype “virus” in the ferret URT
In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K
Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs
The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of “virus-transport” medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate the next ferret intranasally (passage 2)
This procedure was repeated until passage 6
From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi
To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise to the nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing
Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml
The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10
They changed the source of inoculum during the course of the experiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of “viruses” that were secreted from the URT
Because influenza “viruses” mutate rapidly, they anticipated (i.e.guessed arbitrarily) that 10 passages would be sufficient for the “virus” to adapt to efficient replication in mammals
The genetic composition of the “viral” quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform
The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the “virus” population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5%
Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all “viral” gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K after passaging, except in segment 7
Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions
The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was T156A
In experiment 4, nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were used in transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible “virus” was present in the “virus” quasi-species
For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally
Although mutations had accumulated in the “viral” genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, they did not detect replicating “virus” upon inoculation of MDCK cells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype “virus”
In contrast, they did detect “virus” in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus”
Three out of four naïve recipient ferrets became “infected” as confirmed by the presence of replicating “virus” in the collected nasal and throat swabs (in other words, they saw CPE in a cell culture and claimed “virus” was present)
A “virus isolate” was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi
They used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences of viruses recovered from the six ferrets that acquired “virus” via airborne transmission and all six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S, and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics
In other words, they created consensus sequencing through alignment to reference genomes using computer software and algorithms from unpurified material
They observed several other mutations for which their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne “viruses,” indicating that of the heterogeneous “virus” populations generated by passaging in ferrets, “viruses” with different genotypes were transmissible
In other words, they were unable to sequence the exact same “virus” genome every time…and if that wasn’t clear
In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible “viruses” because, for example, the consensus sequence of “virus” isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental “virus” isolated from F2
Together, they claim that these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” between mammals
During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible “viruses,” ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation
It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 “virus” and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans
Importantly, although the six ferrets that became “infected” via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment
After intratracheal (in the throat) inoculation, six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible “virus” F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBSdied or were moribund at day 3
Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of “viruses” to cause pneumonia, as is done for vaccination-challenge studies
Although the airborne-transmissible “virus” is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the “virus” was not lethal after airborne transmission
They openly admit that the route of injection and the amount of toxic culture goo injected causes the severity of disease, which does not require the “virus” as an explanation
They state that although experiments showed that A/H5N1 “virus” can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear
They pointed out that their experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative (i.e. they do not know how much “virus” is required for airborne transmission and assume it occurs via PCR results)
They airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur
The mutations they identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals
Their findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 “viruses” have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in human
Of course, the only place reassortment occurs is in a lab so they never need a host…
Identification of the minimal requirements for “virus” transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness
Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells
All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000
Mutations of interest were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit
Recombinant “viruses” were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and “virus” stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells
MDCK cells (canine) were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium supplemented with:
10% fetal calf serum (FCS)
100 IU/ml penicillin
100 μg/ml streptomycin
2 mM glutamine
1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
10 mM Hepes
Non-essential amino acids
293T cells (human embryonic kidney) were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium supplemented with:
10% FCS
100 IU/ml penicillin
100 mg/ml streptomycin
2mM glutamine
1mM sodium pyruvate
Non-essential amino acids
For “virus” titrations, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of “virus” preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs
Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with:
100 U/ml penicillin
100 μg/ml streptomycin
2mM glutamine
1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
10mM Hepes
Non-essential amino acids
20 μg/ml trypsin
Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of “virus” replication in the cells
Infectious “virus” titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the “virus” preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber
The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica. The only way the liquid poison can potentially harm one is through injection. Cell cultured soup is not transmitted through the air nor is it infectious and/or contagious. In other words, GOF studies are not creating “viruses” in the modern sense of the word and can only be considered as such if viewed through the original Latin lens.
What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice. There will be figureheads who appear to be on the side of truth, questioning the natural existence of “SARS-COV-2,” challenging the safety of the vaccines, promoting alternative therapies, etc. who will also continue to push the idea that “viruses” exist and can be manipulated in a lab. These people are the Pied Pipers leading those who are going astray back into the fold. There is no need to create a “virus” bioweapon when all that was needed to control the masses is a PCR test and some well-designed propaganda.
To anyone who may have been taken in by this GOF/Bioweapon narrative, remember that there is no evidence of any purified and isolated “viral” particles ever coming directly from human samples that are then proven pathogenic in a natural way. Virology does not dispute this. If they can not find a “virus” in nature, they can not create one in a lab. That is truly all you need to know.
cover image based on creative commons work of 13452116/pixaby
‘Defeat the Mandates Coast to Coast’, Next Stop: Los Angeles, CA, April 10, 2022
‘Defeat the Mandates Coast to Coast’, Next Stop: Los Angeles, CA, April 10, 2022
Thankfully some mandates are dropping across the country, but there are still vaccine mandates that persist in schools, colleges, businesses, hospitals, and corporations. Restrictions on doctors who treat COVID, censorship by Big Tech, the unnecessary COVID-19 vaccination of children, silencing of scientific debate, and the extension of the Emergency Powers Act beyond March 1st for the coronavirus pandemic are a few of the main concerns.
In California, an aggressive slate of COVID-19-related bills—mandating vaccines for children and all employees, and allowing 12 to 17-year-olds to get the vaccine without parental consent—remain under consideration by the California state assembly.
Starting at 12:00 noon we will hold a day-long rally in the heart of Los Angeles at Grand Park where a wide range of featured guests including prominent doctors, recording artists, actors, journalists and premier thought leaders will give a series of inspiring talks and musical performances.
Ever since the beginning of the Covid saga, people have speculated about a possible link between increased illness and the rollout of 5G networks around the world.
And while “Covid-19” has hardly been the apocalyptic death storm that the media made it out to be, there have been excess deaths recorded in certain areas. The question is: are the excess deaths solely attributable to “pandemic” measures (i.e. lockdowns, masks, toxic medications, etc) or did electromagnetic radiation have a more significant role to play?
And if so, was it due to 5G or the use of some other covert, as yet unknown, technology? That is what this investigation aims to uncover.
This article will also focus mostly on excess mortality. For, if there were no excess deaths, it would be difficult to argue that there was some kind of EMF (electromagnetic fields) weapon being deployed as that would surely increase deaths above the regular threshold. In certain areas, in certain countries, there undoubtedly were excess deaths, and, as this article will demonstrate, these can be explained without the need for a new, infectious pathogen (as I have argued elsewhere).
In fact, there are several independent lines of evidence to suggest that it was not “Sars-Cov-2”, or any alleged virus for that matter, that caused these excess deaths. While the reasons advanced by other researchers as to the real cause are all valid – and probably, to some extent, all true – in this article, I argue for the EMF cause.
I am simply making the case for EMFs, in one capacity or another, having contributed to excess mortality throughout the Covid period. I will also argue that EMFs were responsible for some of the more peculiar symptoms expressed by so-called “Covid” patients.
Also, when I refer to “EMFs” (electromagnetic fields/electromagnetic radiation), I am not referring solely to 5G (although that is important), I am also willing to consider other, covert EMF influences, possibly in the form of weaponry of some kind. And as we shall see, there is evidence to suggest that this type of weaponry exists and has been used.
Make no mistake, much of what I propose here is speculation. However, it is argued speculation, with evidence to back it up.
Evidence for “Other Factors” Contributing to Excess Mortality During the Covid Saga
Here we will examine four lines of evidence that clearly suggest there were other, possibly unknown, factors causing increased ill health during the Covid period. There is more that could be discussed here but for the sake of keeping this article to a readable length, I have chosen just four.
1. The Testimony of Dr Cameron Kyle-Sidell
Early on during the Covid pandemic, a New York doctor named Cameron Kyle-Sidell posted a video on YouTube where he revealed some shocking information about the nature of “Covid-19” and the standard of care that all hospitals in the US were working under.
The video was removed from YouTube (who would have guessed?) but you can still view it here on Bitchute.
Dr Kyle-Sidell is an E.R and critical care doctor working in New York City (Brooklyn to be exact). His testimony was posted online in early April 2020. As the original video was taken down by YouTube, I couldn’t pinpoint the exact date of publishing, but it was likely posted around the 6th.
Dr Kyle-Sidell begins his statement rather harrowingly:
“Nine days ago I opened an intensive care unit to care for the sickest COVID positive patients in the city, and in these nine days I’ve seen things I’ve never seen before.”
This should already give us cause for concern. An experienced critical care doctor seeing things “he’s never seen before”? If Covid-19 were a typical viral pneumonia (AKA a cold), then he surely would have seen it before, countless times in fact. So we can already be certain that there is something different going on here.
And that, in fact, is exactly what Dr. Sidell himself asserts:
“COVID-19 lung disease, as far as I can see, is not a pneumonia and should not be treated as one.”
He then goes on to comment on what he thinks may be the real cause of the condition (emphasis added):
“Rather, it appears as some kind of viral induced disease, most resembling high altitude sickness. It is as if tens of thousands of my fellow New Yorkers are on a plane at 30,000 feet in the cabin pressure is slowly being let out. These patients are slowly being starved of oxygen.”
So Dr Sidell still claims the bizarre condition to be “viral induced”, but let’s face it, his medical training combined with the Wuhan virus propaganda would compel him to do so. What he says next is more interesting for he compares his patients’ condition to high altitude sickness and claims they are being starved of oxygen. Keep this in mind as we move forward.
Dr Sidell goes on to stress the fact that the use of ventilators is the incorrect way to treat such a condition.
“I fear that we are using a false paradigm to treat a new disease…”
He then makes the bold suggestion that ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome), reported as being caused by “Covid-19”, is actually being caused by the use of ventilators.
“…the ARDS that we are seeing, that the whole world is seeing, may be nothing more than lung injury caused by the ventilator.”
Dr Sidell says a lot more in his testimony, I have just pulled out some key extracts so as to keep this section concise. However, feel free to watch the full video yourself.
Here are the key takeaways from Dr Sidell’s testimony:
Patients were being admitted to Dr Sidell’s Covid ward with symptoms that he had never seen before.
The symptoms these patients were experiencing (alleged to be “Covid-19”) were not characteristic of a typical viral pneumonia, but rather something more akin to high altitude sickness, causing oxygen deprivation.
Ventilators were the incorrect treatment for such a condition and were likely doing more harm than good. This last point is highly significant, for it means that hospitals may have intentionally been directed to use ventilators precisely to increase “Covid-19” death rates. In fact, later on, evidence did come out suggesting that ventilators were ineffective and harmful. In fact, according to the above-cited study, “88% of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation died, including 97% of those aged >65”.
It is the first and second point that interests us most here. In other words, some patients in the New York City area (and possibly elsewhere) were exhibiting symptoms foreign to anything regularly observed by experienced doctors and this condition resembled high altitude sickness.
As it turns out, this strange condition can be rationalized by examining the effects of certain electromagnetic frequencies. We will explore this later in the article.
And there is something else to note. It is highly relevant that Dr Sidell observed this strange high altitude sickness-like condition in New York City, for, as we shall see, at one point during the pandemic, NYC had by far the highest Covid-19 death rate, indicating that something strange was happening there that may not have been happening elsewhere.
This anomaly in NYC was also reported by Dr Denis Rancourt, whose research we will now examine.
2. The Research of Dr Denis Rancourt
Dr Denis Rancourt is a Canadian physicist, with highly impressive academic credentials. He has written a number of papers concerning Covid-19 excess mortality in various countries around the world and his findings are rather illuminating.
His first paper concerning this phenomenon was published on June 2nd 2020 titled “All-cause mortality during COVID-19 – No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response”.
In the abstract of the paper, he states that
“The latest data of all-cause mortality by week does not show a winter-burden mortality that is statistically larger than for past winters. There was no plague. However, a sharp “COVID peak” is present in the data, for several jurisdictions in Europe and the USA.”
It’s this sharp peak that is most interesting, for, as Rancourt notes, this is an anomaly, never having occurred before in the majority of jurisdictions; the data is simply not consistent with a viral cause (the same conclusion was reached by another team of researchers whose research we will analyse later).
Rancourt hypothesizes the anomalous “COVID peak” to be a signature of mass homicide by government response. In other words, according to Rancourt, the original sharp increase in deaths in various areas in the US and EU was a direct result of pandemic measures, including the use of ventilators.
However, important to note here is that the “COVID peak” in the USA arises from certain hot spots, and New York City is the main one. In fact, New York City’s “COVID Peak” is virtually off the charts (see the below graph taken from Rancourt’s paper).
“Figure 8: All-cause mortality by week for NYC, starting in 2013, in black. The red vertical line indicates the date at which the WHO declared the COVID-19 pandemic. The grey line is simply the same data on a vertically expanded and shifted scale, for visualization.”
So here we can clearly see an anomalous increase in all-cause mortality in NYC beginning just before Dr Sidell posts his video testifying to the fact that his patients are experiencing symptoms he’s never seen that are entirely uncharacteristic of any viral pneumonia. Coincidence? I think not.Rancourt’s next paper, co-written with Marine Baudin and Jérémie Mercier, titled “Evaluation of the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 in France, from all-cause mortality 1946-2020” was published on the 20th October 2020. In the paper, the researchers analyse all-cause mortality in France, with a focus once again on the strange “COVID Peak”.In the abstract the researcher state that
“We prove that the “COVID-peak” feature that is present in the all-cause mortality data of certain mid-latitude Northern hemisphere jurisdictions, including France, cannot be a natural epidemiological event occurring in the absence of a large non-pathogenic perturbation.”
The conclusion they reach is that the “COVID peak” was artificial, i.e., caused by deliberate intervention rather than the result of some naturally occurring, novel respiratory virus. The researchers note several reasons for this conclusion, one of which is that the COVID peak
“is absent in many jurisdictions (34 of the USA States have no “COVID-peak”).”
This is highly anomalous, for if there were a novel virus going around, we’d expect to see some level of consistency with regards to the rise in all-cause mortality in different states (and indeed, different countries). Instead what we see is huge increases in all-cause mortality in certain jurisdictions (e.g. NYC) and nothing in others.
Although arrived at differently, Rancourt’s conclusion and Dr Sidell’s are the same – if something new is killing people, it’s not a novel viral pneumonia.
Rancourt & Co’s latest paper dealing with excess mortality is titled “Nature of the COVID-era public health disaster in the USA, from all-cause mortality and socio-geo-economic and climatic data.”
In this paper, the researchers seek to investigate why the USA suffered a sustained, exceedingly large mortality during the Covid period, while Canada and Western European countries did not. Once again, their research indicates that a viral pandemic did not occur (emphasis added):
“The behaviour of the USA all-cause mortality by time (week, year), by age group, by sex, and by state is contrary to pandemic behaviour caused by a new respiratory disease virus for which there is no prior natural immunity in the population. Its seasonal structure (summer maxima), age-group distribution (young residents), and large state-wise heterogeneity are unprecedented and are opposite to viral respiratory disease behaviour, pandemic or not.”
Rancourt & Co conclude that government-imposed measures combined with societal risk factors (obesity, poverty, etc) were responsible for the excess mortality. While I absolutely agree with their findings, I think they may have missed another, important contributing factor: EMFs.
But that’s not all. Rancourt & Co found something else which is highly relevant to Dr. Sidell’s statement:
“We also find a large COVID-era USA pneumonia epidemic that is not mentioned in the media or significantly in the scientific literature, which was not adequately addressed. Many COVID-19-assigned deaths may be misdiagnosed bacterial pneumonia deaths.”
In other words, cases of “pneumonia” increased, but it wasn’t treated properly and it wasn’t being caused by a novel virus. This finding is similar to what Dr Sidell observed, only he referred to cases of “high altitude sickness” (rather than pneumonia). In each case, it is the lungs being affected and it is not hard to see how some kind of novel EMF-induced lung disorder could have been mislabelled as merely “pneumonia”.
3. The Research of Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Kohnlein
The next line of evidence we will examine is that of the research of journalist Torsten Engelbrecht and physician, Claus Kohnlein.
