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’
When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party.
In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall gun control program, according to David B. Kopel.
Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army.
In his paper titled “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution,” Kopel claims that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s gun control debate.
“The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights,” Kopel writes. “From the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.”
Kopel writes that two important things underlined the American response to the British policies. One was the practical concept of self-defense, which British disarmament measures was making more difficult. The other, and more relevant concept, was that “Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government.”
Following the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, in which the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships carrying East India Company cargo and dumped forty-six tons of tea ships of tea to prevent its landing, the British government introduced a series of retaliatory measures known as the Intolerable Acts. Among the actions was the closure of Boston’s port, effectively cutting off all trade.
However, Kopel writes, “it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them (the Intolerable Acts) that primed many colonists for armed resistance.”
An example of this is a South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate (bold emphasis added).
“When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive. Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.”
The British Army had already been occupying American cities like Boston since 1768, where the notorious Boston Massacre took place in 1770. Following the passage of the intolerable Acts, the Massachusetts Government Act dissolved the provincial government in the state, and General Thomas Gage was appointed royal governor, all which inflamed tensions and prompted backlash from Americans who saw it as the Crown attempted to force their colonies into submission.
Tensions were so great, in fact, that the shooting might have started much earlier than Lexington and Concord. In one incident, General Gage sent Redcoats to squash an “illegal” town meeting in Salem, only to retreat when, according to one of Gage’s aides, three thousand armed Americans arrived.
It was clear to the British that gun control measures would be necessary if they were to maintain their rule. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston, while there were thousands of armed men in Boston and more in the surrounding area.
One solution, Kopel writes, was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder. In September 1774, several hundred Redcoats raided a Charlestown powder house – where militias and merchants stored their gunpowder due to its volatile nature – and seized all but the powder belonging to the colonial government.
“Gage was within his legal rights to seize it,” Kopel concludes. “But the seizure still incensed the public.”
Known as the Powder Alarm, this also nearly started the Revolution when rumors spread wildly that the Redcoats had started shooting. In response, 20,000 militiamen were mobilized that same day and marched on Boston – they later turned around once they learned the truth.
The Powder House (“Magazine”) is near the northern edge of this detail from a 1775 map of the Siege of Boston.
Still, Kopel writes, the message was clear:
“If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that seizure as an act of war, and the militia would fight,” he writes. “And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.”
Following the Powder Alarm, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled at the Worcester Common, where the Worcester Convention ordered the resignations of all militia officers who had received their commissions from the royal governor. The officers promptly resigned, and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention, independent of the British administration.
Governor Gage then tried another approach – warrantless searches of people for arms and ammunition without any provocation. The policy drew fierce criticism from the colonists. In fact, the Boston Gazette wrote that of all General Gage‘s offenses, it was this one that outraged people the most.
In October 1774 the Provincial Congress convened, with John Hancock acting as its president. The Congress adopted a resolution that condemned the military occupation of Boston and called on private citizens to arm themselves and engage in military drills. The Provincial Congress also appointed a Committee of Safety, giving it the power to call up the militia. This meant that the militia of Massachusetts “no longer answered to the British government,” Kopel writes. “It was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.”
Not surprisingly, British officials in England were eager to see outright gun confiscation in order to effectively suppress any resistance to their rule. Lord Dartmouth, the royal Secretary of State for America, articulated this sentiment in a letter to Governor Gage.
“Amongst other things which have occurred on the present occasion as likely to prevent the fatal consequence of having recourse to the sword, that of disarming the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island, has been suggested. Whether such a Measure was ever practicable, or whether it can be attempted in the present state of things you must be the best judge; but it certainly is a Measure of such a nature as ought not to be adopted without almost a certainty of success, and therefore I only throw it out for your consideration.”
Gage warned that the only way to carry it out would be to use violence (bold emphasis added):
“Your Lordship‘s Idea of disarming certain Provinces would doubtless be consistent with Prudence and Safety, but it neither is nor has been practicable without having Recourse to Force, and being Masters of the Country.”
The gun confiscation proposal didn’t remain secret for long, as Gage‘s letter read in the British House of Commons and then publicized in America. Two days after Dartmouth’s letter was sent, King George III ordered the blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America, save those with governments permits. No permit, Kopel writes, was ever granted, and the ban would remain in effect until after the War of Independence ended and the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.
Having banned the import on all guns and ammunition, the British moved next to seize that which remained in colonial hands. In anticipation of such a seizure at Fort William and Mary in December 1774, four hundred New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort.
Eventually, Kopel writes “Americans no longer recognized the royal governors as the legitimate commanders-in-chief of the militia. So without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors.”
It was such a militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord against Gage’s Redcoats in April 1775. Following the battle, the colonials lay siege to Boston. The British response in other colonies was a swift move to confiscate or destroy firearms. In Virginia, they seized twenty barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and removed the firing mechanisms in the guns, making them impossible to shoot.
Meanwhile, in Boston, General Gage carried out his own gun confiscation policy against the remaining Bostonians, but having learned his lesson from Lexington and Concord, he tried a more furtive approach by offering them the opportunity to leave town if they gave up their arms. Within days, Kopel writes, 2,674 guns were handed over to the British. Gage then promptly turned back on his promise and initially refused to allow anyone to leave. Only food shortages led him to permit more emigration from the city.
Although there is room for speculation as to what would have happened had the American colonies lost the War of Independence, historical documents make some things very clear. When a British victory seemed likely in 1777, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan titled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” Intended to prevent any further rebellions in America, the plan called on the establishment of the Church of England in all the colonies, along with a hereditary aristocracy.
But the most ominous measure it would have enacted would have been a permanent standing army, along with the following (emphasis added):
The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, [and] the Arms of all the People should be taken away . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . .”
Many gun control policies in America today follow the British blueprint. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed suitable for “sporting” purposes by federal regulators. Certain cities openly declare their gun fees are intended not to prevent the wrong people from owning guns, but to discourage all private citizens from owning them.
“To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era,” Kopel writes, “the late twentieth century claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, or their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began.”
Yet, Kopel believes “the most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament,” something that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Local law enforcement confiscated firearms, many times at gunpoint. A federal district judge properly issued an order finding the gun confiscation to be illegal.
“Gun ownership simpliciter ought never be a pretext for government violence,” Kopel concludes. “The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the twenty-first century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.”
It is easy to see, then, why modern gun control advocates are the spiritual successors of the British government our forefathers opposed, for while gun grabbers call for restrictions on the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, they are all but silent on the dangers of having standing army in America or the blatant militarization of police departments.
As you should know by now, the threat facing free humanity is not a secret conspiracy but a perfectly open one. Those seeking to monopolize the resources of the planet and institute a system of perfect technocratic control are, generally speaking, not secretive about their plans. On the contrary. Any number of publicly available records—from books and white papers to blog posts, fora and lectures—give an interested public plenty of lead time to prepare for the next steps in the unfolding globalist agenda.
So, in the grand Corbett Report tradition of Listening to the Enemy, let’s employ one of the simplest methods for understanding what’s coming next in the global plan: let’s consult the would-be world controllers’ own calendar.
JUNE 2022: Stockholm+50
As post-graduate students of The University of Corbett, you will already know about the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden in 1972 . . . but in case you need a refresher, you might want to consult How & Why Big Oil Conquered the World, where you can learn all about that Stockholm summit.
In addition to being Maurice Strong’s entrée into the exciting (and lucrative) world of Big Oil environmentalism, the conference also laid the groundwork for the UN-fronted corporate takeover of the world’s resources under the pretense of “saving Mother Earth.” It served a triple function for the globalists: it launched the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), it provided a template for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, and it hosted the first talking shop for what would become Agenda 21 and, eventually, Agenda 2030.
Well, guess what? It’s baaaaack.
That’s right, our good, planet-loving overlords at the United Nations are back to the scene of the crime to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Stockholm conference with a new summit in the Swedish capital, this one with the characteristically uninspired name “Stockholm+50: a healthy planet for the prosperity of all – our responsibility, our opportunity.”
Lest you think “Stockholm+50” is simply going to be an excuse for the global jet set to pat themselves on the back with a couple of forgettable political speeches or the unveiling of a new plaque, you should know that a great deal of planning has gone into this:
The UN General Assembly has passed not one but two resolutions on the establishment of the conference and its agenda;
A “blog by jurists for diplomats” entitled Pathway to the 2022 Declaration has been launched to influence the conversation surrounding the “Political Declaration” (capital letters and all) that “will be adopted” at the conference (emphasis theirs);
And yet another website has been set up to host the “Declaration for Stockholm+50,” which may or may not be the “Political Declaration” referenced above and which has been endorsed by a gaggle of globalist NGOs.
In addition to all of this, Stockholm will also host “World Environment Day 2022” on June 5th, 2022, the anniversary of the creation of UNEP.
So what is all this hype about, exactly? Oh, just the usual globalist claptrap. By “the usual globalist claptrap” I mean the takeover of the planet and its resources by the predator class, of course. But don’t take my word for that. From the aforementioned Declaration for Stockholm+50:
On October 8, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) recognized the “right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.” For this right to be implemented, structural changes to the legal, economic, social, political, and technological spheres will be required to restore a stable and well-functioning Earth System. A shared consciousness of our global interdependence must give rise to a new common logic, to define and recognize the global commons that support life on Earth — the planetary system that connects us all and on which we all depend. This is a foundational step toward the establishment of a governance system to effectively manage human interactions with the Earth System.
Yes, exactly as one would expect, the “save the planet” slogan is being used as a rallying cry for . . .
( . . . wait for it . . .)
. . . the strengthening of global government! Wow, who would have seen that one coming?
Specifically, after vague and wooly rhetoric about “implementing the right to a healthy environment” and “establishing a regenerative economy,” the declaration ends by imploring the good folks at the United Nations to give themselves more power! Yaaaay!
The long-term governance of the global commons, the delivery of global public goods, and management of global public risks all require a permanent system of effective governance to reliably manage our interactions with the Earth System as a whole. For example, a proposal to repurpose the inactive United Nations Trusteeship Council has been widely discussed, including most recently in the UN Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda (OCA) report.
Something tells me that in the history-by-the-winners textbook of the future, June 5th, 2022 will be hailed as the day that the brave and benevolent bureaucrats of the UN saved the planet by bestowing their gracious global government on us. (” . . . and the people of the earth commemorate this momentous event in a prayer of thanks to their UN leaders before the intake of their daily ration of bugs and rainwater.”)
But wait! What does it say on the declaration’s “About” page?
This Conference should be used as an “ideas laboratory” to develop innovative solutions for the commons, economy, and governance, which will become the seeds of action at the 2023 Summit of the Future, as foreseen in the UN Secretary General’s Our Common Agenda report.
A 2023 Summit of the Future? Oh yes. Which brings us to the next date on our globalist calendar . . .
September 2023: Summit of the Future
Last September, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres launched an 85-page report entitled “Our Common Agenda.” According to a write-up from Democracy International, the report offers a “roadmap for upgrading the UN” and “calls for reinvigorated multilateralism, renewed solidarity and stronger consideration of future generations.”
Exactly as you would expect, the report’s Summary begins by reminding us of the (globalist-concocted) “existential crises” that (the globalists constantly warn us) are threatening humanity’s existence, such as COVID-19, geopolitical conflict and (of course) climate change. Naturally, this immediately turns into a demand that the peoples of the world:
“re-embrace global solidarity,” which evidently entails “a global vaccination plan to deliver vaccines against COVID-19 into the arms of the millions of people who are still denied this basic lifesaving measure”;
“renew the social contract between Governments and their people and within societies,” which evidently entails “updated governance arrangements to deliver better public goods and usher in a new era of universal social protection, health coverage, education, skills, decent work and housing, as well as universal access to the Internet by 2030 as a basic human right”;
“end the ‘infodemic’ plaguing our world by defending a common, empirically backed consensus around facts, science and knowledge,” which evidently entails adopting “a global code of conduct that promotes integrity in public information”;
. . . and a host of other globalist imperatives, from the creation of a new UN-led “Emergency Platform” that will be “triggered automatically in crises of sufficient scale and magnitude, regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved,” to the adoption of a new UN-led “Global Digital Compact” for “promoting a trustworthy Internet by introducing accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content.”
In other words, the usual globalist claptrap.
But embedded in this pean to global government is another idea: the convening of a “Summit of the Future” in conjunction with the meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2023. Picking up on the current Klaus Schwabian globalese in vogue among the not-so-Superclass these days, Guterres writes that “it will be important to hold a high-level, multi-stakeholder ‘Summit of the Future’ to advance ideas for governance arrangements in the areas of international concern mentioned in this report, and potentially others, where governance arrangements are nascent or require updating.”
If you’ve been keeping up with the MSM lately, you might have noticed that this “Summit of the Future” idea has gained traction with the globalist supergophers, including recently deceased ex-Secretary of State Madeline “The Price Was Worth It” Albright, who penned an editorial last October calling “Our Common Agenda” a “pathbreaking new report” and calling on UN member states to “endorse a follow-on ‘modalities resolution’ supporting Guterres’s call for a Summit of the Future in September 2023.” In order to put teeth into this globalist chinwag, Albright argued that “preparatory committees (PrepComs) should be convened around the world” prior to the summit “to consider and advance global governance innovations in peace, security and humanitarian action; sustainable development and COVID-19 recovery; human rights, inclusive governance, and the rule of law; and climate governance.”
But it isn’t just the Pax Americana old guard who are excited about the prospects of reshaping the world order. As veteran Corbett Reporteers will know, the Chinese overlords, too, are all in on this agenda and excited for the possibility of consolidating their control over their own population and moving to a more important seat at the globalist technocratic table. Accordingly, ChiCom propaganda organ China Daily released a report in January dutifully parroting Guterres’ assessment of the “five-alarm fire” that the world is facing from COVID-19, inequality, the climate crisis, mistrust of government and online misinformation. This was followed last month by a Xinhua report that hails “the establishment of a high-level advisory board on effective multilateralism” and notes that the Summit of the Future will “advance ideas for governance arrangements in certain areas that could be considered global public goods or global commons, including climate and sustainable development beyond 2030, the international financial architecture, peace, outer space, the digital space, major risks, and the interests of future generations.”
The accolades for Guterres’ brilliant report (which he totally wrote all by himself, guys, honest!) and his brilliant idea for a summit (which he is single-handedly organizing all on his lonesome) continue to pour in. The Qatari and Swedish UN ambassadors co-wrote an op ed in Al Jazeera hailing the idea as a chance to “move toward a UN 2.0,” and the World Future Council (yes, there is such a thing) has generously pledged the support of their “50 international change-makers” to prepare the summit.
As the World Future Council notes: “a Summit for the Future will be essential towards accelerating the implementation of the SDGs and ensuring that the talks and discussions finally turn into actions on the ground to truly leave no one behind.”
But wait: it gets worse! The same UN General Assembly meeting that will host the Summit of the Future will also be hosting a “UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development,” which, the SDG Knowledge Hub helpfully informs us, takes place every four years and gives our global overlords yet another opportunity for scheming how best to transform the world into a neofeudal slave plantation!
Consider this upcoming conference a threat, add “Summit of the Future” to whatever rss reader or news alert system you use and circle the date on your calendar. Whatever comes out of this conference, it’s going to be bad news for free humanity.
MAY 2024: WHO Global Pandemic Treaty
Speaking of bad news for free humanity, you’ve probably heard me talking about the upcoming WHO global pandemic treaty by now. But don’t worry if you haven’t heard me talk about it, because you certainly will hear me talk about it more in the future.In case you haven’t heard of it yet, the next big push in global biopolitics is the call for a global pandemic treaty to further abrogate national sovereignty and to hand more power to the WHO to dictate global health policy in the name of stopping the next scamdemic. As I’ve stressed several times now, just as 9/11 was merely the public unveiling of the new “war on terror” governance paradigm, the COVID scamdemic was merely the public unveiling of the new “biosecurity” governance paradigm. It is this proposed global pandemic treaty that will start to hardwire that new governance paradigm into place, much like the PATRIOT Act began to hardwire the terror paradigm in place in the US.
The campaign pushing the formation of this treaty relies on an obvious Problem – Reaction – Solution narrative to nudge the public into accepting the next steps in the biosecurity agenda.
Problem: The WHO “failed” miserably in stopping the COVID “pandemic” from “ravaging the world.”
Reaction: We need a global health organization with teeth!
Solution: A global pandemic treaty must be signed to hand more power to the WHO.
Once you realize that all proposals for giving more power to a small clique of unaccountable bureaucrats is introduced in this way—”you never want a serious crisis go to waste” as Rahm Emmanuel infamously observed—the manipulation becomes obvious. An “independent panel” set up to “review” the “problem” of the WHO’s “failed” response to the scamdemic delivered a report in January that—to the surprise of absolutely no one—concluded that “the WHO’s ability to enforce its advice, or enter countries to investigate the source of disease outbreaks, is severely curtailed” and thus new rules need to be set up at the global level to give the WHO more power to police the world for health threats. They even called it the WHO’s “Chernobyl moment,” implying that it should use this “disaster” as a chance to implement fundamental reforms.
Details of precisely what such a treaty will involve—or even what form it will take—are still maddeningly vague. The proposed new treaty would be, in UN jargon, an “instrument,” of which there are three types: recommendations, conventions and regulations. Regulations (like the International Health Regulations of 2005) are automatically legally binding for all 194 WHO member states unless they explicitly object. Measures that could be ontained in such a treaty may include “the sharing of data and genome sequences of emerging viruses and rules on equitable vaccine distribution” and a “One Health approach” that “connects the health of humans, animals and the planet.”
In other words, the usual globalist claptrap.
One hardly needs to be a conspiracy realist to understand how such mushy-sounding goodness and gumdrops from the WHO could be used to implement a very dark biosecurity agenda. Whatever the specifics, you can bet your bottom dollar that all of the worst aspects of biomedical tyranny—from new regulations to rush experimental medical interventions through human trials in the event of a declared emergency to the standardization of vaccine passports—will be topics of discussion when the negotiations on the treaty begin in earnest.
Don’t worry, though, you can still let your voice be heard! The WHO has even opened up a special page on their website to allow public comment on the potential treaty!
. . . Of course, they’re not interested in hearing whether or not people actually want such a treaty in the first place, only what the hoi polloi feel should be included in such a treaty. Specifically, they’re asking:
“What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?”
And even then, they’re not looking to hear from everyone. In fact, they have an entire page laying out the terms and conditions by which you can submit a comment in the first place, including stipulations that those wishing to comment “Refrain from making any statements unrelated to the topic at hand,” that they present their comments “in a respectful manner, free of any profanity, ad hominem attacks, vulgarity, or other inappropriate language” and that they “declare the entity [they] represent and any other affiliations, engagement, or roles relevant to the public hearings or to WHO, in light of its mandate.” Oh, and please keep in mind “that WHO is not able to ensure that all interested parties will be able to participate in the public hearings, and that thus WHO does not make any commitment or undertaking to allow you to participate in the public hearings.”
But other than that, they totally want to hear from you.
. . . Oh, wait. Scratch that. The deadline for the public to submit their comments has already passed. I guess we’re too late. Hmmm, perhaps we should have consulted the globalist calendar sooner.
This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.
To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.
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.
Dr. Tom Cowan on “the Snake Venom Stuff”: Covid Caused by a Specific Snake Venom Is Looking Like Pure Fantasy & Remdesivir Is Definitely Not Snake Venom
Right I can imagine there still may be a lot of questions about the snake venom stuff. And we are still looking into that, so I don’t want to say too much.
For those of you who want something to look at right away, I would say I would check out Amandha Vollmer’s — she did a webinar or talk or something. And if somebody has that they could put that in the chat. So that would be a good place to start.
There’s been a lot of other people who’ve weighed in on that. And all I can say for sure that we found out right now is that remdesivir is definitely not snake venom. And that putting any kind of snake venom in the water and have it orally ingested would probably do nothing. In fact it would do nothing.
And the idea that there’s a covid specific disease caused by a specific poisoning with a specific snake venom is looking like pure fantasy.
But hopefully we’ll have more information about that. In the meantime, there’s some places to check out that really go through this in some detail.
For those interested in the difference between being bitten (or injected) with snake venom and drinking venom (note that this is pure venom, not diluted in a vast water supply), we share this video:
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.
“But it is important to remember that conspiracies cannot succeed if people are wise to what is happening.
By researching and exposing wrong-doing, we can shake off our status as helpless and passive spectators of history in order to become active and engaged participants, part of the resistance.
Charles and his ruling-class collaborators have to dress up their insidious agenda as “doing good”, as “philanthropy” or “conservation”, because they know that otherwise the rest of us would not go along with it.
Once this illusion has been destroyed and the horrible reality exposed, then decent people everywhere will turn their backs definitively on these vile parasites and their evil empire of exploitation.”
When the Great Reset was officially launched in 2O2O, it was not done so by Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates, but by Charles, Prince of Wales, heir apparent to the British throne.
Born in Buckingham Place in 1948, Charles is best known worldwide for his failed marriage to Lady Diana Spencer, who died in a road crash in Paris in 1997, a year after their divorce.
His official website announced on June 3 2020: “Today, through HRH’s Sustainable Markets Initiative and the World Economic Forum, The Prince of Wales launched a new global initiative, The Great Reset”.
A royal tweet declared: “#TheGreatReset initiative is designed to ensure businesses and communities ‘build back better’ by putting sustainable business practices at the heart of their operations as they begin to recover from the coronavirus pandemic”.
This may come as a bit of a surprise to those who see Charles as a bumbling but affable figure, who talks to his plants, loves traditional architecture, protects nature and tries to help young people get along in life.
But the reality, as we will show here, is that he is the head (or the very willing figurehead) of a vast empire of nefarious financial interests hiding hypocritically behind a facade of charitable philanthropy.
2. Global goals
Charles has been very busy over the last 50 years or so, establishing an alliance of organisations called The Prince’s Charities, which describes itself as “the largest multi-cause charitable enterprise in the United Kingdom”.
These have also spread overseas to create a bewildering global web of trusts, foundations and funds.
To make things simpler, we will focus here on just a few of the better-known organisations, starting in the the UK with Business in the Community.
This body describes itself as “the largest and longest established business-led membership organisation dedicated to responsible business”, having been initially established in 1982 as The Prince’s Responsible Business Network.
Its agenda is very much in line with all the key elements of the Great Reset.
It declares, for instance: “Business in the Community (BITC) is working with business to accelerate the pace and scale of action to deliver against the United Nations Global Goals, also known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”.
The great news for Charles’s money-loving entourage is that “running their businesses responsibly” in line with the UNSDGs “also opens business market opportunities”.
Business in the Community boasts its own WEF-style “Future Leaders Board” and in 2017 was already insisting, like Klaus Schwab, that “business must ensure an inclusive digital revolution”.
Its report called “A Brave New World?” features all the familiar Great Reset “priorities”, such as inclusivity (“Build digital access, capability and confidence to allow all to benefit from the digital economy”) and lifelong learning (“Prepare employees. Provide digital skills and lifelong learning to create an adaptable workforce”).
It looks ahead to a Fourth Industrial Revolution (“Anticipate automation. Create new roles, where technology complements humans, and support communities to manage the transition”) with bigger profit margins naturally being its aim (“Transition to new business models that cut waste and increase asset productivity”).
There is an early mention of the “track and trace” phrase which became so familiar during the lockdowns (“Track, trace and resolve”) with a plug for Blockverify, “a London-based start-up that uses technology to track, record, and verify products in a way that is permanently logged in the blockchain… Blockverify has been piloting solutions with pharmaceutical and beauty companies”.
The report promotes smart agriculture in the form of Unilever’s Marcatus Mobile Education Platform, “a collaboration between Unilever, Oxfam and Ford Foundation to train smallholder farmers in rural areas” which aims for “additional farm revenues of £1.5 trillion by 2030”.
It concludes by giving “thanks to our corporate partners, Barclays and Fujitsu, for supporting our programme of work to create an inclusive digital revolution”.
The Prince’s Trust Group expands this same agenda across the Commonwealth, the vast sphere of influence formerly known as the British Empire.
It describes itself as “a global network of charities” delivering “education, employment, enterprise and environmental projects that enable young people and communities to thrive”.
It is all about “transforming lives and building sustainable communities”, it seems.
One of its reports tells us: “During 2020/21, together with our partners we supported 60,146 young people in 16 countries across the Commonwealth and beyond: Australia, Barbados, Canada, Ghana, Greece, India, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, Rwanda, Trinidad & Tobago and the United Kingdom. We also began our work in St Lucia and the USA”.
The Prince’s Trust is joined in this task by another important node of Charles’ network, the British Asian Trust, as we will shortly see.
3. Impact imperialism
The impact industry is a sinister entity which, over the last few years of research, we have found lurking under every dubious stone we have turned.
Impact profiteering is very much tied in with the Great Reset and its Fourth Industrial Revolution, which aims to set up the infrastructure through which this new form of digital serfdom can be imposed.
Inevitably, then, the impact agenda is very present throughout Charles’ empire, even if somewhat hidden from casual view.
Sometimes it is just the word itself that gives the game away.
Business in the Community, for instance, says on its site that it works with its members “to continually improve their responsible business practice, leveraging the collective impact for the benefit of communities”.
“Impact” crops up three times on the introductory page.
It appears again on the page consecreated to BITC’s entirely predictable commitment to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, those cornerstones of impact capitalism. The term “positive impact” is here linked to another related buzzword, “purpose”.
The impact theme is also very much embraced by The Prince’s Trust, which is very keen on “digital and blended programmes” and “online business simulation games”.
In line with the Great Reset promoted by its founder, it used Covid to advance a hyper-industrial agenda, describing in one post how it had been measuring its “digital impact”.
It was pleaed to report that 61% of its respondents said “online learning had supported them to make changes in their life, with the majority developing new skills and making plans for the future”.
One of the tools which the Trust uses for what it worryingly terms “digital programming” is something called Vibe Check.
This bespoke programme, aimed at young people, is a “free (fancy that!) interactive personal development tool delivered via WhatsApp, that creates a safe and supportive online space for them to develop key life skills”.
“The programme has piloted in Barbados and Ghana during 2020 and early 2021, using innovative automation technology to tailor each young person’s experience with the service.
“Designed for the needs of young people in each country it rolls out in, Vibe Check focuses on confidence, communication and managing feelings in Barbados, and self-employment and entrepreneurship in Ghana”.
This obsession with developing “new digital processes for gathering data”, hidden behind a do-good facade, is classic impact-think.
Indeed, the Prince’s Trust International boasts its very own Head of Impact, Diletta Morinello, a professional “impact measurer”.
In January 2020, just before the Covid moment, Morinello was recruiting a data analyst “as we start our exciting new 5-year strategy” and “significantly upscale our operations”.
The role was “to ensure our data is robust and supports our ability to accurately and effectively monitor our impact on young peoples’ [sic] experiences of education and employment as well as our financial performance and fundraising.
“Impact will need to be measured across a range of programmes or interventions, with a range of stakeholders across the world”.
Impact, data, stakeholders… three terms from the same familiar crib sheet.
It is, however, with his British Asian Trust that Charles exposes most fully his involvement with the insidious world of impact imperialism.
He founded this organisation in 2007 with a group of well-connected British Asian businesspeople.
Although the British Asian Trust prefers the term “social finance”, it does little else to hide its impact agenda.
Its website even proudly displays a recommendation from the “father” of impact investment Ronald Cohen, who declares: “What the British Asian Trust is doing in social finance is truly groundbreaking: it is capable of delivering vital social improvement at scale”.
Indeed, as we have previously reported, Cohen gives an approving mention to Charles and the British Asian Trust in his 2020 book Impact: Reshaping Capitalism to Drive Real Change.
The Trust, of course, claims to be “improving” the lives of children and young people in Asia “in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 on quality education”.
It says: “The Quality Education India Development Impact Bond (QEI DIB) is an innovative results-based funding mechanism that aims to improve learning outcomes for more than 200,000 primary school children”.
And then it adds: “As the QEI DIB progresses, we aim to create an education rate card, setting out the costs of delivering specific outcomes at scale. Such a card can be used by government and funders to make informed policy and spending decisions and improve education across the whole country”.
This is what impact is all about. The “cost” of meeting UNSDGs is calculated and “stakeholders” take on this cost from public purse. If the “outcomes” tick all the right boxes they will be reimbursed, plus a little extra to make their “investment” worthwhile.
In the meantime, the lives of these children, bundled together “at scale”, are turned into financial commodities – like the bundles of sub-prime mortgage debts that prompted the 2008 crash – which can be tracked, traced and traded in real time via 5G/6G and the “inclusive” global digital panopticon.
Speculators can bet on the “success” of these children’s lives or against it – little matter, as long as they are available as products for this vast new profitable market.
As we have previously warned, “social finance” or impact investing reduces human beings to the status of potential investments, sources of profit for wealthy ruling vampires.
It is a digital slave trade.
4. Powerful players
So what kind of people and organisations are involved in Charles’ global network?
Let’s start with Business in the Community. This label is probably intended to conjure up fond images of tiny cornershops in English market towns (like Grantham?) or of organic Buddhist basket-weaving start-ups in Charles’ pseudo-traditional Poundbury development.
But no. As we would expect from the launcher of the Great Reset, theproject is a typical corporatist mixture of public and private sector, uniting loyal servants of the British empire with their extremely well-heeled friends in the world of big business and high finance.
BITC’s dauntingly long list of members includes the likes of Accenture and Unilever (both hailed by Cohen for their participation in his nefarious impact scam) and Big Pharma businesses AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer.
While the BBC, Sky, Facebook and Google presumably constitute the propaganda and censorship wing, British Airways, easyJet, Heathrow Airport Limited, Shell UK and BP were no doubt all included for their special contribution to environmental sustainability.
Charles’ passion for the health of his family’s grateful subjects is reflected in the inclusion, alongside Knorr’s Quick Soups manufacturers Unilever, of Greggs and PepsiCo UK.
We also find the likes of the Bank of America, McKinsey (the US consultancy firm controversially employed by Emmanuel Macron in France) and Morgan Stanley (the WEF partner and impact investor remembered for its financing of both Hitler and Mussolini).
Other Business in the Community members are arms dealers Rolls Royce and Thales Group, superb examples of what Charles has in mind with “responsible” business activity.
The organisation is governed by a Board of Trustee Directors. This is chaired by Gavin Patterson, president and chief revenue officer of Salesforce, the cloud computing business headed by billionaire Marc Benioff, owner of Time magazine and inaugural chair of the WEF’s Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco.
Another director is Dame Vivian Hunt, senior partner, UK and Ireland, of the aforementioned McKinsey. A member of the secretive Trilateral Commission, she is the former chair of British American Business, an exclusive transatlantic business networking group.