On the 1st of October, the two researchers co-authored an article titled “COVID-19 (excess) mortalities: viral cause impossible—drugs with key role in about 200,000 extra deaths in Europe and the US alone”, in which they reach a similar conclusion to Dr Rancourt – excess mortality was not caused by a novel virus.
Engelbrecht and Kohnlein focused their analysis mostly on EU countries, noting that most of the countries reporting excess mortality instituted stringent lockdowns (a total contradiction of the virus hypothesis). In their analysis, they highlight the same, anomalous “COVID peak” uncovered by Rancourt & Co.
“Z-score for various European countries, Dec. 2019 – Sept. 2020”
But it’s not only this anomalous “COVID peak” (which occurred outside the regular flu season), they also note the fact that neighbouring countries often exhibited a completely different pattern of excess mortality. For example, Belgium had a rather noticeably peak while Germany (its neighbour), did not.
With regards to the viral theory, this kind of wildly inconsistent pattern of excess mortality simply does not make sense.
The conclusion reached by Engelbrecht and Kohnlein is that the “COVID peaks” were caused by the increased use of highly toxic medications.
“Highly toxic and also potentially lethal drugs were used excessively, especially in all of the above-mentioned countries with excess mortality, both experimentally and off-label, meaning that the drugs were used outside of their regulatory approval—and this in people, most of whom were old and had serious illnesses, before being tested “positive” for COVID-19.”
Their article is persuasive and I agree with their conclusions. However, once again, their conclusions do not rule out a contributing EMF-related cause.
4. Wildly Inconsistent Covid-19 Death Rates
Finally, the official COVID death data, as recorded by the WHO, provides yet another line of evidence to suggest that any recorded excess mortality was not due to a novel virus.
For example, take a look at the graph below created by Andrew Mather, a British mathematician in September 2020.
Covid-19 deaths by country per 100m population (Sept. 2020).
The graph shows the number of recorded COVID deaths in different countries, normalised to account for the difference in population sizes. Once again, the data is highly anomalous. New York City has by far the highest COVID death rate, higher than any other country in the world at that time! Belgium, Peru, the UK and Spain are also high on the list, while African countries, South East Asia and Japan barely feature.
So either, we’re dealing with a far deadlier virus in New York City, Western Europe and parts of South America, or there’s another factor at play.
Let’s summarise our findings thus far:
Shortly after the WHO declared a pandemic, an experienced New York City doctor came forward explaining that his so-called “COVID” patients were not suffering from a typical viral pneumonia, but were instead showing signs of something akin to high altitude sickness.
Dr Denis Rancourt and his co-researchers analysed all-cause mortality in various countries and jurisdictions, reaching the conclusion that a pandemic did not occur. They noted an anomalous “COVID peak” which was especially prominent in New York City.
Journalist Torsten Engelbrecht and physician, Dr Claus Kohnlein analyzed European mortality data and came to the exact same conclusion – the data simply did not support the virus theory.
Six months into the Covid “pandemic”, Covid death rates were differing wildly across different countries and jurisdictions. New York City had by far the highest death rate, more than any other country in the world. The data, once again, did not fit a viral cause and instead pointed to an alternate factor at play, localised to NYC and possibly some other countries.
In the next part of this investigation, we’ll build a case for that “other factor” having been EMF-related and likely linked to the 5G rollout.
Symptoms of “Covid-19” Related to EMF Exposure
In this section, we will examine a groundbreaking study published in September of 2021. The study, published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, is titled “Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G”.
The title says it all, for the paper presents a wide range of evidence pointing to a connection between what has been called “Covid-19” and EMF exposure, including 5G.
For anyone unaware of the harms caused by EMF exposure, I suggest reading my two previous articles dealing with this topic, as they provide an overview of the evidence linking EMF exposure to various chronic illnesses as well as environmental devastation.
In order to keep this section short, we’ll dive straight into the aforementioned paper. Here it is worth quoting the study at length. The researchers begin by noting that
“There is a large body of peer reviewed literature, since before World War II, on the biological effects of WCR [wireless communications radiation] that impact many aspects of our health. In examining this literature, we found intersections between the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 and detrimental bioeffects of WCR exposure. Here, we present the evidence suggesting that WCR has been a possible contributing factor exacerbating COVID-19.”
In other words, these researchers found that reported symptoms of Covid-19 were also symptoms of WCR exposure. The researchers go on to summarise some of the epidemiological evidence linking the 5G rollout to the Covid-19 “outbreak”.
“COVID-19 began in Wuhan, China in December 2019, shortly after city-wide 5G had “gone live,” that is, become an operational system, on October 31, 2019. COVID-19 outbreaks soon followed in other areas where 5G had also been at least partially implemented, including South Korea, Northern Italy, New York City, Seattle, and Southern California. In May 2020, Mordachev [4] reported a statistically significant correlation between the intensity of radiofrequency radiation and the mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in 31 countries throughout the world. During the first pandemic wave in the United States, COVID-19 attributed cases and deaths were statistically higher in states and major cities with 5G infrastructure as compared with states and cities that did not yet have this technology [5].”
Here are some maps that I compiled (not from the paper quoted above) showing, visually, the Covid-5G association.
Note that New York City features on the list of areas where, according to the researchers, “5G had been at least partially implemented”. We can now note the following about NYC:
The “COVID peak” was “off the charts” compared to other areas in the US and the COVID death rate was abnormally high.
So-called “COVID-19” patients there suffered from some unknown condition akin to high altitude sickness.
A 5G network had been at least partially implemented shortly before the COVID “outbreak” occurred.
The researchers go on to present the following table, showing a clear relationship between the effects of WCR (Wireless Communications Radiation) exposure and various symptoms associated with “COVID-19”.
Table reproduced from Rubik & Brown, 2021.
They then conclude by summing up the known effects of WCR exposure and how they relate to COVID-19 (emphasis added):
“Specifically, evidence presented here supports a premise that WCR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence by (1) causing morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that may be contributing to hypercoagulation; (2) impairing microcirculation and reducing erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplifying immune dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increasing cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals exacerbating vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increasing intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsening heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.”
What interests us most here is point number 2 (italicised/bolded). The researchers claim that WCR can impair microcirculation and reduce erythrocyte and haemoglobin levels, exacerbating hypoxia. Another name for “hypoxia” is “altitude sickness” (i.e. a severe lack of oxygen). In other words, here we have a potential explanation for the “high altitude sickness” like condition described by Dr Sidell in NYC.
Note also that some of the COVID-19 related manifestations listed in the table such as organ failure, myocarditis, cardiac failure, arrhythmia, etc (effects not generally associated with the flu or any viral pneumonia), may be explainable when one considers the effects of EMF exposure.
In his book “The Contagion Myth”, Dr Thomas Cowan provides more evidence for the deleterious effects of radiofrequency radiation, especially 5G. After noting that “hypoxia” is reported as a frequent symptom of COVID-19 and that this is caused by the release of iron from the haemoglobin molecule, he goes to comment as follows (emphasis added):
“The conventional explanation for the release of iron from hemoglobin is the action of glycoproteins in the coronavirus—but the action of 5G’s millimeter waves is an equally good explanation, especially those at 60GHz, which disrupt oxygen molecules. An interesting observation about lung malfunction in Covid-19 patients is that it is bilateral (both lungs at the same time), whereas ordinary pneumonia typically affects only one lung. What kind of virus knows to attack both lungs?”
Dr Cowan then goes on to comment on the nature of “COVID-19” as experienced by patients in Wuhan (a city that also rolled out its 5G network mere days before the “outbreak”):
“A study from Wuhan showed that more than one-third of coronavirus patients had neurologic symptoms including dizziness, headaches, impaired consciousness, skeletal-muscle injury, and loss of smell and taste—and more rarely seizures and stroke. This is not your normal flu, this is a serious disease.”
When Cowan says, “This is not your normal flu, this is a serious disease.” He is right in one sense and wrong in another. You see, as has been my thesis throughout, “COVID-19” is not and never has been, a single disease, rather, it has been used as an “umbrella term” to include everything from mild flu symptoms to life-threatening, EMF-induced hypoxia.
In light of this evidence, we must ask ourselves – What role did EMFs/5G play in the COVID charade? Was it 5G alone that caused the anomalous “COVID peak” we see in certain areas? If so, why was the death rate in NYC so much higher than anywhere else? Was “Sars-Cov-2″ used as a cover for the rollout of dangerous radiofrequencies?
Or… Was there some sort of covert, EMF-related weaponry being used in select areas?
Speculating on the Existence and Possible Use of Advanced Electromagnetic Weapons
The reader should be advised that this section of the article is mostly speculation. However, the case for the intentional deployment of some kind of EMF-related weaponry, is, I believe, a solid one. After all, if you were part of a group looking to feign the signs of a viral respiratory pandemic, blasting people with hypoxia-inducing radiofrequencies is one way you could do it. And as we discovered, that appears to be what happened in NYC (and possibly other areas).
However, the only evidence for this theory is the rollout of a 5G network in key pandemic “hotspots” around the world (including NYC). The problem, of course, is that there were plenty of countries that had 5G networks and yet did not showcase the same dramatic “COVID peak” as NYC did.
While there are many factors that would have contributed to this COVID peak besides EMFs, including lockdown stringency, care home laws, population age and health status, etc, three other possibilities exist:
5G networks in certain areas were covertly used (or possibly hijacked) to “blast” the local population with dangerous radiofrequencies (such as 60Ghz millimetre-wave 5G which can disrupt oxygen molecules).
The increased density of radiofrequencies, brought about by the 5G rollout interacted with something that was already present within people’s bodies, “activating” a disease state.
An altogether separate EMF technology was in use.
As it turns out, there is evidence to support all three possibilities.
Evidence for the Existence of EMF-Related Weapons
The Spanish research group “La Quinta Columna” (the fifth column) have also argued that there is an EMF-related component to the Covid-19 “pandemic”.
La Quinta Columna was founded by Ricardo Delgado Martín, a biostatistician from Seville university. Quinta Columna says its main objective is to
“Show THE REALITY, no matter how uncomfortable the TRUTH may be due to the nature of the events or news in which it participates, without being subject to prejudice and conflicts of economic, moral, ethical, political, religious, ideological or otherwise.”
Most of the information regarding Quinta Columna online is in Spanish and as such, I lack the necessary information to make an informed judgement regarding their thesis. However, as they are one of the few research groups brave enough to investigate the link between Covid-19, vaccines and 5G/EMFs, it’s important to consider what they have to say.
Delgado’s thesis is that increased illness due to “COVID-19” is actually a result of the excitation, by radio-frequency signals, of graphene oxide already present within the body. Delgado briefly outlines his hypothesis in a July 2021 interview:
“…we are convinced that precisely the graphene oxide was the cause of the COVID-19 disease that was introduced, silently and stealthily in the 2019 anti-flu campaign globally. And they caused, with the subsequent electromagnetic bidding that everyone knows —with the famous 5G switch-on, the tests— the fashionable disease.”
In other words, Delgado believes that graphene oxide was introduced into people’s bodies via the 2019 flu vaccine and then excited by 5G radiofrequencies, causing hypoxia (i.e. “Covid-19”) which was then propagandized as a viral pandemic.
Noteworthy is that flu vaccine uptake was highest among the elderly population.
Delgado goes on to remind us that many surgical masks were also found to contain graphene and hypothesizes that Covid “waves” (i.e. the observed “COVID peaks”) are actually the result of 5G antenna activations:
“And by pressing a little button that activates the 5G, that is why they know when a wave is coming, the 2nd, the 3rd… The Delta variant, the Lambda… The Delta variant is the next 5G antennas activation, and that’s why we have to be careful.”
Delgado claims that NAC (n-acetylcysteine) and Glutathione were successful treatments for Covid patients suffering from hypoxia. The reason for this, he claims, is because, along with inhibiting or reducing the cytokine storm, “glutathione reduces and oxidizes, that is, eliminates the graphene oxide.”
Their research has claimed to find graphene oxide present in Covid-19 vaccines, which they say interacts with radio frequencies causing a number of severe health effects, including cardiac events.
Their research is controversial and their claims are not supported by all on the alternative side. However, in light of everything presented in this article thus far, it is worth considering.
And there is one more interesting piece of evidence that they have brought forward, possibly indicating the existence of a powerful EMF-related weapons capability. This will be more persuasive when we examine other anomalous happenings later on.
In this video, Ricardo Delgado and Jose Luis discuss a recording (seemingly captured by a CCTV camera, though it’s hard to tell) showing what appears to be the sudden death of a cyclist. The most interesting aspect of the video is the split-second glitch in the recording at the precise moment the cyclist collapses to the ground.
According to Delgado and Luis, this constitutes evidence of an electromagnetic “pulse” of some kind. I have embedded the video below.
A disclaimer is in order: I have not been able to verify the original footage. I don’t know where it comes from, I don’t know if the cyclist actually died and I don’t know whether it’s a legitimate recording. However, I include it here because, if real, this odd phenomenon seems to fall in line with another perplexing phenomenon that has increased in recent years: mass, sudden bird deaths.
Mass Sudden Die-Offs of Birds: Evidence of EMF Weaponry?
While not common knowledge, there have been a number of recorded mass sudden bird deaths in recent years. Not much digging was needed on my part to uncover these cases, for many of them have been catalogued by Dr Joseph Farrell on his blog at gizadeathstar.com.
Here is a brief overview of some of these strange cases, along with Dr Farrell’s enlightening commentary:
“On June 27, 2015, a road in Kuna, Idaho, was found covered with dead songbirds. This follows the mass deaths earlier this year of over 2,000 migrating snow geese that dropped to the ground dead or dying in eastern Idaho.”
“Now you’ll note that in this version of the story, in the comments section, there’s a brief exchange between two commenters, one of whom notes strange intereference with his bluetooth signal as he was driving through Idaho.”
(I haven’t been able to find the comment he refers to but then again, the article is almost 7 years old so it may have been removed).
Dr Farrell then speculates as follows
“Could these events be caused by some sort of secret human technology, or could they be the unintended consequence of its use or other secret activity? Maybe. Again, I don’t know.”
“About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven’t heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died – bringing the death toll to 297 – some started to take notice.”
“…And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station.”
The interesting thing about this story is that Snopes was quick to publish a “fact check” claiming that no such 5G test took place (although they did admit that one such test had taken place in that area in June of that year).
More interesting is Dr Farrell’s commentary on the incident. After outlining his thoughts regarding the use of microwave interferometry technologies, he goes on to offer his usual “high octane speculation”:
“It is a short step from that basic concept to a similar use of microwave technologies – perhaps again involving interferometry – to produce beat frequencies which could interfere with, or actually shut down, the electrical functioning of organisms’ nervous systems, including organs such as the heart. And that’s what is so alarming here: birds might be resonant to certain such frequencies, other organisms to other frequencies. All one needs to do, so to speak, is to “dial in” the right frequency, and one could eradicate a regional population of dogs, cats… or even humans.”
“Wildlife experts in New Mexico say birds in the region are dropping dead in alarming numbers, potentially in the “hundreds of thousands.””
NBC goes on to note that
“Multiple agencies are investigating the occurrences, including the Bureau of Land Management and the White Sands Missile Range, a military testing area.”
And here is Dr Farrell’s commentary (emphasis added):
“You don’t say… the military at the White Sands Missile Range is investigating? Well, it makes sense… if one suspected an unknown fast-acting pathogen, biowarfare, or some completely different cause, or maybe even some version of my bio-electromagnetically activated pathogen.”
And now for two more interesting cases that also occurred during the Covid scamdemic…
“As if we didn’t have enough weird things going on, now birds are suddenly dropping dead in large numbers all across the eastern half of the country. Before they die, a lot of these birds are exhibiting very strange symptoms… If scientists understood what was causing this to happen, that would be one thing. But at this point they have no idea why this is taking place, and that is quite alarming.”
Dr Farrell offers no speculation about what might be causing this round of mass bird deaths but finds the timing of the event, and the symptoms experienced by the birds, to be overly suspicious.
“What I do know is that birds going blind, or not being able to fly away from approaching humans, or shivering and shaking as if they’re having a seizure, is not normal… And what I strongly suspect is that someone knows why, and isn’t talking…”
“Hundreds of birds dropped dead from the sky in Wales on Thursday, after witnesses reported hearing a “’huge electrical-type bang’.”