Mark Weinberg
One of the vice-presidents is Sir Mark Weinberg, “a South African-born British financier who co-founded J. Rothschild Assurance, which later became St James’s Place Wealth Management, and is chairman of blockchain company Atlas City Global“.
The advisory board features Sir Ian Michael Cheshire, formerly chairman of Barclays UK and currently chairman of Menhaden plcwith its “long only, multi-asset investment strategy which seeks to provide the best balance between risk & reward across equity, credit & private universes” offering “asymmetric risk-reward pay-offs”.
Alongside this banker sits none other than Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the UK’s Trades Union Congress (TUC). As befits a representative of the British working class, O’Grady is also a non-executive director at the Bank of England.
Owen Marks
Finally, on the BITC’s Community Leadership Board we find none other than Owen Marks of everybody’s favourite vaccine manufacturer, Pfizer.
There he incarnates the striking overlap between the world of Big Pharma and the world of “woke” impact-intersectionality, co-chairing the Pfizer UK Inclusive Diversity Group with its focus on “OPEN (LGBTQ), Ethnicity, Gender, DisAbility and Cross Generational and Social Mobility”.
Let’s next turn to The Prince’s Trust Group, the global network of charities founded by Charles in 1976.
The UK entity involves very much same kind of people as Business in the Community.
Its council is chaired by John Booth, an “entrepreneur and philanthropist” who boasts “a range of venture capital interests in e-commerce, media and telecommunications”.
It features two former partners at Goldman Sachs: Michelle Pinggera and Ian Mukherjee, who went on to found Amiya Capital, a “global emerging markets fund”.
There is also Suzy Neubert, former global head of distribution at JO Hambro Capital Management, and Mark Dearnley, previously a “digital transformation” advisor with global management consulting firm, Bain & Company.
The council’s vice-president is Michael Marks, former chairman of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers and founding partner of MZ Capital and NewSmith Capital Partners LLP.
It is informative to note the people and businesses with which the Prince’s Trust group is enmeshed worldwide.
In New Zealand, chairman of the Prince’s Trust board is Andrew Williams, co-chairman of Alvarium – “With $15 billion in assets under management globally, Alvarium is a collaboration between wealthy families, entrepreneurs and institutions in Asia, the Gulf and Americas”.
The Australian entity’s corporate sponsors include Macquarie, Australia’s largest investment bank, while in Canada, the Prince’s Trust is supported by Finistra (working hard “to accelerate digital banking”) and by Bank of America.
Its supporters also include Scotiabank, KPMG and arms dealer Lockheed Martin.
Over at the British Asian Trust, one member of the Board of Trustees is Farzana Baduel, former vice-chair of business relations for the Conservative Party and founder/CEO of Curzon PR.
She appeared in The Times in May 2021 to explain how much she loved “remote working”, that mainstay of the “New Normal” promoted under the Great Reset.
Another is Varun Chandra, managing partner of “London-based corporate intelligence specialist” Hakluyt, whose astonishing recent £12.8 million rise in profits was “helped by the reduction in staff travel thanks to the pandemic”, according toThe Times.
In the words of one media report, “Hakluyt is an ultra secretive firm whose client list reads like a who’s who of the business world with corporations retaining their services for strategic intelligence and advice as they look to expand operations”.
The British Asian Trust site says of Chandra: “Trained at Lehman Brothers, he went on to help build a regulated advisory firm for former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair“.
Also on the board are Dr Shenila Rawal (who previously worked for the World Bank) and Ganesh Ramani, former partner at Goldman Sachs.
Ramani in fact has a family connection to the Trust’s Big Chief, having married Ruth Powys, widow of Mark Shand, brother of Charles’s wife Camilla.
Vice-chairs are Asif Rangoonwala (once described by The Independent as “powerboat playboy, bakery baron, property plutocrat”) and Shalni Arora, who has a background in Big Pharma with AstraZeneca and DxS Ltd and is the wife of retail magnate Simon Arora of B&M Bargains.
Jitesh Gadhia
Chair of the Board of Trustees is investment banker Lord Jitesh Gadhia, who has worked for Barclays Capital, ABN AMRO and Baring Brothers.
He was previously senior managing director at global investment business Blackstone in London. On being appointed there in 2010, he enthused: “Blackstone’s powerful network of relationships, access to capital and expanding geographic reach, across developed and emerging markets, offers a unique proposition for clients”.
Gadhia was also – surprise, surprise! – a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader.
5. Banksters, cheats and spooks
From any genuinely ethical vantage point, the business activities of those involved with Charles’ empire are, in themselves, cause for concern.
But the problem goes further than that. The amount of controversy and scandal surrounding numerous participants in his various projects makes one wonder how someone who likes to be referred to as “His Royal Highness” can associate with so many examples of what most of us would regard as low life.
Here are some illustrations:
HSBC is the Prince’s Trust’s Global Founding Corporate Partner and is praised in its Impact Report for its “transformational investment in young people”, being identified as “one of our most committed and loyal supporters”. Never mind that the British-based bankers have a long history of vast tax avoidance schemes and criminal activity such as money laundering. Dubbed “gangster bankers” involved in “stupefying abuses”, Charles’ loyal supporters even “hooked up with drug traffickers and terrorists”, explains this 2013 article.
KPMG (Business in the Community and Prince’s Trust, Canada) has faced “multiple accusations of negligence, fraud, and conflicts of interest stretching back years” and was recently involved in a giant “cheating scandal“.
NatWest (Business in the Community) was fined £264.8 million in December 2021 for failing to comply with money-laundering regulations.
Bank of America (Prince’s Trust) faced boycott calls after spying on its customers’ activities for the FBI with regard to the January 6 2021 protests in Washington, DC.
Goldman Sachs International (Business in the Community, Ganesh Ramani of British Asian Trust) is afflicted by so many “controversies” that even Wikipedia devotes a whole page to them!
Lockheed Martin (Prince’s Trust, Canada). The arms dealer is notorious for its many bribery scandals.
Macquarie. (Prince’s Trust, Australia). Australia’s largest investment bank was involved in a recent $80 billion controversy labelled the “biggest bank scandal in history“.
Scotiabank (Prince’s Trust, Canada) had to pay out more than US$120 million dollars in 2020 because of its price-manipulation activities.
Jitesh Gadhia (British Asian Trust), a Conservative Party donor in the UK, was involved in David Cameron’s “cash for access” scandal in 2014 and in 2018 he was accused of a conflict of interest because he had become a director of fracking business Third Energy, while also being a non-executive director at UK Government Investments.
Shalni Arora (British Asian Trust). Her husband Simon hit the headlines in 2021 for handing himself a massive payout of £30 million. His firm, B&M bargains, had enjoyed a surge in sales because of its “essential” status during Covid lockdowns.
Varun Chandra (British Asian Trust). His firm, Hakluyt, saysThe Times, advises FTSE 100 companies and “was founded 27 years ago by former MI6 intelligence officers”. An article in The Evening Standard describes the business as “very secretive Mayfair company full of spooks” and “a convenient rest home for MI6 men”. “The company attracted unwelcome publicity in 2001 when it emerged it had used an undercover agent known as Manfred to penetrate environmental groups targeting Shell and BP”. And Hakluyt was again forced into the media limelight in 2012 due to “the mysterious death of one of its occasional investigators in a Chinese hotel room”.
Finally, Charles himself has been caught up in various controversies over the years, not least regarding his role in helping arms dealer BAE Systems sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.
Reported Scotland’s The National: “MP Margaret Ferrier said Princess Diana would have campaigned against its bombing raids on Yemen, which allegedly involve the use of banned cluster munitions, and claimed Charles was part of a ‘great effort’ to maintain the market”.
And then, of course there there was that unfortunate incident in the Paris tunnel back in 1997…
Aga Khan
6. The bringer of light?
One particularly intriguing figure in Charles’ global network is another man who likes to be known as “His Highness”, namely The Aga Khan.
Khan is none other than the Global Founding Patron of the Prince’s Trust and, its site tells us, “supports the delivery of The Trust’s work in the UK and Canada and through local partners in India, Jordan, Kenya, Pakistan, Rwanda and the Caribbean (Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago and Jamaica)”.
The business magnate has British, Swiss, French and Portuguese citizenship and his fingers in many a global pie.
One 2016 profile explains: “As founder and Chairman of the Geneva-based Aga Khan Development Network, he spearheads an organisation that employs 80,000 people in 30 countries, and spans non-profit work in poverty-stricken and war-torn areas of the globe, along with a huge portfolio of very-much-for-profit businesses in sectors ranging from aviation and energy to telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and luxury hotels”.
Khan’s net worth has been estimated at $13.3 billion and he is described as one of the world’s fifteen richest “royals”, although he does not actually rule over any particular geographic territory.
Instead he is the spiritual leader of some 20 million Ismaili Muslims, who donate significant sums to him and worship him as the “bringer of light”.
Khan is a personal friend of Charles and his mum, Queen Elizabeth II, as well as of the Spanish king Juan Carlos.
He is also said to have long connections to British intelligence services and other deep state networks.
Khan has been involved in a number of international scandals.
In 2012 it emerged that, although resident in France, he had been “exonerated” from paying any tax by the country’s former president Nicolas Sarkozy.
This, explained The Daily Mail, meant that he could protect his vast fortune across the Channel “despite being worth as much as £6 billion and owning mansions, yachts, private jets, some 800 race horses and even a private island in the Bahamas”.
Then, in 2017, controversy broke out in Canada when it was discovered that prime minister Justin Trudeau had spent a holiday on a private Caribbean island owned by Khan.
While he was there, he also took a ride in the bringer of light’s private helicopter.
Since the Khan’s foundation “receives millions from the Canadian government”, questions were asked about a certain conflict of interest!
Trudeau reassured the public that there was nothing to worry about because “the Aga Khan has been a longtime family friend”.
But he nevertheless became the first Canadian prime minister to be found in violation of ethics law and was forced to publicly apologize.
Khan is also close friends with the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds.
In a speech at New York’s Plaza Hotel in October 1996, David Rockefeller said: “His Highness The Aga Khan is a man of vision, intellect, and passion. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing him for almost forty years, ever since he was an undergraduate at Harvard and a roommate of my nephew Jay Rockefeller”.
For his part, Khan expressed “warm thanks” to Rockefeller, adding: “He, his family, and his philanthropic organisations have been close to my family, our work, and me, for many years. I admire them for their consistent and exemplary commitment to world issues”.
A message from their mutual pal Lord Rothschild praised Khan for his “promotion of private sector enterprise and rural development”.
7. Neo-colonial land-grabbing
Khan, Rockefeller and Rothschild are also united by their common membership of the 1001 Club of the WWF.
According to researchers, this little-known group was set up in the 1970s by individuals including Charles’s dad, the late Prince Philip, and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
As we noted in this report, Bernhard used to be in the Nazi SS, before founding the WWF.
He also chaired the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group, of which WEF boss Klaus Schwab was a fellow member.
Bernhard was also honorary sponsor of Schwab’s third European Management Symposium at Davos in 1973, when the body which was to become the World Economic Forum first adopted a more overtly political stance, by agreeing a document which became known as “the Davos manifesto”.
The WWF is notorious for throwing indigenous people off their land on behalf of its big business friends under the false green flag of “conservation” and is today very prominent in the industrial-financial lobby calling for a New Deal for Nature.
Here, we will simply note that Charles is very much on board this agenda, endorsing the idea of “natural capital” and indeed launching a new “natural capital alliance”.
But then that is to be expected, because he is president of WWF-UK and “proud” to be so.
He declare on the WWF site: “I have long admired its efforts to tackle the many threats to the world’s wildlife, rivers, forests and seas. And I have come to see how effectively it uses its expertise and international reach to challenge the causes of degradation, such as climate change and the unsustainable use of natural resources”.
Yet again, the worthy-sounding language masks a very different reality: in this instance a newly accelerated wave of the global land-grabbing which has been a feature of the profit-driven British empire for centuries.
8. Shaping history
If Charles ever emerges from his 70-year stint in the Windsors’ waiting room, he will become King Charles III and thus historically linked with his two predecessors of the same name.
Charles I, who became king in 1625, was the last of the ancien régime, a defender of the feudal order. Having been found guilty of tyranny and treason, he was beheaded in front of the London crowds in 1649 (see above).
This was the apex of an English Revolution which, like so many others, was quickly shunted in a direction contrary to the interests of the mass of people who had fought and died for it.
When Oliver Cromwell crushed the radical elements in his New Model Army, at Burford, he was thanked with a celebratory banquet by the financiers of the City of London.
From that moment onwards, the focus of the country was on commerce, expansion and exploitation, including, of course, the slave trade.
Starting with Cromwell’s bloody re-occupation of Ireland, the 11-year period of republican rule, known as the Commonwealth, saw Britain’s empire begin to take shape, with the grabbing of Jamaica, Surinam, St Helena, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
When the executed king’s son, Charles II, took the throne with the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 it was as a “constitutional” king, beholden to parliament and happy to act as a figurehead for the military-mercantile entity known as the British Empire.
The future Charles III seems to be on course to combine the worst elements of both predecessors, fusing old-style feudalism with modern corporate control to forge a “sustainable” global empire built on digital serfdom and impact vampirism.
But it is important to remember that conspiracies cannot succeed if people are wise to what is happening.
By researching and exposing wrong-doing, we can shake off our status as helpless and passive spectators of history in order to become active and engaged participants, part of the resistance.
Charles and his ruling-class collaborators have to dress up their insidious agenda as “doing good”, as “philanthropy” or “conservation”, because they know that otherwise the rest of us would not go along with it.
Once this illusion has been destroyed and the horrible reality exposed, then decent people everywhere will turn their backs definitively on these vile parasites and their evil empire of exploitation.
Elon Musk holds out the promise of restoring “free speech” to Twitter. Yesterday the Tesla CEO offered $43 billion dollars to buy the social media platform outright. Conservatives are intoxicated by the idea. If by some miracle the shareholders take the offer, Musk promises to relax speech-policing and make the algorithms open source.
If we take Musk at his word, his intention is to open real debate and save our democracy. Then again, he’s also told us “China rocks,” robot slaves will replace every worker, universal basic income will soon be necessary, all vehicles will be autonomous, AI will achieve a god-like status, brain implants will connect us to that god, and ultimately, there’s a billion-to-one chance our universe is just a computer simulation.
A cynical listener might suspect this cyborg car-dealer is taking the public for a ride.
Even so, in the case of Twitter, the excitement is understandable. Starting with the Great Meme War that led up to Trump’s 2016 election, the platform laid waste to the funniest dudes on Frog Twitter—from Ricky Vaughn to Kantbot2000—and eventually, the cyber-Stasi banned the sitting President of the United States.
Throughout the pandemic, Twitter squashed valid medical information, promoted lockdown and vaxx propaganda, suppressed Hunter Biden’s laptop from hell, and scrubbed any evidence of election fraud, all while allowing tranny activists to groom children. Their worst offense, though—starting with the first tweet ever sent—was to reduce public discourse to byte-sized quips and goofy memes. (By the way, you can follow me @JOEBOTxyz.)
There was a time, not long ago, when intelligent people understood that social media as a “de facto town square” was a symptom of serious cultural and intellectual decay. Today, they’d do anything for more likes and retweets, even if getting an algo boost means endorsing the world’s wealthiest transhumanist.
So yeah, fuck Twitter—and their little bird, too. They deserve to get crushed. But only a fool would trust Musk, even if he manages to crush the censors.
Yesterday, at the TED 2022 Conference in Vancouver, the interviewer asked Musk why he launched this hostile takeover. Musk told the soy latte elite he’s saving Twitter because:
It’s important to the function of democracy. It’s important to the function of the United States as a free country, and many other countries. And to actually help freedom in the world, more broadly to the US.
Now, we’re heading towards a situation where China is going to be probably having an economy two to three times the size of the United States. And so that’s just a different world. … Other countries are not really a threat to you if you’re by far the biggest kid on the block.
Imagine what Chinese dominance means for “freedom in the world.”
Aside from a quick disclaimer that he doesn’t “endorse everything China does”—or, equivocally, “everything the US does”—Musk has less to say about China’s totalitarian lockdowns and re-education camps than an NBA star in a fresh pair of Nikes. If Musk has anything like a moral compass, an attentive listener would be hard-pressed to say which way the needle’s pointing.
At the TED conference yesterday, Musk laughed that it’s “probably inevitable” his Optimus “buddy robot” will be used as a quasi-sentient sex slave. When confronted with the possibility these lanky droids will rapidly replace human labor, he reassured the working class:
I wouldn’t worry about the, sort of, “putting people out of a job” thing. … This really will be a world of abundance. Any goods and services will be available to anyone who wants them. It’ll be so cheap to have goods and services, it’ll be ridiculous.
Indeed, nothing could be more ridiculous. Back in August of 2019, Musk warned the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai that automation would wipe human labor out of existence:
AI will make jobs kind of pointless. Probably the last jobs that will remain will be writing AI software. Then eventually the AI will just write its own software.
Last summer, at Tesla’s “AI Day” in Texas—where the Optimus design was first unveiled—Musk proposed a socialist solution to his cheering employees:
Essentially, in the future, physical work will be a choice. … This, I think, will be quite profound because if you say, “What is the economy?” It is, at the foundation it’s labor. So—what happens when there is no shortage of labor?
That’s why I think, long-term, there will need to be universal basic income.
From: “Human Augmentation: The Dawn of a New Paradigm” | UK Ministry of Defense (2021)
Yesterday, when the TED interviewer asked Musk if he really believes in his “heart of hearts” that he’s creating an exciting future for children, Musk switched from robot mode to earnest humanoid mode:
I try my hardest to do so. … I love humanity and I think that we should fight for a good future for humanity and I think we should be optimistic about the future and fight to make that optimistic future happen.
The TED crowd spit out their lattes and erupted in cheers. Either they’re optimistic about a Chinese-led globalist future—which sounds about right—or, like all Musk fanboys, they suffer from selective amnesia.
Musk talks a good game about freedom, and in theory, he may be sincere. But he also signals loyalty to his biggest customer. This time last year, he told the communists at the China Development Forum:
I’m very confident about Tesla’s future in China. The Chinese economy’s going to do extremely well over the next decade and will become the biggest economy in the world. … China, I think long-term, will be our biggest market, but both where we make the most number of vehicles, and where we have the most number of customers.
How does this double-talkin’ jive fly under the radar?
Even our beloved Tucker Carlson—who alone has been rock solid in his opposition to China, Covid hysteria, and the predations of Conservative, Inc—is getting so drunk on liberal tears, he’s staggering a bit. Tucker will sober up, surely, but what about his corporate counterparts?
At least Conservative, Inc is consistent. They’ve overseen the normalization of mass immigration, the sexual revolution, on-demand abortion, gay marriage, trans teens, and now, transhumanism.
They lay spread-eagle athwart history, yelling, “Don’t. Stop!”
From: “AI and Human Enhancement: Americans’ Openness Is Tempered by a Range of Concerns” | Pew Research (March 2022)
Of all the pliable R-droids throwing palm fronds in Musk’s path—and the list is so long now, it’s hard to think of an exception—the most ridiculous is Glenn Beck. One minute, Beck is raising the alarm on evil Great Reset-brand transhumanism. The next, he’s tweeting out, “Elon Musk is the anti-ESG Tony Stark America needs.”
Who the hell is this Tony Stark guy, anyway? Some cartoon character?
You probably wonder what universe these people are living in. Well, according to their cyborg savior, it’s one of a billion computer simulations, most likely programmed by ancient aliens writing code in an extradimensional celestial sphere.
As Musk explained to the Arab royalty at the 2017 World Government Summit in Dubai, chances are life is but a dream:
Now, you can see a video game that’s photo-realistic, and millions of people playing simultaneously. And you see where things are going with virtual reality and augmented reality. And if you extrapolate that out into the future, with any rate of progress at all, then eventually those games will be indistinguishable from reality.
They’ll be so realistic, you will not be able to tell the difference between that game and the reality as we know it.
Well, how do we know that didn’t happen in the past, and that we’re not in one of those games ourselves?
Dunno, bro, but I’ll tell ya what I do know. Simulation theory is a great metaphor for the memetic mind-warp that is social media. If the world’s wealthiest transhumanist succeeds in capturing Twitter, he’ll have a billion minds to play with in his very own simulated reality—not to mention an ocean of data to train his artificial intelligence.
Look, I don’t wanna get too judgy here. My own cosmology is at least as weird as Musk’s.
And I don’t mean to be a buzzkill, either. The prospect of Twitter getting bought out and gutted is hilarious. The rainbow cohort is freaking out, and that should bring joy to every man, woman, and child.
In fact, let’s pause a moment to lap up a few Twitter twink tears.
You taste that? Ahh…
Refreshing.
From: “AI and Human Enhancement: Americans’ Openness Is Tempered by a Range of Concerns” | Pew Research (March 2022)
Now, let me slip this scrawled note into the Conservative, Inc suggestion box. Maybe, just maybe, stubborn reactionaries still have the power and influence to conserve our most precious asset—our humanity.
Let’s say you really do take Musk seriously.
If you’re open to the possibility that tech corporations are creating AI Computer Gods, and that Musk’s brain chips will keep us competitive with these digital deities, and robots are gonna take over every job on Earth, and chipped humans will live on UBI, and we’ll just kick back and spend our brief lives exploring vapid virtual realities, or maybe Mars—and anyway, we all live in a computer simulation, so it hardly matters either way—then for the love of God, come clean with the public about our dire situation so we may proceed accordingly.
Or, if you think Musk is delusional about everything except the things that benefit you, ask yourself why.
Or, if you actually think Musk is just a con artist spinning yarns to play the crowd and pump stocks, then stand up and call him out.
The madness, we can handle. The selective sanctimony? Not so much.
Let’s get something straight. There is no pure form of socialism, where “the government owns the means of production.”
The means of production own the government, and vice versa. It’s always collusion. Elite power players stitch themselves together like a walking Frankenstein corpse.
Socialism can be done with a smile or with guns and jails. Styles vary.
For example, the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] believes an international “joining of hands across the water” would be just dandy.
You could call the CFR’s agenda socialism or Globalism or fascism or dictatorship or the corporate state—it doesn’t matter. For the sake of brevity, call it socialism.
At street level (not within the CFR), every proponent of the socialist “solution” either has no idea who installs it and runs it, or astonishingly believes “the government” can be transformed into a beneficent enterprise and shed its core corruption, as it takes the reins of absolute power.
Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy elites who use socialism as a weapon, while propagandizing it as our humanitarian future, know full well THEY will run it, and they have no qualms about placing severe limits on the freedom of populations. They want to impose those limits.
Hope and Change, the slogan of the former US president Barack Obama, was perfect for street-level socialists. It was vague enough to be injected with their own vague dreams and fantasies.
Colleges—or as I call them, Academies of Great Generalities—have been turning out these fantasists by the ton. “If I feel it, it must be true and good.”
One such idealist, back in the 1960s, was a young man named James Kunen. But smarter by far than most of his comrades, he wrote a book called The Strawberry Statement: Notes on a College Revolutionary. A member of the Left group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Kunen recalled a curious event at the 1968 SDS Convention:
“…at the convention, men from Business International Roundtables—the meetings sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government—tried to buy up a few [Leftist] radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They’re the left wing of the ruling class.”
“…They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left.”
Rockefeller elites moving to the political Left? What?
Look at it this way. If you’re a Rockefeller man, what brand of rhetoric are you going to use to sell your con? The “Utopian-better-world-for-the-people (Leftist)”, or the “we-want-mega-corporations-to-cheat-and-lie-and-steal-the-people-blind-and-co-opt-the-government (Rightist)”?
Since any brand of rhetoric is designed to end up in the same place—global control—you’re going to pick the more attractive-sounding version.
It’s simply a matter of workability and expedience.
That’s why the lingo of Leftist socialism has come to the fore.
That’s the only reason.
If a Rockefeller operative could use, to good effect, tales of enemies invading Earth from a parallel universe, he would.
In 1928, the historian Oswald Spengler wrote: “There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, and for the time being permitted by money—and that [operation has continued] without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.”
Is there a college anywhere in the world that acknowledges and teaches this? The insight is not permitted. It would torpedo too many platitudes and reveal too many false trails laid down by elite deceivers.
David Rockefeller, writing his 2003 Memoirs, baldly asserted: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Of course, Rockefeller stopped short of saying he and his colleagues, in the core of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, were using socialism and high-flying utopian rhetoric merely to enlist the Left in his “one-world” cause. He never admitted the notions of “social justice” and “equality” were being peddled to the gullible masses for the same reason.
If he had come clean, victims (both real and self-imagined) would understand they were fighting against the very oppressors who were backing, funding, encouraging, and controlling them.
The sought-after global triumph of socialism is a cover for elite global management and tyranny.
“Thanks for your help. Now that we’ve won, you’re under the gun. Our gun.”
Flashing forward to today, one can see this sales job operating in boardrooms of the tech giants (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) The corporate leaders (the new Rockefellers and Carnegies) claim they’re proponents of “digital socialism,” which they ludicrously define as open access to the wonders of the Internet for all people everywhere, including the poor and bereft. But the last time I looked, those people can’t eat a YouTube video for a breakfast they can’t afford.
This nonsensical fluff hides the same core buried in old-time socialism: the leaders at the top, who have made their mega-fortunes, want to turn around and eliminate competition. Share and care doesn’t apply to the marketplace. The tech CEOs want to collude with government to gain special favors and benefits their lesser rivals can’t obtain.
“We love everyone and care about everyone, but don’t challenge us. We’re the bosses. We own the game.”
The tech giants want much more. They intend to lead the way, with their government partners, into an even tighter control of information (censorship) and a more vast Surveillance State.
They intend to build a technocratic planet, in which planned societies are the foundation. Citizens are “data-points” to be inserted into slots, from cradle to grave, as a worldwide system is constructed.
Notions of fairness, equality, and other terms of socialism are deployed as a front for this massive operation.
Some might say this version of Brave New World/1984 bears no resemblance to socialism.
But they would be wrong. This version is perfect socialism, once you realize the whole socialist “political philosophy” was never anything more than paper-thin propaganda.
It was a nothing made into something.
It falls apart and blows away, and the rictus-grin of control comes into view. The same grin existed in the medieval Roman Church, in the ancient Roman emperorship, in the Egypt of the Pharaohs, in Babylonia, in Sumer, in Mayan and Aztec civilizations, in tribes and clans long buried and forgotten.
Only the language of the sellers to the buyers has changed.
Mao Zedong (aka Mao Tse-tung), founding father and ruler of Communist China, openly declared: “Socialism…must have a dictatorship, it will not work without it.” Mao didn’t beat around the bush. In maintaining his dictatorship, he discovered he might have a problem with between 40 and 70 million of his own people. So, just to make sure, he killed them.
But don’t worry, be happy. Less violent socialisms exist in the world—as long as citizens willingly give up their independence.
For example, you could opt for Tony Blair’s vision. Tony is an accused war criminal (Iraq/2003, between 100,000 and million dead), but on the bright side, he didn’t massacre huge numbers of his own people. In 1983, Tony stated:
“I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for co-operation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly.”
I’ll let you try to translate that generalized gibberish. Take the words “rational,” “moral,” “co-operation,” “fellowship,” “equality in our economic circumstances,” and run them to ground. Attempt to apply them to actual life. Determine what actual policies and regulations would flow from them.
Tony is one of the deans of the Academy of Great Generalities. He knows how to shovel it on wide and deep. His one skill is appearing earnest and sincere.
He shares that attribute with many of his socialist colleagues. They’ve learned their tricks at the feet of mentors, and you can trace the line all the way back to Plato.
“We’re not Stalin, we’re not Mao. Honest. We want to do good. Help us help you. We’re all in this together. There’s a bright day ahead. Just let us do our work.”
Or as Bill Clinton famously put it, “I feel your pain.”
No one heard him say, under his breath, “Of course, I pay no attention to feelings.”
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.
We have a stunning February 2020 report, “Exploring Biodigital Convergence,” released by “Policy Horizons Canada… a strategic foresight organization within the Government of Canada…”
The report lays out a pattern of joining biology and digital technology to create new humans.
This IS the planned future.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that this is the far shore of a global control grid.
I’ll start with a sprinkling of quotes from the report; they give you a general notion of what this “revolution” is about:
“Biological and digital systems are converging, and could change the way we work, live, and even evolve as a species.”
“More than a technological change, this biodigital convergence may transform the way we understand ourselves and cause us to redefine what we consider human or natural.”
“Digital technologies and biological systems are beginning to combine and merge in ways that could be profoundly disruptive to our assumptions about society, the economy, and our bodies. We call this the biodigital convergence.”
“Full physical integration of biological and digital identities.”
“Biodigital convergence is opening up striking new ways to: Change human beings – our bodies, minds, and behaviours…Change or create other organisms …”
Now here is a passage that should pull you up short:
“Digital technology can be embedded in organisms, and biological components can exist as parts of digital technologies. The physical meshing, manipulating, and merging of the biological and digital are creating new hybrid forms of life and technology, each functioning in the tangible world, often with heightened capabilities.”
“Robots with biological brains and biological bodies with digital brains already exist, as do human-computer and brain-machine interfaces. The medical use of digital devices in humans, as well as digitally manipulated insects such as drone dragonflies and surveillance locusts, are examples of digital technology being combined with biological entities. By tapping into the nervous system and manipulating neurons, tech can be added to an organism to alter its function and purpose. New human bodies and new senses of identity could arise as the convergence continues.”
That last paragraph has citations referring to published studies. I plowed my way through one, which detailed experiments with rats. The researchers found new ways of embedding many, many “threads” in the rats’ brains. These threads can presumably deliver information/commands to the brain. That would be the goal.
So this report on biodigital convergence is more than theory. It’s more than speculation. It’s extrapolation from current research. And it’s “forward looking.” At times, it barely contains its enthusiasm for a future in which humans aren’t humans anymore. Humans are “more.”
Here are several other quotes from the report:
“…biology is subject to influence and manipulation that was not possible a few years ago.”
“For example, gene sequencing [enabled by digital technology] combined with artificial intelligence (AI) leads to understanding genetic expression, which is then used to alter existing organisms to create organic compounds in new ways or even entirely synthetic organisms.”
“Neural nets – computer systems that are designed based on biological brains – are an example of how biological understanding is shaping digital technology.”
One hand washes the other. The biological and the digital hands collaborate.
But surely, people still understand that biology is fundamentally different from digital technology. Right? Read the next quote from the report:
“As we continue to better understand and control the mechanisms that underlie biology, we could see a shift away from vitalism – the idea that living and nonliving organisms are fundamentally different because they are thought to be governed by different principles. Instead, the idea of biology as having predictable and digitally manageable characteristics may become increasingly common as a result of living in a biodigital age. Any student of biology today will have grown up in a digital world and may consciously or subconsciously apply that [new] frame of reference to bioinformatics and biology generally.”
The report is talking about a cultural shift.
People immersed in “the digital world” will no longer view biology as VITAL AND ALIVE and the digital as MECHANICAL AND DEAD.
Instead, living biology will just be one more territory to be manipulated; like a machine that can be improved.
Therefore, the whole concept that LIFE IS VIOLATED by manipulating it and altering it radically…will fade out and go away.
The idea that biology is one thing and the digital is another will vanish.
Continuing to quote from the report:
“As digital technology became more complex and connected, the system began to mimic the characteristics of the biological world, leading to the notion of technological ecosystems. Biological models are also being used to develop digital tools, such as AI based on neural nets.”
Did you catch that phrase, “technological ecosystems?” Suddenly, the non-living—machines and data—is thought of as living. And many tech oriented people would say, “Well, of course. The systems ARE living. And if you don’t agree, you’re hopelessly old-fashioned and holding on to an irrelevant paradigm.”
The report: “Biodigital convergence is…moving away from the centralized models of pharmaceutical and industrial biotech toward widespread commercial and consumer use. These range from bioprinters that create organic tissue, to synthetic biology machines that can be programmed to create entirely new organisms. For example, Printeria is an all-in-one bioengineering device that automates the process of printing genetic circuits in bacteria. It is intended to be as easy to use as a domestic desktop printer and is projected to cost $1,500.”
Anyone can EXPERIENCE the blending of digital and biological by carrying out experiments at home.
And speaking of home, here from the report is a “possible scenario” occurring in the new biodigital world; up close and personal.
Note: Given what you’ve already read so far, this scenario is a decidedly Lite and cheery version of what it would be like to live in the new world. Further, there are all sorts of pseudoscientific assumptions about medical/health solutions and climate change EMBEDDED PERMANENTLY in the AI programs that govern daily life:
From the report: “I wake up to the sunlight and salty coastal air of the Adriatic sea. I don’t live anywhere near the Mediterranean, but my AI, which is also my health advisor, has prescribed a specific air quality, scent, and solar intensity to manage my energy levels in the morning, and has programmed my bedroom to mimic this climate.”
“I send a brain message [a thought] to open the app that controls my insulin levels and make sure my pancreas is optimally supported.”
“I check my brain’s digital interface to read the dream data that was recorded and processed in real time last night. My therapy app analyzes the emotional responses I expressed while I slept. It suggests I take time to be in nature this week to reflect on my recurring trapped-in-a-box dream and enhance helpful subconscious neural activity. My AI recommends a ‘forest day’. I think ‘okay’, and my AI and neural implant do the rest.”
The neural implant, triggered by a mere thought from the compliant citizen, creates the virtual “forest day.”
“The summary of my bugbot surveillance footage shows that my apartment was safe from intruders (including other bugbots) last night, but it does notify me that my herd of little cyber-dragonflies are hungry. They’ve been working hard collecting data and monitoring the outside environment all night, but the number of mosquitoes and lyme-carrying ticks they normally hunt to replenish their energy was smaller than expected. With a thought, I order some nutrient support for them.”
“Building codes and home energy infrastructure are synchronized, and require all homes be autoregulated for efficiency. Because houses and buildings are biomimetic and incorporate living systems for climate control wherever possible, they are continuously filtering the air and capturing carbon. I check my carbon offset measure to see how much credit I will receive for my home’s contribution to the government’s climate change mitigation program.”
“I replace the smart sticker that monitors my blood chemistry, lymphatic system, and organ function in real time. It’s hard to imagine the costs and suffering that people must have endured before personalized preventative medicine became common.”
“Today’s microbiome breakdown is displayed on the front of my fridge as I enter the kitchen. It’s tracking a steady shift as I approach middle age: today it suggests miso soup as part of my breakfast, because my biome needs more diversity as a result of recent stress and not eating well last night.”
“I take my smart supplement, which just popped out of my bioprinter. The supplement adjusts the additional nutrients and microbes I need, and sends data about my body back to my bioprinter to adjust tomorrow’s supplement. The feedback loop between me and my bioprinter also cloud-stores daily data for future preventive health metrics. The real-time monitoring of my triglycerides is important, given my genetic markers.”
“As my coffee pours, I check my daughter’s latest school project, which has been growing on the counter for the past week. She’s growing a liver for a local puppy in need as part of her empathy initiative at school. More stem cells are on the way to start a kidney too, because she wants to help more animals. I grab my coffee, brewed with a new certified carbon-negative bean variety, and sit on the couch for a minute.”
Many people reading this scenario would jump at the chance to live in that world—blithely assuming all would be well.
They would never guess their neural implants OVERRIDE decisions they themselves make that run counter to government “recommended behavior.”
Nor would they imagine the varieties of strange hybrid creatures that abound in this Brave New World. Animal-human-machine creatures, whose functions are assigned by technocratic rulers.
And the last thing they’d realize is that they could very well BE those animal-human-machine creatures.
Finally, for now; there is one element which keeps people from admitting that “science fiction” can actually come to pass. They believe people living in a dystopian science fiction world would KNOW it was horrible and life-destroying—and would rebel.
But the Canadian report points out that our culture is burying that knowledge. People of the near-future could hold beliefs which affirm the biodigital convergence as a major ADVANCE. As PROGRESS. As an Evolved Reality. As Truth.
With the memory of the past…gone.
CODA: Under several headings, the report lists biodigital strategies. They’re chilling. You can easily discern the implications.
HEADING: “What new capabilities arise from biodigital convergence?”
“Altering the human genome – our core biological attributes and characteristics.”
“Monitoring, altering and manipulating human thoughts and behaviours.”
“Neurotechnologies read brain signals to monitor attention and manage fatigue.”
“New ways to monitor, manage, and influence bodily functions, as well as predict, diagnose, and treat disease.”
“Digital devices can be worn or embedded in the body to treat and monitor functionality.”
“Biohacking with implanted digital devices to enhance bodily functions.”
“Nanobots and nanomaterials can operate and precisely deliver drugs within living creatures.”
HEADING: “New ways to change or create other organisms”
“Changing the type or amount of inputs that organisms need to grow.”
“Synthetic biology draws inspiration from biology, engineering, computer science, and physics for the design and construction of new biological entities.”
HEADING: “new ways to alter ecosystems”
“Changing and eradicating entire species.”
“Altering the natural environment at scale.”
HEADING: “New ways to sense, store, process, and transmit information”
“Turning organisms into biocomputers.”
In the ENDNOTES section of the report, you can find links to published research on biodigital experiments.
Example: “Brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) hold promise for the restoration of sensory and motor function and the treatment of neurological disorders, but clinical BMIs have not yet been widely adopted, in part because modest channel counts have limited their potential. In this white paper, we describe Neuralink’s first steps toward a scalable high-bandwidth BMI system. We have built arrays of small and flexible electrode “threads”, with as many as 3,072 electrodes per array distributed across 96 threads. We have also built a neurosurgical robot capable of inserting six threads (192 electrodes) per minute. Each thread can be individually inserted into the brain with micron precision for avoidance of surface vasculature and targeting specific brain regions.”
Example: “A project called DragonflEye, conducted by the research and development organization Draper in conjunction with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, is turning the insects into hybrid drones. Live dragonflies are equipped with backpacks containing navigation systems, which tap directly into their nervous systems. The dragonflies can then be ‘steered’ to fly in certain directions. The whole thing is powered by miniature solar panels in the backpacks.”
Example: “Scientists have created the world’s first living organism that has a fully synthetic and radically altered DNA code. The lab-made microbe, a strain of bacteria that is normally found in soil and the human gut, is similar to its natural cousins but survives on a smaller set of genetic instructions.”
Example: “…we built a dual-core CPU combining two orthogonal core processors in a single cell. In principle, human cells integrating multiple orthogonal CRISPR/Cas9-based core processors could offer enormous computational capacity.”
Example: “The daring Chinese biophysicist who created the world’s first gene-edited children has been set free after three years in a Chinese prison. He Jiankui created shock waves in 2018 with the stunning claim that he’d altered the genetic makeup of IVF embryos and implanted them into a woman’s uterus, leading to the birth of twin girls. A third child was born the following year.”
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.
Are you a parent who wants to sacrifice your young child? Sign up today in the culture war. Kneel down before predators and act like the coward you are.
The campaign to turn young children into “gender fluid” creatures isn’t just the goal of groups of schoolteacher-groomers. No. It’s embedded in the curriculum. It’s official.
Read this gobbledygook. Read it like your child’s life is hanging in the balance:
Daily Mail: “First-graders in New Jersey will be learning about gender identity with new sex education curriculum which includes a lesson that teaches children they can have ‘boy parts’ but ‘feel like’ a girl.”
“The new lessons, which are part of a broader, K-12 health and sex education curriculum adopted by the New Jersey Board of Education, are alarming some parents, Asbury Park Press first reported.”
“One of the 30-minute lesson plans, called ‘Pink, Blue and Purple,’ teaches the students to define ‘gender, gender identity and gender role stereotypes”.”
“Another lesson plan, this one for second-graders called ‘Understanding Our Bodies,’ tells teachers to instruct students that ‘being a boy or a girl doesn’t have to mean you have those parts, there are some body parts that mostly just girls have and some parts that mostly just boys have’.”
“‘Most people have a vulva and a vagina or a penis and testicles, but some people’s bodies can be different,’ the plan states. ‘Your body is exactly what is right for you’.”
“The new state sex education guidelines, which go into effect in September, were handed out to parents at the Westfield Board of Education meeting in February, and included instructions for teachers to tell students that their gender identity is up to them.”
“‘You might feel like you’re a boy even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are “girl” parts,’ the lesson plan states.”
“‘You might feel like you’re a girl even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are “boy” parts. And you might not feel like you’re a boy or a girl, but you’re a little bit of both. No matter how you feel, you’re perfectly normal!’”
ALL THIS FOR FIRST AND SECOND GRADERS.
So if you’re a parent, you can bow down and have your little child exposed to this. It’s free. You don’t have to pay for it—unless you’re bright enough to realize your taxes are payments.
Be a coward. Let lunatics teach your children. Be tolerant of all points of view. This is the definition of culture, right?
Face it. YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT TO TEACH YOUR KIDS. You abdicated that responsibility years ago. So let the schools take over for you. It’s easy. You don’t have to speak up. You can stay silent.
If you need to, you can find a study somewhere that concludes children are “already sexual.” This will give you comfort. It’ll prove that…well, who knows what it proves? It doesn’t really prove anything. But it’s a study. So that’s good.
Here’s a question: With the government in charge of education, what did you think schools would eventually turn into?
Factories for destroying minds and bodies. There is a number…nobody knows what it is precisely, but it represents the size of government. When that number is exceeded—and we exceeded it long ago—the government turns on the people and treats them as mortal enemies. It doesn’t matter what kind of government it is. From that point on, the people must be crushed.
But don’t worry, be happy, parent. You can be happy if you back up far enough from your children and let them absorb the brunt of the attack. You can have a proxy victim stand in for you. You can delude yourself into thinking that it’s only your child who’ll pay the price.
I assure you, they’re coming after you, too. You just don’t see it yet. You should see it, because when the government destroys your child, you’re supposed to see it.
You could see it by recognizing that when the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Attorney General start making noises about parents who stand up for their children at school boards—calling the parents domestic terrorists—THAT’S A CLUE.
By my calculation, parents who let their children face destruction should be in prison. The problem is, the government runs the prisons, and the government wants you to give up your children to the State.
Maybe we could open citizen-run prisons for parents who surrender their children to the State. There’s a new idea. A private prison. For cowards.
When I was a kid, if the school system had been teaching gender anything, a whole army of parents would have marched into the principal’s office and read him the riot act. He would have folded and crumbled in a minute. He would have gotten down on his knees and wept and apologized and scrapped that curriculum the same day.
That was the 1940s. It tells you something about what has happened in America since then. Fathers’ balls have turned into jelly.
They’ve become traitors to their own families.
They’re hiding behind a wall of delusions.
They think their primary duty is BEING NICE.
Cowards. Moral cowards.
In any community worth its salt, they would be shunned. Never spoken to. Exiled.
You should pray that if your children make it to adulthood, you won’t be around. Because if you are around, those children are going to look at you with an accusation that sets you on fire and burns you down to the ground.
When they were five and six years old, you let them into a cage with wild animals. And you turned around with a smile on your face and walked away.
Over the past year-plus, athletes across the world have been dropping like flies as they compete in games. If they aren’t passed out cold, they are seen gripping their chests in agony, unable to breathe due to sudden cardiac events that hit in the heat of the competition.
This wave of heart issues is unprecedented, to say the least. Never before have we seen young, healthy, world-class athletes experiencing heart issues en masse like this. It has never happened, ever. Furthermore, the timing of this sweeping phenomenon could not be more relevant, coinciding perfectly with the rollout of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines.
In December nearly 300 athletes reportedly collapsed or suffered cardiac arrests after taking the COVID vaccines.
But it gets worse. Thanks to a new explosive report by OAN that pegs the number of affected athletes in the hundreds.
In all, their investigation found a jaw-dropping 769 men and women who collapsed with heart issues during competition over the past year (between March 2021 and March 2022).
Most shockingly, the average age of those who experienced full-blown cardiac arrest was just 23.
Considering the timing of this never-before-seen issue in healthy athletes, and the universal push for Covid jabs, all signs point to one culprit: the experimental vaccine.
After detailing two recent high-profile cases, in which two tennis players were forced to recuse themselves from last month’s Miami Open, OAN’s Pearson Sharp reviewed their shocking investigation and asked a few pressing questions that should be answered if you are still questioning what is driving these heart issues in young individuals:
“These are just two o more than 769 athletes who have collapsed during a game on the field over the last year. From March of 2021 to March of this year. The average age of the players suffering cardiac arrest is just 23-years-old.
How many 23-year-old athletes were collapsing and suffering heart attacks before this year? Do you know any 23-year-old people who had heart attacks before now?
And these are just the ones we know about. How many have gone unreported? Nearly 800 athletes – young, fit people in the prime of life falling down on the field. In fact, 500% more soccer players in the EU are dropping dead from heart attacks than just one year ago.”
Just in case there is any lingering inclination to call this a coincidence, Sharp sets the record straight.
“Coincidence? When the Pfizer vaccine is known to cause heart inflamation? No. In fact, many doctors treating these players list their injuries and deaths as being directly caused by the vaccine…
This is not a coincidence – healthy teenagers dying after getting the Pfizer injection. Doctors warned the FDA before they released the experimental vaccine that it would ‘almost certainly cause terrible organ damage.’”
The only question left is: when do we see some accountability?
This video taken yesterday in Shanghai, China, by the father of a close friend of mine. She verified its authenticity: People screaming out of their windows after a week of total lockdown, no leaving your apartment for any reason.
Videos circulating on social media show an eerie cityscape at night filled with the anguished screams of residents forcibly quarantined in their apartment buildings for over a week.
Haunting video out of Shanghai shows thousands of frustrated residents screaming from apartment buildings after being locked down again following another alleged COVID-19 outbreak.
What the?? This video taken yesterday in Shanghai, China, by the father of a close friend of mine. She verified its authenticity: People screaming out of their windows after a week of total lockdown, no leaving your apartment for any reason. pic.twitter.com/iHGOO8D8Cz
‘It’s Shanghai, everyone is screaming, started with a couple now everyone is screaming, after a week of lockdown, something is going to happen, no one knows when this is going to end.’ He says they can’t even step outside their apartments.”
Another dystopian video shows a drone hovering around the buildings with a prerecorded message discouraging residents from crying for help: “Please comply with COVID restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.”
As seen on Weibo: Shanghai residents go to their balconies to sing & protest lack of supplies. A drone appears: “Please comply w covid restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.” https://t.co/0ZTc8fznaVpic.twitter.com/pAnEGOlBIh
The Chinese Communist Party extended its citywide “zero tolerance” lockdown for 26 million residents in Shanghai earlier this week after thousands of new COVID cases were detected in the city.
“The city will continue to implement seal and control management and strictly implement ‘staying at home,’ except for medical treatment,” the city wrote in its official WeChat account.
The People’s Liberation Army has deployed 2,000 medical personnel to Shanghai with an additional 38,000 medical workers to carry out a mass mitigation effort to test all 26 million city residents for COVID.
Authorities had initially locked down Shanghai, China’s largest city, on March 28 amid a surge of mostly asymptomatic COVID cases.
Exemptions are privileges. What the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
Rights are not gifts from government. – Nature of Healing
The Ruse of Benefits & Privileges
Government laws exist to grant “BENEFITS and PRIVILEGES” to citizens who agree to be governed. Benefits and privileges do not usurp birthrights, rights that are inborn or inherent. Thus, birthrights supersede laws, mandates, and exemptions.
A government exemption is an “opt out.” By asking permission of government to opt out from any government-imposed health mandates, you agree to bypass birthrights.
Under exemptions, you are requesting permission from government to make a choice that you already possess. Remember, bodily autonomy is a BIRTHRIGHT. You come into this world alone. You leave this world alone, without government approval. Therefore, an exemption or an Exemption Act, is a form of entrapment known as Color of Law.
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. Since the inception of the United States in 1776, both presidents and governors have been bypassing the laws through illegal Executive Orders (E.O.s) under Color of Law. Even though it might be argued that ALL federal Acts fall under the Color of Law, the chances of adjudicating an equitable solution through the court system is about as likely as isolating the Coronavirus in a lab. The CDC still admits there is no gold standard for the isolation of any virus.
So it is by the will of the people that allows government to usurp its authority and ensure the end of freedom of choice for all. In the near future, in order to attain an education, or maintain a job, to enter a hospital or clinic, to shop or travel, in order to live within any community, or function on any practical level within society, people will be made to get government shots.
The Ruse of Exemption
Have you been told to get a medical or religious exemption by your employer? Think again.
Government-granted exemptions for government-imposed health mandates are strategically designed to fail by entrapping those members of the community who sign onto them. Why?
Because here is no legal defense or enforcement for religious or medical exemptions since businesses have no legal duty of care from imposing mandates in the first place, based on the The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk.
The Doctrine of Assumption of Riskstates that no business is liable to protect others from a risk that’s widely known or believed to exist in the community.
An exemption means there has to be a legal duty of care. If there is no legal duty, there is no exemption. A legal duty is a legal obligation, the breach of which can result in liability. Businesses that impose mandates must have an insurance policy. Without one, no court will take jurisdiction. A plaintiff in court will never win. This is another reason you do not have to beg for a right you already possess.
In addition, laws cannot conflict with each other. So, for instance, when mandates, statutes, Acts, or Executive Orders conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), then there is a violation of the legal duty of care.
Federal (statutory) Acts attempt to protect “the public health” with “statutory rights.” Beware: A “statutory right” is an oxymoron, similar to public health, safe vaccine, and honest thief. It is meant to confuse.
All federal Acts steer “the public” into a herd by the language of legalease. In reality, there is no such thing as “Public Health.” Public Health does not exist outside of individual health. You cannot wear a life jacket to keep others afloat. So to consent to “Public Health mandates” is to give up bodily autonomy in exchange for Public Rights (i.e., Children’s rights, Gay rights, Parent rights, Women’s rights) granted by the State. State Rights can be modified, suspended, and revoked. See how California revoked all vaccine-related exemptions. By taking the Public out of Public Health, we begin to reclaim responsibility for choice and freedom.
The success of any Act depends from which perspective you view its success. From the first Act, passed in 1784, to the latest draft government Acts, ALL Acts appear to be an extension of The CIRCUS Act. From the people’s perspective, success rates are dismal thanks to exemptions and exceptions to exemptions in every Act. A few examples include:
The US PATRIOT Act of 2001 and US Patriot and Reauthorization Act of 2005 “to unite and strengthen America,” with exemptions to banking agencies which serve to divide and weaken America.
The PREP Act of 2005, allows government to bypass Rights and Freedom. The DHHS Amended Version authorizes an increased workforce to administer COVID (experimental) vaccines. And The PREP Act 2022 – limits liability for COVID countermeasures.
Note also, that any discussion of science for “public health” purposes is a purposeful distraction away from inherent rights. Do not be distracted by the vaccine debate or by the Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed study that will never be formally approved by government. The science debate is merely a ruse to eliminate freedom.
Contagions and The American With Disabilities Act
John Jay Singleton, of TheZunga, helps people to exercise their RIGHTS to bodily autonomy under the ADA. TheZunga.com endeavors to extract people caught in the government web of exemptions under COVID19 policies. Singleton writes:
Having a contagious disease is defined as having a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Rehabilitation Act, under the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act, precludes employers from imposing any accommodations upon employees unless they meet the criteria for establishing that the employee is a direct threat following an individualized assessment (diagnosis). Employers are prohibited by law from requiring any medical examination in this process as it is an accommodation for which the employer must advise the employee that he has the right to accept or refuse
Singleton contends that the ADA, a federal law, requires businesses to aid and encourage those with disabilities in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights. This means that not only can a business owner not impose such measures on anyone, he must actively protect everyone from any violation of this law, at least by not imposing them.
To exercise and enjoy your rights doesn’t mean you have to have a disability. It means you’re regarded as having a disability. If you’re regarded as having a disability its because the government announced a public health disaster, so the legal duties come into play with the ADA. And the legal duty of care is on anyone trying to force these measure on you. John Jay Singleton
In summary, exemptions bind people to an arbitrary, and a constantly changing, list of demands. These demands supersede basic freedoms, and thereupon deny people of their inalienable, God/life given rights to self-determination of their bodies. As the government giveth, so, too, can the government taketh away, on a whim.
No Consent
Governments have inverted inherent rights by statutes, policies, Acts, E.O.s and exemptions. In doing so, they have bound freedom, itself, to a contract. All government Acts apply to government entities and persons; not to men and women. Men and women are not subject to Acts, because they are not subjects.
Exemption or no exemptions, the power of NO always applies, as long as you can voice it. One way to say No Thank You is through a Conditional Acceptance, a lawful response to any offer to contract. Can they sign a statement agreeing to your conditions to their offer? If not, there is no contract and you remain in honor. See more at Youarelaw.org.
All Acts attempt do one thing: to allow the government to legislate choice and freedom, that is, if you consent to the offer. However, if offered an experimental product, make sure you are provided with Informed Consent (45 CFR § 46.116) before you consent, because you become a subject taking part in a clinical study.
When it comes to any mandate, it is important to appreciate that all exemptions (medical, religious, or philosophical/personal belief), are fundamentally illegal, because they transpose an inherent human RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE, on the presumption that you acknowledge, and thus sacrifice or forfeit your natural BIRTHRIGHTS to an external authority.
For instance, there is no American authority for compulsory vaccination, in the sense of forcing one to submit even if policies require compliance. When it comes to commerce, everything is an offer to contract. When it comes to Acts, All the world is a stage.
Shakespeare titled his play, As You Like It, as if to say, you always have a choice. There is no law that compels anyone to do anything related to mandated restrictions, whether COVID-related or not. The freedom to choose is non-negotiable. You always have options just like you have opinions. However, in this era, freedom must be defended and claimed as a BIRTHRIGHT.
Do you trust a government calling the shots under the ruse of exemptions? Now is the time to seize your courage, to wake up, to rise up and to find your will to act for yourself. As always, freedom lives in you!
Former CDC Director Robert Redfield has stated that Bird Flu will jump to humans and be highly fatal in the coming “Great Pandemic,” for which C19 was a mere warm-up.
Over the years there has been opposition and warnings worldwide about various catastrophic issues associated with SpaceX’s Starlink as well as other companies’ satellites (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.) In fact, insurance companies have become less willing to insure satellites. Additionally, earlier this year, 40 Starlink satellites fell from orbit and burned. More recently a court ruled in favor of environmental groups who opposed the company being approved to launch satellites in France.
Elon Musk’s Starlink Blocked In France Over Legal Battle Against Environmental Groups
Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet service has effectively lost its frequencies in France following a legal battle waged by environmental groups. The decision was published by the Conseil d’Etat, France’s Supreme Court for administrative justice, reports Teslarati. According to the court, the recent Starlink ruling negated a decision by Arcep, France’s telecoms regulator, back in February 2021.
Arcep had granted Starlink two bands of frequencies that would link the company’s satellite constellation to France-based customers, the report said. Since the decision to grant licenses to SpaceX‘s Starlink can “impact the market of access to high-bandwidth internet and affect the interests of end-users” as per the Conseil d’Etat, the satellite internet system should have carried out public hearings before its license was granted.
This was something that Arcep did not do. Stephen Kerckhove, who heads Act for the Environment, one of the environmental groups that took legal action against Starlink, stated that the ruling is a way for the State Council to “send a signal to those who confuse speed with haste”.
Kerckhove also noted that he is hoping Arcep would not just go through a public consultation now for sheer compliance but “truly carry out an economic and environmental evaluation” of the satellite internet service.
It’s official, as of right now the Russian ruble is worth more US dollars than before the invasion of Ukraine.
On the 22nd of February this year, one US dollar would exchange for just over 79 rubles. As of the time of writing, it is now 78.
The same is true of the British pound (around 108 rubles before, 102 now), and the Euro (88 rubles before, 84 now).
Across the board, the ruble is stronger than before the war. So, how has this happened?
Aren’t NATO, the EU and the rest of the “international community” meant to be crippling the Russian economy with biting sanctions?
The media are claiming that the strength of the ruble “may be illusory” or that Russia has exploited a “loophole” in the sanctions and used “financial alchemy” to “rescue the ruble”.
Reminder: In 2014, when the west sanctioned Russia over the Crimean referendum, the ruble lost almost half its value.
It recovered slightly in 2016, and has since stabilized, but has never come close to its pre-Crimean worth:
So, presumably the earlier sanctions didn’t have a “loophole” in them, and/or the Russians either weren’t aware of this “financial alchemy” back then, or simply decided not to use it.
Of course there is one key difference between 2014 and 2022 – the oil market.
As we have written before, in 2014/15 the US and Saudi Arabia flooded the market with cheap oil and crashed the price. Russia (and Iran, and Venezuela) all suffered huge economic damage from this move.
The Western press claims that the US asked Saudi Arabia to increase oil production and they refused. They claim Saudi Arabia “sided with Russia”, and that they should be “punished”.
Meanwhile, Turkey has just suspended the trial of the Saudi citizens alleged to have murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a move that should please the Saudi government no end.
The West seems as bad at “punishing” their misbehaved allies as they are at tanking the value of the Russia’s currency.
To sum up – The price of oil is going up and the ruble is worth just as much as it was before the war.
Airplane leaving jet contrails with COVID-19 word inside. Symbolizing the global spread of the coronavirus through global air traffic.
A few months ago, I wrote an article exploring the connection between the symptoms of disease known as “Covid-19” and air pollution. While air pollution is not the only factor currently causing disease, I laid out why I believe that this is the most likely explanation for any perceived increase in respiratory symptoms of disease. I provided a general overview on the problem of air pollution and how it can impact our health and environment. Within the article, I touched upon the issue of persistent contrails, a.k.a. chemtrails, and provided information directly from Government sources admitting the impact that these trails have on our health and environment. Even though this information is readily available to anyone willing to look, there are many out there who still seem to believe that these trails are harmless. They claim that I am promoting nothing but a baseless conspiracy theory.
The fact of the matter is that these trails are admitted to be harmful to our health and environment by both sides of the “chemtrail” debate. There is no conspiracy theory here. This is a FACT. We can speculate as to who is doing this and why but that is ultimately irrelevant. While pollution from automobiles, factories, power plants, forest fires, etc. all contribute to this air pollution health crisis, the harmful effects from the aviation industry are regularly glossed over and/or omitted when this issue is discussed. However, if you dig deep enough and actually search for the information, what can be found to be admitted by official Government sources regarding the health consequences from these trails is very telling and disturbing.
To start with, I want to provide a quick breakdown of the negative health impact of just one component that is admitted to be found within these persistent trails left in the wake of aircrafts. This is known as particulate matter, the most dangerous of which is PM2.5. From the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), you will see that PM2.5 is a known toxin potentially made up of hundreds of different chemicals that is so small that it can collect deep within the lungs and even enter the bloodstream. It has been associated with cardiovascular and respiratory disease, irritation of the eyes, throat, and lungs, and premature death:
Particulate Matter (PM) Basics
What is PM, and how does it get into the air?
“PM stands for particulate matter (also called particle pollution): the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye. Others are so small they can only be detected using an electron microscope.
Particle pollution includes:
PM10: inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller; and
PM2.5: fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller.
How small is 2.5 micrometers? Think about a single hair from your head. The average human hair is about 70 micrometers in diameter – making it 30 times larger than the largest fine particle.
Sources of PM
These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals.
Some are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks or fires.
Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are pollutants emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles.
What are the Harmful Effects of PM?
Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems. Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream. Of these, particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles or PM2.5, pose the greatest risk to health.
Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States, including many of our treasured national parks and wilderness areas.”
Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM)
Health Effects
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Small particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream.
Exposure to such particles can affectboth your lungs and your heart. Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including:
premature death in people with heart or lung disease
nonfatal heart attacks
irregular heartbeat
aggravated asthma
decreased lung function
increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing.
People with heart or lung diseases,children, and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure.
PM2.5 and other particulate matter is only part of the dangerous substances found in these persistent contrails. Other admitted substances include carbon dioxide (CO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), black carbon soot, and other trace metals. It is simply beyond logic and reasoning to believe that the inhalation of these substances on a daily basis is not harmful to one’s health.
Recently, some members of Congress were interested in addressing the health and environmental problems associated with aviation. On February 8th, 2022, the Congressional Research Service released a report describing the problem and how to address it. A few highlights showcase that aviation pollution is the fastest-growing pollutant over the past decade and that there are numerous toxic substances found within these trails: Aviation, Air Pollution, and Climate Change
Emissions from Aircraft
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that transportation—including passenger cars and light trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, trains, ships, and aircraft—accounted for 35% of carbon dioxide (CO2, the principal GHG) emissions in 2018. While CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light trucks exceed those from aircraft in the United States, CO2 emissions from aviation are currently experiencing a faster rate of growth. All aircraft, including military, commercial, and privately chartered, accounted for 13% of the U.S. transportation sector’s CO2 emissions and 5% of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2018. Commercial aircraft, including those operated by passenger and all-cargo airlines, accounted for 11% of transportation sector and 4% of all emissions. These estimates include emissions from U.S. domestic flights and emissions from international flights departing the United States, referred to as “international bunkering.”