“Ian Mccaffrey, who works in Waterston, reported hearing a large electrical-type bang as he left work on Thursday night. He says following the shocking noise, dozens of birds fell from the sky and landed on his car. Mccaffrey said the loud sound was similar to lightning.”
Here it is the reports of a “large electrical-type bang” that is most interesting as it seems to corroborate the idea of the existence of a powerful EMF weapons technology. Dr Farrell recognizes this too, offering the following commentary:
“When that flock of crows (I believe) first died in Tennessee many years ago, I’ve thought that this electro-magnetic “pressure field” was perhaps the best explanation. And now we have an odd video, and reports of “electrical bangs”, to go with it. And yes, that means in my opinion the case for that speculation just became a small bit stronger.”
It is to be noted that the cases of strange sudden bird deaths reviewed here constitute only a portion of the total reported incidents. It is also highly relevant that EMF signals can penetrate into a bird’s nervous system, disrupting its ability to navigate. I covered this in a previous article on environmental crises.
Let’s sum up:
Recent years have seen increasing reports of mass, sudden bird deaths.
In many of these cases, there is some sort of link to electromagnetic technology. In the Idaho case, one person complained of bluetooth interference around the time of the incident; in the Netherlands case, 5G tests were being carried out in the vicinity of the mass die-offs, and in the latest Wales case, a “huge electrical-type bang” was heard prior to the die-offs. In one case, even the military began investigating.
Dr Joseph Farrell, a scholar who has been tracking strange animal deaths has speculated that the cause may be due to some kind of “electromagnetic pressure field”.
And finally, a recent video posted online captured the apparent sudden death of a cyclist at the exact time there was a split-second glitch in the video recording. Some have argued that this points to an electromagnetic “pulse” of some sort, perhaps hinting at a similar technology as proposed above.
And with that, we are ready to conclude our investigation.
Conclusions
Although the Covid-19 death rate is more or less akin to seasonal flu, not warranting the need for special vaccines or preventatives, lurking beneath the fraudulent testing and dubious death reporting were the reports of strange symptoms resembling high altitude sickness.
The all-cause mortality data for certain areas, NYC in particular, also exhibited a highly anomalous “COVID peak”, certainly not explainable in terms of a novel respiratory pathogen.
A recent peer-reviewed study provided compelling evidence that many of the symptoms associated with “COVID-19” are also effects of EMF exposure. This, together with the compelling epidemiological data, suggests a link between the rollout of 5G and areas that exhibited a pronounced “COVID peak”.
Finally, in recent years there has been a flurry of mass sudden bird deaths in various places around the world. Many of these incidents exhibited some sort of connection to electromagnetic interference or radiofrequencies of some sort.
Spanish researchers from Quinta Columna have also analysed a video purported to show the sudden death of a cyclist that they believe occurred due to an EMF pulse of some kind.
They further maintain that “COVID peaks” occurred as a result of the excitation of graphene oxide by EMF bombardment which they believe can cause hypoxia (explaining the strange reports of “high altitude sickness” in NYC) and cardiac events (which have increased since the COVID vaccine roll out).
The volume of research linking EMF exposure with ill health is far too great to ignore, meaning that, regardless of the data put forth here, EMFs undoubtedly contributed to ill health during the COVID-19 “pandemic” and continue to do so. However, the evidence presented here may also point to the deliberate use of a covert, EMF-related weapons technology.
If that is the case, then, considering the massive effort to flood low earth orbit with EMF-beaming satellites and the ever-expanding 5G rollout, a lot more research is needed… and fast.
“‘Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”
“To obtain embryo cells [for research on vaccines and other pharma products], embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used, nor can those obtained by means of abortions performed via the vagina: in both cases, the embryo will be contaminated by micro-organisms.”
“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed.”
“In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive, in order to remove tissues to be placed in culture media.”
“Given these premises, we face the dilemma of whether the deliberate systematic destruction of a human creature to obtain cell material can be justified, when it is recognized that this is of great interest to fundamental research and for the diagnosis of some human diseases. Are research and diagnosis of such great value that they justify the destruction of human beings?”
“The Geneva Declaration affirms that the doctor has the duty to take the greatest care to safeguard the life of a human being from its conception and will not, even under threat, use his knowledge to infringe humanitarian laws.” (1986-04-26; Herranz, Gonzalo; Il Sabato, no.15…Professor Herranz was, at the time, president of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish Doctors and vice-president of the Permanent Committee of Medical Ethics of the European Community.)”
What exactly happened in 1972 or 1973, in the Netherlands, where an infant girl was aborted, and her kidneys used to make a cell line that would be used, going forward, in the testing of vaccines?
That cell line is called HEK 293, and it has been used to test COVID vaccines.
I have already presented evidence for concluding the abortion involved removing the living infant from her mother’s womb, and taking her kidneys, which of course killed her.
This evidence rests on the realization that, in order to extract viable and useful kidney tissue, the baby had to have a functioning blood supply, which meant she was alive.
But the evidence ALSO comes from knowing many other abortions have been carried out, in order to harvest tissue for medical research, by murdering living babies.
I have found a very informative article (2/9/2021) at the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK, by Christian Hacking, titled, “What the HEK?!” by Christian Hacking. Quoting from the article:
“HEK 293 is a human cell line created using a kidney from a dissected unborn baby in the Netherlands between 1972 and 1973. It is the second most common cell line and is used extensively in ‘pharmaceutical and biomedical research’. It is also used in vaccine creation and cancer research.”
“It was used, along with other human cell lines, to develop a genetically engineered spike protein (that the mRNA vaccine codes for) in the original development stage of the vaccine. The ‘new technology’ Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna Vaccine were tested on HEK 293 before they began human trials. This testing is ongoing for all new batches. Finally the ‘old technology’ Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine grew a weakened viral strain in HEK 293 cell culture…”
“The kidney in question was dissected from a healthy Dutch baby girl of unknown origin by the team at Leiden University in the Netherlands in 1972. Despite the inclusion of the term ‘embryonic’ in the title, the baby in question was probably 12-13 weeks old when she was killed so as to secure functioning kidney cells. The man in charge of the research was named Alex Jan Van der Eb; he is still alive and still based in Holland.”
“When questioned on the matter by the FDA in 2001, Dr Van der Eb confirmed it was an intentional abortion of a ‘fetus’ but gave hazy details of the exact experiments.”
“’So the kidney material, the fetal kidney material was as follows: the kidney of the fetus was, with an unknown family history, obtained in 1972 probably. The precise date is not known anymore. The fetus, as far as I can remember, was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at that time, but it got lost, all this information’.”
Author Hacking continues: “…extracting and growing living cells is incredibly difficult. In order to give oneself the best chance of success you need to ensure the child is healthy, fresh, intact and sterile. As one embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy confirms:”
“’In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion. Within an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimens useless’.”
[That statement was made by “Dr C Ward Kischer, embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy; specialist in Human Embryology, University of Arizona College of Medicine…”]
[My comment: This suggests the abortion, in the Netherlands, in 1972, was planned and technicians were standing by. I would say that, to ensure the viability of the tissue, the infant had a functioning blood supply and was alive when her kidneys were removed, killing her.]
Hacking:
“In order for the organs to be at ‘optimal viability’, the child needs to be dissected and organs extracted within 5 minutes of delivery. Anaesthetic also cannot be used so as to not change the cellular activity of the organs the researcher wants to obtain.”
“Acclaimed Doctor, Ian Donald, the pioneer of the ultrasound scanner, also claims to have witnessed the WI-38 [another cell-line] dissections [1962], conducted at the Karolinska Institute; he described them such:
“’Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”
“In his dense book ‘The Foetus As Transplant Donor the Scientific, Social, and Ethical Perspectives’, immunologist Dr Peter McCullagh relays detailed descriptions of the methods used on dozens of ‘fetal tissue donors’ from the 1970’s onward, including the deaths of babies between 7 and 26 weeks gestation by decapitations, exposure, dissection and drug testing. Gynaecologist and ex-abortionist Dr Bernard Nathanson, relaying his own understanding of abortion, and citing McCullagh’s book claims the Swedish experiments took place thus:
“’…in Sweden they have been puncturing the sac of a pregnant woman at let us say 14 to 16 weeks, and then they put a clamp on the head of the baby, pull the head down into the neck of the womb, drill a hole into the baby’s head, and then put a suction machine into the brain and suck out the brain cells….. Healthy human fetuses from 7 to 21 weeks from legal abortions were used. This is in Sweden. The conception age was estimated from crown rump length and so on. Fetal liver and kidney were rapidly removed and weighed. Now at 21 weeks, what they were doing, or 18 weeks, or 16 weeks, was what is called prostaglandin abortions. They would inject a substance into the womb. The woman would then go into mini-labor and pass this baby. 50% of the time, the baby would be born alive, but that didn’t stop them. They would just simply open up the abdomen of the baby with no anesthesia, and take out the liver and kidneys, etc.’”
“A research paper from the University of Toronto from June 1952 commenting on the method of their experiments suggests that these techniques were universal with researchers working in close proximity to the abortions.”
“’No macerated [softened after death] specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”
“According to Gonzalo Herranz, former head of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish doctors, the best way to prevent ‘contamination by microorganisms’ is to deliver the child by caesarean section or the removal of the uterus.”
“A 1982 review of a history of tissue donation affirms this, and much of the above evidence:”
“’Fetal tissue for transplantation must be “harvested” within a few minutes of delivery. Ideally this is by hysterectomy, with the fetus delivered in utero. Drugs which reduce fetal physiological activity need to be avoided. The fetus is therefore in as alive and aware a state as possible when being opened’.”
From Hacking’s article, it’s quite clear how the standard procedure of infant-murder is carried out.
It’s entirely reasonable to assume fetal cell line HEK 293—used for COVID vaccine testing—was originally produced, in 1972, by the murder of an infant. Refusal to take a COVID vaccine on the basis of conscience and religion is more than justified.
Given the weight of the circumstantial case, I would say that for all people of faith, refusal is essential.
Lunatic medical murderers and their allies will say anything to avoid blame and the application of true justice to themselves. They will invent “science” at the drop of a hat and couch it in humanitarian terms. They will claim the ends justify the means. They will commit gross forgery to pretend those ends are vital.
But we don’t have to stand by and passively believe them.
Billions of people of faith can stand against them.
If you are looking for one of the most masterful takedowns of virology to date, this presentation by Alec Zeck, Dr. Jordan Grant, Mike Donio,Jacob Diaz, and John Blaid is one of the best out there. When I first watched it a month ago, I was blown away and I had intended to share it here but, as often happens, I got sidetracked and sadly forgot to upload it. I hope you can take away a great deal of value from this presentation as the guys delve into the numerous fallacies and assumptions related to this fraudulent field.
In this presentation, you will find:
A break down of the ridiculous cell culture experiments
The lack of adhering to the scientific method
The foundational issues with virology from the very beginning
The inherent problems with and the limitations of electron microscopy imaging
The lack of any purified and isolated physical “viral” particles found directly in human samples
The issues related to the creation of the theoretical genome
The fabrication and lack of validation of the PCR test for “SARS-COV-2”
A thorough explanation of the Stefan Lanka control experiments
The myths of contagion and other possible explanations for dis-ease
The FOI requests and the burden of proof
As I said, a masterful takedown of the pseudoscience called virology!
Virology’s Unproven Assumptions
In this episode, Alec Zeck has a discussion with Mike Donio, Jacob Diaz, Dr. Jordan Grant MD, and John Blaid on the fallacious reasoning, unproven assumptions, and lack of proof for virus theory.
The implementation of a digital passport system is a crucial element in this plan, which would go on to enable the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) that eventually will be able strip you of your assets and turn them into a credit courtesy of governments led by authoritarian technocrats. You can not use money any longer unless someone “higher up” agrees to it. Together with plans to turn dissentic voices into “domestic terrorists” that would be the end of all of the freedoms our forefathers paid with their lives to defend.
One of these systems that could be turned into a didgital concentration camp is the Digital Green Certificate introduced by the European Union in June 2021 under the pretext of “enabling freedom of travel”. It turned out to be quite the opposite.
Consequently, brave parliamentarians such as Mr Roos have started an initiative to block the EU commission’s attempt to extend the “Covid Pass”/Green Certificate until at least 2023.
While CHD is not endorsing political platforms but focuses on advocacy for Children’s Health and Fundamental Human Rights, we kindly ask you to please take 90 seconds and listen to this video which Mr Roos has put out, and also follow the link to object to these plans of the EU Commission’s website:
“The European Commission, wants to extend the covid pass until June 2023. In one and a half minutes, I will explain to you why you should care, and what you can do to stop this.
The covid pass was introduced by the European Union in June 2021. They claimed it would make travel within the European Union easier. But that never worked. Countries still kept introducing their own restrictions. Within just a few months, member states transformed the covid pass into something much bigger. All of a sudden, you needed a QR code to enter a restaurant or even to go to work. But it was never introduced for that.
Now, Omicron is the dominant strain of the virus. To most people, it’s not dangerous anymore. The vaccine doesn’t stop the spread. Science shows that the QR system does not come with any health benefit anymore, while undermining fundamental rights.
This is the moment to abolish the covid pass once and for all.
But the European Commission wants to extend it until at least June 2023, an extremely bad idea.
Together with several colleagues in the Parliament, I will do everything I can to stop this. But we have to do it together.
We need your help, please follow this link to the European Commission website and tell them that you oppose this extension. Please do it as soon as possible, because conditional freedom is NO freedom!”
All scientific research is built on particular dogmas including, or perhaps especially, biomedicine. It’s easier for some “scientists” to perpetuate falsehoods than it is to admit they were wrong, abandon long standing ideas, and start again from scratch. Many scientists would rather pursue trendy research areas in order to win accolades and secure grant money than question long-held beliefs and dogmas.
This is exactly what has happened with modern medicine because too much money and too many reputations are at stake. If you’re not allowed to question it, then it’s not real science.
Erroneous theories in medicine have wasted billions and caused untold harm. Imagine if they had to admit that so many years of research and countless academic careers have been wasted pursuing ideas that have no basis in reality.
Thanks to the covid pseudo pandemic, the corrupt state of the medical establishment has never been more obvious to so many people.
See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil
It might be difficult for some to believe that the castle of medicine is built on foundations of sand. However, Stanford scientist John P. A. Ioannidis published a study in 2005 proving that most published research findings are false.
Marcia Angell the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine has extensively investigated the corruption of medicine by drug companies.
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
There are countless victims of iatrogenic disease in countless on-line support groups who once trusted their doctors to have their best interests at heart and to abide by the oath to “first do no harm”.
128,000 Americans die each year from correctly prescribed medications, making prescription drugs one of the leading causes of death.
Clearly, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Dr. Harold Hillman Goes Renegade
In his final paper, the notorious British biologist Harold Hillman claimed that “cell biology is in dire straits”. That paper was published in 2011 and summarises his life’s work which began in the 1970s. He warned biologists and cell physiologists that something is seriously wrong with their ideas about the human body.
In the 1970s this cytologist and neurobiologist began questioning mainstream cell biology and presented evidence that the accepted model of the cell was completely wrong. He suggested that the dire straits of cell biology was the reason medical research has failed to determine the cause and provide the cure for most diseases.
“During a research career lasting more than 50 years, I have concluded that the following procedures are unsuitable for studying the biology of living cells in intact animals and plants: subcellular fractionation; histology; histochemistry; electron microscopy; binding studies; use of ligands; immunocytochemistry; tissue slices; disruptive techniques; dehydration; deep freezing; freeze-drying; boiling; use of extracellular markers; receptor studies; patch clamp measurements; inadequate calibrations. The main objections to these procedures are: (i) they change the properties of the tissues being studied grossly and significantly; (ii) they ignore the second law of thermodynamics;(iii) they produce artefacts, many of which are two-dimensional; (iv) adequate control procedures have never been published for them.”