In the United States, aggregate CO2 emissions from aircraft have fluctuated due to changes in technology, the economy, travel frequency, and military activity, among other reasons. However, since the global financial crisis in 2009,aggregate CO2 emissions from all aircraft types have grown steadily, increasing by almost 22% between 2009 and 2018. This increase makes aircraft one of the faster-growing sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the past decade. This trend is likely to be affected, at least temporarily, by reduced air travel in 2020 and 2021 due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The effects of aircraft emissions on the atmosphere are complex, reflecting differing altitudes, geography, time horizons, and environmental conditions. Research has shown that in addition to CO2 emissions, other factors increase the climate change impacts of aviation. These factors include the contribution of aircraft emissions to ozone production; the formation of water condensation trails and cirrus clouds; the emission of various gases and particles, including water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulfates, and particulates from jet fuel combustion; and the high altitude location of the bulk of these emissions. In examining the warming and cooling influences of these factors, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated aviation’s total climate change impact could be from two to four times that of its past CO2 emissions alone.
Aside from GHG emissions, aircraft engines emit a number of criteria—or common—pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, oxides of sulfur, unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), particulates, and other trace compounds. A subset of the VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants.”
In case you wanted a visual representation of how this pollution is said to form and impact our health.
As can be seen, the pollution coming from the aviation industry is a fast-growing problem that is impacting our health and environment in numerous ways. While this has been known for decades and solutions have been presented to try and reverse the impact, nothing is ever implemented to fix the problem. Solutions are only useful if they are enacted upon. While Congress gathers reports, there is little action taken in regards to those reports. It is one thing to acknowledge the negative health and environmental impact yet it is another thing entirely to actually shake up the industry by doing something about it. This seems not to be a major concern as these trails have become worse over time, increasingly contributing to erratic weather, disease, and premature death.
For further evidence of the impact that these trails have on our health and environment, we can turn once again to the EPA to provide more detail. In a document from January 11th, 2021, the EPA enacted standards that are supposed to combat greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation industry. In this document are findings from reports they had compiled in 2016 which call out the dangers these trails have on the public health and welfare:
Control of Air Pollution From Airplanes and Airplane Engines: GHG Emission Standards and Test Procedures
“In August 2016, the EPA issued two findings regarding GHG emissions from aircraft engines (the 2016 Findings).[7]First, the EPA found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Second, EPA found that emissions of GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). Additional details of the 2016 Findings are described in Section III. As a result of the 2016 Findings, CAA sections 231(a)(2)(A) and (3) obligate the EPA to propose and adopt, respectively, GHG standards for these covered aircraft engines.”
III. Summary of the 2016 Findings
“On August 15, 2016,[46] the EPA issued two findings regarding GHG emissions from aircraft engines. First, the EPA found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. The EPA made this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane, N2 O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009 Endangerment Finding [47] under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together were found to constitute the primary cause of climate change. Second, the EPA found that emissions of those six well-mixed GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft [48] cause or contribute to the air pollution—the aggregate group of the same six GHGs—that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).”
In February of 2022, the EPA proposed standards that would reflect the importance of the control of PM emissions in aviation. They were looking to secure the highest practicable degree of uniformity in aviation regulations and standards. Within this proposal, the EPA provided plenty of insight into the potential health impacts of PM2.5 on human health such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, neurological disorders, asthma, cancer, ferility/reproductive problems, and premature death. They also outlined the impact the chemicals in the trails have on the environment such as affecting the metabolic processes of plant foliage, altering the soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, disrupting plant and animal growth and reproduction, and the corrosion of metals and soil. They even provided more detail on the make-up of the composition of the dangerous toxins inside these trails with the addition of carcinogens such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and certain metals such as chromium, manganese, and nickel. Judging by this information alone, it should be rather clear that these trails are negatively impacting our health and environment in numerous ways:
Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft Engines: Emission Standards and Test Procedures
III. Particulate Matter Impacts on Air Quality and Health
A. Background on Particulate Matter
“Particulate matter (PM) is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles range in size from those smaller than 1 nanometer (10−9 meter) to over 100 micrometers (μm, or 10−6 meter) in diameter (for reference, a typical strand of human hair is 70 μm in diameter and a grain of salt is about 100 μm). Atmospheric particles can be grouped into several classes according to their aerodynamic and physical sizes. Generally, the three broad classes of particles include ultrafine particles (UFPs, generally considered as particulates with a diameter less than or equal to 0.1 μm (typically based on physical size, thermal diffusivity or electrical mobility)), “fine” particles (PM2.5; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm), and “thoracic” particles (PM10; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm). Particles that fall within the size range between PM2.5 and PM10, are referred to as “thoracic coarse particles” (PM10-2.5, particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm and greater than 2.5 μm).
Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions between PM precursors; the former are often referred to as “primary” particles, and the latter as “secondary” particles. Particle concentration and composition varies by time of year and location, and, in addition to differences in source emissions, is affected by several weather-related factors, such as temperature, clouds, humidity, and wind. Ambient levels of PM are also impacted by particles’ ability to shift between solid/liquid and gaseous phases, which is influenced by concentration, meteorology, and especially temperature.
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions ( e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region, meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon, and metal compounds. These particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers.
Particulate matter is comprised of both volatile and non-volatile PM. PM emitted from the engine is known as non-volatile PM (nvPM), and PM formed from transformation of an engine’s gaseous emissions are defined as volatile PM.[35] Because of the difficulty in measuring volatile PM, which is formed in the engine’s exhaust plume and is significantly influenced by ambient conditions, the EPA is proposing standards only for the emission of nvPM.
B. Health Effects of Particulate Matter
Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM is associated with a broad range of health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA), which was finalized in December 2019.[36]The PM ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient PM2.5 are associated with a number of adverse health effects and characterizes the weight of evidence for broad health categories ( e.g., cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, etc.).[37] The PM ISA additionally notes that stratified analyses ( i.e., analyses that directly compare PM-related health effects across groups) provide strong evidence for racial and ethnic differences in PM2.5 exposures and in PM2.5 -related health risk. As described in Section III.D, concentrations of PM increase with proximity to an airport. Further, studies described in Section III.G report that many communities in close proximity to airports are disproportionately represented by people of color and low-income populations.
EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA supports a “causal relationship” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects and a “likely to be causal relationship” between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects.[38]Additionally, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a “likely to be causal relationship” between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer. In addition, EPA noted that there was more limited and uncertain evidence for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and developmental effects ( i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility; pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects resulting in the ISA concluding “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship.”
More detailed information on the health effects of PM can be found in a memorandum to the docket.[39]
C. Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter
Environmental effects that can result from particulate matter emissions include visibility degradation, plant and ecosystem effects, deposition effects, and materials damage and soiling. These effects are briefly summarized here and discussed in more detail in the memo to the docket cited above.
PM2.5 emissions also adversely impact visibility.[40]In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized visibility’s value to society by establishing a national goal to protect national parks and wilderness areas from visibility impairment caused by manmade pollution.[41] In 1999, EPA finalized the regional haze program (64 FR 35714) to protect the visibility in Mandatory Class I Federal areas. There are 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas (62 FR 38680-38681, July 18, 1997). These areas are defined in CAA section 162 as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. EPA has also concluded that PM2.5 causes adverse effects on visibility in other areas that are not targeted by the Regional Haze Rule, such as urban areas, depending on PM2.5 concentrations and other factors such as dry chemical composition and relative humidity ( i.e., an indicator of the water composition of the particles). EPA established the secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 1997 and has retained the standard in subsequent reviews.[42] This standard is expected to provide protection against visibility effects through attainment of the existing secondary standards for PM2.5 . EPA is reconsidering the 2020 decision, as announced on June 10, 2021.[43]
1. Deposition of Metallic and Organic Constituents of PM
Several significant ecological effects are associated with deposition of chemical constituents of ambient PM such as metals and organics.[44]Like all internal combustion engines, turbine engines covered by this rule may emit trace amounts of metals due to fuel contamination or engine wear. Ecological effects of PM include direct effects to metabolic processes of plant foliage; contribution to total metal loading resulting in alteration of soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, plant and animal growth and reproduction; and contribution to total organics loading resulting in bioaccumulation and biomagnification.
2. Materials Damage and Soiling
Deposition of PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects) and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects). Wet and dry deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by deteriorating building materials such as stone, concrete and marble.[45]
D. Near-Source Impacts on Air Quality and Public Health
Airport activity can adversely impact air quality in the vicinity of airports. Furthermore, these adverse impacts may disproportionately impact sensitive subpopulations. A recent study by Yim et al. (2015) assessed global, regional, and local health impacts of civil aviation emissions, using modeling tools that address environmental impacts at different spatial scales.[46] The study attributed approximately 16,000 premature deaths per year globally to global aviation emissions, with 87 percent attributable to PM2.5 . The study concludes that about a third of these mortalities are attributable to PM2.5 exposures within 20 kilometers of an airport. Another study focused on the continental United States estimated 210 deaths per year attributable to PM2.5 from aircraft.[47] While there are considerable uncertainties associated with such estimates, these results suggest that in addition to the contributions of PM2.5 emissions to regional air quality, impacts on public health of these emissions in the vicinity of airports are an important public health concern.
A significant body of research has addressed pollutant levels and potential health effects in the vicinity of airports. Much of this research was synthesized in a 2015 report published by the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), conducted by the Transportation Research Board.[48]The report concluded that PM2.5 concentrations in and around airports vary considerably, ranging from “relatively low levels to those that are close to the NAAQS, and in some cases, exceeding the standards.” [49]
Furthermore, the report states (p. 40) that “existing studies indicate that ultrafine particle concentrations are highly elevated at an airport ( i.e., near a runway) with particle counts that can be orders of magnitude higher than background with some persistence many meters downwind ( e.g., 600 m). Finally, the report concludes that PM2.5 dominates overall health risks posed by airport emissions. Moreover, one recently published study concluded that emissions from aircraft play an etiologic role in pre-term births, independent of noise and traffic-related air pollution exposures.[50]
Since the publication of the 2015 ACRP literature review, a number of studies conducted in the U. S. have been published which concluded that ultrafine particle number concentrations were elevated downwind of commercial airports, and that proximity to an airport also increased particle number concentrations within residences.Hudda et al. investigated ultrafine particle number concentrations (PNC) inside and outside 16 residences in the Boston metropolitan area. They found elevated outdoor PNC within several kilometers of the airport. They also found that aviation-related PNC infiltrated indoors and resulted in significantly higher indoor PNC.[51] In another study in the vicinity of Logan airport, Hudda et al. analyzed PNC impacts of aviation activities.[52] They found that, at sites 4.0 and 7.3 km from the airport, average PNCs were 2 and 1.33-fold higher, respectively, when winds were from the direction of the airport compared to other directions, indicating that aviation impacts on PNC extend many kilometers downwind of Logan airport. Stacey (2019) conducted a literature survey and concluded that the literature consistently reports that particle numbers close to airports are significantly higher than locations distant and upwind of airports, and that the particle size distribution is different from traditional road traffic, with more extremely fine particles.[53] Similar findings have been published from European studies.[54 55 56 57 58 59 ] Results of a monitoring study of communities near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport also found higher levels of ultrafine PM near the airport, and an impacted area larger than at near-roadway sites.[60] The PM associated with aircraft landing activity was also smaller in size, with lower black carbon concentrations than near-roadway samples. As discussed above, PM2.5 exposures are associated with a number of serious, adverse health effects. Further, the PM attributable to aircraft emissions has been associated with potential adverse health impacts.[61 62] For example, He et al. (2018) found that particle composition, size distribution and internalized amount of particles near airports all contributed to promotion of reactive organic species in bronchial epithelial cells.
Because of these potential impacts, a systematic literature review was recently conducted to identify peer-reviewed literature on air quality near commercial airports and assess the quality of the studies.[63] The systematic review identified seventy studies for evaluation. These studies consistently showed that particulate matter, in the form of ultrafine PM (UFP), is elevated in and around airports. Furthermore, many studies showed elevated levels of black carbon, criteria pollutants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well. Finally, the systematic review, while not focused on health effects, identified a limited number of references reporting adverse health effects impacts, including increased rates of premature death, pre-term births, decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage and childhood leukemia. More research is needed linking particle size distributions to specific airport activities, and proximity to airports, characterizing relationships between different pollutants, evaluating long-term impacts, and improving our understanding of health effects.
A systematic review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in the vicinity of airports was also recently published.[64] This study concluded that literature on health effects was sparse, but jet engine emissions have physicochemical properties similar to diesel exhaust particles, and that exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions.A 2010 systematic review by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) concluded that evidence was sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma among children, and suggestive of a causal relationship for childhood asthma, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function and cardiovascular mortality.[65]”
F. Other Pollutants Emitted by Aircraft
“In addition to particulate matter, a number of other criteria pollutants are emitted by the aircraft which are the subject of this proposed rule. These pollutants, which are not covered by the rule, include nitrogen oxides (NOX), including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Aircraft also contribute to ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), compounds that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects. These compounds include, but are not limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and certain metals. Some POM and HAP metals are components of PM2.5 mass measured in turbine engine aircraft emissions.[70]
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs). POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Metal compounds emitted from aircraft turbine engine combustion include chromium, manganese, and nickel. Several POM compounds, as well as hexavalent chromium, manganese compounds and nickel compounds are included in the National Air Toxics Assessment, based on potential carcinogenic risk.[71] In addition, as mentioned previously, deposition of metallic compounds can have ecological effects. Impacts of POM and metals are further discussed in the memorandum to the docket referenced above.”
PM stands for particulate matter – the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air
Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye while others are too small to be seen
PM10: inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller
PM2.5: fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller
These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals
Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems
Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream
Fine particles are also the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems
Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart
Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including:
Premature death in people with heart or lung disease
Nonfatal heart attacks
Irregular heartbeat
Aggravated asthma
Decreased lung function
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing
People with heart or lung diseases,children, and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure
According to a Congressional Research Service report from February 8th, 2022, CO2 emissions from aviation are currently experiencing a faster rate of growth than other sources
All aircraft, including military, commercial, and privately chartered, accounted for 13% of the U.S. transportation sector’s CO2 emissions and 5% of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2018
Commercial aircraft, including those operated by passenger and all-cargo airlines, accounted for 11% of transportation sector and 4% of all emissions
Since the global financial crisis in 2009, aggregate CO2 emissions from all aircraft types have grown steadily, increasing by almost 22% between 2009 and 2018
This increase makes aircraft one of the faster-growing sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. transportation sector over the past decade
The effects of aircraft emissions on the atmosphere are complex, reflecting differing altitudes, geography, time horizons, and environmental conditions
Research has shown that in addition to CO2 emissions, other factors increase the climate change impacts of aviation which include:
The contribution of aircraft emissions to ozone production
The formation of water condensation trails and cirrus clouds
The emission of various gases and particles, including water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulfates, and particulates from jet fuel combustion
The high altitude location of the bulk of these emissions
In examining the warming and cooling influences of these factors, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated aviation’s total climate change impact could be from two to four times that of its past CO2 emissions alone
Aside from GHG emissions, aircraft engines emit a number of criteria—or common—pollutants, including:
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Oxides of sulfur
Unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs])
Particulates
Other trace compounds
A subset of the VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants
According to a 2021 report by the EPA, they found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
Second, EPA found that emissions of GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
The EPA made this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009 Endangerment Finding under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together were found to constitute the primary cause of climate change
The EPA found that emissions of those six well-mixed GHGs from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft cause or contribute to the air pollution—the aggregate group of the same six GHGs—that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A)
Another report by the EPA from February 2022 states that particulate matter (PM) is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases
Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) in the atmosphere
PM2.5 may include a complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon, and metal compounds
These particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers
Particulate matter is comprised of both volatile and non-volatile PM
PM emitted from the engine is known as non-volatile PM (nvPM), and PM formed from transformation of an engine’s gaseous emissions are defined as volatile PM
Because of the difficulty in measuring volatile PM, which is formed in the engine’s exhaust plume and is significantly influenced by ambient conditions, the EPA is proposing standards only for the emission of nvPM
In other words, there are no standards proposed by the EPA for the transformation these chemicals go through after leaving the enginewhen they become lingering trails
Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM isassociated with a broad range of health effects
The PM ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient PM2.5 are associated with a number of adverse health effects and characterizes the weight of evidence for broad health categories ( e.g., cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, etc.)
EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA supports a “causal relationship” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects and a “likely to be causal relationship” between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects
Additionally, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a “likely to be causal relationship” between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer
In addition, EPA noted that there was more limited and uncertain evidence for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and developmental effects ( i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility; pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects resulting in the ISA concluding “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship”
Environmental effects that can result from particulate matter emissions include:
Visibility degradation
Plant and ecosystem effects
Deposition effects
Materials damage and soiling
PM2.5 emissions also adversely impact visibility
Like all internal combustion engines, turbine engines covered by this rule may emittrace amounts of metals due to fuel contamination or engine wear
Ecological effects of PM include:
Direct effects to metabolic processes of plant foliage
Contribution to total metal loading resulting in alteration of soil biogeochemistry and microbiology, plant and animal growth and reproduction
Contribution to total organics loading resulting in bioaccumulation and biomagnification
Deposition of PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects) and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects)
Wet and dry deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by deteriorating building materials such as stone, concrete and marble
A recent study by Yim et al. (2015) assessed global, regional, and local health impacts of civil aviation emissions, using modeling tools that address environmental impacts at different spatial scales
The study attributed approximately 16,000 premature deaths per year globally to global aviation emissions, with 87 percent attributable to PM2.5
The study concluded that about a third of these mortalities are attributable to PM2.5 exposures within 20 kilometers of an airport
Another study focused on the continental United States estimated 210 deaths per year attributable to PM2.5 from aircraft
Impacts on public health of these emissions in the vicinity of airports are an important public health concern
A 2015 report concluded that PM2.5 concentrations in and around airports vary considerably, ranging from “relatively low levels to those that are close to the NAAQS, and in some cases, exceeding the standards.”
Furthermore, the report stated (p. 40) that “existing studies indicate that ultrafine particle concentrations are highly elevated at an airport ( i.e., near a runway) with particle counts that can be orders of magnitude higher than background with some persistence many meters downwind ( e.g., 600 m)
Finally, the report concluded that PM2.5 dominates overall health risks posed by airport emissions
Hudda et al. investigated ultrafine particle number concentrations (PNC) inside and outside 16 residences in the Boston metropolitan area and found that aviation-related PNC infiltrated indoors and resulted in significantly higher indoor PNC
Stacey (2019) conducted a literature survey and concluded that the literature consistently reports that particle numbers close to airports are significantly higher than locations distant and upwind of airports, and that the particle size distribution is different from traditional road traffic, with more extremely fine particles
PM2.5 exposures are associated with a number of serious, adverse health effects and the PM attributable to aircraft emissions has been associated with potential adverse health impacts
He et al. (2018) found that particle composition, size distribution and internalized amount of particles near airports all contributed to promotion of reactive organic species in bronchial epithelial cells
A systematic review of 70 studies consistently showed that particulate matter, in the form of ultrafine PM (UFP), is elevated in and around airports
Furthermore, many studies showed elevated levels of black carbon, criteria pollutants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as well
Finally, the systematic review, while not focused on health effects, identified a limited number of references reporting adverse health effects impacts, including increased rates of premature death, pre-term births, decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage and childhood leukemia
A systematic review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in the vicinity of airports found that jet engine emissions have physicochemical properties similar to diesel exhaust particles, and that exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions
A 2010 systematic review by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) concluded that evidence was sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and exacerbation of asthma among children, and suggestive of a causal relationship for childhood asthma, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function and cardiovascular mortality
Besides PM2.5, other harmful pollutants, which are not covered by the rule, include:
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Aircraft also contribute to ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), compounds that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects
These compounds include, but are not limited to:
Benzene,
1,3-butadiene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Polycyclic organic matter (POM)
Certain metals
Some POM and HAP metals are components of PM2.5 mass measured in turbine engine aircraft emissions
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs)
Metal compounds emitted from aircraft turbine engine combustion include:
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Several POM compounds, as well as hexavalent chromium, manganese compounds and nickel compounds are included in the National Air Toxics Assessment, based on potential carcinogenic risk
When dealing with a potential health threat, we tend to jump to the conclusion that we are facing a new “virus” as this well-orchestrated lie has been drilled into our collective consciousness since birth. It is second nature to blame the new invisible boogeyman while overlooking the old visible threats that have been plaguing us for years with no end in sight. It seems too easy to admit to ourselves that any perceived increase in respiratory disease could be attributable to the continued increase in air pollution.
Yet from the start, “Covid-19” has been linked to air pollution. The areas hit the hardest were those with the highest levels of these harmful toxins in the air. As travel died down during the lockdowns, cases fell along with subsiding smog. As travel and pollution rose up again, so too did the “Covid” cases. Even small increases in air pollution has been shown to have an impact on “Covid” case numbers and deaths.
We know for a fact that air pollution is harmful to our health and environment. We know that every single symptom of disease associated with “Covid-19” can be linked to the PM2.5 particles which make up the majority of the dirty air we breathe. We know for a fact that automobiles, factories, power plants, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. all contribute to the harmful levels of toxins in the air. However, the one thing we have been told not to question as a contributor to our current problems are the lingering trails in the sky which form artificial clouds blocking out the beneficial rays of the sun. We are told that these are just regular old contrails from commercial airliners made up of ice crystals which eventually dissipate into a completely safe and harmless nothingness. Anyone questioning the trails is immediately labelled a conspiracy theorist.
It should be clear now, whether you call them chemtrails or not, that these persistent streaks in the sky are full of dangerous substances that attack the cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological systems. Thanks to government sources such as the EPA and the Congressional Research Service, we know that these trails are the fastest growing pollutant in the air and that they are contributing to even greater levels of smog and haze. The trails and the artificial cirrus clouds they form are a near constant sight in the sky these days and the problem is only growing worse with time. The damaging effects that these lines in the sky have on our health and environment is not even debatable. It is agreed upon by both sides of the debate. That these “persistent contrails” are harmful to our health and environment is a FACT. That the chemicals and toxins found within the vapors cause the exact same symptoms of disease as “Covid-19” is not a coincidence.
Thus we are left with two choices. We can either believe the official narrative that a new “virus” of unknown origin magically leapt from animal to man or somehow escaped from a lab and infected millions of people with a disease that causes the exact same symptoms associated with allergies, the common cold, the flu, and pneumonia. And with it’s rise, it has eliminated the majority of the cases of those previous ailments and can also constantly mutate (over 10 million versions now according to GISAID.org) in order to slip by every possible measure to contain it including masks, social distancing, lockdowns, quarantines, vaccines, etc.
Or we can believe that the ever-increasing and constant daily exposure to air pollution has taken a toll on the populace damaging the health and environment of everyone living within these dangerous levels of toxic fumes. While this is not the only explanation for any perceived increase in respiratory and other diseases, it is the most logical one over an invisible “virus.” According to Occam’s Razor, the simplest of competing theories should be preferred over those that are more complex and that explanations of unknown phenomena should be sought first in terms of known quantities. We know air pollution is harmful. We know that these trails are increasing at a faster rate than any other pollutant. We know that the chemicals residing within them are associated with the exact same symptoms of disease that are ascribed to “Covid.” Unlike a “virus,” we can see this boogeyman with our own two eyes.
All we have to do is look up.
From their own sources, the trails are a threat to our health and our environment. Contrary to what they want you to believe about “persistent contrails,” a.k.a. chemtrails, this is NOT a conspiracy.
You can see more of the slides from Government sources that were presented within this article here.
A catchy title, The NICE Act, (HR 5816), is a federal Act recently introduced in Congress under the appearance of a Health Freedom Bill.
Look closer. The NICE Act is not what it appears to be. It attempts to do something it is not designed to do. Then again, the rule of law always has exceptions. In this case, it is important to be aware that federal Acts regulate commerce, not people. Note, when federal Acts attempt to regulate people, money is always involved.
Follow the money.
The NAUGHTY but NICE Act?
Where there is government overreach, The NICE Act (HR 5816) becomes The Naughty Act. Let us break it down into 8 proofs:
A BILL…
“To prohibit the federal Government, or State or local government or other entity receiving federal funding, from requiring any citizen to be vaccinated, including federal agencies from requiring its employees to take any vaccination, without the citizen being fully advised in writing of all known potential risks from the vaccine and consultation with a physician followed by the voluntary informed consent of the citizen, and for other purposes.”
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “National Informed Consent Exemption (NICE) Act.”
1. This bill directly affects any entity, or person, receiving federal money.
The federal Government, and persons receiving federal funding, are prohibited from requiring any citizen to be vaccinated or tested for an infectious disease without due process of law. Citizens have the fundamental right to decline vaccination for an infectious disease without penalty.
Aha! The beginning of the money trail. This Act attempts to regulate an individual’s choice for healing. Whether a citizen chooses vaccination or not speaks to consent, not Informed Consent. This is a consent bill masquerading as an Informed Consent bill. However, whatever this bill claims to be, the freedom to choose is a Right, far removed from federal commerce and its regulations. How people heal is protected by States and State Constitutions, and should not be redefined by federal Acts that attempt to legislate choice.
2. Informed Consent is Not Consent
Informed Consent already exists in a current law, codified at 45 CFR § 46.116 – General requirements for informed consent. It exists to protect a patient’s right to receive information, including risks, before accepting or declining a medical procedure. No one is required to submit to any procedures without informed consent. Again, informedconsent is not to be confused with Consent, meaning the ability for someone to accept or to decline an offer, such a vaccination. This bears repeating.
Informed consent occurs when there is agreement to an interaction or action rendered with knowledge of relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives. Informed consent often comes up in the contexts of legal ethics, medical treatment, and waiver of constitutional rights. – Legal Information Institute.
It is important to know that a government-granted exemption is a privilege, not a right. The ability to decline a medical procedure, including vaccination, is, and always has been, a Right. Rights are inborn, granted by the Creator. Rights do not come from government. Governments are established to protect the rights of men and women. See ‘The Declaration of Independence.’
No government has the power to legislate a right, even when naming it as “an exemption,” unless the people sign on, with their signatures.
3. Medical freedom is much broader than vaccines, alone.
This medical freedom bill is limited in scope, focusing on freedom from vaccine mandates only, as if vaccination is a gold standard with few exceptions. What about freedom from coercion, drugging, medical testing, medical tracking, medical chipping, and all forms of medical tyranny inside and outside of “public health emergencies?”
4. Under the NICE Act, citizens would agree that this human right (the right to decline a vaccine) does not apply when:
(3) Federal, State, and local emergencies where the governing authority has first formally applied to the President of the United States of America for a NICE exception, and provided that the President in his discretion formally authorizes the requested exception based on the following criteria proven by the governing authority: (i) compliance with the procedure in section 5(b) would be materially impractical, (ii) the requested NICE exception would not materially interfere with National Security, and (iii) short-term and long-term side effects from the vaccination, including serious injuries and deaths, have been proven to occur in less than 1 in 200,000 individuals.
Did you notice that this bill includes exceptions for the exemption? Would a perceived threat to national security invalidate the NICE exemption? What authority determines the level of security threat that would trigger this revocation? Would government be able to deploy a mass vaccine rollout in public schools, as has happened in the past? The language of this bill attempts to swap a privilege for a privilege, with exemptions for an exemption, but remember, human rights ALWAYS apply.
5. Any medical procedures, drugs, or vaccines are always optional, yet the NICE Act makes the assumption that there is always an exception.
(b) Vaccination shall henceforth be optional to citizens, except as provided in section 5, for their participation in society, including but not limited to education, travel, employment, government service, housing, social welfare programs, access to courts, and medical care.
6. Americans currently have guardianship laws and power of attorney, yet this Act would not apply to:
(1) lawfully incarcerated and institutionalized individuals lacking the right or ability to meaningfully provide informed consent or informed refusal;
7. The authors of this Act say this law would also not apply to the following:
(2) courts of law issuing individualized court orders specific to one individual, provided the court order applies strict scrutiny following a hearing affording due process of law to the individual affected;
Still, governments have no authority to vaccinate anyone against his will. Even though governments do coerce, they cannot mandate a vaccination.
8. This bill creates victims and subjects of the court system if violations occur under the Act.
(a) Any person who has been the victim of a violation of this Act may bring a civil action for damages against any responsible party.
Legally, a “PERSON” means an individual, a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, association, trust, unincorporated organization, or other legal entity or organization, or a Government Body. Alternatively, if you are not a PERSON, subject to this Act, then you are neither a victim of the Act, nor a subject of the federal judicial system.
Law Basics 101
The United States Congress was established for the purpose of making and enacting laws that protect the rights and freedoms of people. However,people existed before the government existed. Therefore, the rights of people supersede government laws, Acts, statutes, and dictates. Since the
origin of rights and freedom comes from birth, they are known as birth RIGHTS.
Government laws exist as “BENEFITS and PRIVILEGES.” However, since the inception of the United States in 1776, both presidents andgovernors have been bypassing the laws through illegal Executive Orders(E.O.s) under Color of Law.Even though it might be argued that federalActs fall under the Color of Law, the chances of finding a solution through the court system is about as likely as isolating the Coronavirus. The CDCstill admits there is no gold standardfor the isolation of any virus.
Government-granted exemptions for government-imposed health mandates are strategically designed to fail by entrapping those members of thecommunity who sign onto them. Firstly, there is no legal defense or enforcement for religious or medical exemptions because businesses have nolegal duty of care from imposing mandates based on the The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk.
The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk states that no business is liable to protect others from a risk that’s widely known or believed toexist in the community.
Secondly, laws cannot conflict with each other. So when mandates or Executive Orders conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),then there is a violation of the legal duty of care. A legal dutyis a legal obligation, the breach of which can result in liability. Businesses that imposemandates must have an insurance policy.
John Jay Singleton, of Zunga,says, Federal law, the ADA, requires businesses to aid and encourage those with disabilities in the exercise andenjoyment of their rights. This means that not only can a business owner not impose such measures on anyone, he must actively protect everyonefrom any violation of this law, at least by not imposing them.
To exercise and enjoy your rights doesn’t mean you have to have a disability. It means you’re regarded as having a disability. Ifyou’reregardedashavingadisabilityitsbecausethe governmentannouncedapublichealthdisaster,sothelegal dutiescomeintoplaywith theADA. Andthe legal dutyof careis onanyone trying toforce thesemeasure onyou.John JaySingleton
An exemption means there has to be a legal duty of care. If there is no legal duty, there is no exemption. So no court will take jurisdiction. Aplaintiff in court will never win. This is another reason you do not have to beg for a right you already possess.
Exemptions bind people to an arbitrary, and a constantly changing, list of demands. These demands supersede basic freedoms, and thereupondeny people of their inalienable, God/life given rights to self-determination of their bodies. As the government giveth, so, too, can the governmenttaketh away, on a whim.
It is important to appreciate that all vaccine-related exemptions, whether, medical, religious, moral/philosophical/personal belief, naughty orNICE, are fundamentally illegal, because they transpose an inherent human RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE, on the presumption that you acknowledge,and thus sacrifice, or forfeit, your natural born rights and ‘freedom to choose’ to an external authority.
What if declining to participate in Acts preserves your authenticity and your rights?
All Acts attempt do one thing: to allow the government to legislate choice and freedom, that is …ifyou consentto the offer. But were you provided Informed Consent?
For instance, there is no American authority for compulsory vaccination, in the sense of forcingone to submit. When it comes to the government, everything is an offer to contract. When it comesto Acts, All the world is a stage.
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts, – Shakespeare, As You Like It,
Shakespeare titled his play, As You Like It, as if to say, you always have a choice. There is no law that compels anyone to do anything related tomandated restrictions, whether COVID-related or not. The freedom to choose is non-negotiable. You always have options just like you haveopinions. However, in this era, freedom must be defended and claimed as a birthright.
Becausegovernmentshaveinvertedandoverturnedthe basicprincipleofchoice,bywayof Acts,statutesandpolicies,theyhave boundfreedom,itself, to a contract.
All government Acts apply to government entities and persons; not to men and women. Men and women are not subject to Acts, because they arenot subjects.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee & BitChute channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Good day South Africa. My name is Ricardo Marmaan and today is the 8th of April 2022, exactly three days after the Western Cape High Court dismissed our ‘Show us the virus‘ court case application, an application for an urgent interim interdict against the lockdown regulations.
It was dismissed with a punitive cost order against me. This judgment came after a 2-month long delay and exactly one day after Ramaphosa made his speech in which he so-called ended the lockdown. We know he did not end it; he merely escalated it by deceptive means.
This is a very strange coincidence. May be no coincidence all.
We asked the Western Cape High Court to grant the people legal protection against being forced by Ramaphosa and the big businesses into these harmful lockdown regulations — like the wearing of the suffocating masks, the use of these poisonous hand sanitizers, and to be forced into taking these deadly vaccinations.
Ramaphosa and these vaccine producers and big businesses already enjoy such legal protection because they are protected by the regulations. They are acting under the regulations.
We asked the Western Cape High Court, in a reasonable and just application, that the people of South Africa be granted the very selfsame legal protections.
But the court unfortunately dismissed our application with a punitive cost order against me.
South Africa, at the very beginning of this process, we asked Ramaphosa to show us the virus. He failed to do so and, therefore, he is perpetrating a virusless pandemic against the people of South Africa.
Parliament, through its silence, is consenting to Ramaphosa and now the judiciary, through its legal — using its legal power and its judgments and rulings protecting and I’m up also protecting the vaccine producers — are protecting Ramaphosa, protecting the vaccine producers, and protecting the big businesses, and depriving the people of South Africa of the very selfsame legal protection.
South Africa, it is time that we see this for what it is. Our beautiful nation has been completely, or more or less completely subverted.
Subversion means that our beautiful nation has been infiltrated by foreign aggressive actors and their local agents. And they are, through lies and deception, leading us to our own self destruction.
The National Health Act amendments will make this subversive and self destructive measures permanent. But Parliament can stop these amendments. Parliament have taken an oath to represent the interests and protect the interest of the people of South Africa, to represent the people of South Africa, to hold Ramaphosa, the Minister of CoGTA [Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs] , and the Minister of Health accountable.
It is time that we wake Parliament up and instruct them because they are our representatives.
I suggest that you go to the Parliament website, parliament.gov [parliament.gov.za], and find the members of Parliament, identify them, contact them and go to them in droves. They live amongst us.
It is time that we instruct them that we the people of South Africa do not want these amendments because they are subversive and self destructive
— that the members of Parliament have a duty to protect the people of South Africa and to stop Ramaphosa
— that if they fail to obey our lawful instructions then it is clear that they are agents of subversion.
South Africa, do not let them divide you. Wake everyone you know up and let us act together. South Africa, do not let them distract you.
Parliament has the power to stop these amendments and we have the lawful authority to instruct Parliament to do so.
South Africa, let us all act together and let us go to Parliament, to the members of Parliament. Let us phone them, let us email them and let us go to them.
And let us say to them that we the people of South Africa say no to these amendments.
I am so frustrated by all the well-meaning activists and their signs emblazoned with that message.
What I do with my body has nothing to do with the degree of risk involved. What I do with my body is strictly my choice, period. This is not negotiable. I am a sovereign human being with natural rights no person or government may infringe.
And I would die defending those rights.
No, I’m not being sensational. I simply refuse to live as a slave and do not want that future for my husband, my son, or all the other people on the planet enduring this dystopian present.
This is a line I will not, and we must not, concede.
Have we forgotten what our founders declared in the Declaration of Independence? Those prescient, revolutionary masterminds proclaimed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [Emphasis mine.]
Have we forgotten why they wrote those words and what they truly mean?
Those who came before us wrote these words because they endured firsthand the hardship, suffering, indignity, and torment attendant to a system of government devoid of basic human rights and self-determination. They wrote them as they understood that our rights derive from something larger than any human being or human source – not from government, a person, or any manmade construct.
We possess natural rights due to the very fact of being born human. Our rights come from the source of all things and therefore cannot be removed.
This notion is unique to the United States. No other country’s founding documents proclaim such a fundamental and profound concept as this, an ideal millions of Americans hold dear, even sacred.
Our founders understood all too well the primacy of the individual and the fundamental rights which accompany each individual.
They grasped that if I yield the power and authority over my body to another who can force me to undergo a medical procedure as long as it’s deemed safe, then I am not free and may be compelled to submit to all manner of bodily intrusions.
That many politicians, thought leaders, and even judges defend a utilitarian ethos does not make it moral, ethical, or constitutional.
It is never right to harm one individual in service to the greater good and violating one individual’s fundamental right to bodily autonomy cannot be construed as anything other than harm.
As enlightenment philosopher John Locke explained so well, a society consists of individuals and cannot take precedence over the individual without sacrificing itself. Indeed, the individual is everything. If the greater good takes priority over the individual, we are a faceless mass.
If the greater good rules, may I be forced to eat only food deemed healthy and appropriate by the government? Does that mean I may eat no red meat, no butter and eggs, no raw foods – all foods I consider nutrient-dense health foods but which government has wrongly denigrated for decades?
May I be forced to eat bugs and synthetic meat, GMO salmon, corn, or soy? Before you laugh, search it up for yourself – lately, articles about the wonders of bug-eating abound. Restaurants serving ants, locusts, mealworms, and more are popping up nationwide.
What if I have allergic reactions or sensitivities to foods? Who decides how severe my reaction must be? What if my research on GMOs concludes they are harmful? Must I submit simply because some bureaucrat or potentially vested individual says so?
Can the amount of sugar I eat be restricted? Sugar undermines the immune system after all, so wouldn’t that benefit the greater good? What about potato chips, alcohol, cookies, crackers, and chips, all of which undermine my health and vitality, and therefore that of my community?
May I be coerced to donate blood to help my neighbor in need? What about one of my kidneys? May I be forced to take antidepressants to boost my mood or ADHD meds so I am more productive? May I be required to have brain and other implants installed in my body to monitor my moods and bodily functions and assure compliance with my medical treatment? May I be obliged to carry a baby for a woman who desperately wants to be a mother but can’t bear her own children?
Where do I the individual end and where does my community begin? If I as an individual can be harmed in service to the greater good, is my society a moral and ethical community?
With respect to what is deemed safe, who decides this? Have we completely forgotten history and all the mistakes science and scientists have made ranging from Vioxx to thalidomide and opioids?
Science is not absolute – it shifts and advances constantly. We once believed it was wise to x-ray pregnant women’s pelvises, we once believed handwashing was nonsense, we once believed mercury was a useful medicine. Ignoring these lessons of history is pure folly.
Who decides what is healthy or what research is valid? Why should someone I don’t know, who knows nothing about me, who is not me, who may have ulterior profit, political, or social motives, have ANY voice in how I keep myself well, how I care for myself when ill, or how I use my body?
When did we all vote and decide that the good of the community trumps the value of the individual? Western civilization, the US in particular, was built on the foundational principle of individual rights and freedoms. The Nazis reminded us that utilitarianism, the misguided belief that individuals may be sacrificed in service to the many, is evil. How did we so profoundly lose our way in 75 years?
The greater good is a glorified slide into a dark and endless black hole. A black hole I cannot and will not abide.
My body and my choices in relation to my body are not conditional on anything. Period.
As avian influenza runs through the nation’s poultry flocks, with the current extermination of about 28 million laying hens and turkeys, I can’t help but wonder why we aren’t putting beak masks on the chickens.
If masks are so effective against viruses in the human population, why don’t we just make a chicken mask to stop this virus? Seems like a better fix than exterminating all these animals.
The problem is that Dr. Fauci isn’t in the chicken business. Rats. What a shame. If only he were in charge of chickens, he’d have this thing under control in a day. I think we need to expand his authority to the animals of America so he can take care of them like he’s taken care of the humans of America.
When avian flu broke out in our part of Virginia many years ago, two of the federal veterinarians sent in to exterminate chickens visited me just to chat. The independent visits shared an identical assessment: too many chickens crammed in too tight a space in too small a geographic area. Both said if they mentioned that publicly they would be fired.
Hmmmm, I wonder if decentralization of poultry would be better than centralization. Notice that on one farm, 5.8 million laying hens were destroyed—ON ONE FARM!
It’s all blamed on wildlife. Folks, whenever a culture views wildlife as a liability rather than asset, you know everything is wonky. It’s like blaming babies for drug addiction. Or blaming churches for drunkards. When wildlife is the enemy, something is out of whack in the culture’s thinking.
I don’t trust the tests. I don’t trust the experts. I don’t trust the bureaucrats. Isn’t it amazing that as a culture, we’re fixated on prolonging human life for a week or two with ultra-expensive, painful, and invasive intervention but at the first sign of sniffles in a chicken, the “only” cure, according to the experts, is mass extermination. Perhaps the wrong beings are being exterminated. Just sayin’.
The biggest tragedy is that these government gumshoes will come onto a property, without a warrant and unannounced, demanding to pull blood from pastured chickens. They’ll take that sample to a lab driven by political agendas and industrial paradigms (chickens locked in houses are healthier than chickens roaming on a pasture) to determine positive or negative.
Does this sound like incestuous fraternal collusion shenanigans to you?
In a World First on Maria Zeee Uncensored, Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts exposes the Nanotech found in the COVID-19 Vaccines, declaring this is genocide.
We discuss the incoming Digital Identity and the government’s plan to enslave humanity through their plans for a New World Order.
“And what we’re seeing in the world today, I think, is we are on the brink of a dramatic change where we are about to, and I’ll say this boldly, we’re about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one.
And the new one, the new accounting, is what we call blockchain. It means digital. It means having a almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what’s going on.”
James Evan Pilato:
“Like Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, she sees covid as an opportunity to transform the world. The new money system Malmgren talks about with such enthusiasm will not only be digital, it’ll be centralized and programmable.
As we’ve talked about the Bitcoin psyop now for several years, don’t confuse this with Bitcoin or other actual cryptocurrencies. The only thing it’ll share in common with other crypto is that it will be based on blockchain technology.
So what do they mean by programmable money? This means that central banks will have complete control over your money and can program it so that it can only be spent on certain things, in certain places.”
[Globalist/Elitist] Dr Pippa Malmgren:
“We’re already in World War III. We are already in conflict that extends so far beyond Ukraine actually, even within the context of western Europe. But we’ve clearly been pretty much at war in space, below the surface of the ocean, submarine warfare between superpowers. I would even say that this has been happening for a least four years, and it spilled over into public view on the ground. But we don’t frame it that way.”
James Corbett:
“And then Pippa goes on with that statement, but also she prefaces that statement by saying what underpins a world order is always the financial system. Ding Ding Ding Ding. That is true… What is happening in Ukraine right now fundamentally, at base, is not a geopolitical event. It is a monetary event, a changeover in the monetary paradigm of the world…
This is what it’s about. It’s the change over to the central bank digital currency paradigm. And, as she points out, the Chinese are pioneering it. And they’re the first ones to roll out with the digital yuan. And they’re spearheading this thrust into the digital divide — between pre-digital humanity and trans-humanity…
It’s all about… how we set the rules around this. And who gets to be in charge of the system. Yes, this could be used for bad purposes, this kind of digital ID surveillance tracking control of everything that everyone does. But as long as it’s in the right hands, it’ll be okay. And you will notice that the pimps of the New World order will always frame it this way.”
Globalists Spill the Beans at the World Government Summit
GeoEngineeringWatch.org is the most visited website in the world on the subject of covert climate engineering operations.
Dane Wigington begins this Q&A with his question for the day:
“If the human race remains on the current course of all-out planetary decimation, how much time do we have until the extinction of our species? And will we bring the entire web of life down with us? We’re getting close to that now and few even realize it.”
Dane and his callers cover many topics, including the link between HAARP and other ground-based, radio frequency transmitters, microwave transmission networks and other silent weapons for quiet wars.
A few quotes from Dane:
“So again, they’re using the atmosphere for a physics lab.”
“What’s happening in our skies will very soon determine our collective futures if it’s not stopped. At any point time, if those in power choose to, if they feel they’re losing control, they can put something much more lethal in this mix and put us all on our backs. Overnight. Literally.”
“We have a common thread of the various forms of mental deficiency with those in power — the common thread is this — a near total lack of comprehension as to the consequences of their actions even to themselves. Would they do this to themselves? Yes, they have and they continue to.”
“Those in power don’t care how toxic these elements are. And for those that don’t know what graphene is — look it up… Graphene toxilogical effects — it reads like a horror story. It’s a vascular machete, destroying parts of our bodies’ vascular system and countless other downstream elements. And it can be used for biological carrier, can be used to carry some sort of biological agent from the clouds to the ground.”
Those who follow this site will easily see the link between the toxic ingredients in the so-called covid vaccines and similar toxic nanoparticles that have, for decades, been pumped into our skies, continue to kill off forests and vegetation, and are being breathed in by all humans and all animal life on the planet.
On this Coming Collapse Q and A session, a highly credentialed scientist from a top 10 science testing facility joins us for a shocking front line report.
Recent testing has now confirmed that the highly toxic element graphene is in our precipitation, along with an already long list of toxins including aluminum nanoparticles.
Surfactants have also been confirmed in recent precipitation testing. Climate intervention operations are ubiquitously contaminating the entire planet and every breath we take.
How long do we have if the human race remains on the current course?
Please join us for this front line report on the most dire and immediate threats we collectively face.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Dr. Naomi Wolf discusses the war on children and on Western values. Forcing children to wear masks is abusive because new studies show that this prevents them from developing normal facial recognition and the practice has a now-measurable effect on their IQ levels.
With all the new information surfacing from the WarRoom/DailyClout volunteers regarding the formerly secret Pfizer documents, and with attorney Stevan Looney’s new essay on the redacted documents in the secret Pfizer tranche now published on DailyClout.io, it is becoming clear that informed consent before receiving the vaccine was never even possible.
Bombshell: in order to process just the paperwork from the “large number of adverse events” — Pfizer’s own words — Pfizer had to hire 2,400 new, full-time employees and the company proudly informed the FDA of these thousands of new hires to grapple with the flood of adverse events they saw as early as February 28, 2021. Yet they did not disclose these adverse events to the public and neither did the FDA.
“The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica…
[….]
“What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice.”
virus, infectious agent of small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria. The name is from a Latin word meaning “slimy liquid” or “poison.”
I have purposefully stayed away from the whole “SARS-COV-2” as a gain of function/bioweapon disinformation campaign as it is obvious to anyone who has ever read any “virus” paper, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” or any of these other invisible entities. At no point has any virologist ever properly purified and isolated the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from a sick patient and then proven them pathogenic in a natural way. As this is a fact that is even admitted by virologists themselves, it should also be obvious that if they can not find the particles assumed to be “viruses” in nature, they can not tinker around and modify these fictional entities in a lab in order to create some sort of contagious bioweapon.
Somehow, this logic escapes many. Even though some have woken to the truth and accepted that “SARS-COV-2” does not exist in nature, they still believe that it must have been developed in a lab and unleashed upon the world in order to create a new contagious disease which is wrecking havoc on the elderly and immunocompromised. What they fail to realize is that there simply is no new disease and that none of the symptoms associated with “SARS-COV-2” are new, unique, or specific. There is zero proof of transmission and/or contagion beyond highly flawed epidemiological studies. There is no new “virus,” no new disease, and no contagious bioweapon. It is pure fiction based upon faulty cell culture and genomic experiments.
Before diving into the experimental evidence presented for gain of function studies, I figured it would be a good idea to get some background information on what exactly these kinds of studies entail first. From the October 2021 Nature article highlighted below, we learn that the gain of function concept earned widespread recognition in 2012 due to a pair of studies which both looked to tweak an avian influenza “virus” in order to make it transmissable by air between ferrets. Disregarding the contradictory fact that aerosol transmission is supposedly the way an upper respiratory “virus” is supposed to spread, many became concerned that this kind of work may eventually lead to the release of a super “virus” which could result in the next pandemic. These ferret studies were apparently pivotal with bringing virology into the gain of function field, even though it could be easily argued that virology has been performing these kinds of experiments throughout its existence.
The gain of function term refers to any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host. This is done by fiddling with cell culture material in a lab combined with genomic sequencing. They do this either by inserting genetic material into the cell culture or by way of animal models where the animal is said to be genetically altered in some way to be more susceptible to the “viral” material.
The article provides an example where mice were genetically modified to become susceptible to MERS. However, the mice did not become ill upon being challenged with the “virus.” Thus, the researchers resorted to passaging the “virus” between mice, which involved infecting a couple of mice, giving the “virus” two days to take hold, and then killing the mice and grinding up the lung tissue to inject into other mice. They repeated these steps at least 30 times which eventually made some mice sick. This process of culturing toxic material, injecting animals with the concoction, killing them and grinding up their remains, and then injecting this emulsified goop into other animals in an attenpt to make them sick is what GOF is all about. While this horrific process is getting recognized today, these kinds of experiments have been a staple of virology since the very beginning:
The shifting sands of ‘gain-of-function’ research
“The term first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza virus, using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets2,3. Many people were concerned that publishing the work would be tantamount to providing a recipe for a devastating pandemic, and in the years that followed, research funders, politicians and scientists debated whether such work required stricter oversight, lest someone accidentally or intentionally release a lab-created plague. Researchers around the world voluntarily paused some work, but the issue became particularly politicized in the United States.
US funding agencies, which also support research abroad, later imposed a moratorium on gain-of-function research with pathogens while they worked out new protocols to assess the risks and benefits. But many of the regulatory discussions have taken place out of the public eye.
Now, gain-of-function research is once again centre stage, thanks to SARS-CoV-2 and a divisive debate about where it came from. Most virologists say that the coronavirus probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the virus was first reported. But a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out. They are demanding investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where related bat coronaviruses have been extensively studied, to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 could have accidentally leaked from the lab or crossed into humans during collection or storage of samples.”
“The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term — and it stuck, says Gigi Gronvall,a biosecurity specialist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host.
Virologists do regularly fiddle with viral genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models. “People do all of these experiments all the time,” says Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. For example, her lab has made mouse viruses that are more harmful to mice than the originals. If only mice are at risk, should it be deemed GOF? And would it be worrying?
The answer is generally no. Morrison’s experiments, and many others like them, pose little threat to humans. GOF research starts to ring alarm bells when it involves dangerous human pathogens, such as those on the US government’s ‘select agents’ list, which includes Ebola virus and the bacteria responsible for anthrax and botulism. Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza viruses and coronaviruses. “For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory viruses because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School. GOF studies with those viruses are “a really tiny part” of virology, he adds.”
“Animal research — although fraught with its own set of ethical quandaries — allows scientists to study how pathogens work and to test potential treatments, a necessary precursor to trials in people. That’s what Perlman and his collaborators had in mind when they set out to study the coronavirus responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012. They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS.
The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells. So, the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4. The virus could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill. “Having a model of mild disease isn’t particularly helpful to understand why people get so sick,” says collaborator Paul McCray, a paediatric pulmonologist also at the University of Iowa.
So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance virulence. The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the virus two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice. They did this repeatedly — 30 times9. By the end of two months, the virus had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells. In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly, says McCray. That’s GOF of a sort because the virus became better at causing disease. But adapting a pathogen to one animal in this way often limits its ability to infect others, says Andrew Pekosz, a virologist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.”
“With all the challenges inherent in GOF studies, why do them? Because, some virologists say, the viruses are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match. “We can either wait for something to arise, and then fight it, or we can anticipate that certain things will arise, and instead we can preemptively build our arsenals,” says Morrison. “That’s where gain-of-function research can come in handy.”
This next source is from 2015. The authors admit that virology is heavily reliant on gain or loss of function studies. They offer an alternative definition for GOF research which is any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes. Obviously, this definition leans far more into the genomics side of the equation. This is due to the claim that these kinds of studies are used by virologists in order to understand a “viruses” genetic make-up. It is stated that researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA. In other words, they mix genetic material from different sources, poison and/or kill lab animals by injecting them with this toxic soup, and then analyze the resulting mixture using computers so that they can claim that the generated model is a new creation. However, it is admitted that these kinds of mutations happen “naturally” with “viruses” every time a person is infected, thus confirming what we already know: virologists can not sequence the same exact “virus” every time:
Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives
“The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function. In order to understand the role of such studies in virology, Dr. Kanta Subbarao from the Laboratory of Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave an overview of the current scientific and technical approaches to the research on pandemic strains of influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses (CoV). As discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, many participants argued that the word choice of “gain-of-function” to describe the limited type of experiments covered by the U.S. deliberative process, particularly when coupled with a pause on even a smaller number of research projects, had generated concern that the policy would affect much broader areas of virology research.
TYPES OF GAIN-OF-FUNCTION (GOF) RESEARCH
Subbarao explained that routine virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.
Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of viruses and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Subbarao introduced the key questions that virologists ask at all stages of research on the emergence or re-emergence of a virus and specifically adapted these general questions to the three viruses of interest in the symposium (see Box 3-1). To answer these questions, virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of viruses and the specifics of virus-host interaction. For instance, researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant viruses from cloned cDNA, and deep sequencing that are critical for studying how viruses escape the host immune system and antiviral controls. Researchers also use targeted host or viral genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool.
During Session 3 of the symposium, Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments. The first category, which he called “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature. The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A viruses that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type. The second category deals with the generation of viruses that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type viruses but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature. Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates will improve their replication in mammalian cells. Finally, the third category, which is somewhere in between the two first categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible viruses in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern. An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans. During the discussion, Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature.”
“Imperiale explained that, with respect to the GoF terminology, whenever researchers are working with RNA viruses, GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.” He also commented that the term GoF was understood a certain way by attendees of this symposium, but when the public hears this term “they can’t make that sort of nuanced distinction that we can make here” so the terminology should be revisited.”
Hopefully the above two sources have shown that GOF studies are nothing more than the exact same cell culture experiments utilizing the exact same genomic sequencing technologies and tricks that virologists have always used. The only difference is that they are combining different culture supernatant and genetic materials together into one in order to create a brand new synthetic computer-generated sequence. At no point in time are any purified/isolated particles ever used in these studies. In fact, there are no EM images of the new “virus” of any kind. It should therefore not be surprising that we can see the exact same pattern of unscientific methods and illogical reasoning in GOF studies as found in any of the original “virus” papers.
Seeing as to how the 2012 avian flu studies brought GOF research to the forefront, it seemed ideal to step into this area a bit more to see what actually transpired. The main study presented as evidence of GOF research was led by a man named Ron Fouchier. If that name sounds familiar, that’s because it should. Fouchier was involved in the 2003 “SARS-COV-1” study which proclaimed the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates for proving a microorganism causes disease yet it failed miserably by not only not being able to satisfy Koch’s four original Postulates, but also Thomas River’s six revised Postulates made strictly for virology. In other words, it was an epic fail.
In Fouchier’s 2012 avian flu GOF study, he attempted to make the H5N1 “virus” infectious through the air. This was done through a process involving cell culturing combined with genetic engineering as well as passaging the material through numerous ferrets. Sounds familiar to the mice example from before, correct? You also see this same process with the early polio and influenza studies as well as in many other virology papers. The main difference is the genomic narrative and the use of modern technology such as reverse genetics to claim the insertion of specific genes.
Highlights from the below paper provide an overview of what was done during this study. It details how the material was collected from a flu strain in Indonesia, genetically altered in a Petri dish, and then transferred to ferrets in a series of experiments using the “wildtype” strain along with different modified strains. Fouchier and Co. were repeatedly unsuccessful in their endeavors of infecting ferrets until they started passaging the “virus” in the animals by injecting them with the cultured soup, grinding up their lung tissues, and injecting other ferrets in the same manner. They repeated this process 6 times and then changed up the experiment by switching to nasal turbinates for the last 4 passage attempts. The only illness said to be achieved via airborne exposure was a loss of appetite, lethargy, and ruffled fur. Upon sequencing the “viruses,” there were only two amino acid switches shared by all six “viruses.” There were several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses.” In other words, they could not sequence the same “virus” at any point:
Fouchier study reveals changes enabling airborne spread of H5N1
“A study showing that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza virus into an airborne spreader in mammals—and that launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency—was released today in Science, spilling the full experimental details that many experts had sought to suppress out of concern that publishing them could lead to the unleashing of a dangerous virus.
In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 virus that can spread among ferrets without direct contact.
They say their findings show that H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve in mammals to gain airborne transmissibility, without having to mix with other flu viruses in intermediate hosts such as pigs, and thus pose a risk of launching a pandemic.”
Indonesian H5N1 strain used
Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 virus collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 viruses more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways. Avian flu viruses prefer to bind to alpha2,3-linked sialic acid receptors on cells, whereas human flu viruses prefer alpha2,6-linked receptors. In both humans and ferrets, alpha2,6 receptors are predominant in the upper respiratory tract, while alpha 2,6 receptors are found mainly in the lower respiratory tract.
The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the virus’s HA protein, the viral surface molecule that attaches to host cells. Q222L and G224S together change the binding preference of H2 and H3 subtype flu viruses, changes that contributed to the 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics, according to the report. And N182K was found in a human H5N1 case.
The scientists created three mutant H5N1 virus strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes, the report explains. They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 virus. Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type virus shed far more virus than those infected with the mutants.
In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different viral gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein. The mutation E627K in PB2 is linked to the acquisition by avian flu viruses of the ability to grow in the human respiratory tract, which is cooler than the intestinal tract of birds, where the viruses usually reside, according to the report.
The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a virus that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the virus did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones.
The passaging step
Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract—the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid,” according to a report of his initial description of the research at a European meeting last September.
They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type virus and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs). Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times. For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest viruses that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract.
The amount of mutant virus found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages, signaling that the virus was increasing its capacity to grow in the ferret upper airway. In contrast, viral titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type virus stayed the same.
The next step was to test whether the viruses produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission. Four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant virus, and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain. Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact.
The ferrets exposed to those with the wild virus remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant virus did get infected, the researchers found. Further, they took a sample from one of the “recipient” ferrets and used it to inoculate another ferret, which then transmitted the virus to two more ferrets that were placed near it.
Thus, a total of six ferrets became infected with the mutant virus via airborne transmission. However, the level of viral shedding indicated the airborne virus didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 virus does.
In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur. One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne viruses survived.
When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the viruses that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six viruses: H103Y and T156A. They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne viruses.
“Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of [highly pathogenic avian flu] H5N1 virus,” the researchers wrote.
In further steps, the researchers inoculated six ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible virus; after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund.” “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia,” the report notes.”
While the proceeding article did an excellent job of providing the main points from Fouchier’s 2012 GOF study, I wanted to showcase relevant highlights directly from the paper to flesh out the methods used even further. Here you will see that Fouchier’s team claimed that they genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. They used Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) which they said was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection. This was passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs which was followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000. They then used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce the desired amino acid substitutions. Site-directed mutagenesis is a synthetic process utilizing PCR to make artificial changes in a DNA sequence. They then took their synthetically-created cultured soup and experimented on ferrets while manipulating the methods until they achieved the results that they desired.
At no point in the paper was a “virus” of any kind ever purified and isolated. At no point were any electron microscope images of the newly mutated “viruses” ever shown. The only “evidence” of an airborne strain is genomic sequencing data from consensus genomes which did not match up. Fouchier and Co. even admitted that airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but even this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. They also stated that the mutations they had identified needed further testing to determine their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and that further experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals. In other words, their study only told them that they could create mutated genomes and not that they created more “virulent viruses” that are transmissable by air:
Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets
“Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus farhas not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”)between humans. To address the concern that the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions,we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage inferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimatelybecoming airborne transmissible in ferrets. None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection withthe mutant A/H5N1 viruses. Four amino acid substitutions in the host receptor-binding protein hemagglutinin, and one in the polymerase complex protein basic polymerase 2, were consistently present in airborne-transmitted viruses. The transmissible viruses were sensitive to the antiviral drug oseltamivir and reacted well with antisera raised against H5 influenza vaccine strains. Thus, avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses can acquire the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate host and therefore constitute a risk for human pandemic influenza.
Influenza A viruses have been isolated from many host species, including humans, pigs, horses, dogs, marine mammals, and a wide range of domestic birds, yet wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the virus reservoir in nature (1). Influenza A viruses belong to the family Orthomyxoviridae; these viruses have an RNA genome consisting of eight gene segments (2, 3). Segments 1 to 3 encode the polymerase proteins: basic polymerase 2 (PB2), basic polymerase 1 (PB1), and acidic polymerase (PA), respectively. These proteins form the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase complex responsible for transcription and replication of the viral genome.”
Since the late 1990s, HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have devastated the poultry industry of numerous countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. To date, A/H5N1 has spread from Asia to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, resulting in the death of hundreds of millions of domestic birds. In Hong Kong in 1997, the first human deaths directly attributable to avian A/H5N1 virus were recorded (11). Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 virus infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries (12). Although limited A/H5N1 virus transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus has not been detected (13–15). Whether this virus may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness. Although our knowledge of viral traits necessary for host switching and virulence has increased substantially in recent years (16, 17), the factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza viruses among mammals, a trait necessary for a virus to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown (18–21). Therefore, investigations of routes of influenza virus transmission between animals and on the determinants of airborne transmission are high on the influenza research agenda.