~ Dr. Harold Hillman
He challenged the fundamental principles of biology. He was a renegade who put the quest for truth above everything else.
Unsurprisingly his views were unpopular with many in the mainstream and this took a toll on his career and reputation. He had difficulty publishing his work. Mainstream scientific journals rejected his papers without reason and refused to review his books.
“The reason I’m so determined is because they [the mainstream] won’t engage. And if they won’t engage, then to my mind it proves that I’m likely to be right.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Many scientists agreed with Hillmans’ compelling ideas in private but wouldn’t support him publicly for fear of losing their funding or tarnishing their reputation. Many leading biologists would refuse to meet with him to discuss his research. His goal was to start a discussion and promote a productive debate to improve and further scientific knowledge. Instead of being given a platform to share his work, he was stifled and ridiculed. Sound familiar?
Real scientists value truth above reputation and financial gain. Real scientists are willing to risk everything to expose falsities and incorrect theories. Scientists who blatantly ignore unpopular views or refuse to debate are not true scientists.
“I should like to draw attention to the fact that I regard my views as unpopular, rather than heretical, as I do not believe that scientists should talk in terms of dogma and heresy. In the best of possible worlds, good scientists who hear challenges to their beliefs, assumptions, hypotheses, procedures or conclusions, should examine such criticism with due attention. They should respond by entering into civilised dialogue with their critics. They should be prepared to admit mistakes, if necessary, and change their views. Such reactions have not occurred.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Hillman claimed that the routine procedures used to study the characteristics and composition of cells are completely unfit for purpose. He was adamant that these procedures would change the properties of cells more than any differences being examined so any conclusions made on the basis of these procedures were invalid.
He claimed that electron microscopy is a “waste of time and money” which goes against the vast majority of the biomedical establishment who regard the invention of the electron microscope as a pivotal point in biomedical research. Only dead tissue can be examined under an electron microscope and not living cells. Are findings based on electron microscopy relevant to living organisms?
Hillman’s work includes compelling evidence to suggest that many of the subcellular organelles that some scientists have dedicated their lives to studying are just artifacts of preparation for histology and electron microscopy. This includes both the Golgi body and the Endoplasmic Reticulum.
He also claimed that cellular receptors and transmembrane protein channels do not exist in the mainstream accepted sense. One of the reasons for this is that these cell receptors cannot be seen under an electron microscope, despite their size being within the range of visibility.
He courageously stood up for what he believed to be the truth. Despite his career and reputation taking an enormous hit, he continued to publish his ideas right up until his death.
“If I am wrong, only my reputation has been damaged. If I am right, those colleagues proved wrong may well have been wasting their time and careers and using public or charitable resources naively. They might have used their time and resources to carry out more productive research.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
When considering the current state of medicine, it seems that “more productive research” is exactly what is needed. Research that doesn’t follow dogma and isn’t funded by the very pharma industry that has a vested interest in perpetuating erroneous ideas such as the “one germ, one disease” fallacy.
“It is absolutely remarkable how unsuccessful this sort of research has been. If one knew the basic mechanisms, whose disarray induced disease, one could then design logical interventions to prevent them developing.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
We’re led to believe that modern medicine is highly advanced but the cause of most diseases apparently remains “unknown”. Most Doctors have a mechanistic, reductionist view of disease often believing disease arises due to “genetics” or that the body is just prone to making mistakes.
“It is widely believed that medical research since the Second World War has been very successful…It is absolutely remarkable how unsuccessful this sort of research has been. If one knew the basic mechanisms, whose disarray induced disease, one could then design logical interventions to prevent them developing… it is true that the cost of failure so far has been high. The most paradoxical aspect of scientific research is that it is widely believed to be objective…”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Hillman also criticised the lack of sufficient control experiments performed in biomedical research. Proper control experiments are the cornerstone of good science ensuring that variables, other than the one being tested, do not influence the results of the experiment.
“Control experiments for the effects of reagents and manoeuvres used on the results of experiments have been grossly inadequate.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Hillman also questioned the use of tissue cultures for histological analysis with compelling logic. Cells in culture have significantly different morphology, biochemistry, and environment than the cells from which they came.
“Tissue cultures are similar to the tissue from which they come in some ways and very different in other ways. It is clear that although there are a few properties in common, there are substantial differences. This is one of the most important questions, in respect of the usefulness of tissue cultures as sources of information about cells in intact animals.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman
Virology: Voodoo Scientism
Hillman’s work challenges virology as much as it does cell biology and neurobiology. The world is slowly waking up to the pseudoscientific nature of virology because of the pseudo pandemic inflicted on all of us.
“Viruses” can only be seen under an electron microscope using procedures involving heavy metals, dehydration, low pressure, electron bombardment and X-ray irradiation. Are viruses real naturally occurring structures or are they artifacts of these harsh conditions?
The effects of “viruses” are studied on cell cultures and most cell cultures are grown from embryonic tissue, cancerous tissue, stem cells, or monkey cells whose properties are completely different from that of adult human tissue. Is any of this relevant to understanding virus infectivity in humans?
Coronaviruses are supposedly assembled at the endoplasmic reticulum-Golgi interface but if Hillman is right and the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi body are artefacts of histological preparation and electron microscopy is presumed understanding of virus assembly completely wrong?
Different cell cultures are prepared by different procedures in different chemical solutions to culture “viruses”. Could this explain why only some cells can grow “viruses” but others can’t? SARS-CoV2 cannot infect many human cell lines but can infected monkey kidney cells which is not what you would expect from a supposed human pathogen.
Viruses are supposed to bind to host cell receptors as the first step to entry but if Hillman is correct macromolecular cell receptors don’t really exist.
Adequate controls have not been performed to test the effects of lab conditions, body fluids, antibiotics, and other chemicals on cell cultures so how can virologists be sure that it is the “virus” causing any observed cytopathic effects and not the chemicals and conditions themselves?
The biomedical establishment has chosen to ignore all of these crucial questions. Sadly, Hillman’s level of critical thinking and radical questioning are rare and often completely absent in modern biomedical science.
His sharp intellect and critical thinking skills were a threat to the scientific establishment. He put his career and reputation on the line to expose the weaknesses of established biomedical knowledge.
But what if he was right? What if the castle of modern medicine really is built on foundations of sand? Will his work be forgotten, or will others be brave enough to pick up where he left off?
References
1) John P. A. Ioannidis “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Med. 2005 Aug; 2(8): e124.
2) Marcia Angell M.D “The Truth About the Drug Companies-How they deceive us and what to do about it.”
3) Richard Horton “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?” Lancet Comment| Volume 385, ISSUE 9976, P1380, April 11, 2015
4) Harold Hillman “Cell Biology is Currently in Dire Straits.”
5) Harold Hillman “A Career in Neurobiology.”
6) A Biomedical Scientist “Virology’s Voodoo Scientism is Not Real Science.” The Expose.
cover image based on creative commons work of 652234 & sethink / pixabay
Senator Malcolm Roberts, Queensland, Australia: To All Who Perpetrated Covid Vaccine Injuries & Death — “We Won’t Let You Get Away With It. We Are Coming for You.”
The evidence continues to mount that these vaccines do not deserve the continuing provisional approval given to them by the TGA.
Concerns about possible adverse side effects are too big to ignore any longer, especially after my COVID Under Question inquiry which you can watch by clicking here.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, tonight I’m speaking on this parliament’s therapeutic response to COVID-19 and the horrific medical harm and loss of life in that response.
Last week, leading Australian parliamentarians came together in an event I organised called COVID Under Question to present documented evidence and victim testimony proving a catastrophic failure of Australia’s regulatory framework.
COVID vaccine injuries are hidden behind anonymous government data, while supposed COVID virus harm is splashed across prime time.
The very least we can do for the victims of COVID vaccines is to say their names—victims like Caitlin Georgia Gotze, a healthy and vibrant 23-year-old studying at Griffith University to become a vet while working as a horse strapper. Caitlin dropped dead at work of a heart attack following a second Pfizer shot. Her death was recorded as asthma, a condition Caitlin had never had.
Reginald Shearer, a formerly healthy fit and active man, quickly went downhill and passed away from effects that began after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Daniel Perkins, a 36-year-old healthy father from Albion Park, died of a heart attack in his sleep following his second Pfizer injection.
Douglas James Roberts died after taking AstraZeneca. His family are concerned that his GP didn’t warn him of the side-effects of the vaccine. In other words, no informed consent was obtained. Neurosurgeons at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital attributed his death to a stroke, despite no family history and a clean bill of health. They refused to report his death to the TGA—refused!
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency, Ahpra, has been bullying medical practitioners into not reporting or even for talking about the harm they’re seeing.
The TGA erased 98 per cent of the 800 vaccine deaths—98 per cent erased!—that physicians reported. The TGA did so without autopsy or suitable consideration of all the patient medical data.
TGA, ATAGI and Ahpra are the three monkeys of the pharmaceutical industry: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Section 22D(2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 requires the Secretary of the Department of Health to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of the vaccines were satisfactorily established for each cohort for which the provision of approval is being granted.
Data recently revealed in court papers in the United States clearly shows that vaccine harm was apparent in the clinical trials that Pfizer, BioNTech and others conducted. This information, if ATAGI had bothered to ask for it, should have resulted in a refusal of the application for provisional use.
No data was provided to the secretary regarding individual test subjects—technically, anonymized patient clinical data. No independent analysis of the fundamental issues surrounding novel mRNA vaccines was conducted in Australia—none in Australia!
Instead, the secretary took Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna’s word for it.
I will say that again: the secretary took pharmaceutical companies’ word for the safety of their products.
These are the same pharmaceutical companies that have been fined over and over for criminal behaviour.
AstraZeneca got a US$355 million fine for fraud and, separately, a $550 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy.
Pfizer got a $430 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy, and a $2.3 billion fine—that’s billion dollars—for making unfounded claims about efficacy and for paying kickbacks.
This is who the Liberal-Nationals, Labor and Greens—our very own pharmaceutical lobby—want to pay more money to. That’s not on the basis of extensive local testing and inquiry, it’s simply on the basis of taking pharmaceutical companies safety assurances. There’s no testing. It’s an assurance made easy by indemnity against any damage that the vaccines cause. What deceit! What criminal incompetence!
The Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party have accepted $1 million each from the pharmaceutical establishment in this election cycle alone. Billions more are being set aside in this week’s budget to pay the pharmaceutical companies to keep the COVID-19 gravy train going. What great value this parliament provides for those electoral donations.
Mention should be made of the TGA’s decision to ban safe, fully approved and widely accepted alternatives to COVID-19 vaccines. This includes hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; vitamins, minerals and natural antivirals; as well as proven messaging around healthy eating and lifestyles. The decision to ban proven, safe, affordable and accessible alternative treatments that are working around the world was taken to ensure the fastest and widest-possible adoption of the vaccines.
The TGA’s own customers fund the TGA. That means pharmaceutical companies fund their own product’s approval. That fails the pub test. Where are the checks and balances? There are none.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is culpable in this scandal and cover-up. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ annual budget is $400 million. The most recent mortality data they provide is from November last year, four months behind. The most recent breakdown of mortality by cause and age is from 2020.
The most recent data on live births is from 2020. Birth data used to be available six weeks after, not 15 months and counting. Are they hiding miscarriages?
At what point do we consider the actions of the TGA, ATAGI and the Australian Bureau of Statistics as interfering with the operation of the Senate? Peer-reviewed and soon-to-be-published data that must require the secretary to cancel the provisional approval of the vaccines has been released from outside of the government.
Let me review those quickly so the Senate fully understands the extent to which we have been misled.
Firstly, freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the reproductive toxicology of the COVID vaccines. Freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the impact of microRNA sequences and related molecular genetic issues on the human body.
Peer-reviewed and published in-vitro research shows gene based vaccine-generated spike proteins can migrate into human cell nuclei to disrupt DNA repair mechanisms. The TGA has dealt with this abysmally—murderously?
Vaccine-derived RNA can be reverse transcribed, leading to possible integration into the human genome, which the TGA denies, based only on pharmaceutical companies telling them to deny it.
Internal Pfizer data released in February indicate they accept 1,272 different adverse vaccine events, including paralysis and death.
German and US insurance actuarial data suggests the TGA’s database of adverse event notifications is underreporting side effects ninefold.
Freedom of information documents from 2018 show the TGA keeps two databases of adverse event notifications: one internal, showing all reports of harm; and one public, showing only a part of those.
This means vaccine harm is most likely significantly higher than reported.
Without honest and accurate data, the Senate has no way of deciding how much harm is too much harm.
German pathologists describe pathological aggregates of spike proteins and lymphocyte infiltrations in inflamed organs in autopsies related to death post vaccination.
In response, the TGA is failing to conduct autopsies on the 800 Australians the patients’ own doctors have reported as having died from the vaccines. What the hell is the TGA hiding?
Whistleblowers to the British Medical Journal provided reports of inadequacies, irregularities and possible fraudulent practices in the Pfizer vaccine trial—you know, the same trial for which the TGA took Pfizer’s word.
From a modern immunological perspective, two frequent vaccines for respiratory viruses run the risk of desensitising the immune responses to the virus, and that leads to hypoimmunity and worse illness than without the immunisation. To put that simply: repeated vaccination is doing more harm than good.
These are the matters I sought today to refer to the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 without success. I thank Senators Hanson, Abetz, Rennick and Antic for their support, integrity and courage.
The truth is the Select Committee on COVID-19 has been running a protection racket for the pharmaceutical industry, and today’s vote proves it.
This unprecedented betrayal of the Australian people must be referred immediately to a royal commission. To the Prime Minister, the health minister, the federal health department and all those in the Senate and the House of Representatives—all of you who have perpetrated this crime—I direct one question: how the hell do you expect to get away with it?
We’re not going to let you get away with it. We won’t let you get away with it. We are coming for you. We have the stamina to hound you down and we damn well will.
COVID UNDER QUESTION is a cross-party inquiry into the Government’s response to COVID held on 23rd March 2022. COVID Under Question was hosted by Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation Federal Senator for Queensland) and attended by Stephen Andrew (One Nation Queensland State MP for Mirani), George Christensen (Federal Nationals MP for Dawson), Gerard Rennick (Federal Liberal Senator for Queensland), Alex Antic (Federal Liberal Senator for South Australia) and Craig Kelly (Federal Palmer United Australia MP for Hughes).
Parliamentarians heard from a range of Doctors, experts, economists and everyday people about how the Government’s response to COVID has affected them and at times defied belief. The absurdity of Chief Health Officer dictates and power hungry politicians is all laid bare.
The full day’s proceedings were recorded and available for public viewing.
How can we heal our relationship with food in the age of artificial food? In response to the crises in our food system we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives.
Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world. Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change.
The notion that high-tech, “farm free” lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today – the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.
Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to “stuff” that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process both the planet’s health and our health has been nearly destroyed.
Industrial agriculture is re-inventing its future based on “fake farming” with “fake food”, with chemicals and GMOs, surveillance drones and spyware. Farming without farmers, farming without biodiversity, farming without soil, is the vision of those who have already brought us to the brink of catastrophe.
This is why artificial meat, invested in by the giant tycoons of factory farming, are not viable alternatives. They are just additional sources of profit for the same players and take political power away from regenerative farmers and local communities.
These modes deny the essential symbiotic relationships between humans, plants, animals and microorganisms and, in turn, deny their potential to maintain and regenerate the web of life. Food is the web of life and we cannot separate food from life. Similarly, we cannot separate ourselves from the Earth.
Solutions to our global crises already exist and they come from building cultures of interconnection and regeneration, as well as healing our relationships with food, nature and community. We need to become aware of the connections that hold the opportunity to regenerate the earth, our health, our food economies and food cultures through a real agriculture that cares for the earth and for people. Real food is not created in a laboratory, but comes from biodiverse farms that take care of the land by embracing a regenerative agriculture model.
We must therefore work actively to renew and regenerate the Planet by participating in ecological processes of reciprocity and restoring biodiversity. For this to happen, the act of eating must once again become an ecological act, so that the false solutions proposed by the advocates of artificial food, which do nothing to counter the profit-driven agri-food industry, do not create further crises.
Fully artificial food is an increasingly popular trend focused on developing a new line of synthetically produced, ultra-processed food products by using recent advances in synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology. These new products seek to imitate and replace animal products, food additives, and expensive, rare, or socially conflictive ingredients (such as palm oil). Biotech companies and agribusiness giants are seeing the opportunity to move into this promising market of “green” consumption and hence these products are marketed to a new generation of environmentally conscious consumers who are growing critical of the grim realities of industrial food production. As a result, meatless burgers and sausages, as well as imitations of cheese, dairy products, seafood, and others, have begun to flood the market, being found anywhere from fast food chains to local grocery stores.
Although these products market themselves as ‘eco-friendly’, ‘healthy’, and ‘sustainable’, they are no such thing as they do little to truly address the root problems of industrial agriculture and its environmental, and health consequences. Consequences that can be largely blamed on the same circle of businessmen who today finance the development of this biotech industry. These products instead represent the next generation of ultra-processed junk foods that work to further entrench industrial agriculture models due to their direct dependence on globalized commodity chains, agrochemicals, GMOs, monocultures, and even conventional animal production. In other words, synthetic foods are quickly becoming a next means to consolidate even more power and profit into the hands of a few food giants without facing the implications of ecological devastation, worsening human health, and exacerbated climate change.
One of the key differences between conventional junk food products and these new synthetic foods is the use of new technological innovations such as synthetic biology and genetic engineering. Synthetic biology is a new type of biotechnology which is now creating entirely new organisms and microorganisms through the genetic modification or engineering of an organism’s internal genetic parts to reconfigure them in new ways. By implanting pieces of other organisms’ DNA into microorganisms, or reconfiguring internal genetic information, these new technologies trigger microorganisms, cells, or other forms of genetic material to ‘ferment’ and reproduce in order to trigger them to create new, completely synthetic ingredients. The use of the word ‘fermentation’ in synthetic biology hence creates a false analogy between traditional forms of natural microbial fermentation and these new, completely artificial biotechnologies.
These new technologies are now being used by companies such as Beyond Meat, Motif Foodworks, Ginkgo Bioworks (custom-built microbes), BioMilq (lab-grown breast milk), Nature’s Fynd (fungi-grown meat and dairy alternatives), Eat Just (egg substitutes made from plant proteins), Perfect Day Food (lab-grown dairy products) or NotCo.
Companies such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods use a DNA coding sequence derived from soybeans or peas to create a product that looks and tastes like real meat. Imitations of cheese and dairy products are also starting to pop up. For instance, companies like Formo are using synthetic biology to synthesise milk proteins through fermentation for mozzarella and ricotta cheeses without cows.
Filler ingredients for these products also still rely heavily on the extensive processing of conventionally cultivated and mostly GMO crops. For instance, the Impossible Burger is made almost entirely from industrially produced wheat, maize, soya, coconut and potato, in addition to additional bioengineered ingredients. Proteins, carbohydrates from these conventional crops are chemically extracted, cooked and then extruded through machines that blend and shape them into strands resembling short muscle fibers, allowing manufacturers to convincingly imitate a range of processed meat products[1].
Cell-Cultured Synthetic Meat and Dairy
Lab-grown or cultured meat and dairy products are now also being marketed as yet another alternative to animal products, with many companies investing in cell-culturing or ‘fermentation’ of foods made from real animal cells. In the case of cell-based meat, tissue is taken from a living cow and combined with extracted stem cells to grow into muscle fibers in the lab. Once enough (over 20,000) have been obtained from this process they are colored, minced, mixed with fats, and shaped into burgers.
For instance, Upside Foods (previously known as Memphis Meats) produces meat through this method, by using self-reproducing animal cells. The rationale is that such an approach would eliminate the need to breed and slaughter a huge amount of animals, thus ironing out many ethical and ecological concerns along the supply chain. While lab-grown meat is not yet available to the public, companies like Upside Foods are heavily investing in research and development in order to make their products economically affordable over the long term to compete with commercial meat options. The Canadian company Better Milk, for instance, is also investing heavily in the production of cow’s milk using bovine mammary cells.
Yet, whether upscaling lab-grown food will one day be economically viable remains very doubtful. An article from the Counter reflects on the limits of the transformative potential of this emerging technology, with particular attention to the many obstacles faced by cultured meat companies. Through a rigorous review of scientific data, the article demonstrates that cultivated meat gives rise to a lot of inefficiencies and limitations in scalability, embodied by the need for intensive and sophisticated machinery, structural limitations on cell metabolisms and immunity to foreign contaminants, and a series of complex processes that all place a strict limit on the expansion of production. These factors contribute to a lack of cost competitiveness in comparison with the conventional meat products they wish to replace, as cultured meat production would amount to far less than conventional slaughterhouses. Especially when cell-culturing facilities at the scale needed have previously never been made viable.
Who is behind the surge of fake food and who benefits?
Over the last couple of years, and following the relentless emergence of new startups, the market for synthetic and plant-based alternatives has been rapidly expanding, with financial backing skyrocketing in 2020. The Good Food Institute, a lobby advocate group for the adoption of animal product alternatives, reports that in the United States, the plant-based market has already grown from 4.9 billion in 2018 to 7 billion in 2020, which represents an overall increase of 43% in dollar sales over the last two years. Similarly, the plant-based meat market is also booming, having reached a value of 1.4 billion and registered a growth of 72% by 2020. Beyond Meat has been one of the “hottest” stocks in 2019. The plant-based meat company’s shares grew a whooping 859% during its first three months.
The synthetic biology industry is also right behind. It has reached a value of $12 billion in the last decade and is expected to double by 2025, and to reach $85 billion in 2030. Companies specializing in this field have also grown six-fold in the last ten years.
Clearly it is agribusiness that stands to profit from this lucrative and quickly expanding market. Therefore, It should not come as a surprise that a lot of meat industry giants like Tyson foods, JBS, Cargill, Nestlé, and Maple Leaf Foods are investing in this blossoming market. Moreover, high profile big tech investors such as Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos have also joined in by providing substantial financial backup to startups and biotechnology companies pursuing innovations in the sector. In fact, Bill Gates alone has already invested 50 million dollars in Impossible Foods and actively finances Beyond Meat, Ginkgo Bioworks, BioMilq, Motif Foodworks, C16 Biosciences, and Memphis Meats (now Upside Foods) through his Breakthrough Energy Ventures investment fund.
Other prominent start-ups funded by this billionaire investment include- Eat Just (egg substitutes made from plant proteins), Perfect Day Food (lab-grown dairy products), and NotCo (plant-based animal products made through AI), to name a few.
Given the widespread success of the plant-based industry, it is not surprising that big plant-breeding companies like Bayer also see a great opportunity for investment and expansion in this market. As put by Bob Reiter, Bayer’s head of research and development at the company’s crop science division, in reference to plant based-meat companies: “They are sourcing different types of crops and that could also create opportunity for us, being a company that is a plant-breeding company”.
An ecological choice or a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
Many studies are questioning the alleged sustainability of this industry, which now comprises a constellation of new ‘green-conscious’ start-ups. It is not surprising that the tremendous rise of synthetic foods is happening at a time when ethical concerns linked to the meat and dairy industry are increasingly under the spotlight. As the industrial agrifood industry is threatened by consumer apathy, big companies that stand to lose significant profits are trying to tap into a new market of environmentally aware consumers looking for alternatives. Hence, the promotion of these synthetic foods is nothing more than a clever way to reorient profits back to the same old companies by re-purposing the destructive technologies of the Green Revolution combined with new biotechnologies as a well-disguised ‘sustainable alternative’.
This reinforcement of the industrial agriculture production model becomes evident when one looks at the ingredients that make up these synthetic foods. Primarily made up of conventionally grown peas, potatoes, soya, coconut, and maize, these products rely on heavy processing, monocultures, agrochemicals, GMOs, deforestation and a contaminating global-supply chain.
Yet, companies remain adamant in their claims that their plant-based meats require less water, less land, and produce less greenhouse gases than their counterparts, as well as simultaneously ironing out animal welfare concerns. In so doing, they deliberately sidestep the impacts of the toxic industrial supply chain their products depend on.
Most significantly, to run, these bioreactors require large amounts of nutrients for cells to grow and reproduce. Given the limited production of individual amino acid formulations suited for cell culture globally, one hope is to use soy to derive the full amino acid profile necessary for cell growth. This would work to only further entrench the already destructive cultivation of soy.
Gruesomely and ironically, other parts of the nutrient broth used to culture cells also directly derive from current industrial animal production, as some of them are made using fetal cow’s blood obtained from conventionally slaughtered pregnant cows. Stem cells necessary for cell reproduction during the cell culturing process also come from fetal cows. Without the mass abundance of slaughtered fetal cows, can cell-cultured meat scale up? And so, can lab-grown meat be considered to solve the problem of animal welfare and environmental degradation if it is completely dependent on ingredients that derive from industrial beef production? This gruesome reality says otherwise.
Meat analogs and cell-based meats are also much more carbon intensive than we are led to believe. A recent study has shown that the fossil fuel energy required for the production of lab meat is not sustainable and could by far surpass the output of livestock like pigs and poultry.
Vast amounts of energy are required for the production of synthetic foods. These include several energy intensive steps such as the operation of the bioreactors, temperature controls, aeration, and mixing processes. Thus, on the basis of these indicators, the sector is in no position to claim that synthetic meat production is inherently more sustainable than traditional production systems. Studies like these further point to how upscaling synthetic meat production is not the way towards a carbon free society, especially when we consider the scaling needed to match current consumption levels of the products this industry is trying to replace.
Are plant-based foods healthier? Not if they are ultra-processed
It is now widely known how industrial processing can make food less nutritious and thus harmful to human health, and according to a recent report, the latest generation of junk synthetic foods is no exception. In order to make their products, chemically extracted protein isolates from commodity crops such as soy, peas and potatoes are used and mixed in with added flavorings, food additives, and now, perhaps most dangerously, genetically engineered artificial ingredients to try to approximate the taste and texture of real animal products. As a result, these ultra-processed foods typically contain high levels of sodium, fats and artificial food enhancers in order to be palatable, placing them under the same categories as junk foods.
Moreover, ultra processed foods are made from refined ingredients which means that they lack many of the nutrients found in traditional animal products such as zinc, iron and vitamin B-12. These nutrients and fortifiers thus need to be added as separate ingredients in synthetic meat, but cannot be absorbed as effectively as they would from whole foods, and can cause harmful interference with other nutrients. As a result our bodies may derive less health benefits from them and therefore they should not be part of a nutritious and environmentally friendly diet.
The safety of new ingredients and additives used is also a cause for concern. For example, to make the Impossible Burger appear to “bleed” like real meat, a synthetically produced “heme” molecule is added which comes from soy leghemoglobin, a colorant produced in genetically engineered yeast. The adoption of this patented new ingredient has been nothing short of controversial. According to the Center for Food Safety, the FDA did not conduct adequate long-term testing before approving the additive in 2019, and after a short-term rat trial, several potential adverse effects were detected like changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate inflammation or kidney disease, disruptions in the reproductive cycle and possible signs of anemia. Despite the lack of evidence that the additive is safe, Impossible Foods’ products containing genetically engineered heme are now being sold in supermarkets across the United States, exemplifying the lack of testing and regulation for these new products and technologies.
Highly toxic glyphosate has also been found in the Impossible Burger with amounts being more than enough to have a variety of negative health effects.This is also not mentioning synergistic effects this might have with the variety of toxic food additives these companies mix in to mask flavors, and the unknown health effects of synbio-produced additives.
Profitable Patents
Synthetic foods symbolize yet another profit-making machine used by billionaires and big corporations to capitalize on proprietary technology and increase their control over the world’s resources. This is reflected in companies’ ceaseless pursuit of patents for anything from novel processes of synthetic biology, genetically engineered ingredients like soy leghemoglobin, protein texturizing processing and even the patenting of genetic materials used as raw materials. As was shown in the Navdanya International Gates to a Global Empire report, 27 patents have been assigned to Impossible Foods, with over 100 additional patents pending for other fake meat proxies, from chicken to fish.
The patenting logic that underlies the synthetic food movement, sees animals and nature as disposable elements that can simply be replaced by more efficient technologies such as lab-engineered products. This dangerous way of thinking reduces animals to mere inputs in a production system, thus completely ignoring our relationship with nature and further creating a rift separating humans from nature and food from life.
Handing over control of our food to a handful of multinational companies does not only make us increasingly dependent on them, it can also have detrimental consequences on local food systems and erode the food sovereignty of organic farmers.
International appetites for ultra-processed foods
In addition to conquering our plates and diets, synthetic food is slowly starting to take over multi-level governance arenas. This was most apparent in last years’ UN Food Systems Summit, as well as the COP26. Both serving as forums to showcase the true intentions of agribusiness and food giants– namely, to keep the system unchanged. As anticipated, both summits marked yet another failed attempt at addressing power imbalances in the food system, with sustainable farming practices like agroecology only playing a marginal role. The summits were thus met with resounding backlash from environmental associations and civil society organizations.
Reflected in the themes and proposals of both international events was the willingness to keep business as usual and continuing to rely on the failed industrial agricultural model by allowing big actors to dictate terms. For instance, during both the UNFSS and the COP26 there was explicit promotion of artificial and ultra processed plant-based foods, under the language of achieving ‘protein diversification’ and ‘sustainable diets’. During the COP26 the “Plant-Based Treaty” was promoted and backed by all the above-mentioned actors, and during the UNFSS under similar initiatives were promoted in Action Track 2 led by Nestlé, Danone and the controversial EAT organization.
There are many dangers associated with the above discourses of these ultra-processed, synthetic foods being cornerstones of ‘sustainable diets’ entering the global governance arena. This is especially true if they are further consolidated into policies that shift attention and resources away from organic farmers and local markets toward a handful of biotech companies. Despite food advocates’ claims that the proliferation of synthetic alternatives to animal products can resolve animal welfare concerns and solve many of our ongoing crises, the ‘plant-based’ label means very little if it is based on industrial models, monocultures, GMOs, pesticides, and other chemically intensive agricultural practices that lead to biodiversity loss and ecological degradation.
Which future for our food?
There are many dangers associated with the above discourses entering the global governance arena. Especially if they mean a further consolidation of policies that shift attention and resources away from organic farmers and local markets toward a handful of biotech companies. Despite food advocates’ claims that the proliferation of synthetic alternatives to animal products can resolve animal welfare concerns and solve many of our ongoing crises, the ‘plant-based’ label means very little if it is based on industrial models, monocultures, GMOs, pesticides, and other destructive agricultural practices that lead to biodiversity loss, ecological degradation and worsening health.
Synthetic food is thus nothing more than a fake solution that aims to replace products without challenging the power structures that underlie the corporate agricultural model. Moreover, it completely ignores the solutions offered by the growing regenerative agriculture movement and completely disregards the role of small producers and food communities in shaping our food systems. This mindset explains why we will soon see Beyond Meat burgers in McDonald’s plant-based menus when we should instead focus on the necessity for real regenerative agriculture and systemic change to protect nature and people’s health.
What We Need is Real Food
In the end, these artificial, synthetic foods dismantle our connection with nature and in doing so, they completely disregard the role of natural processes and the laws of ecology that are at the heart of real food production. By promoting the illusion that we live outside of nature’s ecological processes, this new technology will only serve to increase corporate control over food and health, accelerate the collapse of local food economies and further destroy food democracy. The real solution to the environmental, and health crises should be based on an active rejuvenation and regeneration of the planet by working with ecological processes through agroecological and regenerative farming practices.
Contrary to the claims of the agro-industry and food tech companies, food cannot be reduced to a commodity to be put together mechanically and artificially in labs and factories. Food is the currency of life and it holds the contribution of all beings involved at all stages of production. Claiming otherwise would be a negation of local indigenous knowledge and pastoralist cultures that have evolved alongside diverse ecosystems over the centuries to regenerate biodiversity and contribute to the diversity of farming systems.