The viruses that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza viruses (22). However, given that viruses from only four pandemics are available for analyses, we cannot exclude the possibility that a futurepandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian virus without the requirement of reassortment. Several studies have shown that reassortment events between A/H5N1 and seasonal human influenza viruses do not yield viruses that are readily transmitted between ferrets (18–20, 23). In our work, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus could change its transmissibility characteristics without any requirement for reassortment.
We chose influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 for our study because the incidence of human A/H5N1 virus infections and fatalities in Indonesia remains fairly high (12), and there are concerns that this virus could acquire molecular characteristics that would allow it to become more readily transmissible between humans and initiate a pandemic. Because no reassortants between A/H5N1 viruses and seasonal or pandemic human influenza viruses have been detected in nature and because our goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza virus to become airborne transmissible in mammals, we decided to use the complete A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus that was isolated from a human case of HPAI A/H5N1 infection.
We chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for our studies. Ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza viruses (24). After infection with human influenza A virus, ferrets develop respiratory disease and lung pathology similar to that observed in humans. Ferrets can also transmit human influenza viruses to other ferrets that serve as sentinels with or without direct contact (fig. S1) (25–27).”
Human-to-human transmission of influenza viruses can occur through direct contact, indirect contact via fomites (contaminated environmental surfaces), and/or airborne transmission via small aerosols or large respiratory droplets. The pandemic and epidemic influenza viruses that have circulated in humans throughout the past century were all transmitted via the airborne route, in contrast to many other respiratory viruses that are exclusively transmitted via contact. There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols. However, it is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols. Because we did not measure particle size during our experiments, we will use the term “airborne transmission” throughout this Report.”
“Using a combination of targeted mutagenesis followed by serial virus passage in ferrets, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus can acquiremutations that would increase the risk of mammalian transmission (34). We have previously shown that several amino acid substitutions in the RBS of the HA surface glycoprotein of A/Indonesia/5/2005 change the binding preference from the avian a-2,3–linked SA receptors to the human a-2,6–linked SA receptors (35). A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus with amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S (numbers refer to amino acid positions in the mature H5 HA protein; N, Asn; Q, Gln; L, Leu; G, Gly; S, Ser) in HA display attachment patterns similar to those of human viruses to cells of the respiratory tract of ferrets and humans (35). Of these changes, we know that together, Q222L and G224S switch the receptor binding specificity of H2 and H3 subtype influenza viruses, as this switch contributed to the emergence of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics (36). N182K has been found in a human case of A/H5N1 virus infection (37).
Our experimental rationale to obtain transmissible A/H5N1 viruses was to select a mutant A/H5N1 virus with receptor specificity for a-2,6–linked SA shed at high titers from the URT of ferrets. Therefore, we used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit (Agilent Technologies, Amstelveen, the Netherlands) to introduce amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S in the HA of wild-type (WT) A/Indonesia/5/2005, resulting in A/H5N1HA N182K, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, and A/H5N1HA N182K,Q222L,G224S. Experimental details for experiments 1 to 9 are provided in the supplementary materials (25). For experiment 1, we inoculated these mutant viruses andthe A/H5N1wildtype virus intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each virus (fig. S3). Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and virus titerswere determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify virus shedding from the ferret URT. Three animals were euthanized after day 3 to enable tissue sample collection. All remaining animals were euthanized by day 7 when the same tissue samples were taken. Virus titers were determined in the nasal turbinates, trachea, and lungs collected post-mortem from the euthanized ferrets. Throughout the duration of experiment 1, ferrets inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype virus produced high titers in nose and throat swabs—up to 10 times more than A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, which yielded the highest virus titers of all three mutants during the 7-day period (Fig. 1). However, no significant difference was observed between the virus shedding of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L, G224S or A/H5N1HA N182K during the first 3 days when six animals per group were present. Thus, of the viruses with specificity for a-2,6–linked SA, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S yielded the highest virus titers in the ferret URT (Fig. 1).
As described above, amino acid substitution E627K in PB2 is one of the most consistent host-range determinants of influenza viruses (29–31). For experiment 2 (fig. S4), we introduced E627K into the PB2 gene of A/Indonesia/5/2005 by site-directed mutagenesis and produced the recombinant virus A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. The introduction of E627K in PB2 did not significantly affect virus shedding in ferrets, because virus titers in the URT were similar to those seen in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S-inoculated animals [up to 1 × 104 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50)] (Mann-Whitney U rank-sum test, P = 0.476) (Fig. 1 and fig. S5). When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously (27), A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted (fig. S5).
Because the mutant virus harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, we designed an experiment to force the virus to adaptto replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select virus variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructedA/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus and A/H5N1wildtype virus in the ferret URT (Fig. 2 and fig. S6). In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs. The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of virus-transport medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate thenext ferret intranasally (passage 2). This procedure was repeated until passage 6.
From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi. To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise tothe nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing. Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml. The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10. We changed the source of inoculum during the course of theexperiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of viruses that were secreted from the URT. Because influenza viruses mutate rapidly, we anticipated that 10 passages would be sufficient for the virus to adapt to efficient replication in mammals.
Virus titers in the nasal turbinates of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1wildtype ranged from ~1 × 105 to 1 × 107 TCID50/gram tissue throughout 10 serial passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). In ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus, a moderate increase in virus titers in the nasal turbinates was observed as the passage number increased. These titers ranged from 1 × 104 TCID50/gram tissue at the start of the experiment to 3.2 × 105 to 1 × 106 TCID50/gram tissue in the final passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). Notably, virus titers in the nose swabs of animals inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K also increased during the successive passages, with peak virus shedding of 1 × 105 TCID50 at 2 dpi after 10 passages (Fig. 3B).These data indicate that A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was developing greater capacity to replicate in the ferret URT after repeated passage, with evidence for such adaptation becoming apparent by passage number 4. In contrast, virus titers in the nose swabs of the ferrets collected at 1 to 4 dpi throughout 10 serial passages with A/H5N1wildtype revealed no changes in patterns of virus shedding.
Passaging of influenza viruses in ferrets should result in the natural selection of heterogeneous mixtures of viruses in each animal with a variety of mutations: so-called viral quasi-species (38). The genetic composition of the viral quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform (Roche, Woerden, the Netherlands) (tables S1 and S2). The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the virus population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5% (Fig. 4 and table S1). Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all viral gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kafter passaging, except in segment 7 (tables S1 and S2). Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions.The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kwas T156A (T, Thr; A, Ala) in HA. This substitution removes a potential N-linked glycosylation site (Asn-X-Thr/Ser; X, any amino acid) in HA and was detected in 99.6% of the A/H5N1wildtype sequences after 10 passages. T156A was detected in 89% of the A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K sequences after 10 passages, and the other 11% of sequences possessed the substitution N154K, which removes the same potential N-linked glycosylation site in HA.
In experiment 4 (see supplementary materials), we investigated whether airborne-transmissible viruses were present in the heterogeneous virus population generated during virus passaging in ferrets (fig. S4). Nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were usedin transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible virus was present in the virus quasi-species. For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally: two for passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype and four for passage 10 A/H5N1HA-Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus.
The following day, a naïve recipient ferret was placed in a cage adjacent to each inoculated donor ferret. These cages are designed to prevent direct contact between animals but allow airflow from a donor ferret to a neighboring recipient ferret (fig. S1) (27). Although mutations had accumulated in the viral genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, we did not detect replicating virus upon inoculation of MDCKcells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype virus(Fig. 5, A and B). In contrast, we did detect virus in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kvirus.Three (F1 to F3) out of four (F1 to F4) naïve recipient ferrets became infected as confirmed by the presence of replicating virus in the collected nasal and throat swabs (Fig. 5, C and D). A throat-swab sample obtained from recipient ferret F2, which contained the highest virus titer among the ferrets in the first transmission experiment, was subsequently used for intranasal inoculation of two additional donor ferrets. Both of these animals, when placed in the transmission cage setup (fig. S1), again transmitted the virus to the recipient ferrets (F5 and F6) (Fig. 6, A and B). Avirus isolate was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi. The virus from F5 was inoculated intranasally into two more donor ferrets. One day later, these animals were paired with two recipient ferrets (F7 and F8) in transmission cages, one of which (F7) subsequently became infected (Fig. 6, C and D).
We used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences ofviruses recovered from the six ferrets (F1 to F3 and F5 to F7) that acquired virus via airborne transmission (Fig. 4 and table S3). All six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S,and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics. Surprisingly, only two additional amino acid substitutions, both in HA, were consistently detected in all six airborne-transmissible viruses: (i) H103Y (H, His; Y, Tyr), which forms part of the HA trimer interface, and (ii) T156A, which is proximal but not immediately adjacent to the RBS (fig. S8). Although we observed severalother mutations, their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne viruses, indicating that of the heterogeneous virus populations generated by passaging in ferrets, viruses with different genotypes were transmissible. In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible viruses because, for example, the consensus sequence of virus isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental virus isolated from F2.
Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus between mammals. The airborne-transmissible virus isolate with the least number of amino acid substitutions, compared with the A/H5N1wildtype, was recovered from ferret F5. This virus isolate had a total of nine amino acid substitutions; in addition to the three mutations that we introduced (Q222L and G224S in HA and E627K in PB2), this virus harbored H103Y and T156A in HA, H99Y and I368V (I, Ile; V, Val) in PB1, and R99K (R, Arg) and S345N in NP (table S3). Reverse genetics will be needed to identify which of the five to nine amino acid substitutions in this virus are essential to confer airborne transmission.
During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible viruses, ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation. One of eight inoculated animals died upon intranasal inoculation (Table 1). In previously published experiments, ferrets inoculated intranasally with WTA/ Indonesia/5/2005 virus at a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 showed neurological disease and/or death (39, 40). It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 virus and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans.Importantly, although the six ferrets that became infected via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment. Moreover, previous infections of humans with seasonal influenza viruses are likely to induce heterosubtypic immunity that would offer some protection against the development of severe disease (41, 42). It has been shown that mice and ferrets previously infected with an A/H3N2 virus are clinically protected against intranasal challenge infection with an A/H5N1 virus (43, 44).
After intratracheal inoculation (experiment 5; fig. S9), six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible virus F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBS died or were moribund at day 3. Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia (45), as is done for vaccination-challenge studies. At necropsy, the six ferrets revealed macroscopic lesions affecting 80 to 100% of the lung parenchyma with average virus titers of 7.9 × 106 TCID50/gram lung (fig. S10). These data are similar to those described previously for A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets (Table 1). Thus, although the airborne-transmissible virus is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the virus was not lethal after airborne transmission.”
“Although our experiments showed that A/H5N1 virus can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear. Previous data have indicated that the 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 virus transmits efficiently among ferrets and that naïve animals shed high amounts of virus as early as 1 or 2 days after exposure (27). When we compare the A/H5N1 transmission data with that of reference (27), keeping in mind that our experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative, the data shown in Figs. 5 and 6 suggest that A/H5N1 airborne transmission was less robust, with less and delayed virus shedding compared with pandemic A/H1N1 virus.
Airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs (59), but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. The mutations we identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 virus lineages (60), and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect viral fitness and virulence in birds and mammals. For pandemic preparedness, antiviral drugs and vaccine candidates against airborne-transmissible virus should be evaluated in depth. Mechanistic studies on the phenotypic traits associated with each of the identified amino acid substitutions should provide insights into the key determinants of airborne virus transmission. Our findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in humans. Identification of the minimal requirements for virus transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness (34).”
“Influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI virus infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a singlepassage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000 (63-64). Mutations of interest (N182K, Q222L, G224S in HA and E627K in PB2) were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit (Aligent, Amstelveen, The Netherlands) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Recombinant viruses were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and virus stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells as described (63).
Cells
MDCK cells were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium (EMEM, Lonza Benelux BV, Breda, the Netherlands) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS), 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2 mM glutamine, 1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate (Lonza), 10 mM Hepes (Lonza), and non-essential amino acids (MP Biomedicals Europe, Illkirch, France). 293T cells were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM, Lonza) supplemented with 10% FCS, 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 mg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1mM sodium pyruvate, and non-essential amino acids.
Virus titration in MDCK cells
Virus titrations were performed as described previously (27). Briefly, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of virus preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs.Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with 100 U/mlpenicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate, 10mM Hepes, non-essential amino acids, and 20 μg/ml trypsin (Lonza). Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of virus replication in the cells. Infectious virus titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the virus preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber (65).”
The term “Gain of Function” first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza “virus,” using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets
Most virologists say that the “coronavirus” probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the “virus” was first reported
However, a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out
The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade when the ferret influenza studies came along
From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host
Virologists regularly fiddle with “viral” genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models
Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza “viruses” and “coronaviruses”
“For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory “viruses” because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School
He added that GOF studies with those “viruses” are “a really tiny part” of virology
Perlman and his collaborators set out to study the “coronavirus” responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012
They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS
The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells and so the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4
The “virus” could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill
So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance “virulence”
The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the “virus” two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice
They did this repeatedly — 30 times and by the end of two months, the “virus” had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells
In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly
Some virologists say “viruses” are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match
The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function
Any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research
Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of “viruses” and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for “SARS-CoV” and “MERS-CoV”
Virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of “viruses” and the specifics of “virus-host” interaction
Researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA (i.e. they are synthetic lab creations)
Researchers also use targeted host or “viral” genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool
Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments:
The fisrt category is “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of “viruses” with properties that do not exist in nature
The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A “viruses” that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type
The second category deals with the generation of “viruses” that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type “viruses” but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature (which is odd considering no “viruses” have been found in nature…)
Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates (there are no natural isolates) will improve their replication in mammalian cells
The third category, which is somewhere in between the first two categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible “viruses” in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern
An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans
Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature
GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.”
In other words, they can never sequence the same “virus” every time so what they do in the lab in GoF studies is no different than how they culture and “isolate viruses” in order to sequence the genomes in the first place
A 2012 study supposedly showed that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza “virus” into an airborne spreader in mammals—and this launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency
In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 “virus” that can spread among ferrets without direct contact
Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 “virus” collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 “viruses” more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways
The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the “virus’s” HA protein, the “viral” surface molecule that attaches to host cells
The scientists created three mutant H5N1 “virus” strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes
They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 “virus”
Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” shed far more “virus” than those infected with the mutants
In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different “viral” gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein
The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a “virus” that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the “virus” did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones
Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract
This was the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid” (are we sure he wasn’t referring to the whole study?)
They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type “virus” and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs)
Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times
For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest “viruses” that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract
In other words, they completely changed the source material from tissue to nasal secretions more than halfway through the experiment
It was said that the amount of mutant “virus” found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages while “viral” titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” stayed the same
Quick Sidenote From the Supplemtary Materials:
“After inoculation with A/H5N1wildtype, virus titers in the nasal turbinates were variable but high, ranging from 1.6 x 105 to 7.9 x 106 TCID50/gram tissue (panel A), with no further increase observed with repeated passage. After inoculation with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K, virus titers in nasal turbinates averaged 1.6 x 104 in the first three passages, 2.5 x 105 in passage four to seven and 6.3 x 105 TCID50/gram tissue in the last three passages, suggestive of improved replication and virus adaptation. In the lungs, no apparent adaptation was observed for animals inoculated with either virus. Virus titers in lungs were highly variable; presumably it was a matter of chance whether the virus reached the lower airways.”
In other words, the “wildtype virus” titers remained and stayed high while the “mutant virus” started low and elevated throughout passaging yet was still underneath the amount seen in the “wildtype” strain. They also note that finding “virus” in the lungs was a “matter of chance” with either “virus.”
End Quick Sidenote.
The next step was to test whether the “viruses” produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission so four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant “virus,” and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain
Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact
The ferrets exposed to those with the wild “virus” remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant “virus” did get infected (“infected” meaning they found “viral” RNA)
Thus, a total of six ferrets became “infected” with the mutant “virus” via airborne transmission
However, the level of “viral” shedding indicated the airborne “virus” didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 “virus”
In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur (no consideration is given to the fact that the animals were caged, tortured, and experimented on)
One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne “viruses” survived
When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the “viruses” that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six “viruses:” H103Y and T156A
They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses”
In other words, once again they were unable to sequence the exact same genome in the samples from each ferret
In further steps, the researchers inoculated intratracheallysix ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible “virus;” after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund”
They stated: “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia”
Highly “pathogenic” avian influenza A/H5N1 “virus” can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”) between humans
To address the concern that the “virus” could acquire this ability under natural conditions, the researchers genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets
In other words, in order to test whether the “virus” could mutate naturally, they mutated it synthetically…
The genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets (all “viruses” aquire mutations every time they are sequenced as no “viral” genome is ever the same as the original)
None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection with the mutant A/H5N1 “viruses”
Wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the “virus” reservoir in nature
Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries
Although limited A/H5N1 “virus” transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” has not been detected
Whether this “virus” may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness
The factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza “viruses” among mammals, a trait necessary for a “virus” to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown
The “viruses” that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza “viruses”
However, given that “viruses” from only four pandemics are available for analyses, they cannot exclude the possibility that a future pandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian “virus” without the requirement of reassortment
No reassortants between A/H5N1 “viruses” and seasonal or pandemic human influenza “viruses” have been detected in nature and their goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza “virus” to become airborne transmissible in mammals
They chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for the studies as ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza “viruses”
There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols
It is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols
The researchers used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce amino acid substitutions in the HA of wild-type “virus”
For experiment 1, they inoculated these mutant “viruses” and the A/H5N1wildtype “virus” intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each “virus”
Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and “virus” titers were determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify “virus” shedding from the ferret URT
When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted
Because the mutant “virus” harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, they designed an experiment to force the “virus” to adapt to replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select “virus” variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructed A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus” and A/H5N1wildtype “virus” in the ferret URT
In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K
Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs
The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of “virus-transport” medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate the next ferret intranasally (passage 2)
This procedure was repeated until passage 6
From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi
To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise to the nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing
Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml
The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10
They changed the source of inoculum during the course of the experiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of “viruses” that were secreted from the URT
Because influenza “viruses” mutate rapidly, they anticipated (i.e.guessed arbitrarily) that 10 passages would be sufficient for the “virus” to adapt to efficient replication in mammals
The genetic composition of the “viral” quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform
The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the “virus” population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5%
Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all “viral” gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K after passaging, except in segment 7
Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions
The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was T156A
In experiment 4, nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were used in transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible “virus” was present in the “virus” quasi-species
For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally
Although mutations had accumulated in the “viral” genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, they did not detect replicating “virus” upon inoculation of MDCK cells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype “virus”
In contrast, they did detect “virus” in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus”
Three out of four naïve recipient ferrets became “infected” as confirmed by the presence of replicating “virus” in the collected nasal and throat swabs (in other words, they saw CPE in a cell culture and claimed “virus” was present)
A “virus isolate” was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi
They used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences of viruses recovered from the six ferrets that acquired “virus” via airborne transmission and all six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S, and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics
In other words, they created consensus sequencing through alignment to reference genomes using computer software and algorithms from unpurified material
They observed several other mutations for which their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne “viruses,” indicating that of the heterogeneous “virus” populations generated by passaging in ferrets, “viruses” with different genotypes were transmissible
In other words, they were unable to sequence the exact same “virus” genome every time…and if that wasn’t clear
In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible “viruses” because, for example, the consensus sequence of “virus” isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental “virus” isolated from F2
Together, they claim that these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” between mammals
During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible “viruses,” ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation
It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 “virus” and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans
Importantly, although the six ferrets that became “infected” via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment
After intratracheal (in the throat) inoculation, six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible “virus” F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBSdied or were moribund at day 3
Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of “viruses” to cause pneumonia, as is done for vaccination-challenge studies
Although the airborne-transmissible “virus” is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the “virus” was not lethal after airborne transmission
They openly admit that the route of injection and the amount of toxic culture goo injected causes the severity of disease, which does not require the “virus” as an explanation
They state that although experiments showed that A/H5N1 “virus” can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear
They pointed out that their experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative (i.e. they do not know how much “virus” is required for airborne transmission and assume it occurs via PCR results)
They airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur
The mutations they identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals
Their findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 “viruses” have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in human
Of course, the only place reassortment occurs is in a lab so they never need a host…
Identification of the minimal requirements for “virus” transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness
Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells
All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000
Mutations of interest were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit
Recombinant “viruses” were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and “virus” stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells
MDCK cells (canine) were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium supplemented with:
10% fetal calf serum (FCS)
100 IU/ml penicillin
100 μg/ml streptomycin
2 mM glutamine
1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
10 mM Hepes
Non-essential amino acids
293T cells (human embryonic kidney) were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium supplemented with:
10% FCS
100 IU/ml penicillin
100 mg/ml streptomycin
2mM glutamine
1mM sodium pyruvate
Non-essential amino acids
For “virus” titrations, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of “virus” preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs
Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with:
100 U/ml penicillin
100 μg/ml streptomycin
2mM glutamine
1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
10mM Hepes
Non-essential amino acids
20 μg/ml trypsin
Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of “virus” replication in the cells
Infectious “virus” titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the “virus” preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber
The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica. The only way the liquid poison can potentially harm one is through injection. Cell cultured soup is not transmitted through the air nor is it infectious and/or contagious. In other words, GOF studies are not creating “viruses” in the modern sense of the word and can only be considered as such if viewed through the original Latin lens.
What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice. There will be figureheads who appear to be on the side of truth, questioning the natural existence of “SARS-COV-2,” challenging the safety of the vaccines, promoting alternative therapies, etc. who will also continue to push the idea that “viruses” exist and can be manipulated in a lab. These people are the Pied Pipers leading those who are going astray back into the fold. There is no need to create a “virus” bioweapon when all that was needed to control the masses is a PCR test and some well-designed propaganda.
To anyone who may have been taken in by this GOF/Bioweapon narrative, remember that there is no evidence of any purified and isolated “viral” particles ever coming directly from human samples that are then proven pathogenic in a natural way. Virology does not dispute this. If they can not find a “virus” in nature, they can not create one in a lab. That is truly all you need to know.
Hold the line, hold the line
Won’t let them steal our sovereignty with their lies
This is spiritual warfare
Between the light and darkness
It’s an empirical nightmare
What they’re tryna inject inside us
We’re not signing up
For their experiment
Try to coerce and force us
But they’ll never penetrate our temples cause we
Hold the line, hold the line
Won’t let them steal our sovereignty with their lies, so we
Hold the line, hold the line
We stand together and we do not comply, yeah we hold the line
We are the doctors and nurses
Sleepless nights and overtime on the front lines
We are police in the cities
And firefighters, we’re protecting the families
Kicked us to the curb for the shot we refuse
It’s our body and our right to choose
It don’t matter, we will weather this storm
Cause God is with us in this battle, come and join us as we
Hold the line, hold the line
Won’t let them steal our sovereignty with their lies, so we
Hold the line, hold the line
We stand together and we do not comply, yeah we hold the line
We hold the line in love, hold the line
Show ‘em what we’re made of, hold the line
Hold the line, hold the line
Won’t let them steal our sovereignty with their lies, so we
Hold the line
To the parents of the children
We’re sending hope to you
Pull ‘em out of the system
We’ll build a better school
Hold the line
Is Disney grooming your children? In this special report we look into the “Secret Gay Agenda” of Disney employees to indoctrinate your children. Also Governor Ron DeSantis is fighting back!
‘Defeat the Mandates Coast to Coast’, Next Stop: Los Angeles, CA, April 10, 2022
‘Defeat the Mandates Coast to Coast’, Next Stop: Los Angeles, CA, April 10, 2022
Thankfully some mandates are dropping across the country, but there are still vaccine mandates that persist in schools, colleges, businesses, hospitals, and corporations. Restrictions on doctors who treat COVID, censorship by Big Tech, the unnecessary COVID-19 vaccination of children, silencing of scientific debate, and the extension of the Emergency Powers Act beyond March 1st for the coronavirus pandemic are a few of the main concerns.
In California, an aggressive slate of COVID-19-related bills—mandating vaccines for children and all employees, and allowing 12 to 17-year-olds to get the vaccine without parental consent—remain under consideration by the California state assembly.
Starting at 12:00 noon we will hold a day-long rally in the heart of Los Angeles at Grand Park where a wide range of featured guests including prominent doctors, recording artists, actors, journalists and premier thought leaders will give a series of inspiring talks and musical performances.
Dr. Dolores Cahill is an Inventor and has been granted and licensed patents in Europe, USA, and worldwide with applications in improving the early accurate diagnosis of disease (autoimmune diseases & cancer). Since 2020 she has been working to defend our inalienable rights and freedoms. She is investigating the aspects of the current covid drama which led to the founding of the World Doctor Alliance and the World Freedom Alliance.
The interviews discuss Dr. Cahill’s career and how it has been affected by the established power structure and the methods used to quell dissidents and sane critical thinking.
Lockstep Crises and the Controlled Society
Dolores Cahill says that most crises such as food shortages, shockingly high prices, climate change, inflation, never-ending virus pandemics (including adverse reactions to poisonous injections), and wars between nations are different ways for the power to control society by using fear and misleading narratives.
The power creates a parallel societal and economic structure with its own rules, laws, and functions. This structure – by using the crises – seeks to undermine people’s natural rights and freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom to travel, work and meet, and maintain bodily integrity. This negative process has no end. Cahill says that the current agenda starting in 2020 will end in 2025.
Their aim is to create new generations that have no experience, knowledge, or memory of natural free life. They can’t halt their agenda or else they will be held accountable. So what we must expect are new planned “pandemics” as soon as this autumn. These coming attempts aim to further isolate individuals and families and shorten their life expectancy. Everything will be taxed and they will use taxation in order to make and keep you poor and dependent.
Dolores Cahill experienced how her projects were hit by powers that tried to strangle their enterprises by taking down their websites and social media accounts as well as Paypal. She also revealed – in another meeting – how an insurance company stopped an airplane provider from leasing out their planes to Freedom Travel Alliance.
Step back – Don’t conform – Walk away – Create strong communities
The most important thing for people to do is to step back and unplug from the propaganda machinery for a while and start regarding the world scene as something theatrical played out through mass media and social media. Cahill mentions how an individual can create income from a simple online information channel.
What the powers structures seem to fear the most is people all over the world taking control och their own lives and creating self-sustainable and strong communities.
Cahill says people generally are poisoned by chemicals and toxic metals from food, beverages, and injections and need to detox in order to recapture their natural health.
Knowledge about the elite powers and their agenda is an extremely important parameter in order for people to take back their power. Attention and awareness about the theatrical play are crucial elements for success. People need to understand they are dealing with grossly criminal individuals in power.
Cahill says, that stepping back and away from the control grid decreases the fear of the attempts to control our lives and behaviors. People will demand accountability, and start new media outlets and information sources, new laws, a new money system, and new regulations. They will say no to disinformation and propaganda. They will find new ways to get an income. This means less or no dependence on the controllers and the controlled society.
Every individual need to understand that the control society once in place will give no room for natural freedom for their kids in the generations to come. So everyone needs to start dedicating one hour a day to make sure we all have a bright future. Think and act locally.
It’s not even necessary to fully investigate the current criminal and corrupt system. It’s better to build a new more healthy system, she says. Bartering is a good example. It’s legal. Cahill says that the money you have on your account is really your invested time, productivity, and genius.
This also means that we should think more carefully about where we spend our money. We should only give our money to other entities that respect our freedom, health, and integrity. These entities represent everything from banks to coffee shops. Don’t go to companies that demand face masks or injections etcetera.
Many individuals together and small communities can do this if they organize and help each other. There is space for innovations and creativity. In just a generation things can turn better, she says.
Dolores Cahill (Profdolorescahill.com) is active in or supporting many projects aiming to build a better society:
Torbjorn Sassersson (Sweden) is the founder and editor in chief. He works together with Sanja R. Juric in the editorial office and Aga Wilson with Aga Wilson Show.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Pfizer hired about 600 additional full-time employees to process adverse event reports during the three months following authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine, with plans to hire 1,800 more by June 2021, newly released documents reveal.
Pfizer hired about 600 additional full-time employees to process adverse event reports during the three months following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of its COVID-19 vaccine, newly released documents reveal.
According to the documents, Pfizer said, “More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.”
The information was contained in a 10,000-page document cache released April 1 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and made public as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The latest revelations appeared in a document, “Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports” of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, highlighting such adverse events identified through Feb. 28, 2021.
The document was previously released in November 2021, but was partially redacted. The redactions included the number of employees Pfizer hired and/or was planning to hire.
According to the unredacted document released April 1:
“Pfizer has also taken a multiple actions [sic] to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports. This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues.
“To date, Pfizer has onboarded approximately 600 additional full-time employees (FTEs).
“More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.”
The unredacted version also revealed the number of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine doses shipped worldwide between December 2020 and February 2021:
“It is estimated that approximately 126,212,580 doses of BNT162b2 [the Pfizer EUA vaccine] were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.”
The number of shipped doses previously was redacted.
“The rollout of the Pfizer vaccine has led to an unprecedented number of adverse events reported — 158,000 adverse events in the first two-plus months of the rollout means that the rate of reported AE [adverse events] was approximately 1:1000, with many of the AEs graded as serious. This is based on a denominator of 125,000,000 vaccines distributed.
“It is no wonder that an army of 1,800 individuals was needed to process all of the information.”
Hooker noted the total number (1,205,755) of COVID vaccine adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 25, 2022, now eclipses the total number (930,952) of adverse events reported in the 32-year history of the database.
Dr. Madhava Setty, a board-certified anesthesiologist and senior science editor for The Defender, previously reported on the same Pfizer document, before the unredacted version was released.
“In that piece, I alluded to Pfizer’s admission that they needed more staff to process all of the adverse events being reported to them,” Setty said.
“It seems this document has now been updated. 600 FTEs [full-time employees]! … I wonder how many extra people the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Protection] has hired? Given how they are operating, I would say zero.”
Pfizer downplayed adverse reactions in request for full FDA license
The April 1 document release also included “request for priority review” — the documentation Pfizer in May 2021 submitted to the FDA for full licensure of its Comirnaty COVID vaccine.
In this document, Pfizer described its vaccine as fulfilling an “unmet medical need,” claiming:
“Mass immunization with a safe and effective vaccine against COVID-19 can dramatically alter the trajectory of the pandemic.
“According to policy briefing by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation published on 31 March 2021, COVID-19 remains a leading cause of death in the US with up to 100,000 additional deaths projected in the US between March and July 2021, many of which can likely be prevented with COVID-19 vaccination.”