Animals, humans, and nature have always lived in interconnected, symbiotic relationships which in turn regenerate all systems that support life. This synergy is vital to the renewal of soil fertility, the creation of habitat for biodiversity, and the rejuvenation of Earth’s water, carbon, and nutrient cycles. While concerns about the meat industry are legitimate, animals integrated into a biodiverse, agroecological system can provide a viable alternative to an agricultural system based on exploitation and environmental destruction. Animals have always held a central function in agroecological systems, since when they feed on grass, pests, and weeds, they, in turn, fertilize the soil, improve biodiversity at all levels, and help sequester carbon back into the earth. Animals in symbiotic and balanced relationships with plants, soils, and humans have also formed central parts of cultural and agricultural reproduction for millennia, contributing to much more than just meat production.
On the other hand, the industrial raising of animals through CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Farm Operations) who are force-fed industrially grown grains and soy, contribute to the expansion of GHG-emitting industrial agriculture, causing a greater release of methane and the pollution of air and water sources. It is important to emphasize how these two systems are not at all alike, as meat consumption per se is not the problem, rather it is the industrial meat production model hand in hand with the industrial agriculture model that is responsible for the majority of GHG emissions, animal suffering, and environmental degradation. Therefore, the real solution does not lie in creating substitutes for food, it lies in understanding the needs of the ecosystems we are embedded in and healing our connection with nature.
Real food made through real farming is the direct result of a process of care for the land, animals, and fellow humans that celebrates the connection between food and life. It protects the life of all beings on Earth while also nourishing our health and wellbeing. Artificial food is a direct manifestation of years of food imperialism and colonization that has denied our diverse food knowledge, food cultures, and disregarded the biodiversity of the earth and its ecosystems.
Hope does not lie in pursuing technological innovations such as lab-grown synthetic foods that see nature as a dead and unimprovable technology, but in participating and rejuvenating the earth’s natural processes. The question of what we eat, how we grow the food we eat, and how we distribute it has become a survival imperative for the human species and all beings that make up the web of life. When we farm with real knowledge of how to care for the Earth and her biodiversity, when we eat real food which nourishes the biodiversity of the Earth, our cultures, and our gut microbiome, we are then participating in real and living economies that regenerate the well-being of all. All over the world, small farmers and gardeners are already preserving and developing their soils and their seeds through the practice of agroecology. They are feeding their communities with healthy and nutritious food while also rejuvenating the planet.
[1] Kyriakopoulou, Konstantina, et al. “Plant-Based Meat Analogues.” Sustainable Meat Production and Processing, edited by Charis Galanakis, Academic Press, 2019, pp. 103–126. Science Direct. doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814874-7.00006-7.
“To harvest a viable embryonic kidney for this purpose, sufficiently healthy children old enough
to have adequately-developed kidneys must be removed from the womb, alive, typically by cesarean section, and have their kidneys cut out.
This must take place without anesthesia for the child, which [anesthesia] would lessen the viability of the organs.
Instead of being held, rocked, and comforted in the time intervening between their birth and
their death, they have organs cut out of them alive.”
With the release of COVID vaccines, and then the mandates, we’ve seen a new resurgence of people attempting to gain religious exemptions.
Many of these attempts focus on fetal tissue obtained through abortion.
On January 19, 2021, AnnaMaria Cardinalli published an explosive article in Crisis Magazine, headlined, “Catholic Conscience and the COVID-19 Vaccine.”
Cardinalli details the collection of fetal tissue for the cell line named HEK 293.
The tissue was taken from an aborted infant in the Netherlands in 1972-3.
This cell line was used for “testing” the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
Cardinalli writes: “We know that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines do not use any cells derived from abortion in the production process. That is, we know that we are not being directly injected with fetal cells or their engineered descendants (though this fact differs with other manufacturers). We hear that the abortion-derived cell lines were only used in testing, which should somehow comfort us, though it still means that the vaccines from which we seek to benefit depend on the involvement of abortion. We are told that the cell line used in testing came from one abortion, which took place decades ago. These things are all true, but they do not serve to inform us fully.”
“What we may not know follows. The most prominent cell line, called HEK 293, comes from an abortion performed in the 1970’s…”
“HEK stands for human embryonic kidney. To harvest a viable embryonic kidney for this purpose, sufficiently healthy children old enough to have adequately-developed kidneys must be removed from the womb, alive, typically by cesarean section, and have their kidneys cut out. This must take place without anesthesia for the child, which [anesthesia] would lessen the viability of the organs. Instead of being held, rocked, and comforted in the time intervening between their birth and their death, they have organs cut out of them alive.”
“There is no way that a spontaneous abortion could result in the cell line (as the kidneys cannot remain viable past the brief window in which they must be harvested) or that some brilliant researcher found a way for great good to come out of a rare tragedy by making use of a child’s body donated to science after it was aborted. The deliberate killing of an unwanted child (a little girl, in the case of HEK 293) took place in the tortuous manner it did precisely to obtain her organs for research. The harvest of her organs was the direct cause of her death, prior to which, she was a living child, outside the womb.”
“I fear that Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict may not have had this information when they received the vaccines. If we re-examine the Vatican statement that ‘it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and productions process,’ we see that it does not apply here. It does not imagine this scenario. To approve of the currently-available vaccines, it would have to read ‘it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from living persons, killed by the harvest of their organs for use in medical research and productions processes,’ but the Church’s moral teachings could never truly bend so far.
Similar to the human rights abuses exposed by international tribunal in today’s China, where unwanted individuals such as religious and political dissidents are executed by the harvest of their organs for profit, the little girl whose cells gave rise to the COVID-19 vaccines was brutally sacrificed for the purpose, as were all the children whose cell lines failed before her.”
After reading Cardinalli’s analysis—not only should the granting of religious exemptions from vaccination be a foregone conclusion; the whole field of fetal tissue research, going back many years and involving many pharmaceutical products, should be put on trial.
The people who have been carrying out the murders, the people who have been using the harvested tissue, the companies—all of them—on trial.
I hope many medical professionals will take Cardinalli’s article as a springboard, and weigh in on what she is very clearly stating.
And not just doctors. All people who are shocked by her conclusions.
So far, I see one counter-claim to Cardinalli’s assertions:
The notion that the kidneys of the aborted baby must be harvested very quickly is false. The kidneys can survive for a longer period.
On that score, I refer you to a devastating video interview conducted by Robert Kennedy Jr. His guest was SOUND CHOICE PHARMACEUTICAL INSTITUTE “President and Founder, Dr. Theresa Deisher Ph.D., [with] over 30 years of pharmaceutical research and leadership experience. She discovered adult cardiac derived stem cells, has worked on their therapeutic uses as an alternative to human fetal DNA, and leads a team of scientists at AVM Biotechnology dedicated to changing what a diagnosis of cancer, autoimmunity, or chronic infectious disease means to patients and their loved ones. As a result of this work, Dr. Deisher is named as an inventor on over 47 patents.”
In the first 15 minutes of the interview, Deisher makes it quite clear that infants in the womb are taken out alive, with their blood supply functioning (essential) and then killed by cutting out their hearts or their brains. This is what is done in order to obtain tissue that will be turned into fetal cell lines.
Since this act of murder is standard practice, it would appear it was committed against the live baby whose kidney cells became cell line HEK 293, used in testing the COVID vaccines.
At the top of the interview, Kennedy said he didn’t want to get into the moral aspect of fetal cell lines. But after listening to Deisher, he was quite shaken. He said so. He said they would have to cover the moral aspect.
The whole world has to.
Here is the basic ramification: THERE IS A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FOR THE WHOLE WORLD.
For all people of faith. Every faith.
“According to my religious belief, the murder of an undeniably live infant for any reason is unconscionable and evil, and I refuse the vaccine.”
Here is a Force against which no government, no establishment, no secret society, no wealth can stand.
I fully understand all sorts of professionals will spout language that purports to show “the aborted infant was not alive, the lab followed all the legal guidelines, this is an old argument that has been debunked…”
But this is not just an old argument. This is the equivalent of an opening statement in a murder trial. Nothing less.
If religious leaders will read AnnaMaria Cardinalli’s article, they will see how important her charge is.
The question isn’t “will people of faith wake up and do what they should”; the question is “how can any person of faith NOT do what they should”.
If they will make a stand; if all people of faith will; the entire dire situation we are facing changes in the blink of an eye.
Solomon to God: “You have made Your servant king instead of my father David, but I am a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in…Therefore give to Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil.”
Gautama Buddha: “To cease from evil, to do good, and to purify the mind yourself, this is the teaching of all the Buddhas.”
John 10:10: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”
Would any church, any religion in the world say that God wants the killing of live infants for the purpose of medical research?
In the midst of this COVID tyranny, haven’t we all been looking for a truth that will galvanize huge numbers of people?
And not as some kind of stunt. But rather as an inevitable outcome of deep faith.
Faith and justice come from the same everlasting tree.
Yesterday I had the privilege and the honor to speak with Alec Zeck, John Blaid, Mike Donio, and Jacob Diaz about the claims made regarding the isolation and existence of “SARS-COV-2” by Dr.’s Malone, McCullough, and Cole. In this video, we address specific points they made such as whether or not:
Cultivation in cell culture is “isolation” of a “virus?”
Koch’s Postulates had been satisfied for “SARS-COV-2?”
The effect a drug has can be considered proof of the existence of a “virus?”
The electron microscopy images taken from unpurified cell cultures are proof of “virus” particles?
The particles assumed to be “viruses” are purified and isolated directly from the samples of a sick patient?
It was a pleasure to be a part of this conversation! I hope that you are able to come away with a better understanding as to why the evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2,” or any “virus” for the matter, is entirely lacking and unscientific.
Video available at The Truth Seeker (John Blaid) BitChute and Odysee channels.
Mike Donio, John Blaid, Jacob Diaz, Mike Stone, and Alec Zeck filmed a response to claims made by Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Ryan Cole regarding virus isolation and the existence of SARS-CoV-2 during an episode of The StreetMD Show hosted by Dr. Jo Yi on the Ickonic platform. The overall stance held by the speakers is simple: the claims made by these three gentlemen lack both in context and in substantial evidence to support the notion that SARS-CoV-2 exists as a pathogenic disease causing agent.
Jim Gale is the founder & CEO of Food Forest Abundance, a company & movement that is revolutionizing gardening & food independence by bringing a simple but effective solution for our most complex problems.
Climate engineering researcher Dane Wigington contends the coming food shortage that President Biden recently mentioned is not because of the Ukraine/Russia conflict. Wigington explains, “The bottom line is we have crops collapsing all over the globe. Although the causes are many . . . climate engineering must be considered a core causal factor at this point. The assault against food producing regions has been relentless. . . . We can only consider it an assault against food production at this time.”
Wigington says time is short and predicts, “Based on the current rate of UV (ultraviolet) increase, it appears we may have a functional Ozone layer collapse in as little as 18 months. Nothing grows then. The heat in California is relentless, as well, because climate engineers are keeping a high pressure heat dome over the western U.S. For photosynthesis, as we approach 104 degrees, photosynthesis tapers off, and at 104 degrees, it stops completely. To blame the food shortages coming on the Russia/Ukraine scenario is to simply scapegoat it. . . . Climate engineering is the single biggest factor in the equation for the destruction of food production.”
It’s not just food production that is going to take a hit, but coastal communities and cities could be facing massively rising sea levels in a relatively short amount of time. Wigington says, “As we lose the Cryosphere, there is enough ice in Antarctica to raise sea levels 197 feet. In Greenland, there is enough ice to raise it another 21 to 24 feet. As the ice slides off these land masses, the land begins to rise up out of the ocean. That is called ‘glacial rebound,’ and that can raise the seal levels even further. . . . When the power structure cannot hide the severity of what is unfolding, you just can’t shut off this kind of thermal inertia. When they just can’t hide it and people panic, that’s when the law of the jungle will truly prevail. We are perilously close to that point.”
The planet is in total meltdown right now. It is melting down at a rate of seven Hiroshima bombs per second. It’s not just crops collapsing, but oceans are collapsing. We have ocean ecosystems all over the globe collapsing. . . . If you watch the mainstream media, it is a total distraction, and people are totally missing the point. Who cares about the price of gas if you have nothing to eat, and we are almost there. . . . We simply have to stop geoengineering very soon or we are not going to have anything to salvage. . . . If everyone can work together to reach a critical mass awareness, we can wake up our military brothers and sisters and those participating with private defense contractors. We have a chance of stopping these programs from the inside out. Then, we can allow the planet to respond on its own. We need to convey that blaming Russia on the coming food collapse is not reality. . . . If we can pull back the curtain . . . we may have a chance to salvage at least part of what remains of the planet’s life support system.”
Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with climate researcher Dane Wigington, founder of GeoEngineeringWatch.org for 3.29.22. (There is much more in the 41 min. interview.)
Below you will find a video presentation by Dr. Tom Cowan. The questions Dr. Cowan raises, the facts he presents, and the clarity he brings to the discussion of “viruses” and the field of virology are essential to our global conversation and quest to understand the truth. Truth Comes to Light has provided a basic transcript and added links to references for added clarity.
Over the past few years, we have shared many articles on this site related to this inquiry into the truth about “viruses” and the whole field of virology, including information on terrain theory vs germ theory. Find links here: Viruses, Vaccines & the History of Modern Medicine. At the end of this post you will find a selected list of related articles.
A few quotes from Dr. Cowan’s video:
“Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?”
“They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.
“Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.”
“So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.
“So I ask myself how did they do that?”
“What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?”
“Do we really know if mRNA is in these vaccines?
“Where is the paper? Where is the evidence that there actually is mRNA in these injections?”
Okay, so before I get into talking about the question that so many people keep asking me: What about gain of function, lab-created viruses, bio labs now allegedly in the Ukraine?
So what is the science behind that?
So we’ll get into that in a minute. And before that I have a very short, little clip to play.
So that clip pretty much sums it up. That was from our friend Dr. Sam Bailey and our other good friend Stefan Lanka.
So on that note, the reason I wanted to talk about this subject is there was a recent paper that was put out by Dr. Mercola…
So let’s just read the first couple paragraphs there. So this is a summary:
“A study published February 21, 2022, (so very recently) in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mRNA) sequence patented by Moderna in 2016.
The genetic sequence patented by Moderna is part of a human DNA repair gene called MSH3. This patented sequence is found in SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein — the part that gives the virus such easy access into human cells.
According to Moderna’s patent application, the gene sequence was modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research.
According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.”
Okay, so why is this important? So obviously, there’s been a lot of attention in the political sphere and in the anti-vax community. There have been movies written about this.
There are many lectures, many prominent people in the “freedom” or “anti-vax” community who are investigating these patents, and saying that these patents — and as Dr. Mercola said, this study in Frontiers in Virology is literally the smoking gun proving that Moderna patented a sequence, which ended up in SARS-CoV-2, “the virus”, and the only way it could have gotten there is, not through natural evolution (that is a one in three trillion chance) but if it was introduced into the virus by some laboratory technique.
This theory is crucial to our understanding, not only of whether there were crimes committed, but the whole theory of virology and gain-of-function research and all that.
So, obviously, and this should go without saying, that the most important part of this is: Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?
The rest of the article goes on to talk about what we know about this MSH3 sequence and the protein that it allegedly codes for.
But I want to emphasize again and again and again — the whole point of this is: This sequence which was patented by Moderna in 2016 is identical to the sequence found in SARS-CoV-2.
That is the point.
If we can demonstrate that there is no SARS-CoV-2 and this is not the genome of this alleged virus, then none of the rest of this has any validity or is of any use at all.
It’s all just a sort of smokescreen or a way to throw us off the track about finding out what really is going on.
I cannot emphasize how important this is.
So for the next few minutes we’re going to actually look at how the authors of the article in Frontiers of Virology — what were they claiming was the SARS-CoV-2 genome?
What were they claiming was the evidence that there is a SARS-CoV-2 virus that they could then compare the patent to?
Again, if there’s no virus and there’s no genome then they can’t possibly have put this sequence into a virus or a genome. And it can’t possibly be the thing that’s affecting the world.
So, now let’s be clear about the next step. There is no mention in this story by Dr. Mercola of how the Frontiers in Virology authors found the genome or found the virus.
[…]
In other words, there is no information in here of how Dr. Mercola actually knows there’s a SARS-CoV-2 genome.
But the authors of the Frontiers in Virology paper said that they were comparing the sequence, the mRNA sequence patented by Moderna in 2016, to the genome found in our old friend paper by Chinese virologist Fan Wu.
So it isn’t that we picked this paper by random. It isn’t that I picked this paper to investigate how they found the genome or what their evidence for the virus was. This is the paper that the authors of the Frontiers in Virology use to compare the Moderna patent to.
So we’re using their information and this is their evidence, their proof that the virus exists.
So this is about: Did the paper by Fan Wu prove that the virus existed — the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists — and that this is the genome of the virus?
Again, in order to say that the patented sequence matches 100% to the genome of the virus, obviously, obviously, you have to know that this is actually a virus.
So, this is an old friend, we’ve been through this many times, but let’s see what they say.
So here is the paper, published in the prestigious journal, I believe, Nature — February 3, 2020.
So this is the paper, again, that was cited by the authors of Frontiers in Virology paper that is used as the reference genome.
So how did they do it?
So first we have a summary.
So how did they identify the “virus”? So I’m gonna run down the steps that they used and then we will show the clips, the actual wording from the paper, so that you know that this is actually the facts.
Okay, so we’re looking to find a virus and then find the genome of that virus — a virus that had never been found before.
So first thing they take lung fluid from one person. That’s a huge sample size (that’s a little tongue-in-cheek). That’s obviously just one person. That is a kind of ridiculous experiment to find a new virus.
Then they isolated the RNA, which is a genetic material, from the fluid in that person’s lung. They did not attempt to purify any particles that they could say you were a virus. They did not do any pictures of any virus. They did not do any maceration, filtration, ultracentrifugation to see if they had any such particles. None of that.
They took RNA from the lung fluid, of which we have many possible sources. We have bacterial sources, fungal sources, human sources, possibly viral sources, exosome sources, multivesicular body sources — many sources of RNA. We have no idea the source of that RNA.
Then they create what’s called an mRNA library, which is a catalog of all of the RNA pieces that are in that lung fluid.
This requires that they amplify these pieces of RNA with the process called RT-PCR. And, as we have demonstrated over and over again. and is completely substantiated in the literature, doing PCR amplification of RNA cycles inevitably creates new sequences of RNA which weren’t there in the original sample.
In some cases, if you do enough amplification cycles — up to even 80% of the sequences — after 45 cycles are made de novo, or anew, by the actual PCR process itself.
So now we have yet another source of our RNA. Not only do we have potential viruses, exosomes, multivesicular bodies, apoptotic bodies, human lung tissue, human epithelial lung tissue…, fungal RNA, bacterial RNA — we also have new pieces of RNA generated by the test itself.
Then they performed pair and sequencing that generates 150 base pair reads. That means they matched the sequence by pairing the ends. And you end up with sequences that are basically 150 base pairs long. That’s a fairly small amount. And this results in 56.5 million of these 150 base pair sequences known as reads.
So to be clear, they take this mass, not knowing any idea the origin of these mRNA, they chopped them up into sequences that are 150 base pairs (that’s fairly short) long by pairing the ends. They have 56.5 million of these reads. And then they start doing what’s called de novo assemble.
So there is no sequencing here. There is assembly. And, as it says, you can make a lot of genomes with that many reads.
So they put these 56 million, 150 base pair, reads in aa assembly computer program and… they actually put it in two different computer programs. And one of the computer programs generated 384,000 different sequences. The other one generated over a million sequences.
So now these sequences — all 384,000 of them — are meant to be the possible genomes of this virus. For some reason, they threw away the program that made over a million of these sequences and said the one that made 384,000 — I think that was Megahit — one of those must be the right sequence, the actual sequence of the virus.
Just to be clear, at no point did they ever find a particle. At no point did they purify or isolate a particle.
At no point did they find in any particle… an entire string of RNA, which they then sequenced one by one to find out the sequence of the genetic material of this particle.
None of that was done. All they did was chop up RNA from many different possible sources, put that in a computer program, generate 384,000 and a million in another, and then they went hunting for infectious agents and performed a search of those sequences.
The two longest sequences were a close match to a bat SARS-like coronavirus genome, found 15 years ago or so, that was made in exactly the same way — never having isolated or purified a particle, never having found an intact genome, never having sequenced the genome.
They just did the same sort of assembly, no sequencing of RNA from God knows where. And, this one, the longest one was a 89% match to the previous SARS coronavirus that they did in the same way.
And, as we say: Boom! There is the new novel human coronavirus — even though, as we’ve said over and over again, humans and chimpanzees are about a 96% match. So to say it was an 89% match is essentially like saying there’s no way this could have been anywhere similar to the previous bat SARS-like coronavirus.
In other words, they never found a virus. They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.
Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.
This is a manuscript draft and I don’t know when it will be published.
When I read this, just remember that all these articles that go into The Lancet have to pay homage to the virus god. But I will explain what they mean here.
So this is the interpretation of the entire article. I won’t go through their methods.
“The RNA code counted in PCR tests, previously attributed to SARS-CoV-2, belongs instead to a respiratory-virus-induced immune system response by human cells that liberate exosomes, and that vitiate PCR test results. PCR tests have zero specificity in vivo due to the exosome RNA.”
[…]
And they go on in this article, just as we’re saying — the reality is all of these RNA sequences, all of these reads which were assembled into a viral genome, actually when you do careful analysis, come from human epithelial lung cells.
In other words, just as we’ve been saying all along, these are not viruses. These are breakdown products of our own tissue. And the misconception in calling them a virus needs to stop.
And this idea that they put this patented sequence into a virus can’t possibly be true because, simply, there is no virus.
And all the rest of the article is for not — because nobody put a RNA sequence, patented or otherwise, into a virus.
Now just to show you that we got this from the article — so here is the one patient presenting with cough, etc. So that’s the evidence that we were correct about the one patient.
Here is the evidence that the paired and 150 base pair reads sequencing of the RNA library was performed on this computer platform. So the sequencing yields reads of only 150 base pairs. The whole SARS-CoV-2 genome is supposed to be 30,000.
That means they had to stitch it together using a computer program. This was an assembled genome, out of little bits from God knows where.
And here we see the 56.5 million reads were assembled using Megahit and Trinity. Trinity, they got over a million. They generated a total of 384,000 contigs (that’s sequences).
Trinity generated 1.3 million. They don’t like those because they weren’t long enough. They compared those with the database and compared and found that it was somewhat, although not really similar to a previous bat coronavirus. So, as he says, sequencing results in more than 56 million reads.
How can you possibly differentiate what is from a potential virus from everything else? The answer is you can’t.
And finally… The longest contig is generated by Megahits. The longest one by Trinity is 11,000. How come they didn’t use this one?
Both showed similarity to bat coronavirus. They were found at high abundance. It was only 89 percent similar. That means 11 percent didn’t match. That is a huge amount.
Then they just moved on to develop primers all from this one assay without isolating anything, and from one patient.
And, my friends, that is not science; that is propaganda, as is the entire story of a lab engineered virus.
Now, the real issue here and one of the reasons why this, to me, is so important, is if you go by this unscientific theory that there’s a lab-created virus, you actually miss what I would say are the three most important questions to be asked, and then answered, about this situation.
And so now I’m talking — I would say theory. Where everything else was what I would call simply facts.
So the question that should be asked (and it would be nice to have answers for, and which I don’t have the answers for, but I have some theories) is, to me, the most interesting thing is —
So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.
So I ask myself how did they do that? How did they make — like there’s two theories, there’s two ways of looking at this.
One is: They don’t want that to happen and so it was a mistake.
But, if we think, which I’m inclined to do, that “they” (meaning Moderna and other people) wanted this to happen so that they could throw people off and essentially create a kind of patsy out there, how did they do it?
So I have three possible theories as to how they did it.
Now, let me be clear.
What I’m trying to figure out is these guys Fan Wu and others, Chinese virologists, having, I don’t think, any connection with Moderna, come up with a bogus, anti-scientific genome and for some unbelievable coincidence — let’s say for now — it actually matches exactly one of the patented sequences from the Moderna patent of four years prior. How did that happen?
So possibility number one: It was dumb luck. They just made this sequence and it just so happened to match the Moderna patent. And, frankly, I don’t think that’s actually the right answer.
The second possibility: … Somebody from Moderna or somebody — I don’t know who — calls up Fan Wu and says ‘I want you to make a genome out of nothing and I want it to have this particular sequence in it so some day people will find this out and say “you see, they genetically engineered this sequence”‘. Got it? In other words, there was collusion between the patenters (that’s Moderna) and Fan Wu and his team.
Now I gotta tell you, I actually don’t think that’s true. I would actually love to find out if it is true and if there is a phone call from doctor head of Moderna saying, you know, ‘Hey Wu, would you put this sequence in there so that we can — people find out that it was a genetically engineered sequence?’ But I just don’t think that happens.
And then I came up with a third possibility which is: Once I discovered all these people who are looking into all these patents, that there was at least 70 different patents taken out, of different sequences of RNA, that could end up in a genome. Now, my guess is … I would think it’s a good possibility that one of those sequences may end up in the final genome. And then you would then implant the story that this was a genetically engineered organism and there you go.
So you wouldn’t have to rely on luck, you wouldn’t have to actually have collusion, you could just patent a whole lot of different sequences, for instance, that came in the SARS-1 genome. You could patent all kinds of sequences knowing that, at the end of the day, when somebody makes up this new fraudulent genome it’s bound to have one of them in there. Somebody will find it some day, say it’s the smoking gun and you then implanted the story of the century which does nothing but throws people off.
So those are my three options. I’d be happy to hear about any other possible options. But those were the only three that I could come up with.
Now, the final question then is: What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?
And, I must say, I don’t know what they’re doing in the labs and I don’t think really anybody knows — including in the Chinese labs or Ukrainian labs or North Carolina labs or any other labs.
So again, I have some possibilities.
One is the following …
Screenshot image from BrandNewTube video (specific video source unknown)
They’re doing this.
In other words, what the virologists do is they dress up in hazmat suits and they go on to their computer and start making sequences. And the hazmat suits are crucial, because, as we all know, it’s very possible for the sequences to jump from the computer into their eyes. So it’s very important, as you can see, that they wear goggles and protective head gear to prevent the computer sequences from jumping directly in their eyes.
In other words, they may be just doing nothing and it may be just a whole lot of hooey to get people to worry about things. And to implant in their minds that there is this horrible engineered virus, that we should all be scared of viruses, etc. So that’s one possibility.
Another one is they’re making some sort of proteins or genetic material which can be injected into people. In other words, they’re making toxins. And that is certainly possible.
So those are the two main categories that I came up with. Either they’re just doing nothing and they’re just a front, or a smoke screen, or they’re actually making stuff which isn’t good for people.
And that gets into my final thing that I want to point out.
… This section right here. this is something I’ve been very interested. So this is again from the Mercola article:
“For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. (I’m not going to get into that.) The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein. 11“
Now, I have been asking the question now for months: Where is the paper? Where is the evidence (a) that there actually is mRNA in these injections? They say there is. That’s the whole point. But when people look there either seems to be not there or in variable amounts depending on which injection and which batch.
So it could be that even the whole mRNA in the jab is a actual smokescreen or cover for what’s really in these injections –which is a lot worse stuff like self assembling nanoparticles which we’ve heard about a lot.
So I was very interested to see that this was… stated as fact, because I can’t find a paper, and my friends can’t find a paper, that confirms that abundant copies of this protein are actually made when you inject this sequence.
And this would be like saying — if I wanted to get investors for my new pencil factory, my investors might ask me to see the pencils that we make. And so it would be natural for me to produce copies of the pencils — maybe tens or hundreds or thousands or millions of them — to show that my technology for making pencils actually works.
One would think that if the whole point of these jabs is to make you make spike proteins that, therefore, “confer immunity”, there would be scores, hundreds, thousands of papers showing here’s the amount of spike proteins in an unjabbed person. And then you jab them and then 10 minutes, half an hour, three hours, two weeks, six months, 12 years later, here’s the amount of spike protein. That would prove that the concept is real and that you can actually genetically alter a human being.
Because I have my doubts. So I’m looking for a reference to show this is true. And, lo and behold, here is the reference. Number 11. [see page 3 of Mercola article] So where is the reference from? CBS News.
Now, I could say — I would say if it was from Fox or MSNBC then I would be skeptical. But the fact it’s from CBS, that must mean it’s true. And obviously I’m kidding. Let’s see the reference.
If the whole point of this is to put RNA into injections, make you make a spike protein which is allegedly from the virus, let’s actually see that it works. And here’s a quote saying there’s at least 73 patents.
My guess is one of them was bound to show up in the imaginary sequence. Bingo! We’ve got proof that it’s there, that it was a genetically engineered virus.
And the whole thing, hopefully you now see, comes crashing down like a house of cards if, as we showed, there was no virus genetically engineered or otherwise in the first place.
[At this point in the video, Tom takes questions from the viewers.]
Question: So this one is related, but it has to do with Dr. Bush‘s reference to 10 to the 30th power of viruses within our blood, as well as in the oceans, in the soil. His purpose is to provide constant flow of updated genomic information that we need to in order to adapt and survive. And they’re not pathogens. That we need not fear, etc., etc.
Answer: So he also has said that, of course, viruses are pathogens. The real issue here is how did they find these 10 to the 30th power viruses? And I’ve gone over this, especially in reference to a paper, and I don’t remember the name, but it’s called the ….something to do with the renaming or the re-evaluating of viral…virome…viral world or something like that.
The reason people say this is because they don’t realize that they’re not talking about actual organisms or particles called viruses. They’re talking about liberated pieces of either RNA or DNA — little snippets of RNA or DNA which then get amplified in what’s called metagenomics sequencing and so there are billions and billions and billions of these breakdown products. None of them have anything to do with a virus. They’re simply little bits of genetic garbage that are coming off of our cells and tissues all the time. They have no particular meaning or function that anybody has been able to prove. They’re just little bits of garbage. And the misconception that they’re somehow actual particles and could possibly hurt you or could possibly help you is just a misunderstanding of how they found viruses in the first place.
They don’t find particles. They don’t purify particles. There haven’t been 10 to the 30th purified particles. We’re talking about little pieces of DNA or RNA that get amplified, called viruses, which is a misconception big time.
[Additional questions include speculation about the patent links to the Fan Wu team “discovery” as well as a question about allergies.]
Articles mentioned in this video presentation:
Moderna Patented Key COVID Spike Protein Sequence in 2016 by Dr. Joseph Mercola [originally published March 7, 2022 at this link — https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/07/moderna-patented-spike-protein.aspx — and was mirrored around the web. It can still be found at Dr. Mercola’s paid archive membership.] Dr. Cowan has provided a pdf file of the article here: https://brandfolder.com/s/fv2q4h7fp84bm5vb3ppn37
We’ve seen the unbelievable microscopy images of the experimental jabs from other investigators around the world, but we wanted to see it for ourselves! There are now 4 teams working on this in New Zealand and Dr Robin Wakeling has agreed to go public with his findings.
He compares the Pfizer jab to other vaccines and discusses the startling findings with Dr Mark Bailey.
For the past two years humanity has been under attack. And entire populations have been put under draconian restrictions under the claim that there is a pandemic.
For those of us that can see there is no evidence of a virus, the war on humanity is even more egregious.
However, within the wider circle of those questioning the covid narrative, a common theme is that something is badly wrong with the offered solution in the form of experimental vaccines.
By early 2020 globalist organizations were indicating the rollout of their touted universal vaccines and an injection in every arm.
In 2021 citizen scientists began examining the injections under the microscope and the revelations was startling.
At the forefront of the research has been the La Quinta Columna team who have produced many light and electron micrograph images, as well as detailed analysis of self-assembling particles, graphene components and potential nanotechnology.
Here in New Zealand we also have several teams who have backed up these findings.
Of course, there have been dismissals that we are just seeing artifacts or, in a sense, crystals.