Pfizer expressed “concerns” about lifting COVID-related measures, such as lockdowns, on the basis that the lifting of such restrictions would “counteract the impacts of this vaccination effort.”
“Vaccination against COVID-19 began with EUA/conditional approvals in December 2020, in a phased rollout defined by national/regional guidance.
“However, there continue to be concerning trends that may counteract the impacts of this vaccination effort, including:
“[L]imitations in access to obtaining a vaccine due to infrastructure challenges (ie, clinic and appointment capacity and systems)
“[I]ncreasing viral transmission fueled by relaxed compliance with mitigations as the pandemic surpasses the 1-year mark (ie, masks, physical distancing, limiting travel)
“[I]ncreasing circulation of emerging variants of concern (which are currently driving continued spread of viral infection in Europe despite extensive mitigation mandates).”
Pfizer justified its request for full licensure of its COVID vaccine on the following basis:
“A vaccine program must be implemented expediently and rapidly expanded to have a significant impact on the pandemic course.
“Licensure of BNT162b2 is likely to enhance vaccine uptake by facilitating supply of vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech directly to pharmacies and healthcare providers/facilities.
“The greatest impact of BNT162b2 licensure may be direct supply to healthcare providers who serve vulnerable populations such as elderly patients and those who live in rural and underserved communities (ie, individuals who might be unable to navigate the challenges of securing vaccine access using the systems in place for EUA).
“Expansion of vaccine via licensure would ultimately improve the prospect of achieving population herd immunity to bring the pandemic under control.”
The same document glossed over the adverse effects for which the company previously admitted it hired a significant number of new employees to process, claiming:
“Based on Phase 1 data from the FIH Study BNT162-01, BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 [various vaccines tested during the trial period] were safe and well-tolerated in healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age, with no unanticipated safety findings.
“Phase 2/3 safety data were generally concordant with safety data in Phase 1 of the study, both overall and with regard to younger and older participants.”
This is despite hard figures regarding adverse reactions provided later in the document:
“Through 28 February 2021 (data lock point aligned with Pharmacovigilance Plan), there were a total of 42,086 case reports (25,379 medically confirmed and 16,707 non-medically confirmed) containing 158,893 events. Cases were received from 63 countries.
“Consistent with what was seen in Phase 2/3 of Study C4591001, most reported AEs were in System Organ Classes (SOCs) with reactogenicity events: general disorders and administration site conditions (51,335), nervous system disorders (25,957), musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (17,283), and gastrointestinal disorders (14,096).
“Post-authorization data have also informed the addition of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the experience of reactogenicity to the product labeling.”
Release of Pfizer vaccine documents still in progress
Many of the documents released as part of the April 1 tranche appear to include more mundane information and data related to the Pfizer COVID vaccine trials.
These documents include:
Peer-reviewed scientific articles funded by Pfizer-BioNTech, titled “Phase 1/2 Study of COVID-19 RNA Vaccine” (August 2020) and “Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RANA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2020.These studies supported “further evaluation of this mRNA vaccine candidate” despite the apparent appearance of serious adverse effects in one of the 12 participants receiving 30 μg and 100 μg doses of the BNT162b1 candidate vaccine during the trial phase. This, however, does not appear to have been the final vaccine formulation that ultimately received an EUA.
A questionnaire that vaccine trial participants were required to complete, along with a study book displaying the information to be collected from those participating.
Documentsoutlining the randomization scheme used for identifying vaccine trial participants and those who received doses of the vaccine or a placebo.
Documentslisting anonymized demographic characteristics of vaccine trial participants.
An anonymized listing of important protocol deviations.
Consent forms that vaccine trial participants were asked to complete, as well as other related documents submitted by Pfizer for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, and information regarding institutions participating in the IRB process.
Tapping the brakes on Ray Kurzweil’s techno-prophecy, Elon Musk recently predicted a “smoother” transition to the extinction of legacy humans. It’s cool, though, cuz free speech and Ukraine satellites and stuff. Besides, who cares about a transhuman Fourth Industrial Revolution so long as it happens slowly?
Either way, you have to wonder where Musk gets these zany ideas.
Ray Kurzweil, a top Google R&D director, famously predicts that around 2045 the converging fields of genomics, robotics, nanotech, and artificial intelligence will reach an inflection point. As he wrote in his 2005 book The Singularity Is Near:
[W]ithin several decades, information-based technologies will encompass all human knowledge and proficiency, ultimately including the pattern-recognition powers, problem-solving skills, and emotional and moral intelligence of the human brain itself. … The Singularity will represent the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots. There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality.
Following the “law of accelerating returns,” this Singularity will see machines self-improve so quickly, they’ll abruptly become incomprehensible to their human creators—and therefore completely our of our control—forcing us to fuse with them like barnacles on a ship hull.
That is, if they don’t just kill us first.
Because acceleration toward the Singularity will be exponential, according to Kurzweil, it’ll be as if the transformation happened all at once. Whereas most legacy humans are horrified by the prospect, Kurzweil honestly believes rapid assimilation to this nanobot borg will be the best thing to happen to us since sliced bread.
Being slightly more sane, at least in public, Musk has long voiced concerns that an artificial intelligence explosion could mean our extinction. His view is deeply informed by the transhumanist Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom, whose 2014 book Superintelligenceemphasizes how unpredictable this situation really is:
Expert opinions about the future of AI vary wildly. There is disagreement about timescales as well as about what forms AI might eventually take. Predictions about the future development of artificial intelligence, one study noted, “are as confident as they are diverse.”
With that diversity in mind, Bostrom works out every possible way an artificial superintelligence could quietly outpace humanity, gain a decisive strategic advantage, and then consume everything in its path:
The treacherous turn … When the AI gets sufficiently strong—without warning or provocation—it strikes, forms a singleton, and begins directly to optimize the world according to the criteria implied by its final values.
In other words, humans are turned into robot fuel. Elon Musk takes this idea very seriously, but that hasn’t stopped him from attempting to develop strong AI.
You can’t stop progress, man.
When asked for his take on the Singularity in a March 26 interview with Business Insider, Musk offered a curiously blasé response:
I’m not sure if there is a very sharp boundary. I think it is much smoother. … We’ve already amplified our human brains massively with computers. It could be an interesting ratio to roughly calculate the amount of compute that is digital, divided by the amount of compute that is biological. And how does that ratio change over time. With so much digital compute happening so fast, that ratio should be increasing rapidly.
To put it another way, as our minds are absorbed by machines, our brains are being digitized. When asked if one day we could “download our human brain capacity” into Tesla’s new humanoid robot, Optimus, “which would be a different way of eternal life,” Musk replied:
Yes, we could download the things that we believe make ourselves unique…as far as preserving our memories, our personality, I think we could do that.
At one point, Musk’s interviewer lost his grip and went full on fanboy. “You have solved so many problems of mankind and presented so many solutions,” he gushed. But what about increased longevity?
That would cause asphyxiation of society because the truth is, most people don’t change their mind. They just die. So if they don’t die, we will be stuck with old ideas and society wouldn’t advance.
A few days later, Musk took to Twitter to remind the world we need more babies, presumably to jab Neuralink chips into like squalling macaques.
A few days after that, Musk bought nearly ten percent of Twitter’s stock, making him the company’s largest stakeholder. Our hero! Now the masses can discuss post-op tranny suicides and racially insensitive crime stats as they upload their personalities to the borg.
Meanwhile, Tesla is developing an army of robot slaves to place in people’s homes next year, where they can do chores and upload their masters’ every thought and action. The company is already filling the highways with electric self-driving cars—from the Western world to China—simultaneously reducing carbon emissions and human autonomy.
All the while, these bots will be gathering real-world data. Perhaps Musk can add confidential Twitter data to the massive influx.
This flood of physical, digital, and psychological information will soon pour into Tesla’s data centers to train the company’s already impressive AI systems. As Tesla’s algorithms come to resemble the workings of the human brain—or rather, some autistic alien brain—Musk hopes to make the breakthrough to artificial general intelligence, aka the Super Computer God.
Foreseeing this digital deity’s supreme power, Musk hopes his Neuralink brain chips will allow us to interface with the divinized Machine.
The Singularity may be coming on slowly, but Elon Musk is moving fast.
As the Great Reset unfolds, it’s fitting that the world’s richest man is also a transhumanist celebrity. Robots, sentient AI, bionic brain chips, fully immersive virtual reality, space colonization, simulation theory—I’m struggling to think of one tenet of transhumanism that Musk hasn’t brought to public consciousness.
It’s impossible to know where his head is at, but piecing together Musk’s sound bytes and tweets, one hears echoes of the Carnegie Mellon roboticist, Hans Moravec. In fact, the simulation theory—that cornball, screen-junkie delusion that we actually live in a computer simulation, which Musk has repeated publicly many times—has its origins in Moravec.
Without a doubt, Moravec’s lucid, transhuman vision had a profound impact on Bostrom and Kurzweil, who in turn influenced Musk. Like a prophet by the waters of Babylon, Moravec spelled out our fate in his 1988 book Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence:
What awaits is not oblivion but rather a future which, from our present vantage point, is best described by the words “postbiological” or even “supernatural.” It is a world in which the human race has been swept away by the tide of cultural change, usurped by its own artificial progeny.
Out with the old, in with the new!
The ultimate consequences are unknown, though many intermediate steps are not only predictable but have already been taken. Today, our machines are still simple creations, requiring the parental care and hovering attention of any newborn, hardly worthy of the word “intelligent.” But within the next century they will mature into entities as complex as ourselves, and eventually into something transcending everything we know—in whom we can take pride when they refer to themselves as our descendants.
Without shedding a single tear, these robotic “mind children” will replace us.
Unleashed from the plodding pace of biological evolution, the children of our minds will be free to grow to confront immense and fundamental challenges in the larger universe. We humans will benefit for a time from their labors, but sooner or later, like natural children, they will seek their own fortunes while we, their aged parents, silently fade away. Very little need be lost in this passing of the torch—it will be in our artificial offspring’s power, and to their benefit, to remember almost everything about us, even, perhaps, the detailed workings of individual minds.
Imagine becoming a digital wraith, left to float around a data cloud for all eternity. And you thought mass immigration and trans kids were bad ideas.
Transhumanism is a dreamworld where technology is the highest power. In recent decades, this techno-religion has spread from the intellectual fringe to the world’s wealthiest men, and by extension, the most powerful corporations. Klaus Schwab, Kai-Fu Lee, Eric Schmidt,Mark Zuckerberg,Jeff Bezos—all of them offer transhuman fantasies, each with its particular emphasis.
According to his own hype, Elon Musk is making these dreams come true, from sentient robots to AI-powered brain chips. Musk is the embodiment of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a close partner to China, and arguably the greatest benefactor of the Great Reset. In other words, he’s no friend to legacy humans.
Yes, yes—a little “free speech” is great news in the short-term. Now conservatives can be smartasses on Twitter again. I can’t wait. But where is this tech revolution ultimately going?
When Musk says we’re already cyborgs, perpetually attached our smartphones, he’s not wrong. Rather than waving pompoms because the world’s richest transhumanist bought a stake in Twitter, otherwise sane observers should ask why we’re all plugging into the corporate borg.
Ever since the beginning of the Covid saga, people have speculated about a possible link between increased illness and the rollout of 5G networks around the world.
And while “Covid-19” has hardly been the apocalyptic death storm that the media made it out to be, there have been excess deaths recorded in certain areas. The question is: are the excess deaths solely attributable to “pandemic” measures (i.e. lockdowns, masks, toxic medications, etc) or did electromagnetic radiation have a more significant role to play?
And if so, was it due to 5G or the use of some other covert, as yet unknown, technology? That is what this investigation aims to uncover.
This article will also focus mostly on excess mortality. For, if there were no excess deaths, it would be difficult to argue that there was some kind of EMF (electromagnetic fields) weapon being deployed as that would surely increase deaths above the regular threshold. In certain areas, in certain countries, there undoubtedly were excess deaths, and, as this article will demonstrate, these can be explained without the need for a new, infectious pathogen (as I have argued elsewhere).
In fact, there are several independent lines of evidence to suggest that it was not “Sars-Cov-2”, or any alleged virus for that matter, that caused these excess deaths. While the reasons advanced by other researchers as to the real cause are all valid – and probably, to some extent, all true – in this article, I argue for the EMF cause.
I am simply making the case for EMFs, in one capacity or another, having contributed to excess mortality throughout the Covid period. I will also argue that EMFs were responsible for some of the more peculiar symptoms expressed by so-called “Covid” patients.
Also, when I refer to “EMFs” (electromagnetic fields/electromagnetic radiation), I am not referring solely to 5G (although that is important), I am also willing to consider other, covert EMF influences, possibly in the form of weaponry of some kind. And as we shall see, there is evidence to suggest that this type of weaponry exists and has been used.
Make no mistake, much of what I propose here is speculation. However, it is argued speculation, with evidence to back it up.
Evidence for “Other Factors” Contributing to Excess Mortality During the Covid Saga
Here we will examine four lines of evidence that clearly suggest there were other, possibly unknown, factors causing increased ill health during the Covid period. There is more that could be discussed here but for the sake of keeping this article to a readable length, I have chosen just four.
1. The Testimony of Dr Cameron Kyle-Sidell
Early on during the Covid pandemic, a New York doctor named Cameron Kyle-Sidell posted a video on YouTube where he revealed some shocking information about the nature of “Covid-19” and the standard of care that all hospitals in the US were working under.
The video was removed from YouTube (who would have guessed?) but you can still view it here on Bitchute.
Dr Kyle-Sidell is an E.R and critical care doctor working in New York City (Brooklyn to be exact). His testimony was posted online in early April 2020. As the original video was taken down by YouTube, I couldn’t pinpoint the exact date of publishing, but it was likely posted around the 6th.
Dr Kyle-Sidell begins his statement rather harrowingly:
“Nine days ago I opened an intensive care unit to care for the sickest COVID positive patients in the city, and in these nine days I’ve seen things I’ve never seen before.”
This should already give us cause for concern. An experienced critical care doctor seeing things “he’s never seen before”? If Covid-19 were a typical viral pneumonia (AKA a cold), then he surely would have seen it before, countless times in fact. So we can already be certain that there is something different going on here.
And that, in fact, is exactly what Dr. Sidell himself asserts:
“COVID-19 lung disease, as far as I can see, is not a pneumonia and should not be treated as one.”
He then goes on to comment on what he thinks may be the real cause of the condition (emphasis added):
“Rather, it appears as some kind of viral induced disease, most resembling high altitude sickness. It is as if tens of thousands of my fellow New Yorkers are on a plane at 30,000 feet in the cabin pressure is slowly being let out. These patients are slowly being starved of oxygen.”
So Dr Sidell still claims the bizarre condition to be “viral induced”, but let’s face it, his medical training combined with the Wuhan virus propaganda would compel him to do so. What he says next is more interesting for he compares his patients’ condition to high altitude sickness and claims they are being starved of oxygen. Keep this in mind as we move forward.
Dr Sidell goes on to stress the fact that the use of ventilators is the incorrect way to treat such a condition.
“I fear that we are using a false paradigm to treat a new disease…”
He then makes the bold suggestion that ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome), reported as being caused by “Covid-19”, is actually being caused by the use of ventilators.
“…the ARDS that we are seeing, that the whole world is seeing, may be nothing more than lung injury caused by the ventilator.”
Dr Sidell says a lot more in his testimony, I have just pulled out some key extracts so as to keep this section concise. However, feel free to watch the full video yourself.
Here are the key takeaways from Dr Sidell’s testimony:
Patients were being admitted to Dr Sidell’s Covid ward with symptoms that he had never seen before.
The symptoms these patients were experiencing (alleged to be “Covid-19”) were not characteristic of a typical viral pneumonia, but rather something more akin to high altitude sickness, causing oxygen deprivation.
Ventilators were the incorrect treatment for such a condition and were likely doing more harm than good. This last point is highly significant, for it means that hospitals may have intentionally been directed to use ventilators precisely to increase “Covid-19” death rates. In fact, later on, evidence did come out suggesting that ventilators were ineffective and harmful. In fact, according to the above-cited study, “88% of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation died, including 97% of those aged >65”.
It is the first and second point that interests us most here. In other words, some patients in the New York City area (and possibly elsewhere) were exhibiting symptoms foreign to anything regularly observed by experienced doctors and this condition resembled high altitude sickness.
As it turns out, this strange condition can be rationalized by examining the effects of certain electromagnetic frequencies. We will explore this later in the article.
And there is something else to note. It is highly relevant that Dr Sidell observed this strange high altitude sickness-like condition in New York City, for, as we shall see, at one point during the pandemic, NYC had by far the highest Covid-19 death rate, indicating that something strange was happening there that may not have been happening elsewhere.
This anomaly in NYC was also reported by Dr Denis Rancourt, whose research we will now examine.
2. The Research of Dr Denis Rancourt
Dr Denis Rancourt is a Canadian physicist, with highly impressive academic credentials. He has written a number of papers concerning Covid-19 excess mortality in various countries around the world and his findings are rather illuminating.
His first paper concerning this phenomenon was published on June 2nd 2020 titled “All-cause mortality during COVID-19 – No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response”.
In the abstract of the paper, he states that
“The latest data of all-cause mortality by week does not show a winter-burden mortality that is statistically larger than for past winters. There was no plague. However, a sharp “COVID peak” is present in the data, for several jurisdictions in Europe and the USA.”
It’s this sharp peak that is most interesting, for, as Rancourt notes, this is an anomaly, never having occurred before in the majority of jurisdictions; the data is simply not consistent with a viral cause (the same conclusion was reached by another team of researchers whose research we will analyse later).
Rancourt hypothesizes the anomalous “COVID peak” to be a signature of mass homicide by government response. In other words, according to Rancourt, the original sharp increase in deaths in various areas in the US and EU was a direct result of pandemic measures, including the use of ventilators.
However, important to note here is that the “COVID peak” in the USA arises from certain hot spots, and New York City is the main one. In fact, New York City’s “COVID Peak” is virtually off the charts (see the below graph taken from Rancourt’s paper).
“Figure 8: All-cause mortality by week for NYC, starting in 2013, in black. The red vertical line indicates the date at which the WHO declared the COVID-19 pandemic. The grey line is simply the same data on a vertically expanded and shifted scale, for visualization.”
So here we can clearly see an anomalous increase in all-cause mortality in NYC beginning just before Dr Sidell posts his video testifying to the fact that his patients are experiencing symptoms he’s never seen that are entirely uncharacteristic of any viral pneumonia. Coincidence? I think not.Rancourt’s next paper, co-written with Marine Baudin and Jérémie Mercier, titled “Evaluation of the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 in France, from all-cause mortality 1946-2020” was published on the 20th October 2020. In the paper, the researchers analyse all-cause mortality in France, with a focus once again on the strange “COVID Peak”.In the abstract the researcher state that
“We prove that the “COVID-peak” feature that is present in the all-cause mortality data of certain mid-latitude Northern hemisphere jurisdictions, including France, cannot be a natural epidemiological event occurring in the absence of a large non-pathogenic perturbation.”
The conclusion they reach is that the “COVID peak” was artificial, i.e., caused by deliberate intervention rather than the result of some naturally occurring, novel respiratory virus. The researchers note several reasons for this conclusion, one of which is that the COVID peak
“is absent in many jurisdictions (34 of the USA States have no “COVID-peak”).”
This is highly anomalous, for if there were a novel virus going around, we’d expect to see some level of consistency with regards to the rise in all-cause mortality in different states (and indeed, different countries). Instead what we see is huge increases in all-cause mortality in certain jurisdictions (e.g. NYC) and nothing in others.
Although arrived at differently, Rancourt’s conclusion and Dr Sidell’s are the same – if something new is killing people, it’s not a novel viral pneumonia.
Rancourt & Co’s latest paper dealing with excess mortality is titled “Nature of the COVID-era public health disaster in the USA, from all-cause mortality and socio-geo-economic and climatic data.”
In this paper, the researchers seek to investigate why the USA suffered a sustained, exceedingly large mortality during the Covid period, while Canada and Western European countries did not. Once again, their research indicates that a viral pandemic did not occur (emphasis added):
“The behaviour of the USA all-cause mortality by time (week, year), by age group, by sex, and by state is contrary to pandemic behaviour caused by a new respiratory disease virus for which there is no prior natural immunity in the population. Its seasonal structure (summer maxima), age-group distribution (young residents), and large state-wise heterogeneity are unprecedented and are opposite to viral respiratory disease behaviour, pandemic or not.”
Rancourt & Co conclude that government-imposed measures combined with societal risk factors (obesity, poverty, etc) were responsible for the excess mortality. While I absolutely agree with their findings, I think they may have missed another, important contributing factor: EMFs.
But that’s not all. Rancourt & Co found something else which is highly relevant to Dr. Sidell’s statement:
“We also find a large COVID-era USA pneumonia epidemic that is not mentioned in the media or significantly in the scientific literature, which was not adequately addressed. Many COVID-19-assigned deaths may be misdiagnosed bacterial pneumonia deaths.”
In other words, cases of “pneumonia” increased, but it wasn’t treated properly and it wasn’t being caused by a novel virus. This finding is similar to what Dr Sidell observed, only he referred to cases of “high altitude sickness” (rather than pneumonia). In each case, it is the lungs being affected and it is not hard to see how some kind of novel EMF-induced lung disorder could have been mislabelled as merely “pneumonia”.
3. The Research of Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Kohnlein
The next line of evidence we will examine is that of the research of journalist Torsten Engelbrecht and physician, Claus Kohnlein.
On the 1st of October, the two researchers co-authored an article titled “COVID-19 (excess) mortalities: viral cause impossible—drugs with key role in about 200,000 extra deaths in Europe and the US alone”, in which they reach a similar conclusion to Dr Rancourt – excess mortality was not caused by a novel virus.
Engelbrecht and Kohnlein focused their analysis mostly on EU countries, noting that most of the countries reporting excess mortality instituted stringent lockdowns (a total contradiction of the virus hypothesis). In their analysis, they highlight the same, anomalous “COVID peak” uncovered by Rancourt & Co.
“Z-score for various European countries, Dec. 2019 – Sept. 2020”
But it’s not only this anomalous “COVID peak” (which occurred outside the regular flu season), they also note the fact that neighbouring countries often exhibited a completely different pattern of excess mortality. For example, Belgium had a rather noticeably peak while Germany (its neighbour), did not.
With regards to the viral theory, this kind of wildly inconsistent pattern of excess mortality simply does not make sense.
The conclusion reached by Engelbrecht and Kohnlein is that the “COVID peaks” were caused by the increased use of highly toxic medications.
“Highly toxic and also potentially lethal drugs were used excessively, especially in all of the above-mentioned countries with excess mortality, both experimentally and off-label, meaning that the drugs were used outside of their regulatory approval—and this in people, most of whom were old and had serious illnesses, before being tested “positive” for COVID-19.”
Their article is persuasive and I agree with their conclusions. However, once again, their conclusions do not rule out a contributing EMF-related cause.
4. Wildly Inconsistent Covid-19 Death Rates
Finally, the official COVID death data, as recorded by the WHO, provides yet another line of evidence to suggest that any recorded excess mortality was not due to a novel virus.
For example, take a look at the graph below created by Andrew Mather, a British mathematician in September 2020.
Covid-19 deaths by country per 100m population (Sept. 2020).
The graph shows the number of recorded COVID deaths in different countries, normalised to account for the difference in population sizes. Once again, the data is highly anomalous. New York City has by far the highest COVID death rate, higher than any other country in the world at that time! Belgium, Peru, the UK and Spain are also high on the list, while African countries, South East Asia and Japan barely feature.
So either, we’re dealing with a far deadlier virus in New York City, Western Europe and parts of South America, or there’s another factor at play.
Let’s summarise our findings thus far:
Shortly after the WHO declared a pandemic, an experienced New York City doctor came forward explaining that his so-called “COVID” patients were not suffering from a typical viral pneumonia, but were instead showing signs of something akin to high altitude sickness.
Dr Denis Rancourt and his co-researchers analysed all-cause mortality in various countries and jurisdictions, reaching the conclusion that a pandemic did not occur. They noted an anomalous “COVID peak” which was especially prominent in New York City.
Journalist Torsten Engelbrecht and physician, Dr Claus Kohnlein analyzed European mortality data and came to the exact same conclusion – the data simply did not support the virus theory.
Six months into the Covid “pandemic”, Covid death rates were differing wildly across different countries and jurisdictions. New York City had by far the highest death rate, more than any other country in the world. The data, once again, did not fit a viral cause and instead pointed to an alternate factor at play, localised to NYC and possibly some other countries.
In the next part of this investigation, we’ll build a case for that “other factor” having been EMF-related and likely linked to the 5G rollout.
Symptoms of “Covid-19” Related to EMF Exposure
In this section, we will examine a groundbreaking study published in September of 2021. The study, published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, is titled “Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G”.
The title says it all, for the paper presents a wide range of evidence pointing to a connection between what has been called “Covid-19” and EMF exposure, including 5G.
For anyone unaware of the harms caused by EMF exposure, I suggest reading my two previous articles dealing with this topic, as they provide an overview of the evidence linking EMF exposure to various chronic illnesses as well as environmental devastation.
In order to keep this section short, we’ll dive straight into the aforementioned paper. Here it is worth quoting the study at length. The researchers begin by noting that
“There is a large body of peer reviewed literature, since before World War II, on the biological effects of WCR [wireless communications radiation] that impact many aspects of our health. In examining this literature, we found intersections between the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 and detrimental bioeffects of WCR exposure. Here, we present the evidence suggesting that WCR has been a possible contributing factor exacerbating COVID-19.”
In other words, these researchers found that reported symptoms of Covid-19 were also symptoms of WCR exposure. The researchers go on to summarise some of the epidemiological evidence linking the 5G rollout to the Covid-19 “outbreak”.
“COVID-19 began in Wuhan, China in December 2019, shortly after city-wide 5G had “gone live,” that is, become an operational system, on October 31, 2019. COVID-19 outbreaks soon followed in other areas where 5G had also been at least partially implemented, including South Korea, Northern Italy, New York City, Seattle, and Southern California. In May 2020, Mordachev [4] reported a statistically significant correlation between the intensity of radiofrequency radiation and the mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in 31 countries throughout the world. During the first pandemic wave in the United States, COVID-19 attributed cases and deaths were statistically higher in states and major cities with 5G infrastructure as compared with states and cities that did not yet have this technology [5].”
Here are some maps that I compiled (not from the paper quoted above) showing, visually, the Covid-5G association.
Note that New York City features on the list of areas where, according to the researchers, “5G had been at least partially implemented”. We can now note the following about NYC:
The “COVID peak” was “off the charts” compared to other areas in the US and the COVID death rate was abnormally high.
So-called “COVID-19” patients there suffered from some unknown condition akin to high altitude sickness.
A 5G network had been at least partially implemented shortly before the COVID “outbreak” occurred.
The researchers go on to present the following table, showing a clear relationship between the effects of WCR (Wireless Communications Radiation) exposure and various symptoms associated with “COVID-19”.
Table reproduced from Rubik & Brown, 2021.
They then conclude by summing up the known effects of WCR exposure and how they relate to COVID-19 (emphasis added):
“Specifically, evidence presented here supports a premise that WCR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence by (1) causing morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that may be contributing to hypercoagulation; (2) impairing microcirculation and reducing erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplifying immune dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increasing cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals exacerbating vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increasing intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsening heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.”
What interests us most here is point number 2 (italicised/bolded). The researchers claim that WCR can impair microcirculation and reduce erythrocyte and haemoglobin levels, exacerbating hypoxia. Another name for “hypoxia” is “altitude sickness” (i.e. a severe lack of oxygen). In other words, here we have a potential explanation for the “high altitude sickness” like condition described by Dr Sidell in NYC.
Note also that some of the COVID-19 related manifestations listed in the table such as organ failure, myocarditis, cardiac failure, arrhythmia, etc (effects not generally associated with the flu or any viral pneumonia), may be explainable when one considers the effects of EMF exposure.
In his book “The Contagion Myth”, Dr Thomas Cowan provides more evidence for the deleterious effects of radiofrequency radiation, especially 5G. After noting that “hypoxia” is reported as a frequent symptom of COVID-19 and that this is caused by the release of iron from the haemoglobin molecule, he goes to comment as follows (emphasis added):
“The conventional explanation for the release of iron from hemoglobin is the action of glycoproteins in the coronavirus—but the action of 5G’s millimeter waves is an equally good explanation, especially those at 60GHz, which disrupt oxygen molecules. An interesting observation about lung malfunction in Covid-19 patients is that it is bilateral (both lungs at the same time), whereas ordinary pneumonia typically affects only one lung. What kind of virus knows to attack both lungs?”
Dr Cowan then goes on to comment on the nature of “COVID-19” as experienced by patients in Wuhan (a city that also rolled out its 5G network mere days before the “outbreak”):
“A study from Wuhan showed that more than one-third of coronavirus patients had neurologic symptoms including dizziness, headaches, impaired consciousness, skeletal-muscle injury, and loss of smell and taste—and more rarely seizures and stroke. This is not your normal flu, this is a serious disease.”
When Cowan says, “This is not your normal flu, this is a serious disease.” He is right in one sense and wrong in another. You see, as has been my thesis throughout, “COVID-19” is not and never has been, a single disease, rather, it has been used as an “umbrella term” to include everything from mild flu symptoms to life-threatening, EMF-induced hypoxia.
In light of this evidence, we must ask ourselves – What role did EMFs/5G play in the COVID charade? Was it 5G alone that caused the anomalous “COVID peak” we see in certain areas? If so, why was the death rate in NYC so much higher than anywhere else? Was “Sars-Cov-2″ used as a cover for the rollout of dangerous radiofrequencies?
Or… Was there some sort of covert, EMF-related weaponry being used in select areas?
Speculating on the Existence and Possible Use of Advanced Electromagnetic Weapons
The reader should be advised that this section of the article is mostly speculation. However, the case for the intentional deployment of some kind of EMF-related weaponry, is, I believe, a solid one. After all, if you were part of a group looking to feign the signs of a viral respiratory pandemic, blasting people with hypoxia-inducing radiofrequencies is one way you could do it. And as we discovered, that appears to be what happened in NYC (and possibly other areas).
However, the only evidence for this theory is the rollout of a 5G network in key pandemic “hotspots” around the world (including NYC). The problem, of course, is that there were plenty of countries that had 5G networks and yet did not showcase the same dramatic “COVID peak” as NYC did.