That’s why we asked Dr. Robin Wakeling, a senior microbiologist and nano-emulsion delivery technology expert, to perform his own analysis of the Pfizer BioNtech product.
He joined my husband, Dr Mike Bailey, to explain the behavior of the product under the microscope. Over time and under the influence of various environmental factors, he compares his findings to known colloidal structures and other vaccines.
And, as the other investigators around the world, reaches some disturbing conclusions.
Dr. Mark Bailey
Welcome everyone. I’m doctor Mark Bailey in Christchurch, New Zealand, and it’s my pleasure to be speaking with Dr Robin Wakeling, coming in from Wellington, New Zealand.
Robin is a microbiologist, PhD and world expert in decay and mold forensics. He’s supervised polymerase chain reaction research and been a vocal critic of the pseudoscience taking place in the alleged covid pandemic.
Robin has thousands of hours of microscopy experience and has previously been involved in the development of patented nano- emulsion delivery technologies. So what better person to take a look at the Pfizer BioNTech products up close?
Now we’ve seen from some of the electromicroscopy images, coming in from other countries such as Spain and Germany, which have demonstrated that the injections contain what appear to be undeclared constituents including graphene oxide, and what could be interpreted as being nanotechnology.
Today we’re gonna take a look at the Pfizer products under the light microscope for ourselves and see how it behaves on a slightly larger scale and how perhaps that coheres to the overseas proceeds findings.
So Robin I’ll hand over to you and perhaps you can stop by telling the audience what kind of microscope you’re using and the grades of magnification we’re looking at.
Dr. Robin Wakeling
Okay, thanks Mark. Yes I use a compound light microscope with a basic magnification of 650 although the software that puts it on the computer screen sort of doubles that approximately.
I use phase contrast most of the time. A couple of the images are using bright field and polarized light.
And then I included a few images of other workers which were dark field. But most of my work was with phase contrast. And the magnification and scale, I’ll remind the audience of as we go through.
Okay, so the overarching theme of this presentation is what …. are the undisclosed ingredients in Comirnaty. We know that there are at least two declared undisclosed ingredients.
In other words they’re just coded. We don’t know what they are on the basis that they are proprietary excipients. So we know that there are some unknowns and possibly some undeclared unknowns also.
So that’s really the overarching question that we’re addressing.
[…]
There are three main findings of the microscopic images that we’re producing or suggesting — the key findings.
So the first one is that the lipid nanoparticles that are contained in Comirnaty — and I’ll explain what LNPs are in a moment — but it appears that they are continuing to self assemble in a way that forms much larger colloidal structures of some highly varied and somewhat rarefied forms.
The second main key finding was that these colloidal structures then seem to change their form in response to collision with interfaces like the glass surfaces of the microscope, preparations, or air bubbles, or other interfaces — whereby they start to take on a much more structured and unnatural formation with a lot of straight lines and right angles — sort of things that don’t usually occur in nature outside of crystallography.
And what we’re going to be showing most of the time has some profound differences to crystal structure. So we’ll cover that too.
And so the third finding, which is where the other two kind of lead to, and it’s where other workers have sort of jumped into the deep end with some of the dark field work that’s been done.
These right-angled sheets and wires seem to form colloidal structures… in some situations, where it appears that some environmental triggers are involved….
They seem to order themselves in a highly-ordered complex way — a way that is quite unusual. Certainly not something that the people who are looking at this have seen before. And these are people who should be familiar with this sort of thing…
Because some human beings care about their children, VAERS was established in 1990 as an early warning system to identify negative reactions and side effects of vaccination, which makes sense.
But there are major problems. It is managed by the FDA and the CDC, which explains why the VAERS database requires a class to learn how to find anything.
Taking the time to actually file a report is voluntary. And out of fear of losing their jobs or being considered an anti-vaxxer, nobody wants to speak ill of the all-holy vaccine, let alone make an official report.
It is estimated that only one percent of vaccine injuries ever get reported to VAERS. So that means when VAERS reports over 44,000 adverse reactions and 90 deaths, one can expect it to be as much as 4.4 million adverse reactions and 9,000 deaths.
And these numbers are only from the age 5 to 17 group.
Conservative numbers put it at 10 percent, which is half a million children that have been wounded and killed from an unneeded, unwanted, experimental gene therapy shot that we were lied to about every step of the way.
Thanks to the OpenVAERS project, which is built upon the VAERS data, the public can easily search these reports and see for themselves.
People are reporting adverse reactions such as chronic pain, loss of hearing and taste, talking gibberish, and acting out aggressively. And these are the mild cases.
There is a tsunami of major brain damage, heart disease and fatalities. Edward Dowd has analyzed the data and has reported an 84 percent increase in deaths among ages 25 through 40, which is the same amount of lives lost to the Vietnam War.
Toby Rogers estimates that Big Pharma kills twice as many people that died in World War II every single year.
The press ignores this because it’s not enough.
They want your newborn babies as well.
Pfizer is pushing to have children as young as 6 months old given a shot that we know is potentially fatal, even though children were never at risk and are still not at risk.
The United States has been force-injecting infants and children with experimental vaccines for years. And now they want to add the infamous ‘clot shot’.
Thanks to virtue-signaling mothers, some children have already been getting it in the womb which is resulting in miscarriages, still births, and deaths from breast feeding on toxic genetically-modified mother’s milk.
Pfizer is planning on submitting another application for emergency use authorization in early April.
That’s about 18 million children under five who could be sacrificed to the altar of Big Pharma and political correctness.
If Pfizer can achieve permanent liability protection from the FDA, who they control, then they can add the mRNA gene therapy shot to the childhood vaccine schedule where it will enjoy permanent liability protection under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
These same crooks are putting a judge on the Supreme Court who openly defends leniency towards crimes that involve child rape.
They’re coming for your children and they will not stop.
If you still care about the human race and are looking for something you can do right now, you can go to Toby Rogers at substack and read his urgent call to action for more info.
Dr. David Martin recently filed the first in a series of lawsuits in Federal Court “to get the truth out” about COVID-19 gene therapy injections and “take back America from the COVID pandemic scare.” In what he calls a “multi-step process,” Martin explains the first lawsuit will put into the public record “that the COVID vaccine is not a vaccine.” Instead, Martin explains the Injections are experimental gene therapies “known to kill people, known to actually stay inside of the human body for over 60 days producing pathogens that are scheduled toxins.”
The lawsuit, Griner v. Biden et al., was filed on Mar. 4, 2022, in the U.S. District Court in Utah on behalf of Devan Griner, MD, a double-board certified surgeon and widely published author who has transformed the lives of hundreds of children in Utah and beyond. Besides naming Joe Biden, defendants include Xavier Becerra of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and its leaders.
Martin maintains we need to stop forcing and bribing people to get the shot, stating, “Those are illegal acts in the United States and cannot be done.” Martin explains that the first lawsuit is in part litigation for discovery—revealing the criminal conspiracy Martin has talked about for years—as much as it is a litigation for the facts, as both are equally important. Martin is confident the disclosures that will have to be filed by the Federal Government in response to the first case “are, in fact, going to be incriminating for our next case.” Looking forward to obtaining evidence of the felony, Martin explained:
“We wrote this case so that the immunity shield falls away from the manufacturers and all of the injuries and deaths become civil liabilities to the manufacturers.”
Martin, who indicated that Utah is the perfect jurisdiction to begin his campaign, pointed out that when a term like “vaccination” is used, the public believes they are getting something that will keep them from getting sick or transmitting sickness. Instead, Martin asserts that after receiving the COVID-19 injection(s), individuals turn into a biological weapons factory. Explaining further, he declares:
“And [vaccination] is actually defined in the statute exactly that it’s the ability to put something into the body that stimulates the immune system. It turns out that the mRNA that’s being injected into people is not that. In fact, specifically, what it does is take a little computer-simulated strand of mRNA, it sends it into the body, and the body becomes a biological weapons factory. It manufacturers spike proteins. The injection does not stimulate any immunity.
[Instead], it is the instructions to make a scheduled pathogen. And the scheduled pathogen is defined under three different parts of the code, but it specifically includes genetic sequences derived from—are you ready for this—SARS coronavirus. That’s actually a scheduled, known toxin on the scheduled list of biological weapons in the United States code.”
The 32-page lawsuit, with 171 pages of Exhibits, begins by highlighting that the CMS mandate requires almost every employee of any healthcare facility receiving Medicaid or Medicaid funding to “receive one of the three Injections authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration as COVID-19 vaccines (the “Injections”).”
CMS Mandate Must Be Struck Down
The suit further explains that Plaintiff, Dr. Griner—who has natural immunity and refuses to take one of the injections—is a “highly skilled and well-known plastic surgeon licensed to practice in Utah whose passion is healing children who suffer from cleft palates and other congenital defects.” The doctor has traveled the world on more than twenty medical missions, donating his time to help unfortunate children. However, the lawsuit asserts that the CMS Mandate prevents Dr. Griner from continuing to heal children—unless he takes one of the Injections. Noting that Dr. Griner enjoys robust and durable natural immunity after having recovered from COVID-19, the lawsuit explains:
Dr. Griner is subject to the CMS Mandate because the hospitals in which he has the right to practice receive CMS funding. Thus, Dr. Griner must choose not just between his “job and the jab,” as the Fifth Circuit has phrased it, he must also choose between pursuing his passion for healing children with congenital defects and taking the Injection. This despite the fact that the only justification for forcing Dr. Griner to take the injection is the assertion that doing so will prevent Dr. Griner from transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to his patients and other health care workers with whom he comes in contact, something the CDC readily admits the Injection simply does not do.
The lawsuit insists the CMS Mandate must be “struck down” because overwhelming evidence—along with admission by the CDC Director—shows that the injections do not prevent transmission, infection, or reinfection in those who receive them. And despite the windfall profits being made by the big pharma giants making the Injections, the CDC has admitted that both the “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” are equally likely to spread COVID-19.
Regardless of CDC Definition Change, Injections Are Treatments, Not Vaccines
Furthermore, the lawsuit states the Injections fail to confer immunity “but are claimed to reduce the severity of symptoms experienced by those infected by SARS-CoV-2.” With this in mind, Plaintiff argues the shots are instead treatments and not vaccines, as that term has already been defined in the law. Displaying the CDC’s changing narrative connected to COVID “vaccines” in the brief, and the fact the CMS Mandate rests squarely on the basis that the Injection prevents transmission, the suit reveals:
In fact, the CDC has actually changed its definitions of “vaccine” and “vaccination” so that the Injections would fit within the new definition. Until recently, the Centers for Disease Control defined a “Vaccine” as: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.
The CDC also previously defined “Vaccination” as: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
Both prior definitions fit the common understanding of those terms. To be vaccinated meant that the recipient should have lasting, robust immunity to the disease targeted by the vaccine.
But on Sept. 1, 2021, the CDC quietly rewrote these definitions. It changed the definition of a “Vaccine” to: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” It changed the definition of “Vaccination” to: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to protection from a specific disease.”
Thus, the CDC has eliminated the word “immunity” from its definitions of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.” Upon information and belief, the CDC did so because it recognizes that the Injections do not produce immunity to the disease known as COVID-19.
This is a critical factual and legal distinction. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental human right. Since the Injections do not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as a matter of fact, they are not “vaccines” as a matter of law. Instead, they are a therapeutic or medical treatment which Dr. Griner has the fundamental human right to refuse.
In great detail, the lawsuit expands on the conviction held by numerous experts that the Injections are treatments, not vaccines. The claim reminds us that the FDA categorizes the shots as “CBER-Regulated Biologics,” otherwise known as “therapeutics,” which falls under the “Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program.”
Indeed, among the eight professional examples offered in the suit to corroborate that the Injections do not create an immunity that prevents the transmission of COVID-19 to others, the case quoted NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci’s declaration to NPR on July 27, 2021, when he stated, “We know now as a fact that [vaccinated people with COVID-19] are capable of transmitting the infection to someone else.” Additionally, the head of the Oxford vaccine team Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, is quoted in the case as saying on Oct. 8, 2021:
“We don’t have anything that will stop transmission, so I think we are in a situation where herd immunity is not a possibility, and I suspect the virus will throw up a new variant that is even better at infecting vaccinated individuals.”
Martin Insists Injections are Gene Therapy Medical Devices
Furthermore, Plaintiff declares that with rapidly waning effects, the Injections are not “vaccines,” but are instead “gene therapy medical devices” and should be appropriately classified as such. As illustrated in the screenshot below, Moderna (Pfizer uses the same technology) recognizes that its mRNA platform is not a vaccine. Instead, it is “gene therapy in the form of biological “software” developed to genetically “hack” the machinery of human cells to construct a specific protein.
Elaborating further on the role the mRNA plays in the Injections, the lawsuit summarizes that the specific protein that human cells are “hacked” to create is the spiked protein of the disease. Essentially, the Injections genetically modify human cells to make the same toxic protein that the disease itself creates—the spiked protein. With no known method to reverse the detrimental effects of the Injections, the lawsuit continues, explaining:
These spiked proteins adhere to the endothelial cells of humans, the very cells that line the entire cardiovascular system. The spike proteins adhere to the interior of the cardiovascular system like thorns on a rose bush, causing a variety of detrimental effects, the short- and long-term impact of which are currently unknown and unknowable.
According to a June 01, 2021, bio-distribution study from the Japanese Regulator Agency, the spike protein of the “…coronavirus gets into the blood where it circulates for several days post-vaccination…” and that it concentrates “…in spleen, liver, adrenals, and ovaries in high concentrations…”
Causes of Action As Campaign Gets Underway
The lawsuit lays out three Causes of Action against Defendants, the first being the “Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process.” According to Plaintiff, the CMS Mandates violates the liberty protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, including “rights of personal autonomy, self-determination, bodily integrity and the right to reject medical treatment.” With no compelling interest available to Defendants to prove the necessity of mandating the shots, Plaintiff again reminds that the Injections “are simply ineffective against the current variant” and were only somewhat effective against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain.
The Second Cause of Action explains Defendant’s Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments related to the Equal Protection Clause, which “prohibits classifications that affect some groups of citizens differently than others.” By creating two classes of healthcare workers—the injected and uninjected—the CMS Mandate dictates the members of one class (the uninjected) get terminated. These unvaccinated employees cannot advance their careers, provide for their families, or pay their mortgages. On the other hand, the injected get to keep their jobs, advance their careers, and pay their bills. Yet, the situations of these two classes are indistinguishable because vaccinated healthcare workers can become infected and reinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and can transmit the disease to fellow workers, patients, and visitors. The lawsuit asserts:
Discriminating against the uninjected controverts the goals of the Equal Protection Clause—i.e., to abolish barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit.
Pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiff is entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the CMS Mandate.
The Third Cause of Action insists that by issuing the CMS Mandate, Defendants are violating the Constitution of the United States “in that they invade and encroach upon sovereign powers that reside solely in the States and have never been relinquished by the States to the Federal Government.” According to the lawsuit, the CMS Mandate rests upon a general police power asserted by the Federal Government—a power it does not have. Therefore, the CMS Mandate is an ultra vires act taken by the Federal Government because the powers the Federal Government claims to assert belong to and are retained by the States.
With the filing of Griner v. Biden, Dr. Martin’s campaign to expose the illegal corruption behind the pandemic “vaccine” narrative is underway. Emphatically, Martin states that without hesitation, the vaccine needs to be called what it is—a gene therapy injection. Noting a desperate need for “truth in advertising,” he explains:
“If we start calling [the “vaccine”] the “gene therapy injection,” a lot less people will roll up their sleeves—and roll up the sleeves of their children—to actually get the shot. And by the way, if you decide to roll up your own sleeve for an experimental gene therapy, have at it, I don’t care. What I do care about is forcing other people to do it, and coercing other people to do it. And holding their jobs or their livelihoods at gunpoint to get them to do it.”
Del Bigtree: “Less than a third of the total population of the United States of America [has received a booster shot]. [The CDC] boasts that it’s about 44% of the vaccinated… That means, at the very best, there’s a 60% group of people, even that are vaccinated, that don’t listen to the CDC any longer!”
Screenshot / 