While there are many factors that would have contributed to this COVID peak besides EMFs, including lockdown stringency, care home laws, population age and health status, etc, three other possibilities exist:
5G networks in certain areas were covertly used (or possibly hijacked) to “blast” the local population with dangerous radiofrequencies (such as 60Ghz millimetre-wave 5G which can disrupt oxygen molecules).
The increased density of radiofrequencies, brought about by the 5G rollout interacted with something that was already present within people’s bodies, “activating” a disease state.
An altogether separate EMF technology was in use.
As it turns out, there is evidence to support all three possibilities.
Evidence for the Existence of EMF-Related Weapons
The Spanish research group “La Quinta Columna” (the fifth column) have also argued that there is an EMF-related component to the Covid-19 “pandemic”.
La Quinta Columna was founded by Ricardo Delgado Martín, a biostatistician from Seville university. Quinta Columna says its main objective is to
“Show THE REALITY, no matter how uncomfortable the TRUTH may be due to the nature of the events or news in which it participates, without being subject to prejudice and conflicts of economic, moral, ethical, political, religious, ideological or otherwise.”
Most of the information regarding Quinta Columna online is in Spanish and as such, I lack the necessary information to make an informed judgement regarding their thesis. However, as they are one of the few research groups brave enough to investigate the link between Covid-19, vaccines and 5G/EMFs, it’s important to consider what they have to say.
Delgado’s thesis is that increased illness due to “COVID-19” is actually a result of the excitation, by radio-frequency signals, of graphene oxide already present within the body. Delgado briefly outlines his hypothesis in a July 2021 interview:
“…we are convinced that precisely the graphene oxide was the cause of the COVID-19 disease that was introduced, silently and stealthily in the 2019 anti-flu campaign globally. And they caused, with the subsequent electromagnetic bidding that everyone knows —with the famous 5G switch-on, the tests— the fashionable disease.”
In other words, Delgado believes that graphene oxide was introduced into people’s bodies via the 2019 flu vaccine and then excited by 5G radiofrequencies, causing hypoxia (i.e. “Covid-19”) which was then propagandized as a viral pandemic.
Noteworthy is that flu vaccine uptake was highest among the elderly population.
Delgado goes on to remind us that many surgical masks were also found to contain graphene and hypothesizes that Covid “waves” (i.e. the observed “COVID peaks”) are actually the result of 5G antenna activations:
“And by pressing a little button that activates the 5G, that is why they know when a wave is coming, the 2nd, the 3rd… The Delta variant, the Lambda… The Delta variant is the next 5G antennas activation, and that’s why we have to be careful.”
Delgado claims that NAC (n-acetylcysteine) and Glutathione were successful treatments for Covid patients suffering from hypoxia. The reason for this, he claims, is because, along with inhibiting or reducing the cytokine storm, “glutathione reduces and oxidizes, that is, eliminates the graphene oxide.”
Their research has claimed to find graphene oxide present in Covid-19 vaccines, which they say interacts with radio frequencies causing a number of severe health effects, including cardiac events.
Their research is controversial and their claims are not supported by all on the alternative side. However, in light of everything presented in this article thus far, it is worth considering.
And there is one more interesting piece of evidence that they have brought forward, possibly indicating the existence of a powerful EMF-related weapons capability. This will be more persuasive when we examine other anomalous happenings later on.
In this video, Ricardo Delgado and Jose Luis discuss a recording (seemingly captured by a CCTV camera, though it’s hard to tell) showing what appears to be the sudden death of a cyclist. The most interesting aspect of the video is the split-second glitch in the recording at the precise moment the cyclist collapses to the ground.
According to Delgado and Luis, this constitutes evidence of an electromagnetic “pulse” of some kind. I have embedded the video below.
A disclaimer is in order: I have not been able to verify the original footage. I don’t know where it comes from, I don’t know if the cyclist actually died and I don’t know whether it’s a legitimate recording. However, I include it here because, if real, this odd phenomenon seems to fall in line with another perplexing phenomenon that has increased in recent years: mass, sudden bird deaths.
Mass Sudden Die-Offs of Birds: Evidence of EMF Weaponry?
While not common knowledge, there have been a number of recorded mass sudden bird deaths in recent years. Not much digging was needed on my part to uncover these cases, for many of them have been catalogued by Dr Joseph Farrell on his blog at gizadeathstar.com.
Here is a brief overview of some of these strange cases, along with Dr Farrell’s enlightening commentary:
“On June 27, 2015, a road in Kuna, Idaho, was found covered with dead songbirds. This follows the mass deaths earlier this year of over 2,000 migrating snow geese that dropped to the ground dead or dying in eastern Idaho.”
“Now you’ll note that in this version of the story, in the comments section, there’s a brief exchange between two commenters, one of whom notes strange intereference with his bluetooth signal as he was driving through Idaho.”
(I haven’t been able to find the comment he refers to but then again, the article is almost 7 years old so it may have been removed).
Dr Farrell then speculates as follows
“Could these events be caused by some sort of secret human technology, or could they be the unintended consequence of its use or other secret activity? Maybe. Again, I don’t know.”
“About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven’t heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died – bringing the death toll to 297 – some started to take notice.”
“…And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station.”
The interesting thing about this story is that Snopes was quick to publish a “fact check” claiming that no such 5G test took place (although they did admit that one such test had taken place in that area in June of that year).
More interesting is Dr Farrell’s commentary on the incident. After outlining his thoughts regarding the use of microwave interferometry technologies, he goes on to offer his usual “high octane speculation”:
“It is a short step from that basic concept to a similar use of microwave technologies – perhaps again involving interferometry – to produce beat frequencies which could interfere with, or actually shut down, the electrical functioning of organisms’ nervous systems, including organs such as the heart. And that’s what is so alarming here: birds might be resonant to certain such frequencies, other organisms to other frequencies. All one needs to do, so to speak, is to “dial in” the right frequency, and one could eradicate a regional population of dogs, cats… or even humans.”
“Wildlife experts in New Mexico say birds in the region are dropping dead in alarming numbers, potentially in the “hundreds of thousands.””
NBC goes on to note that
“Multiple agencies are investigating the occurrences, including the Bureau of Land Management and the White Sands Missile Range, a military testing area.”
And here is Dr Farrell’s commentary (emphasis added):
“You don’t say… the military at the White Sands Missile Range is investigating? Well, it makes sense… if one suspected an unknown fast-acting pathogen, biowarfare, or some completely different cause, or maybe even some version of my bio-electromagnetically activated pathogen.”
And now for two more interesting cases that also occurred during the Covid scamdemic…
“As if we didn’t have enough weird things going on, now birds are suddenly dropping dead in large numbers all across the eastern half of the country. Before they die, a lot of these birds are exhibiting very strange symptoms… If scientists understood what was causing this to happen, that would be one thing. But at this point they have no idea why this is taking place, and that is quite alarming.”
Dr Farrell offers no speculation about what might be causing this round of mass bird deaths but finds the timing of the event, and the symptoms experienced by the birds, to be overly suspicious.
“What I do know is that birds going blind, or not being able to fly away from approaching humans, or shivering and shaking as if they’re having a seizure, is not normal… And what I strongly suspect is that someone knows why, and isn’t talking…”
“Hundreds of birds dropped dead from the sky in Wales on Thursday, after witnesses reported hearing a “’huge electrical-type bang’.”
“Ian Mccaffrey, who works in Waterston, reported hearing a large electrical-type bang as he left work on Thursday night. He says following the shocking noise, dozens of birds fell from the sky and landed on his car. Mccaffrey said the loud sound was similar to lightning.”
Here it is the reports of a “large electrical-type bang” that is most interesting as it seems to corroborate the idea of the existence of a powerful EMF weapons technology. Dr Farrell recognizes this too, offering the following commentary:
“When that flock of crows (I believe) first died in Tennessee many years ago, I’ve thought that this electro-magnetic “pressure field” was perhaps the best explanation. And now we have an odd video, and reports of “electrical bangs”, to go with it. And yes, that means in my opinion the case for that speculation just became a small bit stronger.”
It is to be noted that the cases of strange sudden bird deaths reviewed here constitute only a portion of the total reported incidents. It is also highly relevant that EMF signals can penetrate into a bird’s nervous system, disrupting its ability to navigate. I covered this in a previous article on environmental crises.
Let’s sum up:
Recent years have seen increasing reports of mass, sudden bird deaths.
In many of these cases, there is some sort of link to electromagnetic technology. In the Idaho case, one person complained of bluetooth interference around the time of the incident; in the Netherlands case, 5G tests were being carried out in the vicinity of the mass die-offs, and in the latest Wales case, a “huge electrical-type bang” was heard prior to the die-offs. In one case, even the military began investigating.
Dr Joseph Farrell, a scholar who has been tracking strange animal deaths has speculated that the cause may be due to some kind of “electromagnetic pressure field”.
And finally, a recent video posted online captured the apparent sudden death of a cyclist at the exact time there was a split-second glitch in the video recording. Some have argued that this points to an electromagnetic “pulse” of some sort, perhaps hinting at a similar technology as proposed above.
And with that, we are ready to conclude our investigation.
Conclusions
Although the Covid-19 death rate is more or less akin to seasonal flu, not warranting the need for special vaccines or preventatives, lurking beneath the fraudulent testing and dubious death reporting were the reports of strange symptoms resembling high altitude sickness.
The all-cause mortality data for certain areas, NYC in particular, also exhibited a highly anomalous “COVID peak”, certainly not explainable in terms of a novel respiratory pathogen.
A recent peer-reviewed study provided compelling evidence that many of the symptoms associated with “COVID-19” are also effects of EMF exposure. This, together with the compelling epidemiological data, suggests a link between the rollout of 5G and areas that exhibited a pronounced “COVID peak”.
Finally, in recent years there has been a flurry of mass sudden bird deaths in various places around the world. Many of these incidents exhibited some sort of connection to electromagnetic interference or radiofrequencies of some sort.
Spanish researchers from Quinta Columna have also analysed a video purported to show the sudden death of a cyclist that they believe occurred due to an EMF pulse of some kind.
They further maintain that “COVID peaks” occurred as a result of the excitation of graphene oxide by EMF bombardment which they believe can cause hypoxia (explaining the strange reports of “high altitude sickness” in NYC) and cardiac events (which have increased since the COVID vaccine roll out).
The volume of research linking EMF exposure with ill health is far too great to ignore, meaning that, regardless of the data put forth here, EMFs undoubtedly contributed to ill health during the COVID-19 “pandemic” and continue to do so. However, the evidence presented here may also point to the deliberate use of a covert, EMF-related weapons technology.
If that is the case, then, considering the massive effort to flood low earth orbit with EMF-beaming satellites and the ever-expanding 5G rollout, a lot more research is needed… and fast.
In an interview on “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” T.J. Coles, Ph.D., author of ‘Biofascism: The Tech-Pharma Complex and the End of Democracy,’ talked with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. about transhumanism, the billionaire class and the World Economic Forum.
Transhumanism and biofacism are becoming tools of the technological elite, according to T.J. Coles, Ph.D., author and researcher at Plymouth University’s Cognition Institute in the UK.
Coles is the author of many books, including “Your Brain in Quarantine: The Neuroscience of Human Isolation and Confinement” (2020), “Capitalism and Coronavirus: How Institutionalized Greed Turned a Crisis into a Catastrophe” (2020) and “Biofascism: The Tech-Pharma Complex and the End of Democracy” (2022).
During the interview, Kennedy played a recording of Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, whom Kennedy called the “ideological commissar” of the WEF.
He has been a featured speaker at the WEF’s meetings in Davos, Switzerland.
In the recording, Harari said:
“What scientists and engineers are telling us more and more is that if we only have enough data and enough computing power, we can create algorithms that understand humans and their feelings much better than humans can understand themselves.”
“Harari kind of laments that totalitarian regimes and oligarchies and plutocracies of the past have not been able to achieve this level of control over humans,” Kennedy said, “but the current technology gives those cohorts that exciting capacity.”
Coles agreed, stating “authoritarian vectors” began growing in power even before the pandemic: Out-of-control asset management companies, Big Tech monopolies, and Big Pharma run amok.
Kennedy acknowledged how this can sound “paranoid” to those who have not read for themselves what the global elite are actually writing and saying.
In fact, he said, it came as a shock to him as well.
“I think the first impediment is kind of persuading the listeners to this podcast that this is something real and not part of my ravings,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy asked Coles:
“The billionaire class themselves seem to see transhumanism as a way to kind of permanently extend their lives, or at least their consciousness. … How do you achieve a level of control that will allow informed and enlightened elites to manage global populations and the world?”
Coles commented, “These existing authoritarian vectors of Big Pharma regulatory capture, Big Tech — they really became what I and others call biofascist after the pandemic. They completely used their power to take over the media.”
The WEF is behind those efforts, Coles said.
“The World Economic Forum with all its so-called intellectuals … they provide the kind of ideological drive or the ideological cover that supports a lot of this agenda.”
Watch the podcast here:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
“‘Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”
“To obtain embryo cells [for research on vaccines and other pharma products], embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used, nor can those obtained by means of abortions performed via the vagina: in both cases, the embryo will be contaminated by micro-organisms.”
“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed.”
“In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive, in order to remove tissues to be placed in culture media.”
“Given these premises, we face the dilemma of whether the deliberate systematic destruction of a human creature to obtain cell material can be justified, when it is recognized that this is of great interest to fundamental research and for the diagnosis of some human diseases. Are research and diagnosis of such great value that they justify the destruction of human beings?”
“The Geneva Declaration affirms that the doctor has the duty to take the greatest care to safeguard the life of a human being from its conception and will not, even under threat, use his knowledge to infringe humanitarian laws.” (1986-04-26; Herranz, Gonzalo; Il Sabato, no.15…Professor Herranz was, at the time, president of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish Doctors and vice-president of the Permanent Committee of Medical Ethics of the European Community.)”
What exactly happened in 1972 or 1973, in the Netherlands, where an infant girl was aborted, and her kidneys used to make a cell line that would be used, going forward, in the testing of vaccines?
That cell line is called HEK 293, and it has been used to test COVID vaccines.
I have already presented evidence for concluding the abortion involved removing the living infant from her mother’s womb, and taking her kidneys, which of course killed her.
This evidence rests on the realization that, in order to extract viable and useful kidney tissue, the baby had to have a functioning blood supply, which meant she was alive.
But the evidence ALSO comes from knowing many other abortions have been carried out, in order to harvest tissue for medical research, by murdering living babies.
I have found a very informative article (2/9/2021) at the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK, by Christian Hacking, titled, “What the HEK?!” by Christian Hacking. Quoting from the article:
“HEK 293 is a human cell line created using a kidney from a dissected unborn baby in the Netherlands between 1972 and 1973. It is the second most common cell line and is used extensively in ‘pharmaceutical and biomedical research’. It is also used in vaccine creation and cancer research.”
“It was used, along with other human cell lines, to develop a genetically engineered spike protein (that the mRNA vaccine codes for) in the original development stage of the vaccine. The ‘new technology’ Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna Vaccine were tested on HEK 293 before they began human trials. This testing is ongoing for all new batches. Finally the ‘old technology’ Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine grew a weakened viral strain in HEK 293 cell culture…”
“The kidney in question was dissected from a healthy Dutch baby girl of unknown origin by the team at Leiden University in the Netherlands in 1972. Despite the inclusion of the term ‘embryonic’ in the title, the baby in question was probably 12-13 weeks old when she was killed so as to secure functioning kidney cells. The man in charge of the research was named Alex Jan Van der Eb; he is still alive and still based in Holland.”
“When questioned on the matter by the FDA in 2001, Dr Van der Eb confirmed it was an intentional abortion of a ‘fetus’ but gave hazy details of the exact experiments.”
“’So the kidney material, the fetal kidney material was as follows: the kidney of the fetus was, with an unknown family history, obtained in 1972 probably. The precise date is not known anymore. The fetus, as far as I can remember, was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at that time, but it got lost, all this information’.”
Author Hacking continues: “…extracting and growing living cells is incredibly difficult. In order to give oneself the best chance of success you need to ensure the child is healthy, fresh, intact and sterile. As one embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy confirms:”
“’In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion. Within an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimens useless’.”
[That statement was made by “Dr C Ward Kischer, embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy; specialist in Human Embryology, University of Arizona College of Medicine…”]
[My comment: This suggests the abortion, in the Netherlands, in 1972, was planned and technicians were standing by. I would say that, to ensure the viability of the tissue, the infant had a functioning blood supply and was alive when her kidneys were removed, killing her.]
Hacking:
“In order for the organs to be at ‘optimal viability’, the child needs to be dissected and organs extracted within 5 minutes of delivery. Anaesthetic also cannot be used so as to not change the cellular activity of the organs the researcher wants to obtain.”
“Acclaimed Doctor, Ian Donald, the pioneer of the ultrasound scanner, also claims to have witnessed the WI-38 [another cell-line] dissections [1962], conducted at the Karolinska Institute; he described them such:
“’Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”
“In his dense book ‘The Foetus As Transplant Donor the Scientific, Social, and Ethical Perspectives’, immunologist Dr Peter McCullagh relays detailed descriptions of the methods used on dozens of ‘fetal tissue donors’ from the 1970’s onward, including the deaths of babies between 7 and 26 weeks gestation by decapitations, exposure, dissection and drug testing. Gynaecologist and ex-abortionist Dr Bernard Nathanson, relaying his own understanding of abortion, and citing McCullagh’s book claims the Swedish experiments took place thus:
“’…in Sweden they have been puncturing the sac of a pregnant woman at let us say 14 to 16 weeks, and then they put a clamp on the head of the baby, pull the head down into the neck of the womb, drill a hole into the baby’s head, and then put a suction machine into the brain and suck out the brain cells….. Healthy human fetuses from 7 to 21 weeks from legal abortions were used. This is in Sweden. The conception age was estimated from crown rump length and so on. Fetal liver and kidney were rapidly removed and weighed. Now at 21 weeks, what they were doing, or 18 weeks, or 16 weeks, was what is called prostaglandin abortions. They would inject a substance into the womb. The woman would then go into mini-labor and pass this baby. 50% of the time, the baby would be born alive, but that didn’t stop them. They would just simply open up the abdomen of the baby with no anesthesia, and take out the liver and kidneys, etc.’”
“A research paper from the University of Toronto from June 1952 commenting on the method of their experiments suggests that these techniques were universal with researchers working in close proximity to the abortions.”
“’No macerated [softened after death] specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”
“According to Gonzalo Herranz, former head of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish doctors, the best way to prevent ‘contamination by microorganisms’ is to deliver the child by caesarean section or the removal of the uterus.”
“A 1982 review of a history of tissue donation affirms this, and much of the above evidence:”
“’Fetal tissue for transplantation must be “harvested” within a few minutes of delivery. Ideally this is by hysterectomy, with the fetus delivered in utero. Drugs which reduce fetal physiological activity need to be avoided. The fetus is therefore in as alive and aware a state as possible when being opened’.”
From Hacking’s article, it’s quite clear how the standard procedure of infant-murder is carried out.
It’s entirely reasonable to assume fetal cell line HEK 293—used for COVID vaccine testing—was originally produced, in 1972, by the murder of an infant. Refusal to take a COVID vaccine on the basis of conscience and religion is more than justified.
Given the weight of the circumstantial case, I would say that for all people of faith, refusal is essential.
Lunatic medical murderers and their allies will say anything to avoid blame and the application of true justice to themselves. They will invent “science” at the drop of a hat and couch it in humanitarian terms. They will claim the ends justify the means. They will commit gross forgery to pretend those ends are vital.
But we don’t have to stand by and passively believe them.
Billions of people of faith can stand against them.
If you are looking for one of the most masterful takedowns of virology to date, this presentation by Alec Zeck, Dr. Jordan Grant, Mike Donio,Jacob Diaz, and John Blaid is one of the best out there. When I first watched it a month ago, I was blown away and I had intended to share it here but, as often happens, I got sidetracked and sadly forgot to upload it. I hope you can take away a great deal of value from this presentation as the guys delve into the numerous fallacies and assumptions related to this fraudulent field.
In this presentation, you will find:
A break down of the ridiculous cell culture experiments
The lack of adhering to the scientific method
The foundational issues with virology from the very beginning
The inherent problems with and the limitations of electron microscopy imaging
The lack of any purified and isolated physical “viral” particles found directly in human samples
The issues related to the creation of the theoretical genome
The fabrication and lack of validation of the PCR test for “SARS-COV-2”
A thorough explanation of the Stefan Lanka control experiments
The myths of contagion and other possible explanations for dis-ease
The FOI requests and the burden of proof
As I said, a masterful takedown of the pseudoscience called virology!
Virology’s Unproven Assumptions
In this episode, Alec Zeck has a discussion with Mike Donio, Jacob Diaz, Dr. Jordan Grant MD, and John Blaid on the fallacious reasoning, unproven assumptions, and lack of proof for virus theory.
The implementation of a digital passport system is a crucial element in this plan, which would go on to enable the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) that eventually will be able strip you of your assets and turn them into a credit courtesy of governments led by authoritarian technocrats. You can not use money any longer unless someone “higher up” agrees to it. Together with plans to turn dissentic voices into “domestic terrorists” that would be the end of all of the freedoms our forefathers paid with their lives to defend.
One of these systems that could be turned into a didgital concentration camp is the Digital Green Certificate introduced by the European Union in June 2021 under the pretext of “enabling freedom of travel”. It turned out to be quite the opposite.
Consequently, brave parliamentarians such as Mr Roos have started an initiative to block the EU commission’s attempt to extend the “Covid Pass”/Green Certificate until at least 2023.
While CHD is not endorsing political platforms but focuses on advocacy for Children’s Health and Fundamental Human Rights, we kindly ask you to please take 90 seconds and listen to this video which Mr Roos has put out, and also follow the link to object to these plans of the EU Commission’s website:
“The European Commission, wants to extend the covid pass until June 2023. In one and a half minutes, I will explain to you why you should care, and what you can do to stop this.
The covid pass was introduced by the European Union in June 2021. They claimed it would make travel within the European Union easier. But that never worked. Countries still kept introducing their own restrictions. Within just a few months, member states transformed the covid pass into something much bigger. All of a sudden, you needed a QR code to enter a restaurant or even to go to work. But it was never introduced for that.
Now, Omicron is the dominant strain of the virus. To most people, it’s not dangerous anymore. The vaccine doesn’t stop the spread. Science shows that the QR system does not come with any health benefit anymore, while undermining fundamental rights.
This is the moment to abolish the covid pass once and for all.
But the European Commission wants to extend it until at least June 2023, an extremely bad idea.
Together with several colleagues in the Parliament, I will do everything I can to stop this. But we have to do it together.
We need your help, please follow this link to the European Commission website and tell them that you oppose this extension. Please do it as soon as possible, because conditional freedom is NO freedom!”
I wonder how far all this will go. By “all this”, I mean the headlong push, always in the same direction, always away from the world I recognise. To me it seems as though a pendulum is swinging, has been swinging for years now, but always and only one way – further and further from the point where I stand. I wonder too, how far that pendulum can swing before it must stop and, inevitably swing back the other way, and with a vengeance. Every action, after all, has an equal and opposite reaction.
To me there seems no avoiding the conclusion that, as a key part of all this, official misinformation and propaganda all over the world has been shaped to make reasonable people feel like they’re simply going mad, that they have lost the ability to understand and interpret events and make decisions for themselves. Many people have felt the only option was to toe the line – even when it seemed pointless, or counterproductive, even insane. The name of the game was avoiding the anger of those shouting loudest.
Last week US President Joe Biden spoke in front of millions about how: “there’s going to be a new world order out there”
New World Order: three words that have been floating around on social media like something unpleasant that just won’t flush. Hardly were the words out of the president’s mouth before commentators – on his side of the line, at least – were gleefully reporting his statement … while somehow simultaneously offering the opinion that only the tin-hat-wearing, swivel eyed loons (which includes people like me, apparently) had been triggered by his language.
The Independent website, for instance, reported the story under a headline reading: “Joe Biden said New World Order and conspiracy theorists lost it”
This is no more than a clumsy attempt at a verbal sleight of hand, yet another reminder that the official line has it that only crazy people ever suspect that something, somewhere might be amiss.
In a speech delivered to the Australian National University in Canberra, Sir Jeremy Fleming, director of GCHQ, told his audience that the pandemic, followed by war in Ukraine, added up to: “a period of generational upheaval.”
Both Biden and Sir Jeremy – to take just two prominent spokesmen speaking at the same moment in history – seeking to normalise the thought that every few generations, the world must change whether we want it to or not, as though the world has always changed every two or three generations, which it hasn’t.
New World Order, generational upheaval, always the pendulum swinging one way and one way only. Forget how things used to be, that’s over now, get ready for change, for something new, whether you want it or not. What’s a person – a person bedevilled, anyway, by a cost-of-living crisis, the dogged pursuit of Net Zero, a reawakened fear of nuclear war and still coming to terms with the will-they-won’t-they uncertainty of Covid rules left smouldering like embers that might reignite at any moment – to make of such unsettling prophesying?
More verbal gymnastics followed when Mr Biden said recently that Mr Putin should no longer be in power in Russia. The president had told his audience in Poland that Putin: “…cannot remain in power”. But yet more verbal contortions somehow enabled the White House to say that regime change in Russia was not US government policy.
How can both statements be true at the same time?
How can this inside out, upside down line of thinking do anything but leave the average reasonable person feeling they simply do not have a clue about what’s going on anymore?
I say the average reasonable person – which is how I still understand myself, even after all this time of madness – but clearly those on the other side of the debate from me, that viciously polarised debate, now regard me and millions of other reasonable people as wild-eyed extremists, politically to the right of Atilla the Hun.
And yet I look on at the la-la land of Hollywood, at actor Will Smith slapping comedian Chris Rock at the Oscars and then getting a standing ovation for winning the statuette for Best Actor. What does a reasonable person, or even a wild-eyed extremist even begin to do with such a sequence of events compressed into such a short space of time? If I hit someone at a work event I might expect to be fired, rather than given a standing ovation and the award for employee of the year. But that’s showbiz, apparently.
The Oscars have been growing increasingly unbearable for years, of course. Watching millionaires in receipt of goodie bags worth more than what 99 percent of the world’s population earns in a year, while speechifying and shedding crocodile tears about the plight of the poor and the oppressed, had long required a muscular suspension of disbelief. But now surely the pretence of the Oscars as moral spokesman for the world is finally over, and forever, the bubble well and truly burst. I can’t look at it anymore, not after metaphorically watching A-listers on the toilet all these years.
Everywhere you look there’s more to confuse and disorientate. Talk of white privilege, men in women’s sports, big tech censorship. Last week Florida passed a bill to prevent the sexualisation of children up to the age of seven or so. A large majority of Floridians – both Republican and Democrat – agreed it was common sense that children so young should not receive instruction in the classroom about “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”. You might think third graders and younger would do best to get to grips with “The Cat Sat on the Mat” in preparation for later learning what a pronoun actually is – maybe in the context of an English lesson – before being invited to pick pronouns to describe their own understanding of their genders.
Over in the Magic Kingdom, in California, Disney joined those taking strenuous exception to the Florida bill and pushing a blatant lie that it was about stopping teachers saying the word ‘Gay’. All at once the bill was, according to Disney, and other showbiz types, about: “Don’t say gay.”
In fact there was no use of the word gay anywhere in the bill, and in polling, the majority of people of all stripes agreed with it. But that didn’t stop Disney and others insisting that word was being banned in Florida schools and kindergartens.
At the same time, Disney announced it had done away with any and all references to “Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” at any of its theme parks. Never again, presumably, will a little girl be welcomed as a “princess” as had previously been a commonplace. How much money Disney had made selling princess dresses to uncounted millions of little children hardly bears thinking about. No more, we might assume.
Many parents have known a child insist on dressing as a princess one week, and superman the next. Most of those parents have understood those steps not as permanent life choices, but as the multicoloured stages of being a child growing up.
To be frank, I have never understood the pressure about pronouns, either. I was brought up never to refer to anyone – anyone actually in the room with me – via a pronoun. To point to someone and call them ‘she’ – referring to that person in the third person singular while that person was actually standing in front of me, was to invite, from a grown up, the withering putdown, “Who’s ‘she’, the cat’s mother?”
The use of ‘she’, ‘her’, ‘he’, ‘him’ in regard to a person who was RIGHT THERE, was simply rude, regardless of any other consideration. Good manners dictated that each person in the room was to be addressed and referred to by their name. If you experienced the small agony of forgetting the name of someone you’d been introduced to … too bad … you just had to apologise for the lapse and ask them to say their name a second time. Third person pronouns were for the mention of someone who was elsewhere, absent from the scene. In my world there should be no need for those pronouns while actually with a person. And so what sort of self-obsessed narcissist tries to dictate how others talk about them when they’re not even there?
And always, woven through the confusing madness like dry rot, is the sinister obsession with children and also with the family.
In my homeland of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish government has already seen to it that children as young as four can pick a different gender while in school – without the need for their parents to know anything about it. Previously the Scottish government pursued a so-called Named Persons bill – that would have seen a state sponsored stranger slipped between every child and parent in the land. That named person would have been able to establish a relationship with the child, have conversations with the child about anything and everything under the sun – again without the need for parents to be informed.
The Daily Mail had a story last week about a London-based psychologist reporting a sharp rise in the number of people calling his clinic to report symptoms of what he has called ‘Doomsday anxiety’ – which he describes as “fear of the end of the world or life as we know it.”
I know that feeling and I’m not surprised in the least that more and more people are burdened by hopeless, doom-laden thoughts. After all, the incessant pushing of the pendulum has left more and more people no other choice but to fear the worst.
What interests me more and more though, as I said at the top, is how much further away from me, and millions like me, the pendulum must swing. How much further CAN it swing? How much further away must we watch the pendulum pushed away – away from everything so many of us know to be common sense, decent, honourable and true? How much more will we watch them do to marginalise and then break up the family? How much longer will we let our youngest children watch and listen to lectures about sex, to be encouraged to contemplate things sexual instead of enjoying a handful of years being welcomed as boys and girls and pretending to be princesses one day and superheroes the next?
However far the pendulum swings, it must and will eventually swing back the other way, faster and faster. How far will it swing then, and where will it stop?
Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:
NWNW Flashback: “Gotta Keep Em Segregated” is the New Rallying Cry – “Punk” Band The Offspring Fires Drummer for Refusing to Take COVID Vaccine (Aug. 5, 2021)
1. Charles the Great Resetter 
Finally, Charles himself has been caught up in various controversies over the years, not least regarding his role in helping arms dealer BAE Systems sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.
Khan’s net worth has been estimated at $13.3 billion and he is 
Khan is also close friends with the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds.
7. Neo-colonial land-grabbing
Bernhard was also honorary sponsor of Schwab’s third 
